school funds going down

[The_Q]

Drac, if it's immoral for sellers to seek high prices, is it also immoral for buyers to seek low prices? The dollar you spend is a dollar earned by another man. As a consumer I find lower prices for my own benefit. As an economist, I'm indifferent because my dollars lost are another's gain. The cost cancel's the benefit exactly. I still can't decide if that's an example of monopoly prices (you have to get this book and this company is the only one who has it. They can raise the price however high they want without losing business or lower the price and get even more customers to raise the price on.) or that textbooks actually DO cost quite a bit to make and the companies are trying not only to cover the costs but make a profit too.

Q

[flypie743]

Q,

Teachers should not have to work for free. How would they make a living? Everybody needs money when you get down to it to survive: food, shelter, clothing. I think they should be paid more because they ARE pointing kids in the right direction. I mean teachers are the ones who help kids to learn and get an educationn..one of the most important things in life. So, they should be paid more. I was just using the fact that athletes/actors/singers get paid a lot to show that teachers should get paid more for what they do.

[The_Q]

And I keep asking you what they do. Are they really pointing are kids in the right direction? Who are they to determine what's right? Is an education necessary and if so, what consists of a good education?

Of course teachers need to get some money, but I never said it couldn't come from other sources. Here's my plan that could get teachers more money.

Each school have a set of volunteer teachers that work every other day. The one's that are off can get a job somewhere at somewhere that can pay them more than the salary for teachers. This means 1)they'd have to be more qualified to get such high paying part time jobs and 2) because the standards are raised the number of teachers decreases. If you're a volunteer teacher it looks good on your resume for two reasons A) You're smart and qualified. B)You can handle many jobs at once and stay sane and moral.

I don't know if that made any sense but it should make better workers and higher salaries. The unfortunate effect is that we'd need our teacher supply to double(at least) before it would work. That would not only be hard to fix but it's also fighting the general purpose of the whole thing. I'll just ponder it some more.

Q

[flypie743]

Yes, they are pointing kids in the right direction. Without an education where would you be....you would have no job unless it was like a paper boy or something that took no skill and knowledge...and if it would be that kind of job you would have hardly any money and you would be lucky to be able to support yourself. A good education consists of knowledge that will help you in the world. And teachers do not necessarily determine what is right. The government decides what is in the curriculum. The reason most people do not want to teach is because of the low salary. And about your volunteer teacher plan...its a good idea besides the fact that...who would want to volunteer? You would have to juggle a lot of jobs at once and have hardly any time to do the things you like or sped time with your family.

[The_Q]

Did you know that the kids who get through college are the smartest ones? That's not because they learned much but because college is the final proving ground. They were, in my opinion, just as smart as they were when they were 4. All the economics you ever need to know is in the average 4 year old. Anything that really matters.

You also never answered my question. How do you know for sure more laws are good? How can more education be good?

The government may decide the required curicculum but teachers are the ones who add or remove from it what they will.

And the teacher plan is made to weed out the ineffective ones. It should still allow time to spend with family, maybe more so than before. It should also make many many students strive harder to get teacher jobs, which look great on resumes and they'd get better side jobs. It all supports itself up. The circle can't break to easily.

I'm too tired for anything else tonight. Just let me put the lime in the coconut and I'll call you in the mornin'

Q

[flypie743]

Ah crap I just wrote this huge response and bada bing with the slip of a finger it goes away. I'll respond tomorrow ...

[Anticrombie0909]

Re: school funds going down

school funds in ontario and quebec city are going down and are wasted on the canadian military i dont think its fair considering the fact that we have the united states beside us with a military three times the size and power. reply thanks.

I'm going to swerve completely off topic to point out how stupid this guy is.

So what you're saying is that since the US is the most powerful nation in the world, that Canada can simply...mooch off us? Are you that fucking lazy that you don't think your country deserves to protect its own borders, without having its big brother there to spoon feed it along the way? Mr. Patriotic over here is downgraded to Doctor Dumbass for posting before thinking things through, and for not realizing that he's actually just a lazy cretin.

[flypie743]

Q,
You say the kids that get through college are the smartest ones...but, how do they get through college? Going though elementary school, middle shcool, and high school. And who helps those kids get to college? Teachers. And how can you say that a college graduate is no smarter than they were at age 4? Could you write at age 4? No. Could you solve algebra equations? No. etc.

How can an education not be good? With an education you can get a good job that pays well, so you have enough to support a family. Without an education you wouldn't have as well of a job which means less money and less of the things that you need to survive: food, clothing, shelter, love is one of them, too, but money can't buy that XD. Also, without an education some people might just turn "bad" if you will and end up in prison.

About the curriculum, the teachers are not allowed to remove things from it. They have to cover everything that is in the curriculum. Sure they may teach things that are not in the curriculum, but they much teach everything that is in it.

Teacher plan: Who would actually want to do this? Be a volunteer teacher. Not many people want to be teachers right now because it is a low-paying job (hence my point from the beginning: teachers deserve to be paid more money) So, who would really want to volunteer to teach then have to juggle taking care of your family and another job along with the volunteer teacher job. And how would this volunteer job give you more time to spend with your family if you have to take on another job as well. That leaves little time for your family. Why would a volunteer job look so great on a resume? And why should students strive harder to be a volunteer teacher. They should strive to what they want to do. And if its a volunteer teacher then good for them, but I am saying there are few people who would want to volunteer to do this. And to weed out the ineffective ones? Well, the principal picks which teacher they want to teach. Some people apply and the teacher picks the best one. So, there are few ineffective teachers.

Looking forward to your response

[LostUserName]

1 I'd like to point out that perfect communism is the closest blueprint we have to a perfect government. The only reason it fails is because man kind isn't ready for a government like that. Frankly its a utopian goverment.

2 there are thousands and thousands of singers and atheletes out there that are playing for less than 30 grand a year. Ever hear of a starving artist? Plus our actors and our singers are expressions of ourselves, a thousands years from now some one might think, "I wonder what people were like a thousand years ago" and they would turn to wtch we are watching on tv today. True tv isnt "true life" but a lot of it is close. It give insight to the way we think now. If situatoin X occured then decisions B, D, and E were made from characters G and F to deal with situation X. Anyway, there are only a select few who make the "big bucks" where as there are hundreds of thousands of teachers.
Lets say we did take the actor's money and divide it up amongst teachers, how much of a raise are we talking about? Im thinking peanuts.

[LostUserName]

Anticrombie0909
I think that your reply makes me hate you. (I think its wrong to just insult people because you don't see their point of view)
Kadarak says that money is being taken away from schools and spent on the military (the military without these funds could still protect its own borders and btw the USA/Canadian border isnt patrolled by either US or canadian troops. cops yes but not military) all he is saying is that he rather see those funds back with the schools than with the military. I *think* (because he did not infact say why he thought it to be unfair that the US was right beside canada) he was only saying
"i dont think its fair considering the fact that we have the united states beside us with a military three times the size and power"
because the US is the one that started this whole "war on terror" and since canada's armed forces are so small, sending troops probably wont help out all that much so why even bother? Why bother wasting money on something like that why you could spent it on education? But thats just what I think Kadarak was trying to say, I could be wrong.

[The_Q]

Lost, I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I would like to point some things out but other than those few, and then I'll come to a nice little conclusion at the end. I don't know if it'll make sense, but I bet my English teacher will go through spasms of joy.

Yes, communism is perfect government. It fulfills all natural morals and makes everyone equal. Unfortunately, humans are not perfect. In the book Animal Farm, the main flaw of communism is shown to us in the last few lines "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." We have that covered.

The reason some actors are paid more is because they have more of what is wanted, looks and talent (In Hillary Duff and J.Lo's cases, looks). Because these certain actors are desired so much, the actors themselves can drive up a monopoly price on the soul fact that they are the only George Clooney or Clint Eastwood around. The other actors have yet to make their names known before they can push into this cycle. Starving artists are the ones who are unable to succeed properly in their business.

Flypie, you still haven't given me any reason to think that education is worthwhile. Other than to get more money, the entire point of education is moot. Even when it's for more money, the entire thing is about gaining luxury. I do enjoy my luxuries though, so I allow myself to "become educated", or go through the education system. In the education system I prove how I can solve problems and jump through hoops better than other people and therefore graduate to other levels where the competition becomes rougher. As I keep showing my worth, more attention is drawn to me. I can then get a job when I show how talented I have been. Depending on the grade of my performance I get a certain job. All education is just evaluating natural talent.

Should this be fixed? Not at all. Adam Smith says that specialization is the best tool to aid economic efficiency. I agree. When my parents got married they decided to share all the work equally and become "enlightened through marriage." Then they hit grad school. When the car busted down they came to a fix. My dad told my mom that he knew how to fix up cars, he'd been doing it since high school. He worked on the car every day as soon as he came home from work. Because he couldn't cook while working on the car, the responsibility fell onto my mom. Luckily, she had been cooking dinners since she turned 13. They fell into the most economicly efficient way of doing things. They still switch off their newfound chores every now and then, but that's another story called "marital bliss."

If you have one dumb kid and one smart kid, who do you send to school and who do you bequeth (give more money to when you die) the most to? I'd send my smart one to school. That way he makes more money than the dumb kid would if he went and the two evened out. The only reason I'd have the dumb kid go is so that he'd become less boring in conversation. The no child left behind policy is the same thing. If teacher keep spending more time on the dumb kids, the smart kids are held back because of opprotunity taken away to advance to "greater things" more quickly.

Thus, teachers are being paid to hurt our children. We're evening them out instead of letting a good chunk of them to fly off and make us money. If there's one thing that I disagree with it's progressive economics. Don't steal from the rich to give to the poor, then the rich won't be able to do more than compensate for the poor's problems.

The Teacher Plan: Even if someone did volunteer, I wouldn't let them teach. They wouldn't have enough direct incentive to try to do better work (if it CAN be better). To get more money you do more good work. If a volunteer doesn't have that incentive, they won't work as hard as a paid worker. I just did the whole argument for nothing, I guess.

Oh, and Canada most likely sent in it's military budget the same time they went to Iraq. This is the cause of the pulling of funds. The thinking on such an idea must have been something like progressive economics. The Education Dept. already has a lot. The Military should take some and even it out. No, it's fine how it is. You just need to make more money.

Q

[DracIV]

I disagree with your view on education; it has very little to do with natural talent and a great amount to do with developing skills and abilities. I've spent time to thoroughly analyze the education system, and I sent my kids to a private school for a reason, but it is still much better than you imply. The "No Child Left Behind" system may seem like holding kids back to you, but instead it is pulling the slow and lazy ones forward and leaving the door open for the smart ones. And it is a very obvious fact that education "levels up" a student's abilities, maturity, and awareness all throughout their education, as well as give a central social location that is supervised and safe. Although you think education is useless, you can't keep that afloat when you look at the large scale activities and occurances. It has been proven conclusively that living quality, technological development, and economic progress all increase as the quality of education increases, and that crime, laziness, drug use, and unemployment decrease as education increases. Education matters on a large scale as well as a small one, no matter what you think.

However, the military is equally or of greater importance than education. The military is when much of the cutting edge technology research occurs, and is a very reliable place to find work for all people. Besides defending the country and doing research, the military also does many large scale public works, improves upon many old and new things, creates a large economic driving force, and allows the creation and continuing of alliances and spawned trade routes. Not to mention fighting injustice and evil around the world when necessary.

Neither the military nor education are areas we (US or Canada) can afford to cut. It's the areas like bribes, under the table funding, stealing of money, and useless programs that we need to remove. To me personally, welfare is useless for the most part (as those people could join the military for easier jobs and better pay and actually contribute to society), and free medicine for the elderly is fairly useless after a point. Most major most wasters are the programs politicians use to get themselves elected- i.e. the main problem with politicians that's hard to avoid in a democracy.

[The_Q]

Several things you seemed to have not thought through, especially your statistics on how education lowers use of drugs, crime, etc.

Once upon a time, a very stupid man decided to become a city road planner. He designed the roads of cities to be as congested as possible so that more commerce could go on. He had observed all his life that congested areas are sprawling with economic activity. Unfortunately, the man soon found that his designs merely congested the streets without the added effect of abnormally plentiful economic activity. Why? He failed to realize that though two things happen together, that doesn't mean they are product or effect of each other. (More business build up where more potential customers and customers seem to flock to where the good businesses are nearest.) How would education effect any of the things you listed. Politicians are quite educated, and yet they still steal from our rich (progressive taxes). Is that not a crime? The "educated" steal opprotunities from the uneducated. Is that not a crime? Tenets are allowed to choose their landlord based on race or religion. Is that not a crime? Educated blacks ask for reparation on the counts of their ancestor's suffering from the decendents of the oppressors(who were just as oppressed as the blacks, if you ask me).

If you believe all of these things, would you care to explain them? I, personally, think it is your education that is conflicting with your common sense. You think the "No Child Left Behind" system brings the lazy ones forward. No, in most cases it holds the smart ones back. If the student is lazy, he or she won't even try to work. If the student is just plain dumb, you're redistributing opprotunity from the children who would obviously be more successful to the children who would turn out less succesful. If you had two children (this is a model), one smart and one dumb, which would you send to college and which would you bequeth more to? If you chose the dumb one, you are obviously flawed in your thinking. Give the smart child a chance to go to college. He's got a better chance of succeeding at greater things than your other child. Bequeth more to the dumb one, he'll need it later. Don't steal opprotunity from the deserving and give it to the undeserving.

Why would the smart child turn out successful? As I said, no teaching comes out of schools. What school is, in my eyes, is natural selection on steroids. The one born with the best abilities to adapt to the challenges ahead gets the biggest reward. The one who has the least abilities ends up just as happy, but with fewer luxuries. The smart child you sent to college made it through another round of elimination that proves him more worthy of a better job than others. The dumb child could end up not making it all the way through or with a horrible looking record. Both of which could send him, or any other living sane person, wailing home.

The lessons I learn from my school are mostly useless. Yes, retaining math and using english well are quite useful when persuading and counting money. I value those skills, but they were skills I was born with. I am naturally talented at math, so I can comprehend and apply those new skills easily. Odds are, I will never need to name all the different properties or theorums that they feed into me as well as most of the math itself. Why do I bother with it? To show my worth as an intelligent and valuable worker.

Now for government. It has been proven through pure math that the most hassle free, low risk form of democracy is actually a dictatorship. Pure math. Pure logic. Unless the Nobel Prize winning scientist flipped an integer somewhere, I can't see where he went wrong. I do agree that most of the programs should be cut. Old people who are retired are dead weight (I love my Grandma, but it's true.) and the medical programs should be cut. Campaigns to extend government policy should also have their budgets cut. I don't need to spend my money to be restricted to certain things. Oh, I'm off topic like a crazy man.

Anyway, Drac, until you show me your logic, I'll never believe you. I trust in your decision to send your children to a school you want them to go to. I've never had to decide that for anyone, even myself. I certainly would enjoy hearing your views on that as well.

Q

[themanwithsauce]

I have an idea to help all schools save costs and kill off the stupid in our species so we move forward in technology faster, only those kids who want to go to school will be able to go and they have to apply themselves and learn. Those who choose not to will be allowed, the consequence to this is that they will never survive in the real world and thus will be the end of their family line leaving only those who want to expand their mind. Even if learning/education is pointless its still human nature to try and be better and improve on whats already there. Thing is, how can we improve on what we don't know exists. There are so many students in our school systems wasting money to sit in class and be an ass that if we got rid of them before they even entered the school system there'd be more money for actual students.

About how celebrities can get by with little to no academics and make millions on "good looks". remember, they're providing entertainment for us so they are providing a service and some of those actors and singers lead quite a stressful life. Its easy to see why with the whole world watching their every move but if they can provide a service that millions of people will pay for then they get rich.

[The_Q]

Your plan would fail misrably within a year, by my guesses. What would happen if it becomes a fad to not go to school? All we have left are the people who don't fall for fads. You could say these are the kids who will do better in school because they're too smart to fall for something based entirly on vanity, but it also could be the slow kids. What happens when the smart kids excel too far for the teachers to handle and they decide school is no longer worth it?We've lost them too. Basically, the one problem is that we will ultimately end up with the morons as our country's leaders. Besides, even Einstein didn't like school. If we barred him from this opprotunity, what kind of technological advancements, what would have happend? Another thing, what makes technology good? This is just my opinion and I thought it through in less than five minutes. Point out flaws in it so I can improve upon it.

Oh, and what about those kids who act like asses until they find out that they love something. I just discovered economics this year and it's been the driving force in the way I live. I depend on it to pull me through difficult situations and make even simple decisions (should I wash out the plastic jug before I recycle it?) I didn't know I'd ever like it and basically dismissed it as math related hoohah. I've ALWAYS hated and dismissed math. Now it's all perfect logic.

Also, the fact that celebrities provide a widely appreciated service does not attribute to their wealth. Economists, police, bus drivers, teachers, and even cheap Mexican laborers also provide widely appreciated services. Why is it that actors and singers can do nothing seriously productive when the rest of the people do something that actually "matters" yet get paid more. There are fewer (not lesser. If they were lesser, it ruins the whole point.) actors and singers than talented economists, laborers, teachers etc. Another thing is that the most talented actors and singers are the most sought after. If a director wants Clint Eastwood in his movie, and no one but Clint Eastwood can do this part properly, Clint Eastwood can rack up his price as high as he wants. He has the monopoly price benefits. If we clone Clint Eastwood we could fix that problem.

So in short, the reason we pay our good looking but rather utterly useless professional liers and professional wailers so much is that we don't have enough of them that are really talented. -insert Jessica Simpson joke here-

Q