In the late 1920s the German economy collapsed....
-
In every other country in the world, as society becomes more advanced, income becomes more equally distributed. That is every country except ours. Do you not think it is a bit ridiculus that a person who plays a game for a living can make more money in a day than the average person makes in a year? Or in a year that player will make more than most people makes in their lives?
-
And that is why we are the greatest country in the world.
Why the FUCK should I have to share my hard earned dollars with some worthless fuck who chooses not to apply themselves and make a better life for themselves and their families?
-
GarageAlchemist;214710 wrote:
In every other country in the world, as society becomes more advanced, income becomes more equally distributed. That is every country except ours. Do you not think it is a bit ridiculus that a person who plays a game for a living can make more money in a day than the average person makes in a year? Or in a year that player will make more than most people makes in their lives?I'd hardly say that society is becoming more "advanced", it is becoming more socialistic tho. Capitalism allows you the freedom to bust your ass to become a professional ball player and make the kind of money they can bring in. It also allows you the freedom to work at McDonalds and barely make it by if you choose. In our country you get paid what you are worth, not what the government says you are worth. I like it that way, you have incentive to work hard and do well for yourself and your family.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Income is not distributed in this country. It is earned, most often by hard work.
The poorest people in America today typically have
- one or more televisions
- an automobile
- air-conditoining
- clean water
- electricity
Many of these amenities were unavailable to the richest people anywhere in the world even 100 years ago. In this country, they're commonplace, even for our poorest members of society.
The "distribution" (in the statistical sense) of wealth is irrelevant. How I fare compare to my neighbor is irrelevant. How I fare compared to my parents, their parents, etc etc, is what is important.
That assumes of course that "the goal" of society, insofar as there is or ought to be one, is that civilization makes progress. You appear to be concerned with a different goal: "everyone is equal". That goal sucks, and a great short story by Kurt Vonnegut details why. I suggest you read it if you have a few minutes:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
This is one of my favorite short stories. I used to have it printed out in a teeny tiny font on my office door, so people could complain that it was too hard for them to read. "That's the point", I'd tell them. "Not everyone has eyesight good enough to read this copy, and that's ok".
-
thrash;214715 wrote:
Income is not distributed in this country. It is earned, most often by hard work.The poorest people in America today typically have
- one or more televisions
- an automobile
- air-conditoining
- clean water
- electricity
This is one thing I love about the "poor" statistics. Many people don't realize what stipulates being poor...and like you said...the amenities that the "poor" often live with. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you should be able to have everything everyone else has. It says the PURSUIT of happiness, which is more than fairly provided to all if they'd actually try.
-
My mom used to work at the HRA back in Fergus... pretty much all of the people on rental assistance and low-income housing were driving a hell of a lot nicer cars and had a bunch of nicer stuff than my family had, and my parents worked hard for everything, while most of these ppl just sat around and got government hand outs...
-
DaveH;214714 wrote:
I'd hardly say that society is becoming more "advanced", it is becoming more socialistic tho. Capitalism allows you the freedom to bust your ass to become a professional ball player and make the kind of money they can bring in. It also allows you the freedom to work at McDonalds and barely make it by if you choose. In our country you get paid what you are worth, not what the government says you are worth. I like it that way, you have incentive to work hard and do well for yourself and your family.so you think that a professional baseball player is worth more than the person who teachers YOUR kids? that they worker harder than everyone on this board combined? because they make more than all of us combined.
-
From an economic standpoint it makes sense, supply and demand, there is short supply, high demand, so they get paid alot, but from a humanitarian standpoint it blows, because there is a large supply of people that are low skilled, and don't make enough money to live on.
-
if they want to make more money than yes, they should find a different career. my friends that teach went into it knowing full well they were never going to make a ton of money.
-
amicheze;214800 wrote:
So basically you're saying that teachers are worthless and that if they want to make more money they should find a different career?I never said they are worthless. If they are into teaching for the money they chose the wrong career but nothing is stopping them from changing careers.
-
DaveH;214714 wrote:
I'd hardly say that society is becoming more "advanced", it is becoming more socialistic tho. Capitalism allows you the freedom to bust your ass to become a professional ball player and make the kind of money they can bring in. It also allows you the freedom to work at McDonalds and barely make it by if you choose. In our country you get paid what you are worth, not what the government says you are worth. I like it that way, you have incentive to work hard and do well for yourself and your family.I agree with everything Dave is saying here, though I disagree (in practice, not theory) about his flat tax idea of everyone paying the same dollar amount....even though in theory it should make everyone work harder so they can overcome that tax hurdle every year by a higher amount....
My thoughts are (since we know the IRS is never going to actually go away), if you choose to work hard enough to earn only $1 a year, you should owe the IRS $.10 if you worked hard enough to earn $10,000,000, you should pay $1,000,000 in taxes. This, in my opinion, would also spur people towards advancing themselves as the 10% tax begins having less of an overall impact on you as you move up (Basic food, clothing, etc.... is approximately the same for everyone....or rather everyone could choose to spend the basic amounts necessary to survive, and those that earn above that amount would be able to better save towards their futures.)
As for teachers, I think they should get paid more for what they do...but remember who pays them...the Gov't. Look at how many schools have inadequate teachers/teachers who do it for the paycheck only (not necessarily here) yet they get paid the same as some of the best teachers in the school district....guess what, the best teachers either move to better districts (private schools sometimes) or change careers if they want a raise......now do we really want the Federal Gov't controlling healthcare if it will just bring out the mediocre doctors for the general public while the best & brightest either switch careers or move on to a private practice that doesn't accept the federal insurance program? I'm fairly happy the way it is thank you. I like being able to have my current insurance pay my bills should I need to go to Mayo Clinic or similar....I'll gladly pay a few bucks a month to have this option as well.
-
teachers being underpaid is kind of a myth. Public school teachers get paid more than their counterparts in private school, even though kids from the latter do better on standardized tests. private schools also have a much better student:teacher ratio and much better teacher:administrator ratio.
Government run schools are horribly inefficient, and the assinine policies they operate under drive the best teachers away in droves. The system appears to be geared for mediocre empire builders to surround themselves with people who do not challenge them and who's primary objective is a stronger collective bargaining position.
As public school teachers are public servants (they're government employees, and every govt employee is a public servant that should be easy to fire for non-performance), allowing them to unionize ought to be illegal.
When I went to college, most of the kids going into k-12 education were sorority girls that were persuing the Mrs degree. My wife did one or two classes in that program and the stuff she talked about doing was pretty embarassing.
There are great teachers in the public school system but they are the exception. The system breeds mediocrity and anyone that does a great job does so inspite of the circumstances, not because of it.
My wife and I plan to homeschool our son.
Most homeschooled children in the US come from single-earner families that make below the median income and where the wife is the primary teacher and has no college education. They still do significantly better on standardized tests than the average publicly schooled child. So there you go. So much for all the "value" that the system adds to our kids.
The taxes we pay to fund the school system turn into like $10k/year/child. Of course, only a shred of that actually goes to educating a child. There's no way we're getting our money's worth.
-
No offense towards you thrash, but in my personal experiences with kids that have been home schooled.....the parents should be brought up on abuse/neglect charges as their kids, while excellent in book smarts, lack the ability to hold a job because they had virtually no people skills. Yes, that is a broad & bold statement, but of the kids that I knew, that was the case.
-
That's fine. I hadn't considered it until I met some kids that were extremely well adjusted and found out that they were homeschooled. For a variety of reasons I'd like to try it. The cheif one is ideological -- I don't think other people have much business in stipulating how my child is educated, or in the case of public school, indoctrinated. I think the social and intellectual development advantages are secondary.
The idea that you think some parents ought to be brought up on neglect/abuse charges kind of plays into it. I think the state should have way less power to take kids out of homes. How could you call homeschooled kids that don't hold down the sorts of jobs you think they ought to be "neglect" ? Neglect is starving your kid or locking him in room with no toilet for a week. Neglect is not "failing to condition the child for a McJob". There are plenty of traditionally schooled kids that can't hold down a job (and can't keep themselves out of jail). Which public educators would you file neglect charges against in those cases?
When I was younger, my mom was already dead and I was living with my dad & stepmom. My crazy grandma (from a different state) filed some kind of child services complaint and there was the very real possibility of me being removed from my dads custody. I had to do interviews and all that kind of stuff. My dad kicks ass and the charges were bullshit, and luckily nothing came of it. However, the idea that some dumbass state employee has the arbitrary power to take my other parent from me is pretty unsettling. The result of this arbitrary state power is that most parents I know are afraid to spank their kid in public.
The state is broken and so are its systems. I won't subject my children to any of it if I can help it.
-
Yes. All public schools are run by governments.
How much of a problem that is in actual practice of course depends a lot on the school district and the school in question, and even what year it is.
Fargo public schools are probably a bit behind the curve in terms of forcing kids to read "Johnny has Two Daddies" and other social activism you hear about in coastal school districts, so in practical terms, there may not be as much to get upset about.
I think though that no matter how good the local teachers / administrators are, conventional schooling isn't even the right setting for kids. For instance, at least through elementary school boys and girls (in broad strokes) need vastly different levels of physical exertion. Boys have shorter attention spans and mentally and physically mature later. The current grade 1-5 system is more attuned to effective learning for girls.. most boys would do better with more recess periods more often and with more vigorous activity.
Since the 70s, it's been political suicide to suggest that boys and girls are gasp different, so I don't know of any mixed-curriculum public gradeschool programs around here (but to be fair, i've not looked).
I also question the wisdom of trying to teach kids how to be adults by putting them in a prison with a 30:1 inmate to guard ratio. The horrible bullying and cliquisms and all that go largely unchecked whether you're talking public or private schools. If you've read or seen "Lord of the Flies", respressed, less violent versions of that fundamental issue are working themselves out in every school in America -- kids are seeing what they can get away with, with no effective "law" or "oversight" to keep them in check. There are no strong adult role models and as such there are some definite behavioral defects.
A fair bit of research has been done on this kind of stuff. It's not like I'm bloviating my unique thoughts on the subject. My own (and my wife's experiences) in public K-12 left something to be desired and so we've looked into other options and even philosophies of how children are best educated.
You might find the following interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Caldwell_Holt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_GattoI should make it clear -- my thoughts are not a reflection on the merits of any particular teacher or any particular school. It's not like I hate teachers or something. I am just not convinced that the public school system is effective at the things I want it to be effective at for my own child(ren). I think that there are a lot of teachers and administrators that have perverted the compulsory education system into the mess we have now, and that's a problem, but a solvable one. But even if it were to be solved, and we only had the best most wonderful people in public schools, that wouldn't change my reservations about if the system is even the right approach educating and raising children.
Teachers bemoan that parents don't get involved. Well, I plan on getting involved.
-
Thrash, if homeschooling doesn't work out for you (I wish you the best of luck) you might want to consider private school. I couldn't be happier with the school I chose for my kids. It's not cheap, but it's definitely worth it IMO.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login