Poor People's Campaign Readies Nationwide Mobilization

[Curious George]

No.
It becomes tedious when posters deflect with erroneous claims of logical fallacy.
I corrected your mistaken claim about school financing, & answered your questions.
If you don't want to discuss what you broached, then perhaps you shouldn't bring it up.

Did you? It sounded more like you wanted to discuss what parents should be able to provide for their children and not about what schools provide or should be able to provide from government funding alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you? It sounded more like you wanted to discuss what parents should be able to provide for their children and not about what schools provide or should be able to provide from government funding alone.

Ya know....if your posts are only objections to
another's posts, this doesn't inspire conversation.

 

[Curious George]

You're wrong to oppose addressing school funding.
Fundraising is critical because it determines allocation,
with some districts suffering while others prosper.

I responded to a post which made an erroneous claim
about funding, & then challenged the ability of wealthier
districts to pay for an upgrade from the state standard.
If you object to my response to a post about funding,
perhaps you should first object to the initial post, eh.

From your link

"Rich kids, then, get more lavish educations."

I am confused about what you think you are arguing?

Do you disagree that children in wealthier school districts have more advantages that are paid for by government monies?

 

[Curious George]

Ya know....if your posts are only objections to
another's posts, this doesn't inspire conversation.

I'm working on that. Maybe not well enough.

I am trying to bring the discussion back to the post on which you originally commented because you seem to have moved on this tangent. My statement was that their is a systemic disadvantage in education based on government funding, do you agree or disagree and why?

 

[BSM1]

Um, I know exactly what you were discussing. It was posted in open thread. That's how I could comment on it in the first place.

I also stand by my comment about the way your political affiliation SEEMS.

Then you realize that we were discussing governments and not circumstances.

 

[Underhill]

You can't put much faith in what people believed in the 70s.
Remember that they loved disco.

Sure, but they were right on this one. If the work week was 20 hours instead of 40 and we doubled hourly wages to compensate, the increases in productivity would be more equitable and peoples lives would generally be better. (yes I realize prices would also go up, but it would still be a net positive for workers)

Productivity since 1970 has gone up 140% while wages haven't moved. Meanwhile companies profits and CEO pay has gone up massively over the same period. (profits to wages ratios have gone from .182 to .164 to .217 to .185.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but they were right on this one. If the work week was 20 hours instead of 40 and we doubled hourly wages to compensate, the increases in productivity would be more equitable and peoples lives would generally be better. (yes I realize prices would also go up, but it would still be a net positive for workers)

Productivity since 1970 has gone up 140% while wages haven't moved. Meanwhile companies profits and CEO pay has gone up massively over the same period. (profits to wages ratios have gone from .182 to .164 to .217 to .185.

I don't think productivity would increase by slashing the workweek.
It would mean hiring more workers, which would require more
supervision. And as you point out, it would increase prices, which
would make foreign goods more competitive.
But also, smaller businesses would ignore the shorter work week,
thus increasing their relative competitiveness, thereby lessening
the overall effect.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're wrong to oppose addressing school funding.
Fundraising is critical because it determines allocation,
with some districts suffering while others prosper.

I responded to a post which made an erroneous claim
about funding, & then challenged the ability of wealthier
districts to pay for an upgrade from the state standard.
If you object to my response to a post about funding,
perhaps you should first object to the initial post, eh.

I'm not trying to be objectionable, I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.
In the US, funding allocations from government sources (only) are skewed so that schools in wealthy areas receive more $ per child.

Ignoring the natural advantages those children commonly have, including fundraising, modelling from parents, educational expectations, etc, that seems a strange way to allocate funds.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not trying to be objectionable, I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.
In the US, funding allocations from government sources (only) are skewed so that schools in wealthy areas receive more $ per child.

Ignoring the natural advantages those children commonly have, including fundraising, modelling from parents, educational expectations, etc, that seems a strange way to allocate funds.

Agree or disagree?

It doesn't seem strange to me, since it's always been this way.
Michiganistan has moved to make it less dependent upon local
financing, thereby setting a minimum standard of education.
(It should be raised, IMO.)
Should local districts (if able) fund schooling above this standard?
Yes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It doesn't seem strange to me, since it's always been this way.
Michiganistan has moved to make it less dependent upon local
financing, thereby setting a minimum standard of education.
(It should be raised, IMO.)
Should local districts (if able) fund schooling above this standard?
Yes.

Cool, thanks for the clarity. I'm gonna ramble on here a bit, so feel free to ignore it if you're not interested. Just a topic that interests me a LOT, partly because I studied various education models professionally, partly cos...I dunno...we all have our quirky interests.

Politically, I'm not particularly left, but neither am I libertarian. For me, social cohesion is important, so I tend to measure some things (education and health are prime examples) by the long term societal impacts, as much as anything.
Long story short, I'm not getting overly stressed about every poor kid who is disadvantaged, but I am concerned with the long term impact of poor kids being disadvantaged.

We can argue the toss on what constitutes 'disadvantage' of course. In general terms, take the same baby (same aptitude to learn, same attitude) and put one in a wealthy situation and one in a poor situation, and the outcomes will be quite different. Pretty obvious, I guess. But effectively, the poor kid would need to work harder to overcome natural disadvantages and get ahead, and would still be working at a disadvantage to the rich kid.

So, what do we do about that and why?

My view (and I know we differ...that's fine) is that society as a whole is stronger if the hardworking poor kid has a good chance of social mobility. I don't want to give handouts, or make society some sort of crutch for the weak. But I do want that smart, hardworking kid to have access to education and health care, as a minimum. Give him or her the tools to make something of themselves.

If funding models for schooling...as in actual funding provided by governmental bodies...is skewed towards the richer kids, it's just another thing which is making the smart, hardworking poor kids ability to be socially mobile that much poorer.
I can site specific studies for this if you like, but you probably won't find any of this controversial;

Children of wealthy parents (top 25% income)

• read to their children more
• have more books in the house
• sees their father more regularly
• get out of the house more often
• eat with their parents more
• model positive educational behaviours more (eg. reading in front of children, discussing issues, etc)
• are at public schools with drastically better access to add-on funding (fundraising, business access, etc)

That's all without addressing less direct behaviours which impact, such as abusive household situations, crime, etc.

Let's say we don't want to try and do any sort of social engineering, in terms of everything listed above. Shouldn't we at least provide all children the same governmental money towards their education? Isn't it better for society to get a little closer to a meritocracy? Isn't a meritocracy what libertarians would prefer, assuming it doesn't involved undue government interference to achieve it?

It just seems like if poorer schools were provided additional money (the way they are in most countries) to try and offset the natural disadvantages that poor, smart, hardworking kid faces, you'd find that problematic. But the rich kids are provided more (from the government...not from fundraising, parents, etc) and it's no problem at all?

It's very hard for me to understand, and seems somewhat disastrous if you're goal is to allow the best and brightest to achieve to their potential, based on their own efforts.

 

[Revoltingest]

My view (and I know we differ...that's fine)....

Not as much as some might think.
It's often just a matter of the method to achieve the goal.

.....is that society as a whole is stronger if the hardworking poor kid has a good chance of social mobility. I don't want to give handouts, or make society some sort of crutch for the weak. But I do want that smart, hardworking kid to have access to education and health care, as a minimum. Give him or her the tools to make something of themselves.

If funding models for schooling...as in actual funding provided by governmental bodies...is skewed towards the richer kids, it's just another thing which is making the smart, hardworking poor kids ability to be socially mobile that much poorer.
I can site specific studies for this if you like, but you probably won't find any of this controversial;

Children of wealthy parents (top 25% income)

• read to their children more
• have more books in the house
• sees their father more regularly
• get out of the house more often
• eat with their parents more
• model positive educational behaviours more (eg. reading in front of children, discussing issues, etc)
• are at public schools with drastically better access to add-on funding (fundraising, business access, etc)

That's all without addressing less direct behaviours which impact, such as abusive household situations, crime, etc.

Let's say we don't want to try and do any sort of social engineering, in terms of everything listed above. Shouldn't we at least provide all children the same governmental money towards their education? Isn't it better for society to get a little closer to a meritocracy? Isn't a meritocracy what libertarians would prefer, assuming it doesn't involved undue government interference to achieve it?

It just seems like if poorer schools were provided additional money (the way they are in most countries) to try and offset the natural disadvantages that poor, smart, hardworking kid faces, you'd find that problematic. But the rich kids are provided more (from the government...not from fundraising, parents, etc) and it's no problem at all?

It's very hard for me to understand, and seems somewhat disastrous if you're goal is to allow the best and brightest to achieve to their potential, based on their own efforts.

I'm actually in favor of social engineering, but I think it's gotten a bad rep
because of heavy handed over-zealous & ill considered application.
From the libertarian perspective, think "incentivizing useful behavior".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nah. Only two parties is a horrible way to go about democracy. In India we have 7 national parties and 50 regional parties. Whatever your view, there is a podium for you and an opportunity to win seats in local, state or national parliaments.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India

It's more complicated than just the number of parties, though.
I lived in a democracy that functioned very poorly, and a key reason for that was the fragmented nature of the political parties, and the effect of that in terms of minority governments.
The government was typically hamstrung, and beholden to a number of minor parties merely to hold on to power.

Not saying a large number of parties has to equal chaos, just suggesting it also doesn't necessarily equate to a stable government.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I didn't need an advocacy group, and neither does anyone else. That's just someone else telling what you can or should do. Here's a cardinal rule: Don't ask anyone for anything you don't earn. If you think you need some governmental or quasi-governmental agency to point the way for you then you've already lost.

How do you define 'earn'? Because it seems like you're defining it based on outcome.
ie. I have earned a degree if I achieve a degree.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not as much as some might think.
It's often just a matter of the method to achieve the goal.

I'm actually in favor of social engineering, but I think it's gotten a bad rep
because of heavy handed over-zealous & ill considered application.
From the libertarian perspective, think "incentivizing useful behavior".

So you agree that all kids should be provided the same level of funding from the government for schooling?
It almost sounds like you'd be willing to go further, but I don't want to push my luck here.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you agree that all kids should be provided the same level of funding from the government for schooling?
It almost sounds like you'd be willing to go further, but I don't want to push my luck here.

Not quite as you state it.
I favor an acceptable minimum level of funding.
But jurisdictions can add to that if willing & able.

 

[leibowde84]

Shouldn't this be on the "Communism" DIR?

You obviously have no idea what "communism" refers to, huh? There is nothing here about the state taking control of private industry, so your comment makes absolutely no sense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not quite as you state it.
I favor an acceptable minimum level of funding.
But jurisdictions can add to that if willing & able.

But what is 'jurisdiction' other than an artificially contrived border?
Tell you what, make the funding jurisdiction the state, rather than some micro-body.
And parents can directly tip as much money as they'd like into any individual school, still allowing the rich kids to get more.

 

[leibowde84]

It seems like there's a lot of "let's blame someone else for our problems so we can tell them what to do and how much to give us..." in this manifesto.

Yet another comment that has no connection with communism. Do you know what the term "communism" refers to even?

 

[Revoltingest]

You obviously have no idea what "communism" refers to, huh? There is nothing here about the state taking control of private industry, so your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Psssst......he's joking.

 

[leibowde84]

Psssst......he's joking.

His joke makes no sense though. There is nothing in the OP that even relates to communism.