User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 257

  1. #151
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Yes, because our public school system is hopelessly underfunded. I'll offer Japan as a good example--they pay their public schoolteachers like doctors so that it's actually a competitive field where really good teachers actually want the jobs. If you're going to socialize something like education, you have to just bite the bullet and tax enough that you can put enough money into it to pay the teachers well.

    That doesn't mean we need to do away with public education; here's another example of the common Libertarian mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
    We actually spend MORE per student than most other rich countries, and we get poorer results. The system is ANYTHING but "hopelessly underfunded."


    Once again, due entirely to underfunding. Easily fixable.
    Ummmm. . . no.


    Can you explain how totally privatized education would work out? I don't see that as helping anything so much as making socioeconomic divides even bigger/worse/more permanent.
    Well, there are different ways of tackling the problem. Milton Friedman was a big proponent of vouchers that will allow parents to send their children to a school of their choice. Parents would make up any difference in tuition through their own money or financial aid/scholarships from the private institution. However, some hardcore libertarians fear further governmental regulation of private educational institutions because of the strings that could be attached to vouchers. They advocate a complete separation of schools and the federal government. In a free market for education, different organizations would exist to serve different needs, and there would be much room for things like academic scholarships and financial aid to get bright-but-poorer students into superior schools in order to enhance their reputations (which, as we all know, enhances bottom lines). You could actually see an increase in poor students getting into better private schools, since there would be competition amongst the schools to get the students with the most potential. Obviously, some dull-but-rich students would still be taken on for economic/familial reasons, but there certainly would not be a pandemic of rich idiots going to great schools while poor geniuses languish in substandard ones. That scenario looks a lot closer to what we have now. The people who are hurt most by our mediocre-to-terrible public schools in the inner city are the poor students who are academically inclined. Do you honestly think that our public schools (that are very expensive per student and to the country through taxation) would be better than some of the more affordable private schools? I seriously doubt that, especially since many working-class people stretch their paychecks to send their children to Catholic parochial schools (even if they themselves are not Catholic) because A) the Church runs the only private schools they could possibly afford; and B) their local public schools are awful. More choices = better outcomes for almost every other good or service in the world. Why should education be any different?

    Also, your tone in your second sentence seems to suggest that one of the purposes of public schooling is social engineering via leveling. If I am wrong in that inference, let me know, but that seems a little unsettling to me. Educating children to achieve to the best of their natural abilities should be the goal, not eliminating socioeconomic differences.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #152
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchitectofFate View Post
    The US government needs to stop taking money from hardworking people.
    I agree, let's raise the hell out of taxes on wealthy people who don't do shit and lower those on the middle and working classes. Then, the people who work the hardest are taxed the least.

  3. #153
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I agree, let's raise the hell out of taxes on wealthy people who don't do shit and lower those on the middle and working classes. Then, the people who work the hardest are taxed the least.
    The vast majority of wealthy get paid more because they provide services that are more highly prized in society. Are you talking about estate taxes here?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I agree, let's raise the hell out of taxes on wealthy people who don't do shit and lower those on the middle and working classes. Then, the people who work the hardest are taxed the least.
    I agree that some public service is essential to help the poor and middle class people who are ACTUALLY WORKING AND NOT LEECHING OFF THE SYSTEM and these hardworking people do deserve tax breaks. Same thing with stupid corporations and CEOs. If you screw yourself over then you deserve to go down, no matter how rich you are. You are right about lazy rich like Paris Hilton or something though, but what can you do about it? USA is hedonistic to say the least. >_> I want to move...

  5. #155
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    I can't tell if anyone's being sarcastic right now.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  6. #156
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Hahahahaha ... please, stop, you're killing me!

    I forget the numbers now, but the U.S. education system, adjusted for inflation, costs many times more per-pupil today than it did three decades ago. But guess what? Education hasn't improved. The last three decades demonstrate that pumping more money into the system is like dropping it into a black hole. The problem is the system itself, and not a lack of funding.

    A gas guzzling engine will not use fuel more efficiently by adding more gas, and neither will the U.S. education system.

    On the other hand, perhaps children have just gotten many times more stupid and education spending is just keeping up.

    Then it sounds like we need to reform the public education system, not totally get rid of it. The fact that the money is being used inefficiently doesn't make the whole idea fundamentally worthless, but lolbertarians seem to think it does.

    The fact that it works effectively in other countries should be plenty of evidence that it's quite possible. Besides, even if the US is spending a lot more on education, it's not bothering to put the money where it would count the most--into higher teacher salaries.

    If you pay your school teachers like gas station clerks, what kind of quality education do you think you're going to get?


    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    You are incorrect.

    Government, while necessary, is inherently dangerous and must be guarded with vigilance and skepticism by those from whose consent its authority is derived. It's best kept to the bare minimum of authority and scope required to perform its functions.

    The legitimate functions of government are threefold:

    1. Secure the borders.
    2. Provide a domestic justice system.
    3. Practice diplomacy.

    Providing for a currency might be a fourth function, but it's debatable. All else is tyranny.
    What exactly is the basis for this? Why is this best?



    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    If you don't believe in the just world hypothesis, none of the justification will make any sense to you.

    There are two distinctly different languages being spoken here.
    If you believe the just world hypothesis, you have no choice but to be a total anarchist.

    The rest of us will be waiting in the real world whenever you're ready.

    Do tell Puff the Magic Dragon I said hello on your way out of Imagination Land, though.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    We actually spend MORE per student than most other rich countries, and we get poorer results. The system is ANYTHING but "hopelessly underfunded."
    The funding is going to all the wrong places. Why must you insist on shutting down poorly organized segments of government instead of just rearranging them to work? You assume that because the US is doing it poorly, it can't be done, which is clearly untrue.





    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Ummmm. . . no.
    Oh, okay. You're right.





    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Well, there are different ways of tackling the problem. Milton Friedman was a big proponent of vouchers that will allow parents to send their children to a school of their choice. Parents would make up any difference in tuition through their own money or financial aid/scholarships from the private institution. However, some hardcore libertarians fear further governmental regulation of private educational institutions because of the strings that could be attached to vouchers. They advocate a complete separation of schools and the federal government.
    Yes, I know what they advocate, and I think it's laughably unrealistic. I simply cannot support total annihilation of public education because education is the only equalizer for people from a variety of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Education makes the American Dream possible--a poor kid from a shitty background is able to get the education he needs to work hard and make a success out of himself. He can't really do this if nobody is there to provide a reasonable education, which is already a problem because even publicly funded schools are unequal--removing public education would not fix this problem; it would increase it tenfold!


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    In a free market for education, different organizations would exist to serve different needs, and there would be much room for things like academic scholarships and financial aid to get bright-but-poorer students into superior schools in order to enhance their reputations (which, as we all know, enhances bottom lines).
    Here we go with more lolbertarian fantasy. "Oh yeah um, don't worry about people slipping through the cracks, I'm sure the kind-hearted people of America will simply donate enough charity to support equal educational opportunities for all!"

    Ironically this smacks of the socialist fantasy that we can just assign jobs to people because everyone is magically a nice enough guy to place the good of the state above his own welfare. How naive on both sides!



    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    You could actually see an increase in poor students getting into better private schools, since there would be competition amongst the schools to get the students with the most potential. Obviously, some dull-but-rich students would still be taken on for economic/familial reasons, but there certainly would not be a pandemic of rich idiots going to great schools while poor geniuses languish in substandard ones. That scenario looks a lot closer to what we have now.
    Umm, sorry, I missed the gap in your reasoning where you forgot to explain how "eliminate public education" leads to "more scholarship programs for underprivileged students." Are you joking? Where the hell do these magical scholarships and charity programs and other totally voluntary massive sums of charitable donation come from? I've always depended on the kindness of strangers!

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The people who are hurt most by our mediocre-to-terrible public schools in the inner city are the poor students who are academically inclined. Do you honestly think that our public schools (that are very expensive per student and to the country through taxation) would be better than some of the more affordable private schools? I seriously doubt that, especially since many working-class people stretch their paychecks to send their children to Catholic parochial schools (even if they themselves are not Catholic) because A) the Church runs the only private schools they could possibly afford; and B) their local public schools are awful. More choices = better outcomes for almost every other good or service in the world. Why should education be any different?
    Our public schools WOULD be better if we'd bother to pay our teachers like they're doing a real job and not like 12-year-old weekend lawn mowers.

    One word: Japan.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Also, your tone in your second sentence seems to suggest that one of the purposes of public schooling is social engineering via leveling. If I am wrong in that inference, let me know, but that seems a little unsettling to me. Educating children to achieve to the best of their natural abilities should be the goal, not eliminating socioeconomic differences.
    I agree about the goal being educating ALL children (not just the ones with rich mommies and daddies who can afford good private schools) to the best of their natural abilities; it's just that this is impossible without some sort of governmental intervention because there will always be people who can't pay for it, and I find it grossly unethical to hold children responsible for their parents' financial mistakes by withholding education from them.

    Your entire plan seems to be based on wishful thinking and blind faith in massive sums of imaginary charity. And lolbertarians call economic liberals impractical? Really?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #157
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Then it sounds like we need to reform the public education system, not totally get rid of it. The fact that the money is being used inefficiently doesn't make the whole idea fundamentally worthless, but lolbertarians seem to think it does.
    Straw man. Read my previous response to see where you are wrong.

    Oh, and it's spelled "libertarians."


    The fact that it works effectively in other countries should be plenty of evidence that it's quite possible. Besides, even if the US is spending a lot more on education, it's not bothering to put the money where it would count the most--into higher teacher salaries.

    If you pay your school teachers like gas station clerks, what kind of quality education do you think you're going to get?
    False. According to the American Federation of Teachers, the average American public school teacher made $51,009 in the 2006-07 school year. If you can find a gas station that is paying people $1,000 a week, send me the hiring officer's info.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #158
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Straw man. Read my previous response to see where you are wrong.

    Oh, and it's spelled "libertarians."
    Yeah, I saw where you said that you personally don't support the total elimination of public education; unfortunately many LOLbertarians actually do.

    Oh crap, me and my typos!




    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    False. According to the American Federation of Teachers, the average American public school teacher made $51,009 in the 2006-07 school year. If you can find a gas station that is paying people $1,000 a week, send me the hiring officer's info.
    All right, actually this is probably my fault for expecting you to interpret hyperbole figuratively instead of literally.

    Japanese school teachers are paid like doctors and are highly respected members of society. The problem is that in the US, we don't pay teachers enough in comparison to other professions to motivate the good ones to want to do it. (Check out the ratio of teacher:doctor pay in Japan vs. in the US...you might be surprised.)

    Ever heard that saying, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"? Unfortunately that's true when public education pays teachers so little. (Clearly they're not literally being paid as little as gas station attendants; that was another example of hyperbole to illustrate a point.) It's the same reason the public defenders were always at the bottom of their class in law school--the solution to this problem isn't to abolish public defenders and force all people accused of crimes to fund their own legal defenses, but rather just to pay public defenders highly enough to motivate good attorneys to seek that job!

    Public education works precisely the same way.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #159
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Yeah, I saw where you said that you personally don't support the total elimination of public education; unfortunately many LOLbertarians actually do.

    Oh crap, me and my typos!
    Seriously, you look like a jackass when you do that. I would just stop if I were you.


    All right, actually this is probably my fault for expecting you to interpret hyperbole figuratively instead of literally.
    To me, a more likely scenario is that you didn't know how much the average American public school teacher made per year. $51,000 a year is a good chunk above the median American income.


    Japanese school teachers are paid like doctors and are highly respected members of society. The problem is that in the US, we don't pay teachers enough in comparison to other professions to motivate the good ones to want to do it. (Check out the ratio of teacher:doctor pay in Japan vs. in the US...you might be surprised.)
    According to this website, the average Japanese public school teacher made about $45,000 per year in 2005.

    World of Education: Teacher Salaries - Australia

    From what I can gather, American school teachers' salaries are competitive with the rest of the rich world's (if not better), but beginning teachers' salaries here are on the low side of average.



    Ever heard that saying, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"? Unfortunately that's true when public education pays teachers so little. (Clearly they're not literally being paid as little as gas station attendants; that was another example of hyperbole to illustrate a point.) It's the same reason the public defenders were always at the bottom of their class in law school--the solution to this problem isn't to abolish public defenders and force all people accused of crimes to fund their own legal defenses, but rather just to pay public defenders highly enough to motivate good attorneys to seek that job!

    Public education works precisely the same way.
    Pretty odd argument, considering that private school teachers' average salaries are slightly LOWER than public school teachers'. Public school teachers unions are the #1 reason we cannot reform the public school system, and you want to pay them more? Why not introduce merit-based pay? That is one area in which Obama is right on the money.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #160
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Seriously, you look like a jackass when you do that. I would just stop if I were you.
    Ah well, it's still funny to me.




    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    To me, a more likely scenario is that you didn't know how much the average American public school teacher made per year. $51,000 a year is a good chunk above the median American income.
    I didn't know the exact number, but I did go to public school for 13 years and, with a couple notable exceptions, most of my teachers were pretty bad.

    I even recall teachers frequently complaining about the inadequate pay. You could tell most of them really didn't give a shit because, as you point out, working harder doesn't make them any more money.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    According to this website, the average Japanese public school teacher made about $45,000 per year in 2005.

    World of Education: Teacher Salaries - Australia

    From what I can gather, American school teachers' salaries are competitive with the rest of the rich world's (if not better), but beginning teachers' salaries here are on the low side of average.
    Well okay, if that source is correct then I guess I'll have to own up to just being misinformed on this part. That leads to an interesting question: Why is the Japanese school system so much more successful than ours?

    Does this go beyond economics into broader cultural attitudes?





    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Pretty odd argument, considering that private school teachers' average salaries are slightly LOWER than public school teachers'. Public school teachers unions are the #1 reason we cannot reform the public school system, and you want to pay them more? Why not introduce merit-based pay? That is one area in which Obama is right on the money.
    Maybe, but doesn't that also create incentives for cheating because there's not a reliable way of directly measuring a teacher's ability?

    You can use standardized tests but that doesn't really lead to better teaching so much as better rote memorization, the focus on which is in itself one of the biggest problems with the American public school system.

    How do you propose to test the merit of a teacher's ability?

    If these difficulties could be solved I'd probably go for the merit-based pay argument, but even still I'd probably want to increase the average teaching salary to the point that the job becomes competitive enough that intelligent, motivated teachers are actively pursuing the jobs because it doesn't make economic sense not to.

    EDIT: By the way, since you apparently don't subscribe to the common lolibertarian philosophy on public education, what exactly is your position on education policy?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Are you a nice user or are you gonna get banned?
    By hommefatal in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 08:28 PM
  2. Things you just don't get
    By EcK in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 09:38 AM
  3. [MBTItm] NFs: Do you have problems with getting to know _NTPs in relationships?
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-02-2010, 03:15 AM
  4. I am gonna get some beer from the gas station
    By entropie in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 10:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO