^ Kind of a glib responce ain't it? People are "poor" (earn relatively lower incomes) because they are relatively less productive than others.

Supposedly, one of the better ways to raise productivity is education and training (some folks disagree). That's essentially the entire argument for funding public education.

If that is the case, then we should be very worried if many poorer students are not interested in improving their productivity levels. That is if we care at all about helping them.

4/9/2008 6:16:07 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP ...It's bad enough as it is with partially-state-sponsored higher education, the last damn thing we need is to start forcing it on even more of them even earlier. "

What? Are you talking about NCSU? UNC-CH?

4/9/2008 6:39:00 PM

I like how people either (a) believe that there's magical, radical free will or (b) think that people should be punished, ridiculed, and abandoned for circumstances out of their control.

4/9/2008 7:18:32 PM

Well I like how the thread ignores wealth, focusing only on income. So nyah.

4/9/2008 7:21:48 PM

All economics is bullshit.

4/9/2008 7:23:03 PM

Quote :

"Given that we are now debating the relative merits of such a system, it would appear that this point I was originally refuting was flatly wrong."

That's fine, but irrelevant. It doesn't matter that private actors would have a vested interest in creating a certain type of education system if that certain type is so godawful bad.

Quote :

"Working food service does not require nearly the level of competence or training that say, an electrician or a plumber needs."

Of course, but why wouldn't the same principles apply here? With enough simplification of the procedures it's possible to turn a skilled job into an unskilled one, or at least into being less-skilled, and thus less expensive.

Quote :

"plenty of studies have shown worker productivity increases as a function of variety of tasks in one's job. "

Which apparently is more than mitigated by simplifying things to the point where even less productivity is needed.

Quote :

"Further, given that our alternative is essentially nothing, or rather, dropping out entirely, are you really going to complain that even if specialization occurs that this is the absolute worst case?"

I don't think that's the only alternative. Not by a long shot. There are any number of fundamental changes that could work. I think what's needed here is to field a much wider range of options than we have, both in this thread and nationwide. Sure, a lot of them will be prohibitively expensive, unconstitutional, or otherwise impractical, but as it is the only argument we ever see centers around a narrow range of relatively minor changes with a handful of libertarian dingbats off to the side advocating privatization.

Quote :

"I'm fairly sure if you asked more people to make a choice between there and here, most would take here. Which would imply they're not exactly the same."

Well, you're right. The life expectancy now is mid-70's compared to 40's or 50's back then. How much of that, exactly, do you want to contribute to leisure time?

Of-fucking-course there are differences between now and the 1800's, but one of them doesn't happen to be that a working poor person or even family is now guaranteed any free time.

Quote :

"If you take the average standard of living for someone living in the bottom quintile and compare it now to 50 years ago, chances are it's going to be a whole lot better - despite the "increasing privatization" you moan about."

I never said privatization was increasing. That's because I don't think it is. I said that in a privatized world where certain government-subsidized means of self-advancement are no longer freely available (libraries, etc), they cost money. Meaning that it doesn't matter if you have free time to improve yourself because you can no longer afford to do it.

Quote :

"No one's saying force it on them, the original debate at hand was whether any private economic incentive even exists for vocational training."

I don't recall ever saying it didn't, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Quote :

"Given that the drop-out rates among lower income quintiles is disproportionately higher, maybe it does make sense to be less hostile to the notion that the vocational route may work better for some students who the liberal arts model clearly is not working for"

Given my teaching experience this doesn't seem to be the case. The problem comes in with kids who, for a variety of factors, don't want to be in any sort of classroom environment subservient to an authority figure. What has promise to work is breaking them of that, which vocational education doesn't seem any better suited to do.

----

Now we'll move onto capymca, whose thinly-veiled racism I'll attempt to ignore for the time being.

I am a substitute teacher primarily for two specific instructors in Wake County. I work with those classes pretty regularly, and they run the gambit from thoroughly standard to honors English and literature courses. I see pretty much exactly what you see. The profoundness of apathy in some students is more than frustrating -- its frightening.

It's also all-too-often understandable based on factors well outside the kids' control, especially given that we, as a society, generally don't hold kids as being fully responsible for much of anything. That is really the crux of this whole debate. You want to hold a fully grown man accountable for his fuck-ups, fine. More power to you. The problem is, it's also hard to do that without also indirectly punishing any of his minor dependents.

Insert, "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?!" here, but I'll stand by the point.

Maybe you'll even say, OK, high school students should be held more responsible, they're practically adults, they've been around long enough to be told how important education is. Fine. So where's the cut-off? Do we write off middle-schoolers who don't care about school? Do we keep throwing resources at kids right up until they turn 18 even when it's already obvious that they don't care?

What's necessary is a radical restructuring of most elements of primary and secondary schools in general, and discipline in particular. No, I'm not suggesting a return to the paddle.

One thing that leaps to mind right now: Suspension is next-to-useless on a kid who is unconcerned with school. All that happens is that they go and do nothing in a different room, or, worse, go and get into trouble outside of school. Suspension as we currently understand it is a complete waste of time.

Quote :

"What? Are you talking about NCSU? UNC-CH?"

Yes. Are these not partially funded by taxpayer money? And even so, don't you think it's pretty fucking hard for poor families to afford to send their kids there? Not impossible, certainly, but still...

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2008 8:19:28 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: What's necessary is a radical restructuring of most elements of primary and secondary schools in general, and discipline in particular. No, I'm not suggesting a return to the paddle."

Amen. I say burn down the current grade-school educational structure and start over. We're not creating factory workers anymore. Goddamn.

4/9/2008 8:31:58 PM

Quote :

"Supposedly, one of the better ways to raise productivity is education and training (some folks disagree). That's essentially the entire argument for funding public education. If that is the case, then we should be very worried if many poorer students are not interested in improving their productivity levels. That is if we care at all about helping them."

Generally this is the accepted knowledge, but I still think that having a pool of decent (not exceptional by any means) jobs available to anyone, unskilled labor or apprenticeships or whatever. One of the greatest benefits, in my opinion, from my own experience, is growing up in a stable community with the promise of contributing in some way. Of course, those days of factory towns are largely gone and while I think that sort of community wealth is preferable to where we are now, there's no use wishing for it to come back or casting blame for why it went away.

So this brings us back to education and the knowledge economy. Access and quality of services are lacking in poorer areas as Grumpy first pointed out and this is pretty obvious if you spend much time examining graduation rates not only in poor urban areas but also places like Jones County or Cherokee or any other poorer, rural county.

It would be great if people had the vision and initiative to voluntarily rectify the entire cycle of poverty without government intervention. I've said before on here that that is the preferred vision I have. However, most of my preferred visions are not really functional at this point, so government becomes part of the solution. Notice I said part, I have to choose my words carefully here with all these libertarians ready to pounce on anyone not simply offering bootstraps as the solution. Thankfully we still have a great civil society of churches, non-profits, and whatnot that have to and should be a big part of the solution, along with people with a moral vision.

I would hope that more humans on the average, however, would not keep falling back on hating the poor for being parasites or weak or whatever, or pitying the poor and making them political pawns. Justice is fairness, and access in this case is the inequality.

And I also hope people stop with the whole "well I knew a poor person that was just stupid" or "well i helped a guy, that's cool" thing and realized that there's much more to any issue than anecdotes.

As far as radical restructuring of schools, I'm not sure what that would entail. Vouchers seem like a good idea until you think about the other kids who get stuck in the neighborhood school and the fact that it does nothing to improve the community and simply helps a few and leaves the rest behind.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 8:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 8:50:12 PM

^ Throwing this out there.

Create a joint-stock corporation in which companies and governments can invest and innovate to create the fairest desirable results. Similar in form to the Fed, but open to our government as majority shareholder. (Before you dismiss, make sure you know exactly what the Fed is.) The government's stake keeps the issues of access and holistic educational content permanently addressed. The private sector's stake (the rest) ensures innovation and vocational needs are met.

Free access to facilities and resources for all.

Thoughts? Comments?

Quote :

"All economics is bullshit."

Spoken like a philosopher who was bad at math.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 9:04 PM. Reason : and i'm talking Apollo type investment...we could print up another trillion, what the hell]

4/9/2008 8:55:30 PM

Quote :

"The bottom quintile controls ZERO percent of the world's wealth."

Well, as a fan of The Coase Theorem there must be a way for everyone to profit from education. Surely if education enables an individual to be more productive in their life then there must be a way for those with money to profit from those without education by giving it to them. What we would need is a mechanism for those with money to supply it to those without either money or an education and then re-collect the money out of the salary of the individual that now has an education. Wait, I think I have heard this before... Oh, that's right, I already owe $20k in student loans... My god, to think the solution to GrumpyGOPs problem was staring every non-rich student in the face already.

Quote :

"theoretically, say everyone made "good" decisions, worked hard and got an education. There are still destined to be many, many people below the poverty line."

If by "below the poverty line" you mean that in a society consisting of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs is considered below the poverty line because he only owns two private jets.

If everyone had a college degree then I suspect the Quickie Mart might be self service, as we would have plenty of engineers to automate the world's Quickie Marts using whatever technology was needed.

But, if the relevant markets determined that labor was still cheaper than automation, then the individuals manning the Quickie Mart would be paid somewhat close to what their equally educated peers were earning elsewhere. This is because wages are set by the worker's next best alternatives and if all workers were perfectly interchangeable then they would all enjoy the same alternatives and therefore earn roughly the same. In such a reality the same would apply to owners and managers which would earn on average roughly the same as their employees after allowing for a risk premium.

4/10/2008 11:00:43 PM

^ Way to pat yourself on the back.

I'm not enjoying my student loans either.

About that bottom quintile without a slice of our marvelous global GDP to show for living...

How exactly does the lending process solve this problem?

You've made the claim it does. Please walk me through it.

4/11/2008 1:29:53 AM

I suggest a canned food drive, a direct way to help the poor and you all would rather talk about it


I've got six or seven cans of soup I know I don't need

4/11/2008 1:31:04 AM

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:51 AM. Reason : ricktrolld]

4/11/2008 1:50:29 AM

Quote :

"Oh, that's right, I already owe $20k in student loans..."

So your brilliant solution is student loans? The same ones that even kids with a middle-class start struggle to pay off?

4/11/2008 2:20:10 AM

Quote :

"PinkandBlack As far as radical restructuring of schools, I'm not sure what that would entail. Vouchers seem like a good idea until you think about the other kids who get stuck in the neighborhood school and the fact that it does nothing to improve the community and simply helps a few and leaves the rest behind. "

See I would think that vouchers would free people from the neighborhood urban slum schools they are stuck in NOW. I don't see why there is such resistance to the idea of vouchers. This kneejerk reaction of OH NOES but then the schools will get bad in certain places. HEY reality check, the schools are already bad in places, the idea of vouchers is in part to fix that. Just try it out on a large scale and see if it works.

4/11/2008 9:45:19 PM

I have a sure fire way to avoid being poor.

dont have kids.

4/12/2008 9:51:30 AM

Quote :

"So your brilliant solution is student loans? The same ones that even kids with a middle-class start struggle to pay off?"

Economically speaking, if attending a high-priced school does not improve your income potential sufficiently to pay back the loans then attending the school was a waste of resources, both you and society's.

4/12/2008 1:16:10 PM

Why shouldn't shitty teachers owe the kids they fail to reach a portion of their salaries and pensions as well?

4/13/2008 1:26:38 PM

^ i hope that is sarcasm.

Quote :

"I have a sure fire way to avoid being poor."

no actually are society rewards poor people for reproducing through a hefty raise in their welfare check and an increase in the amount of earned income they get to take home tax free.

btw w/o poor people who would serve me at McD's or clean the bathrooms at my job

[Edited on April 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM. Reason : l]

4/13/2008 2:25:29 PM

Quote :

"btw w/o poor people who would serve me at McD's or clean the bathrooms at my job"

A non-poor person. Or a robot if they happen to be cheaper.

Just because things are done one way does not mean that is the only way they can be done.

[Edited on April 13, 2008 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/13/2008 3:18:59 PM

Quote :

"Just because things are done one way does not mean that is the only way they can be done."

Absolutely. Of course, this potentially extends to capitalism as well.

4/13/2008 3:32:04 PM

No, that is the way of capitalism. As reality on the ground changes the way things are done will change in the attempt to save scarce resources with alternative uses.

A non-capitalist system does not function this way. In planned economies change is a political decision, so we might see robots being used while low wage workers starve to death or we might see rich quickie mart attendants when robots are available for less money to do a better job.

4/13/2008 5:42:41 PM

Quote :

"In planned economies change is a political decision, so we might see robots being used while low wage workers starve to death or we might see rich quickie mart attendants when robots are available for less money to do a better job."

I think you are confused. Not that i am for planned economies but usually gov't that use these "plan" them in order to provide every comrade with a job or function in society. The peasants did not support the bolshevik revolution b.c they thought their new communist leaders would hire robots did u

4/14/2008 1:13:11 PM

The Soviet System functioned as I said it would, but with a twist. They did both: the system invested immense resources into worthless machines which factory managers often turned around and used for scrap while at the same time deploying many thousands of workers to various tasks that with 1950s technology should have been automated away, but the machines to do so were not available. Communist systems were simply horrible when it came to the allocation of capital goods. So, even though every comrad had a job, it usually consisted of sitting around waiting for something to do while store shelves ran dry.

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/14/2008 4:10:51 PM

Quote :

"No, that is the way of capitalism."

Take off the blinders. That principle extends to everything.

The future is wide open.

Assuming capitalism will endure forever strikes me as profoundly presumptuous.

4/14/2008 4:20:59 PM

I believe I mis-interpretted your comment.

Yes, I recognize that Congress is just one 51% majority vote away from ruining everything and condeming us all to poverty and misery. In that sense your statement is absolutely correct.

4/14/2008 4:41:37 PM

Quote :

"Poor people struggle, in my opinion, mainly based on their poor decisions"

Quote :

""It could also be that the bottom quintile generally has access to the worst schools and other services while living in the worst areas.""

i find it surprising that there hasn't been more discussion on the overall contributing factors to poverty because the poor have a number of factors working against them. They have the worst housing conditions which can contribute to health problems yet they have the worst health care. They are on limited budgets and often can't afford quality food, further contributing to health problems. Many also work multiple jobs, limiting the time they have to supervise their children and help them school and extraciricular activities.

But its not just the poor, the working class lives paycheck to paycheck and a disaster/ family crisis/ tragedy can often be the breaking point to push familys into poverty.

Would anyone disagree with the theory that the underprivlaged are more likey fail because they have enherantly more obsticals to overcome?

4/21/2008 12:34:59 PM

Quote :

"find it surprising that there hasn't been more discussion on the overall contributing factors to poverty because the poor have a number of factors working against them. They have the worst housing conditions which can contribute to health problems yet they have the worst health care. They are on limited budgets and often can't afford quality food, further contributing to health problems. Many also work multiple jobs, limiting the time they have to supervise their children and help them school and extraciricular activities. "

that is like saying what came first the chicken or the egg.

however the fact remains that inherently the life decisions are made that allows them and their kids to continue in poverty. As well as the fact that they may just not be very smart individuals and thus pass on their inferior intelligence to their kids.

4/21/2008 12:40:00 PM

Quote :

"HUR: that is like saying what came first the chicken or the egg."

No, it isn't.

Quote :

"HUR: As well as the fact that they may just not be very smart individuals and thus pass on their inferior intelligence to their kids."

Again, no. Plenty of stupid people prosper so we can't point too hard at intelligence in a discussion about poverty.

Quote :

"HUR: however the fact remains that inherently the life decisions are made that allows them and their kids to continue in poverty."

This needs to be rewritten. Try to make some sense this time.

4/21/2008 2:30:24 PM

Quote :

"Well, as a fan of The Coase Theorem there must be a way for everyone to profit from education. Surely if education enables an individual to be more productive in their life then there must be a way for those with money to profit from those without education by giving it to them. "

The 13 amendment makes it difficult. If you could sell yourself into indentured servitude then it should be the case that the uneducated will sell themselves cheap enough so that when forced to become educated their owner could reap a profit. However, such contracts are not enforceable.

Or likewise you could sell your post education services in exchange for an education.

Currently the best you could do is borrow money, but there is the issue of default and lack of control by lenders. What you really want is to sell an equity stake in yourself but that is impossible through normal means.

By forcing you to get a basic education prior to age 16 and then taxing you the government is attempting to take out an equity stake in you. However, there is a principle-agent problem involved in forcing people to actually learn.

Quote :

"no actually are society rewards poor people for reproducing through a hefty raise in their welfare check and an increase in the amount of earned income they get to take home tax free."

In general, not enough to make up for the cost. The fraction of healthy Americans in poverty who have no children is pretty low.

For example, according to census the fraction of people in poverty with no children who worked year round was 0.9%

[Edited on April 21, 2008 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2008 3:06:43 PM

Teaching high school has pretty much killed my sympathy for the poor.

"The Man" is almost singularly focused on begging poor people to take advantage of America's methods of upward mobility.

4/21/2008 6:03:26 PM

Well said kwsmith2. So, which policy change do you think would be more effective? Legalizing indentured servitude or bringing back the poor house so those that default on their debts become, with special consent, indentured servants until they are paid back?

I lean towards legalizing indentured servants, but both have drawbacks, especially with current social norms.

4/21/2008 6:33:10 PM

poor people will rob you

4/21/2008 8:01:59 PM

Quote :

"poor people will rob you"

they already do....its called welfare

4/21/2008 8:52:25 PM

Quote :

"See I would think that vouchers would free people from the neighborhood urban slum schools they are stuck in NOW. I don't see why there is such resistance to the idea of vouchers. This kneejerk reaction of OH NOES but then the schools will get bad in certain places. HEY reality check, the schools are already bad in places, the idea of vouchers is in part to fix that. Just try it out on a large scale and see if it works."

When it comes to the suggested voucher systems that are out there, it comes down to a question of values: do you think we should take the most care of those who show the most promise, or does everyone deserve some sort of equality of opportunity to make a better life and not be left behind.

Noone says that they wouldn't free people from the bad schools that get overlooked. The issue here is this: who deserves to get the vouchers and who deserves to get left behind? You're going to have kids "left behind" in the case of vouchers no matter what. The only fair solutions are 1) give vouchers to everyone, assign no schools to anyone, and let people go where they desire, first come, first serve, or 2) try to improve the schools that need it now. We like to pretend people are rational actors and talk like those who aren't are deserving of their fate, but no one has perfect information in most any economic situation and this is why not understanding market forces past what you go over first thing in Econ is a problem in policy making. I suggest reading up more on "information markets", that is, the factors of communication and information in everyday lives (media, personal contact, etc) that influence market choices. Joseph Stiglitz, who won a Nobel in 2001, does some great work on this.

We would like to think that parents would all do what's best for their kid, but without perfect information as to needs of a child (and pretty darn good knowledge of who he or she is and what they needs, which is often strained as parents work more and spend time w/ kids less, which is what happens in poorer neighborhoods), more than likely you'd either have people choosing the closest school or just not making an informed decision at all.

4/21/2008 10:30:06 PM

Quote :

""The Man" is almost singularly focused on begging poor people to take advantage of America's methods of upward mobility."

Exactly.

Quote :

"do you think we should take the most care of those who show the most promise,"

YES. I have enough friends that are currently teachers and the
truth is some kids don't give a shit. Many poor kids go only to get
their free meal and hang out with friends. While putting in no
effort to school and merely cause distractions; disrupting the learning environment.
These kids should be put in some kind of vocational school like they
have in much of the rest of the world where they would learn a skill
other than drug dealing thus would potentially fulfill a useful
role in society.

Quote :

"We would like to think that parents would all do what's best for their kid"

truth is a lot of the parents don't give a shit. Thus the kids don't
care. We can't force someone to learn.

4/21/2008 10:48:10 PM

Quote :

"These kids should be put in some kind of vocational school like they have in much of the rest of the world where they would learn a skill other than drug dealing thus would potentially fulfill a useful role in society."

Well, I actually agree with this and would not consider it in the same vein of being "left behind" that I referenced earlier. More kids should be guided in this route w/o being treated as the rejects. Vocational ed needs much much much more funding.

Quote :

"truth is a lot of the parents don't give a shit. Thus the kids don't care. We can't force someone to learn."

Well, that's why we give them other opportunities. Even if the kid doesn't want to learn jack shit, that doesn't mean we kick them to the curb. This is why we have "alternative" schools, which should run the gamut from full remedial ed to a swift kick in the ass (aka boot camp).

[Edited on April 21, 2008 at 10:53 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2008 10:50:51 PM

Quote :

"which is often strained as parents work more and spend time w/ kids less, which is what happens in poorer neighborhoods"

Odd, the statistics I find demonstrate that those living in poverty are far more likely to be unemployed than overworked. While certainly some parents living in poverty are working themselves to death, over half of them averaged less than 20 hours a week.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm

Quote :

"You're going to have kids "left behind" in the case of vouchers no matter what. The only fair solutions are 1) give vouchers to everyone, assign no schools to anyone, and let people go where they desire, first come, first serve, or 2) try to improve the schools that need it now."

It is possible that some students will find themselves unwelcome at many schools. But, solutions exist, such as increasing the voucher for trouble children to cover the increased costs. It is already common for some school districts to outsource the education of trouble children to private companies. But, to suggest that this minor and easily solved problem means the handling of 1% of students should condemn 99% of students to ruinous educations is immoral.

No one needs to be left behind. Since in nearly all districts vouchers would be cheaper than public educations all that extra cash can be thrown at the troubled 1%. If you want to keep them in public schools then in many ways getting rid of the other students should make the job easier, not harder.

That said, vouchers should not be given to everyone. They should be means tested as the rich were probably already attending private school without them.

[Edited on April 21, 2008 at 11:16 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/21/2008 11:05:30 PM

Quote :

"I have a sure fire way to avoid being poor. dont have kids. "

Ding ding ding.....

I have no sympathy for people who say: "How am I supposed to afford healthcare and college for my six children!?"

If you can't afford your children, keep your shit in your pants.

People need to take some damn responsibility for themselves. The more the govt (mainly liberals, but more and more conservatives these days) keeps giving out handouts, the more people are going to go down this path.

4/21/2008 11:27:19 PM

Quote :

"I have no sympathy for people who say: "How am I supposed to afford healthcare and college for my six children!?" If you can't afford your children, keep your shit in your pants. People need to take some damn responsibility for themselves. The more the govt (mainly liberals, but more and more conservatives these days) keeps giving out handouts, the more people are going to go down this path. "

The problem with this thinking though is that you'll have Americans cutting down on the kids they're having, while foreigners immigrate here and have more kids. And then those same Americans complain that ferriners are terkign their jerbs.

Seriously, we've got tons of money and technology, there's no good reason that at a MINIMUM, things shouldn't be a lot better than they are. There's obviously something broken with our system, and the solution isn't to re-try the things we've been trying for decades.

4/22/2008 1:44:41 AM

^if you cut out the incentives for having kids, I dont think immigrants or poor people will have as many.

4/22/2008 9:07:23 AM

Quote :

"Seriously, we've got tons of money and technology, there's no good reason that at a MINIMUM, things shouldn't be a lot better than they are. There's obviously something broken with our system, and the solution isn't to re-try the things we've been trying for decades."

What do you suggest?

It is an unfortunate fact of history that the technological advances of the past few decades have dramatically improved the productivity of the educated and skilled labor force. But it has done very little to improve the productivity of uneducated workers. What can be done with that? Their wages are not keeping up because no one has figured out how to have them keep up. That is everyone's fault, so who deserves to be punished for it? We can continue ratchetting up the EITC, but other than that we just have to hope that some clever entrepreneur figures out how to use computers to put gang-bangers to work. I am not optimistic.

Life goes in cycles. During the 19th century technology allowed entrepreneurs to put unskilled workers to work in mills and factories and be far more productive than the skilled artisans which were then out of work. This drove up the wages for the uneducated masses from starvation to working poor and reduced the wages of the educated masses from skilled professional to mid-level manager.

And why should the working poor have an expectation for more? Just because it is the future? They are better off today, just not as much as the rest of society. Why is that an insufferable position?

4/22/2008 9:24:57 AM

Quote :

"No one needs to be left behind. Since in nearly all districts vouchers would be cheaper than public educations all that extra cash can be thrown at the troubled 1%. If you want to keep them in public schools then in many ways getting rid of the other students should make the job easier, not harder. "

No one is left behind. Some choose to just not get on teh bus

4/22/2008 11:04:40 AM

Quote :

"No one is left behind. Some choose to just not get on teh bus "

winner

4/22/2008 11:44:32 AM

Quote :

"In the United States, the working time for upper-income professionals has increased compared to 1965, while total annual working time for low-skill, low-income workers has decreased.[4] This effect is sometimes called the "leisure gap." In 2006, the average man employed full-time worked 8.4 hours per work day, and the average woman employed full-time worked 7.7 hours per work day.[5]"

I am glad i am attending college so i can get a good paying job and work an increasing number of hours. The poor of the US are counting on me to pay for their welfare, foodstamps and medicare. I work harder while they work less and get free handouts! yay!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Day_nicknames

[Edited on April 22, 2008 at 12:59 PM. Reason : aa]

4/22/2008 12:58:41 PM

^AHA, there's less low-skill, low-income work available these days.

Also, you should really be pissed at your employer for making you work longer hours.

"My company laid off a thousand people today, and they expect the rest of us to kill ourselves trying keep up the same productivity...man I hate poor people who can't find good work! "

4/22/2008 1:23:54 PM

Quote :

"And why should the working poor have an expectation for more? Just because it is the future? They are better off today, just not as much as the rest of society. Why is that an insufferable position?"

Because it's at least theoretically unnecessary. From the point of view of system optimization, our current capitalism sucks. See technocracy for more details. Our machines aren't operating anywhere nearly full capacity. Based on the numbers, we could easily provide a solid standard of living for everyone. We don't. It's a problem organization and motivation.

Remember that whenever an economist talks about efficiency.

(Note that when I speak of numbers, I mean real, physical resources. Energy. Production. Not dollars or anything similar.)

4/22/2008 2:02:15 PM

Quote :

"Our machines aren't operating anywhere nearly full capacity. Based on the numbers, we could easily provide a solid standard of living for everyone. We don't. It's a problem organization and motivation."

Historically speaking the utilization of our installed capacity is pretty good, above 80%. And to push them any more would expend resources to produce goods that no one is going to consume, working us all more with no benefits.

Yes, we could try to give that output away, thus utilizing the machines and providing a solid standard of living for everyone. But, those that are not already consuming the output usually represent the under-employed of our society. By having society give them for free a solid standard of living, what are the rest of us going to do? Keep working 40+ hours a week when we could have the same standard of living by watching TV and playing golf?

Yes, the poor would be made better off, but very quickly the rest of us would be worse off as workers quickly become mis-allocated. If you think the machines are under utilized today just wait until everyone stops showing up for work in the morning.

Money is a short hand for making sure people are only allowed to enjoy the service of society after they have themselves served society. If you break that link then there is no incentive to serve others, and human nature being what it is, many people will only serve themselves. But that is not all: while many people enjoy their work, they still object to seeing it go towards those that did nothing to deserve it. If people were willing to work for free then they would already be doing it.


[Edited on April 22, 2008 at 2:28 PM. Reason : img]

4/22/2008 2:28:28 PM

I'm talking about load factor, Snark. Are you familiar with the concept? If not, here's an introduction:

http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=printpage&artid=7

It's still amazing poor for many machines. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure factories aren't running all the time. I know the load factor for automobiles is absurdly low. Cars sit around for hours to days, doing nothing. Similarly, I believe it's quite low in agriculture. I've heard t3h g0v still pays farmers not to grow crops.

Try telling me we live in an efficient system.

4/22/2008 2:36:10 PM

^ not to mention all the bullets your society would need to get started and all the 'kool-aid' needed to keep it going.


1) student loans aren't that bad given the wage increase one can expect with the education that buy, assuming one actually learns and applies. (you agree to pay future wages in exchange for an education). A good bit of you are arguing that private entities invest in people in order to reap the benefits of there improved education later. A student loan is a way for your future self to invest in your current self, but with some corporation making some interest off it... so its pretty much what you are asking for.

2) American society gives you every opportunity possible to make something of your self. Want nicer shit, work harder. Don't bitch that someones got it easier, just go bust your ass. Pay attention in school, go read at the library. Don't do stupid shit (gangs, drugs, crime, have kids you cant afford, spend what you do make on shit you don't need*).

3) Stop Blaming other people

4) Stop blaming other people

5) If you kids fuck up badly at school, beat'em, don't go bother the school about how they hurt Billy's feelings when he got a D. Take away all his toys, sit his ass down in a quite room, and make him redo every piece of work he got a bad grade on.

6) Re-introduce self responsibility to the nation (see 3 and 4).


*Needs: food, bed, appropriate clothing, water

4/22/2008 2:46:27 PM