or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › I need feminism because tumblr
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I need feminism because tumblr - Page 173

post #2581 of 5586
We have a huge surplus of low-skilled people in this country who do nothing but vote for a living, while it's impossible for middle-class people to find affordable childcare and education, which are low-skill jobs. How about instead of complaining that the market doesn't work, relax some of the artificial constraints on the market that make children so expensive?

Break the doctors' monopoly so someone doesn't need ten years of schooling to practice basic medicine. Lower labor costs by getting rid of minimum wages and minimize welfare/social security payments to people who can work. Lower costs of professional services by lowering the taxes on professionals. Heck, lower the taxes on everybody so they'll have more money in their pockets to pay other people to do work for them. Lessen the onerous regulations that prevent average folks from taking care of kids for money. Get rid of public schools so people won't have to live in exclusive, high-priced areas to get their kids a decent education.

I've got all kinds of ideas here.
post #2582 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Get rid of public schools so people won't have to live in exclusive, high-priced areas to get their kids a decent education.

 

wat. This doesn't make any sense. 

post #2583 of 5586
What part of it doesn't make sense?

Even though you probably think they're free, public schools are actually spectacularly expensive. In most places they spend more per student to educate kindergartners than college students. It's absurd. Public schools are a racket.

Who goes to what school is decided based on geography. And schools have no choice in what students they accept. That means that to get away from the bad kids (and the bad politicians who get to decide who gets what from that $20,000-per-kindergartner-per-year smorgasbord), you have to move somewhere where the bad kids' parents can't afford to live. You end up with a huge amount of energy and work devoted to solve this artificial problem. That's a lot of wasted money, or quality of life if you're into that.
post #2584 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

wat. This doesn't make any sense. 

The real nugget of truth there is that local funding of schools does drive housing prices (and demographic concentration) in a big way. Well off ambitious types who want the best for their kids flock to the best school districts, driving the price of homes up there, and pumping more money into those schools. Repeat cycle. I don't know that I'd go so far as to eliminate public schools (certainly without providing vouchers for everyone to attend private schools), but the current system is pretty poorly done.
post #2585 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

What part of it doesn't make sense?

Even though you probably think they're free, public schools are actually spectacularly expensive. In most places they spend more per student to educate kindergartners than college students. It's absurd. Public schools are a racket.

Who goes to what school is decided based on geography. And schools have no choice in what students they accept. That means that to get away from the bad kids (and the bad politicians who get to decide who gets what from that $20,000-per-kindergartner-per-year smorgasbord), you have to move somewhere where the bad kids' parents can't afford to live. You end up with a huge amount of energy and work devoted to solve this artificial problem. That's a lot of wasted money, or quality of life if you're into that.

Public schools have had a number of other missions offloaded onto them along with educator. Educators are expected to be social workers, developmental psychologists, and educators (often in that order). The rich districts see a lot fewer of the social work cases, the parents of autistic kids (etc) have enough money to get help without dumping it entirely on the schools, and so the schools have enough energy to actual do some education.

No Child Left Behind really drags things down in a major way. We've pushed a lot of resources into dragging the lowest performers up to barely average, and haven't been very successful at it. The cost have been utterly failing high performers, test-centric learning that doesn't develop useful skills, and serious teacher burnout and talent drain.

it's amazing how much money and energy gets devoted to the retarded/autistic/miscellaneously developmentally fucked kids. You'll have a teacher and aid for six kids. Everybody knows those kids aren't going to ever be productive members of society, but this is apparently the best thing we can come up with to do with them. It's sort of like a modern asylum, a place to send the kids so their parents don't go insane and start killing people.
post #2586 of 5586

What doesn't make sense is how the schools being public has anything to do with the problem. If you get rid of public schools in poor areas then what happens? All those poor kids magically educate themselves? 

post #2587 of 5586
I've posted here many times over the years that funding education through municipal property taxes will yield what a reasonable person would think it would yield. Given the added burden of adverse selection in poorer areas it's a recipe for disaster for areas without a strong property tax base. At the very least funding needs to be on a state wide basis.

Public education is a good thing. Anyone that wants to argue the concept of public education is bad, doomed to failure, etc. is someone I'm never going to agree with. Is the execution of it in the US lacking? Yes. However, this does not mean the institution is bogus.
post #2588 of 5586

I have been researching education for a minute and I believe it comes down to two things: funding and teacher quality. Teaching isn't prestigious in this country and those going to school for training in education are consistently the lowest test scorers in any given university. This goes back to funding. Teaching isn't prestigious because it doesn't pay enough. Tough problems to fix in such a large system. 

post #2589 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

I have been researching education for a minute and I believe it comes down to two things: funding and teacher quality. Teaching isn't prestigious in this country and those going to school for training in education are consistently the lowest test scorers in any given university. This goes back to funding. Teaching isn't prestigious because it doesn't pay enough. Tough problems to fix in such a large system. 

Let's have some real talk here: K-12 teaching is not prestigious anywhere in the developed world.
post #2590 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Let's have some real talk here: K-12 teaching is not prestigious anywhere in the developed world.


Not true. http://www.taughtbyfinland.com/home/teacher-training-in-finland-reflections-from-a-recent-graduate

post #2591 of 5586

So we have an outlier; this does not change the meat of what I said.

Also, to your premise about teacher pay in the US? Here is what your link says:
Quote:
Surely, the financial incentives are not a huge factor. The average salary for teachers in Finland is $28,780. In a recent survey, Finland was ranked 12 out of 21 countries in this area. The United States had the second-highest average salary among teachers at $44,917.

You also have premises at odds with each other now.
post #2592 of 5586

This is America though not leftist Finland :D

post #2593 of 5586
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It's not just shitty companies. Only 11% of private industry workers are eligible for paid family leave, of any length. It's nice that some companies are stepping up to the plate, but most workers aren't in ultra-competitive fields like tech. Wages have been totally stagnant for most workers, and it seems unrealistic to expect that employers are going to add substantial paid leave policies (why would they?). Even the companies with "generous" leave policies would rank among the worst countries in the Western world.

FMLA was passed 20 years ago, and that's pretty much where we've settled. There's not any real evidence that "the market" is going to address this issue in any significant way. If we actually care about it as a societal issue, it should be addressed more directly. If we don't care (prioritizing liberty etc), then we ought to consider the costs of that stance.

Source.

You assume that paid family leave is a good thing. I don't see how it is. In fact, it's a detriment and FMLA should be repealed.

Fucking people who want free shit. Fuck you. Fuck you and your shitty children you drop out of your disgusting vagina that you can't afford to provide for. Fuck you and your shitty work ethic that gets you to apply for SSDI for fibromyalgia. Fuck you and your whole shitty lot.

Poor people are poor for a reason. It's not because they're disadvantaged or because of genetics or because of income inequality. Poor people are poor because they choose to be poor. Fuck them all. I'm really fucking tired of this shit.
post #2594 of 5586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The real nugget of truth there is that local funding of schools does drive housing prices (and demographic concentration) in a big way. Well off ambitious types who want the best for their kids flock to the best school districts, driving the price of homes up there, and pumping more money into those schools. Repeat cycle. I don't know that I'd go so far as to eliminate public schools (certainly without providing vouchers for everyone to attend private schools), but the current system is pretty poorly done.

The second part of that (pump more money into the schools) isn't true. Schools in most poor areas spend just as much money as those in richer areas, or at least city schools spend as much or more compared to suburban schools. In the city the state and businesses make up the difference. It may not be the case in rural areas but there is rarely any place to go there.

Around here property taxes are much lower in the "affluent" areas because there are more people paying taxes. I just looked it up and the city spends about 20% more per student per more than the major suburbs.
post #2595 of 5586

Your argument still has nothing to do with the fact that schools are public. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › I need feminism because tumblr