Poor People's Campaign Readies Nationwide Mobilization

[Revoltingest]

But what is 'jurisdiction' other than an artificially contrived border?

Contrived or not, if people in an area volunteer to pay for a higher
standard of education than the standard provided by the state,
I see no valid reason to prevent that.
Do you oppose their doing so?

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.

Sounds like you're proposing what our state has, & what I'm supporting,
but using different words. "Tip" seems odd. It's done with property taxes.

 

[leibowde84]

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

It seems like he is trolling communists by attempting to insult them.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I never said it was a good joke.

It seems like he is trolling communists by attempting to insult them.

I don't think he intends abuse.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If they could sustain it. Seems they are running into problems with it though. I liked the Australian model. They provided health, welfare and education, and had a balanced budget when I lived there. Unfortunately they are also running into problems.

It seems to work for a while but the burden on the taxpayer seem to increase beyond their capacity to support such systems.

Ideally these programs should be self sustaining. Health, education, welfare should provide a competent workforce. Should increase economic revenue. While it seems to work for a while, especially in a small country like Finland it seems to eventually cause a problem of solvency for countries.

Hey, sorry on the late reply to this.
I'm Australian, and a teacher by profession (although I don't work in the industry any more, I still have several close friends who do).

Australia actually spends considerably less on both health and education than the United States on a per capita basis.
Welfare is a different story, but the disparity in that area is far less than you might assume (certainly far less than I had assumed).

Focusing on health and education, it would actually be considerably cheaper for the US to move to an Australian model. Not that I would advocate that, since I think we have moved too far in your direction already, to be honest. For example, standardised testing is pretty much a pure cost bucket with almost no educational value, now allowing private companies to become involved for profit. Vomit-worthy, imho.

Our budgetary problems are relatively mild (GFC didn't impact on us the way it did most of the first world), and can be laid fairly firmly at the doors of an aging population (thanks, baby boomers!) and a downturn in resource prices, which are important for us as a means of offsetting manufacturing, which is largely import-based, and not domestic. Health is an increasing cost (still lower than the US), but again...aging population.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Contrived or not, if people in an area volunteer to pay for a higher
standard of education than the standard provided by the state,
I see no valid reason to prevent that.
Do you oppose their doing so?

If they're directly contributing to the school, no problem at all. Basically, allow an individual to take action.
If money is being collected by the state, and is distributed, then yes, I do have an issue. That isn't 'voluntary' in a way I would support.

Sounds like you're proposing what our state has, & what I'm supporting,
but using different words. "Tip" seems odd. It's done with property taxes.

'Tip' might be a cultural thing. I'm using it loosely (not like tipping service staff, more like emptying a bucket).

Whilst I've read about American education systems quite a bit over the years (certainly more than a healthy person would) I admit it's not generally focused at a lower level, so I've just been reading a little about Michigan funding to try and work out how I respond to this.

Basically I would expect the government to not reinforce advantage for the rich. I'd go further, and far prefer Finnish educational models to Australian or American, but that's a complex topic to tackle properly, and we'd NEVER reach common ground on that.
However, if Michigan provided a basic per student amount (eg. $13000 per child) to schools (with some tiering for small remote schools, etc) then fine.
The local school districts providing additional funding via property taxes is such a weird concept to me I have trouble picturing it, but I'm effectively equating it to a small collective agreeing to a heavier property levy which is then forwarded on to the schools within that district.
What I'm proposing is to get rid of that 'entirely', and instead get parents to contribute directly to their school.
In many ways, I'd be advocating a simpler and more transparent funding model, with less tiers/funnels through which the money flows. Right now Michigan is spending $12,243 per FTE student, but there is a lot of inconsistency at a granular level, and even describing where each $ is coming from is extraordinarily difficult. For that, you don't seem to get a lot of bang for your buck, frankly, and overly administrative funding models, red-tape, etc are contributors, near as I can tell. Total spending in my state per FTE is around $11,426.15 (I'm converting AUD to USD there), but admittedly other states spend more.
That's the part that consistently surprises me. Many Americans (not speaking specifically about you, just generalising) assume we spend a lot of money on health and education, since we're more socialist in terms of government (if nowhere near Scandinavia). But we spend less, for better or worse, despite having a smaller population (which should offer economies of scale).

In terms of the background reading I did, this was my main source (downloadable PDF), and it seems pretty good quality;
How School Funding Works in Michigan

Also interested in these stories;
Study: Michigan school funding getting ‘more unequal’
Getting Detroit schools out of testing madness

 

[Revoltingest]

If they're directly contributing to the school, no problem at all. Basically, allow an individual to take action.
If money is being collected by the state, and is distributed, then yes, I do have an issue. That isn't 'voluntary' in a way I would support.



'Tip' might be a cultural thing. I'm using it loosely (not like tipping service staff, more like emptying a bucket).

Whilst I've read about American education systems quite a bit over the years (certainly more than a healthy person would) I admit it's not generally focused at a lower level, so I've just been reading a little about Michigan funding to try and work out how I respond to this.

Basically I would expect the government to not reinforce advantage for the rich. I'd go further, and far prefer Finnish educational models to Australian or American, but that's a complex topic to tackle properly, and we'd NEVER reach common ground on that.
However, if Michigan provided a basic per student amount (eg. $13000 per child) to schools (with some tiering for small remote schools, etc) then fine.
The local school districts providing additional funding via property taxes is such a weird concept to me I have trouble picturing it, but I'm effectively equating it to a small collective agreeing to a heavier property levy which is then forwarded on to the schools within that district.
What I'm proposing is to get rid of that 'entirely', and instead get parents to contribute directly to their school.
In many ways, I'd be advocating a simpler and more transparent funding model, with less tiers/funnels through which the money flows. Right now Michigan is spending $12,243 per FTE student, but there is a lot of inconsistency at a granular level, and even describing where each $ is coming from is extraordinarily difficult. For that, you don't seem to get a lot of bang for your buck, frankly, and overly administrative funding models, red-tape, etc are contributors, near as I can tell. Total spending in my state per FTE is around $11,426.15 (I'm converting AUD to USD there), but admittedly other states spend more.
That's the part that consistently surprises me. Many Americans (not speaking specifically about you, just generalising) assume we spend a lot of money on health and education, since we're more socialist in terms of government (if nowhere near Scandinavia). But we spend less, for better or worse, despite having a smaller population (which should offer economies of scale).

In terms of the background reading I did, this was my main source (downloadable PDF), and it seems pretty good quality;
How School Funding Works in Michigan

Also interested in these stories;
Study: Michigan school funding getting ‘more unequal’
Getting Detroit schools out of testing madness

I'm just opposed to government enforcing a lowest common denominator for all.
The wealthy are going to have an advantage....it's inherent in being wealthy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm just opposed to government enforcing a lowest common denominator for all.
The wealthy are going to have an advantage....it's inherent in being wealthy.

Hmm...I'll keep asking questions, since it's my nature, but I won't hold it against you if you stop answering.

In the context of this conversation, was there ever anyone supporting enforcing a lowest common denominator?

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm...I'll keep asking questions, since it's my nature, but I won't hold it against you if you stop answering.

In the context of this conversation, was there ever anyone supporting enforcing a lowest common denominator?

I can't think of one offhand.
I thought we were addressing a hypothetical.

 

[Falvlun]

I do understand that is true in many so-called "conservative" areas, but conservatism is not a monolithic thing. Those to the left of traditional conservative often bristle when painted with the same tarred brush.



Not true for all of us. In one of my posts above I stated that abortion is a suitable choice in some cases.

I have repeatedly stated that people should have to go to sex education seminars.

I'm certainly in favor of this. It's a bit of a no-brainer, really.

I don't think I've heard anyone say that public aid should not be given to those who need it most.

Again, abortion is always a reasonable choice, especially in the first trimester. Late term abortions, unless the mother's health is in danger, is not desirable, imho.

Quite frankly, your individual views don’t particularly matter if you support a party that adheres to different ones. If someone supports the right to abortion, but consistently votes for a party the doesn’t, the net result is that abortion rights aren’t supported.

Holy hysteria, Batman. I simply do not believe that having a family is a basic human right. It's certainly not like there is any lack of humans on the planet. Likewise, it would be my guess that the "poor" have far more children than rich families. Look all over the Third world and what do you see?

I honestly can’t think of anything that is a more fundamental right than procreation.

The fact that poor people do tend to have more children is immaterial to my argument: people were claiming that poor people don’t have a right to have children, that poor people should be punished for choosing to have children, and implying that only rich people ought to have such a right. That is pretty heinous in my opinion.

 

[BSM1]

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?

Did you work for that degree? Was it just given to you? Should they be handed out to whomever shows up and asks for one?

 

[BSM1]

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.

Obviously you don't have a clue either. You talking about Fascism or, at best, Socialism. There is no "private industry" in Communism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can't think of one offhand.
I thought we were addressing a hypothetical.

Nah...I've seen plenty of hypotheticals in this thread. I was trying to avoid that and be more specific. All good.

 

[YmirGF]

Quite frankly, your individual views don’t particularly matter if you support a party that adheres to different ones. If someone supports the right to abortion, but consistently votes for a party the doesn’t, the net result is that abortion rights aren’t supported.

Which is all somewhat moot given that abortion has been widely available in both our countries for many years now.

I honestly can’t think of anything that is a more fundamental right than procreation.

The fact that poor people do tend to have more children is immaterial to my argument: people were claiming that poor people don’t have a right to have children, that poor people should be punished for choosing to have children, and implying that only rich people ought to have such a right. That is pretty heinous in my opinion.

With 7+ billion people on the planet, I simply see no imperative for people to feel they have a right to have children anymore. Will you still say the same thing when there are 10 billion on the planet? That said, people are free to do what they want, really. I don't see anyone arguing that starting a family should be an earned privilege a once you have attained a specific social standing. If it were a right then fertility clinics would be free to the public and we would be bending over backwards to help those we are both barren and impotent to achieve their RIGHT. Should we bend over backwards to ensure that all gays have their little offspringers too? Hey, it's their right, after all.

I think your insistence on this being a right neatly skirts the issue of personal responsibility and treating life as an achievement based endeavor. Or are you seriously suggesting that those who have families and cannot adequately provided for those families, for whatever reason are being quite responsible. After all, it's their right to raise a family in a hovel while mom smokes crack for breakfast. Go, girl!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Did you work for that degree? Was it just given to you? Should they be handed out to whomever shows up and asks for one?

I feel like you're perhaps addressing <insert liberal here> instead of me, but I'm happy enough to answer your questions...

1) Yep, I worked for both my degrees, even managed to achieve honours. I also quit teaching after 4 years, rendering them pretty much useless when I changed to a career in computer software implementation, but that's a different story...
2) Nope, wasn't given to me.
3) Nope, definitely not. That just devalues my degree. If anything, I would prefer the pass criteria to be more difficult to achieve.

This little tale is based on Australia, so take it as broadly representative, rather than specific...

A percentage of places in my course was set aside for people who paid fees up front. Full fee payers, many of whom came from overseas. This wasn't a private university, to be clear, as I'm a little unsure how universities in America are commonly structured in terms of funding models, etc.

So to flip your question on it's head...

• Did they work to get into the course?
• Was a place just given to them?
• Should they be handed to whomever has money to pay for them, regardless of demonstrated aptitude and work ethic?

And ultimately, that is my point. Access to education should be equitable based on performance. Poor people have a bunch of hurdles they need to clear that rich people don't (generalising here), but if they cross the finish line first, and someone who didn't gets access due to money...well...that runs contrary to principles of meritocracy and social mobility which I think are vital for a healthy society.

My earlier post, around how you're defining 'earning' a degree, and whether it was based on outcome is something I could put into context based on this, too.
For each of those spaces reserved for a full fee payer, one person on the merit-based qualification list was bumped. Let's say 12 places were reserved for full fee payers. 12 people who would have been in if it was merit-based missed out. So, do we say they didn't work hard enough, nor earn their place? Do we say the fee payers did?
If a full fee payer passes, then we get to say they earned their degree, and the person in the merit-based list that didn't get into the course failed, right?

I totally get that those 12 people who missed then have a choice to make, and that being a victim is the wrong choice. But as a society, at a grander level, this does not seem like an effective way to promote our best and brightest.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

Starving children isn't a circumstance? Sure. OK.

 

[BSM1]

Starving children isn't a circumstance? Sure. OK.

Have a nice day...

 

[BSM1]

I feel like you're perhaps addressing <insert liberal here> instead of me, but I'm happy enough to answer your questions...

1) Yep, I worked for both my degrees, even managed to achieve honours. I also quit teaching after 4 years, rendering them pretty much useless when I changed to a career in computer software implementation, but that's a different story...
2) Nope, wasn't given to me.
3) Nope, definitely not. That just devalues my degree. If anything, I would prefer the pass criteria to be more difficult to achieve.

This little tale is based on Australia, so take it as broadly representative, rather than specific...

A percentage of places in my course was set aside for people who paid fees up front. Full fee payers, many of whom came from overseas. This wasn't a private university, to be clear, as I'm a little unsure how universities in America are commonly structured in terms of funding models, etc.

So to flip your question on it's head...

• Did they work to get into the course?
• Was a place just given to them?
• Should they be handed to whomever has money to pay for them, regardless of demonstrated aptitude and work ethic?

And ultimately, that is my point. Access to education should be equitable based on performance. Poor people have a bunch of hurdles they need to clear that rich people don't (generalising here), but if they cross the finish line first, and someone who didn't gets access due to money...well...that runs contrary to principles of meritocracy and social mobility which I think are vital for a healthy society.

My earlier post, around how you're defining 'earning' a degree, and whether it was based on outcome is something I could put into context based on this, too.
For each of those spaces reserved for a full fee payer, one person on the merit-based qualification list was bumped. Let's say 12 places were reserved for full fee payers. 12 people who would have been in if it was merit-based missed out. So, do we say they didn't work hard enough, nor earn their place? Do we say the fee payers did?
If a full fee payer passes, then we get to say they earned their degree, and the person in the merit-based list that didn't get into the course failed, right?

I totally get that those 12 people who missed then have a choice to make, and that being a victim is the wrong choice. But as a society, at a grander level, this does not seem like an effective way to promote our best and brightest.

Sooo...let me get this straight. You're saying that people who can afford a product should take a back seat to someone who "deserves" a product? I am assuming you own a house (or car, or boat, or Japanese houseboy, whatever). I am also assuming you paid for or are paying for your house from the fruits of your own labor. Do you think that your house should have been offered to someone who deserved or wanted your house but could not afford to buy it?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sooo...let me get this straight. You're saying that people who can afford a product should take a back seat to someone who "deserves" a product? I am assuming you own a house (or car, or boat, or Japanese houseboy, whatever). I am also assuming you paid for or are paying for your house from the fruits of your own labor. Do you think that your house should have been offered to someone who deserved or wanted your house but could not afford to buy it?

Public housing? Sure. Private housing, no. Public health, yes. Private health, no. Public schools, yes. Private schools, no.

I'm really not being inconsistent here.

 

[BSM1]

Public housing? Sure. Private housing, no. Public health, yes. Private health, no. Public schools, yes. Private schools, no.

I'm really not being inconsistent here.

But, really, who pays for the "Public schools" and the "Public housing"? Wouldn't it be better if you could provide a path for those that are willing to work for it to be able to afford the things in life that they deem important (as I am sure you did). Don't get me wrong, I am totally in favor of helping those that need help; but I know the joy and freedom of rising from living on handouts to not having to ask for a damn thing I didn't earn.

 

[Sunstone]

As the work of Thomas Piketty and numerous others has demonstrated, capitalism is a superb system for creating wealth but pretty much fails as a system to equitably distribute wealth. Consequently, capitalism when freely allowed to run its course, inevitably results in oligarchies and eventually in tyrannies as the wealth of a society becomes increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.