#trumpisyourpresident
Printable View
#trumpisyourpresident
WikiLeaks posted up the entire PDF of that dipshit book lol
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/950172955258032129
To what end?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?
Not sure how that analogy works unless you're advocating for separate bathrooms for ethnic groups.Quote:
It's not unlike the notion that men need all-male spaces, and women need all-female spaces.
Here's the actual study: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdfQuote:
(For future reference, I'm never interested in projections and interpretations. We're adults, let's just go to the source.)
So he's being very clear that diversity is very beneficial in the long term, but has some short term drawbacks. Unless you want to argue that the short term discomforts outweigh the long term benefits (much like exercising or eating carrots instead of twinkies,) I don't think this is a source you want to use to argue in favor of separatism.
@bold, no, he's not. Not at all. Not in any way, shape or form. He mentioned a few things that are correlated with immigration, not diversity, and showed no causation in his arguments on the supposed benefits. Moreover, he speculated on the long-term with no data or argument whatsoever while overwhelmingly confirming the disadvantages in the short-term (without defining how short of a term short-term actually is) based on causality, not correlation. He also completely debunked contact theory, which is the argument the pro-diversity crowd clings to.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Ah, I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
If you want to extend your argument that diversity has adverse economic effects in the long term, we can go there, but that's a slam dunk for me and pretty boring tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'd honestly rather not because I don't need diversity or immigration to be beneficial at all to argue against separatism. I'm more interested in this part:
Quote:
But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?
I'd start with the whyQuote:
But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?
As in, gimme a few proper non-xenophobic reasons as to why you'd want to make New York less diverse. It naturally went that way, now why would anyone want to reverse that?
Then we can proceed to the hypothetical how's
Good of you that you doQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
^^^^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I don't think there's a why, and I prefer an interesting argument over being right, so I'll throw all the bones I have until we can get to some substance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The funny part is that it's significantly harder to argue against actual racism - like the claim that black people are genetically predisposed to lower intelligence level, because that is backed up by tons of statistics and I'd have to go into lots of specifics as to why I think that that's a result of outside factors and not genetics.
The socio-economic benefits of immigration (the only reason I can see why you would insist that immigration is not directly tied to diversity is that you want to differentiate between skin colors - but that's no problem, we can do that. Makes no difference.) - those are so well documented that it would be exhaustingly mundane to argue.
Spoon you're literally strawmanning yourself here, buddy. Nobody here gives a shit about that douchebag.
Are we done? Do you wanna talk some race realism? But before that I'd like you to either answer or at least acknowledge the one question I've already posed twice.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-rahm-emanuel/Quote:
But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?
TBH Oskar, I'm not sure why your question of "how" is all that compelling. Gentrification is not a new concept. The playbook already exists. So, what's your point?Quote:
That we’re cutting off funding for schools, cutting off funding for police, allowing people to be forced to live in food deserts, closing hospitals, closing access to mental health facilities. What choice do people have but to move, to leave?” Mr. Kennedy asked.
“And I think that’s part of a strategic gentrification plan being implemented by the city of Chicago to push people of color out of the city,” he added. “The city is becoming smaller, and as it becomes smaller, it’s become whiter.”
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/07/opinio...lah/index.html
LOL CNN.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Trump takes the test, and passes. Would that stop the unending drumbeat of "trump is unfit", "Trump is dumb", "Trump is unstable", etc.?
Would all of the outspoken Trump critics take those results as a final conclusion to the debate about Trump's mental stability?
If not.....why would he take the test at all?
I'm curious what the documentation is.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
On the tax bill, what I see from economists who investigate it deeply is that they don't know whose taxes are changing nor to what rates, and they don't know what the distributional effects are. This is in spite of popular media and think tanks acting as if they do know.
The science we have to go on as of now is using models of the theories that include supply and demand, rational expectations, and the efficient market hypothesis, and interpreting the data through them. What this has told us so far is that the private sector probably thinks the tax bill will result in an increase in aggregate income.
Economists have done a poor job of communicating these two things. It is frustrating that popular publications and think tanks are not reliable sources of information regarding policy.
It's impossible to have a serious conversation with you. However, I will answer one question that you keep pressing on:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You make them want to relocate. You're making this so much more difficult and complicated than it is. You can probably figure out various ways to make someone want to relocate on your own. It does not require a showing of force. Instead, it just requires setting up incentives so that most people behave the way you want them to.Quote:
But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?
They have Door A, which is to stay. They have Door B, which is to relocate. You make Door B more attractive than Door A by enough of a margin that they walk through Door B. It's simple, and you want to make it complicated, which is why I have difficulty in talking to you on any serious level.
Get ya daily Thomas Sowell here
https://www.reddit.com/user/DailyThomasSowell
https://i.imgur.com/jgBYDMn.png
https://i.imgur.com/zd1CxkG.png
Sowell is one of my favorite people, among my favorite economists, and used to be a devout Marxist (like me!). But I don't think he's persuasive to anybody who doesn't already agree with him or who isn't open to new perspectives.
The same reason anyone ever tries to convince anyone of anything. There's no amount of evidence that will ever satisfy everyone, otherwise people wouldn't think the earth is flat or that a banana isn't a spoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Fuck you and your cowboy avatar, buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
What type of incentives and how do you fund them? I don't think I'm making this complicated. Moving people from their home is very complicated. Landlords sometimes have to pay out 6-figure sums to remove tenants from a rental when the house gets repurposed. You want to remove families from a city or a country, you bet it's going to be more expensive than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Again, you're making this much more complicated than it is. You're stuck on the idea of moving people instead of realizing that there's also the option of people moving themselves. Another way of framing it is that you're assuming that these people who would be moving do not want to move. Banana gave you one example in post #538.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This doesn't answer my question. The people who want Trump to take this test, are the same people who would never accept a passing grade as a punctuation mark on this debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
No amount of evidence will satisfy everyone.....that's true. But those people who will at least consider voting for Trump don't need more evidence. Taking this test, and generating evidence of his mental stability won't change the mind of his opponents, or his supporters. So why take the test.
That's the question. Why take the test?? What potential upside could there be?
Passed test with flying colors. Doctor said it was, like, the best passed test he's ever seen. Nobody passes tests like me, and no one has tests like the United States of America.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
CNN Next Day: Trump threatened nuclear war over superior American tests
It probably wouldn't be that far-fetched. A more likely headline is:Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
"Trump sanity-shames Europe and Mideast"
or
"Trump's frivolous obsession with sanity-test leads to weekend brag-storm on Twitter"
I'm just waiting for the CNN headline, "Trump oppresses losers by winning so much." You know it's coming. Will probably be in year six in his second term.
If you drive up the price of living, you are are targeting poor people of all ethnic groups. So, yes, this lowers diversity because on average black people in the US have lower economic standings. But you're also targeting poor white people. If you drive out poor people, you're going to see a net positive impact on quality of living in that area, but for one thing you are not targeting the underlying factors why these people have lower economic standings and arguably you are not solving the actual problem of poverty and rather just relocating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings.
My take on this is: let's say you take 100 novice poker players who are able to beat 100NL at 2bb/100. Start out 50 of them with a roll of 1k and 50 of them with a roll of $500. Which group would have a better chance of running their BR up to the point where they can beat variance?
I think this is a fair example because just a couple of generations ago people of color have been actively discriminated against in education and job opportunities, and while this gross injustice no longer exists, the effects of it still trickle down.
Build the wall. Deport them all.
We aren't trying to solve poverty in the problem you posed. We're trying to maximize the percentage of a particular ethnic group from a specific location as efficiently as possible. Stop moving the goal posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The number one factor to this question is the lack of the nuclear family. The number one predictor of basically every negative outcome in life is not having a present father. (Fun fact: Not having a present mother doesn't have nearly the same level of negative effects.)Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
If that is the effect of a policy, you are right. And I know that's what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm posting this as an add-on, because a frequent derivation of that concept is to do something like build "affordable housing." Here's Scott Sumner explaining how doing the opposite is what helps the poor. As usual, economic effects are counter-intuitive. Where building "unaffordable housing" might look like housing costs are increasing for the poor, it instead reduces the poor's housing costs.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...uld_focus.html
I also don't think you could say examples like gentrification in chicago are a valid model to lower diversity. You are only targeting the minority of the minority. Chicago will stay highly diverse despite these efforts.
You better stop with all of that economics and math and logic and shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Good thing no one cares about what you think in the MAGAposting thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
And wuf I'm not evading you. We can go back to the economic effects of immigration later, but I don't like arguing two points at once.
You can't meme steel beams.
That's fair. I think my point still stands that the method used is still highly ineffective - we're talking about a couple of percentile points, and you're not solving a problem that is caused by diversity and rather by poverty.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Why do you think black people are more likely to grow up without a father?Quote:
The number one factor to this question is the lack of the nuclear family. The number one predictor of basically every negative outcome in life is not having a present father. (Fun fact: Not having a present mother doesn't have nearly the same level of negative effects.)
I know of very few economists who touch this issue, and Thomas Sowell is one of the only who do. He claims that data show blacks had rising standards, and some standards even higher than whites, up until the wide adoption of welfare and similar policies like affirmative action. He accounts how black nuclear family rates survived slavery and Jim Crow and were higher than whites until they plummeted after welfare institution. He discusses how he grew up in a safe and prospering Harlem that today is destitute and crime-ridden.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I can probably source some interviews where he discusses these in more detail if you want.
Cool. Take your time. Really I just want to know your thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This actually isn't a debate. this question already has an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm not sure exactly what the number is, but US economics recognizes a level of income at which a person crosses "the poverty line". For simplicity, I'm going to refer to everyone below that line as "poor", and everyone above that line as "prosperous".
now here are the numbers.
90% of prosperous people share these three cultural traits.
1. They finished high school
2. They did not have a child before age 21.
3. They did not have their first child outside of marriage.
That's it. Do those three things, and you will not be poor. Conversely, 90 percent of poor people are missing one or more of those traits. So if black people are disproportionately poor. the answer probably lies somewhere on that list.
1. The high school graduation rate for black people is 69%. For white people, its' 86%
2. The teenage pregnancy rate among black people is 39 births per 1000. For white people, it's 19. LESS THAN HALF!!
3. 72% of black people are born to unwed mothers, compared to only 26% of white people. ALMOST A THIRD!!
You might say "but schools in black neighborhoods are bad..." FUCK YOU. This analysis makes no distinction for the quality of the school. Every child in America has access to public school. All they have to do is show up.
You might say "but fathers are absent because of racist policing, and mass-incarceration". FUCK YOU. Unless 70+% of black people are being conceived during conjugal visits, this is bullshit. If these guys are fucking....it means they're free men with the ability to work and provide for their family. If they shirk their parental responsibilities by engaging in highly risky illegal activities, that's simply called irresponsibility....not a symptom of white privilege.
So Lincoln freed the slaves 150 years ago, schools are open, and it's legal to buy condoms. Why are black people not prosperous?
It's pretty easy to see, as spoon pointed out, that an emphasis on education and a nuclear family would head off ALL of these problems. However, black culture seems to be rejecting that. I will bet a lung that more than two-thirds of black people who read this post would consider it racist.
But it's not racist. I'm just making a factual observation that black culture is broken.
1. Family failures are cyclical. Bad fathers breed bad fathers. Black fathers simply do not appreciate the impact of their absence since it's so common in their culture.
2. Black music, movies, and TV, are full of "thugs" and "pimps" who are glamorized. Drug dealing, street violence, and disrespect for women is actually GLORIFIED and this shit is fed to black kids all day every day.
3. Black leaders are not addressing the above two issues. Rather they decry any mention of them as racist. And as an alternate message, they are telling black citizens that the system is rigged against them. THIS DESTROYS MOTIVATION!! [Aside: Bernie Sanders is guilty of the same thing]. The Al Sharptons of the world have made a lucrative living making sure that black people grow up believing they will always be oppressed. Consequently, they don't try, and the self-fulfilling prophecy is complete
4. Black culture does not seem to emphasize education as much as other cultures do. Watch the NFL playoffs this weekend. Listen to the post-game interviews with black players. Listen to how bad their command of the english language is. And those guys are all college graduates! Imagine what theses guys would have to do with their lives if they weren't incredibly blessed with athletic talent.
I don't presume to know the root cause. However, a few relevant points:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
1. Black people are more likely to grow up without a father than people of any other race in the United States, even when compared across poverty demographics. This is important to show that it's not caused specifically by poverty.
2. Black culture celebrates the nuclear family less than any other culture in the United States.
3. Any black figure who tries to promote nuclear family values is openly made fun of by the majority of black people.
4. Abortion kills more black people than any other cause and at a higher rate per capita than any other race in the United States. This illustrates an overwhelming lack of responsible birth control use, which could obviously be a factor. The root cause of #4 here is likely some combination of education and culture.
This topic is actually related to why I support the voucher system for public schools. I think it's much better than just tying school funding to local property values and gives black communities a much better chance at increasing the quality of their K-12 education.
Edit: Obligatory that's raaaacist.
This used to be reversed. Blacks used to have higher marriage rates. That was during the lives of our grandparents and back when Harlem was not a ghetto.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Related: Sheriff David Clarke:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3Gh75MUMAAzrBv.jpg
^^ Sheriff is my dream 2024 candidate. He's got a head on his shoulders and one of the few to ever publicly stand up to bullshit and do so with charisma. He's not gonna run for office though, that's why only dream candidate.
The problem with all of this, is that it's SOOOO easy for the Obama's and Sharptons, and Oprah's of the world to point to those poverty statistics and conjure up this specter of "white privilege". That's EASY VOTES.
It's an unimpressive political machination to motivate black populations to vote based on issues related to income inequality.
So the Sharptons of the world have this massive, far-reaching, and influential platform that they use constantly.
Meanwhile, the actual changes required to make black culture competitive economically are terribly terribly slow.
Whenever a black man decides to break the cycle, and defy the example set by his absent-father, that's one less bloodline that's doomed to the cycle. But that's hardly a force to compete with a political propaganda machine like The Democratic Party.
So think about that. Think about how long it's going to take to change the culture of an entire race of people, one family bloodline at a time. You essentially need a man to organically conjure up a compulsion to divert his culture toward something that is wholly unnatural and foreign to him. And then pass that example on to his offspring who are simultaneously growing up in a world where they are bombarded with progressive social-justice themed media.
And then multiply that times every black family in America.
How do you make that happen?
Yep. And that's why the Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor and dependent on the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm reminded of when Obama was elected and KRS-One kept trying to tell people that just because they put a black face on it doesn't mean they (either political party) want to help you. I'm not saying he necessarily gets it, but he faced a big backlash from that. He was also a fan of Ron Paul. /random
There is an oppressor of that particular group, but they're misled on what it is.
In a big way I think the black association with Democrats has to do with geography. Whites (or any other ethnic group) that live in the same type of circumstances are heavily Democrat. Our urban/rural divide statistics only captures the effect in a small way IMO. I might argue that the power behind the destructive components of black culture is geography.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That said, what is the way out of this mess? I think it's a long and hard fought battle, but it comes by a long-lasting economic boom. Working and making money has the curious effect of making people feel like they are responsible and that they would like to keep more of what they worked for. Increasing that will probably decrease the Democrat support among blacks.
Then the question is basically what the Fed will do. As the money monopolist, they essentially control aggregate demand. If they keep their act together, we'll have a boom for a very long time. If they don't, we'll get a repeat of 2008.
In a different vein, the challenge for the GOP is figuring out how to make its long-lasting support of civil rights persuasive since charlatans like Sharpton have been so effective that persuading otherwise.
"Trump makes medical staff unemployable" is how the MSM would report "Trump cures cancer."
"Blumpf forces hardworking nurses into poverty".
Has this ever been more relevant?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1yIn308LwQ
lol
Trump getting cheered like a motherfucker at the college football championship game. Shitting on the NFL big time.
Did you know that the leading cause of drowning is ice cream?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Are you suggesting that I've got my facts wrong??Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Well......you'd be right. Corrections in bold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgu1D_sdTCgQuote:
92% of prosperous people share these three cultural traits.
1. They finished high school
2. They did not have a child before age 20.
3. They did not have their first child outside of marriage.
That's it. Do those three things, and you will not be poor.
But but but mah causation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You'll never convince me that this isn't the most compelling, complete, conclusive, and cogent analysis of disproportionate poverty among black populations. You'll never convince me that racism, biased policing, or white privilege are the reasons that black people are less prosperous.
To me it's clear. Go to school, wear a rubber, and you'll be FINE regardless of what color your skin is.
This is the only issue I have with your points. Their schools are super fucked up, largely because of the way funding is distributed via property taxes. Voucher system ftw.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So???Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Again, this analysis makes no distinction for the quality of school systems. Furthermore, I doubt very very much that that the 30+% of black kids that drop out of high school cite "underfunding" as the reason.
When you apply for a job, the application will ask you what is the highest level of education that you've completed. If you have completed any level of education, at the very least it's a testament to your ability to show up regularly and successfully complete rudimentary tasks. If you haven't completed any level of education, it suggests a lack of commitment and drive.
Employers really don't care if you mastered trigonometry. They don't care if you can recall the circumstances surrounding the War of 1812. They don't care if you know who Aaron Burr is. They care about reliability and work ethic. A diploma is evidence that you have those things. Not having a diploma is evidence that you don't.
I'm not saying that underfunding schools in minority areas is not a problem. It is. But it's a LOOOOOOONG way from explaining why a group that represents 13% of the population is responsible for 50% of the murders and robberies in this country.
Furthermore....I disagree with the premise that school funding directly correlates to the quality of education received. I'm sure it has some impact, but it's hardly a compelling factor when you consider the effect of a family dynamic that emphasizes education.
My kids get good grades. Is that because they're white? Is it because they go to school at a place with sufficient funding and favorable rankings? Or.....is it because their father makes an effort to take an active role in their education? Would my kids be as academically successful if I weren't keeping track of what's being taught, reinforcing the lessons with additional discussion, engaging actively in their homework, and motivating them to invest effort in their school work?
By the same token, I wholeheartedly believe that if my kids went to some shitty, ramshackle, inner city school that it would hardly make a difference in their long-term success. I believe education is 90% in the home.
Here's a fun question.....
Wolff's book alleges that Trump didn't want to win the election.
But if he was intent on losing, what in the world would ever motivate him to collude with the Russians?
I agree with this in general, especially the bold, and I'm not disputing your general point. However, there are key skills, especially literacy, that even high school graduates often don't have when they come out of these schools. In areas with low property values, regardless of the race composition, literacy levels are lower among high school graduates.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It might be worth pointing out that this is mostly me bitching about teacher's unions not wanting to use the voucher system.
I'm not saying that funding for those schools is the only factor, and I definitely think the responsibility overall falls on the parents. However, the kids don't get to choose whether they have a father around or if their mom gives a shit about them for more than a monthly check. If they have shitty schools on top of that, there's virtually no way for a majority of them to come out of that with skills needed to be reliable workers.
A kid at 10 years old who can't read is most likely not going to be able to read by the time he turns 18, and the number one reason given for dropping out of high school in low-income areas is that the kids can't do worth a shit in school, and they feel like it's pointless. I'm not worried about 16-year-olds who make a conscious choice to be a piece of shit when they have other legitimate options. I'm talking about the 10-year-old who can't read with no parent or teacher or other mentor figure who gives enough of a shit about them to guide them in the right direction. That kid is fucked, and that's a huge percentage of kids in these situations. Then their kids are going to be fucked, and it'll just keep going and going.
Social promotion has a lot to do with this too. They promote kids along to the next grade regardless of if they fail or not because they don't have the resources to hold back so many kids into the lower grades. They'll use stupid ass excuses for doing it like it would embarrass the kid to be held back or some shit like that, but they really just don't have the money or the teachers to make it work. It's stupid as fuck, but they keep doing it because they can and because they don't have incentives not to.
The lack of a father in the home is the number one predictor that a kid will end up in jail or prison in his lifetime. Nothing's going to change that. However, increasing the quality of education available outside of the home decreases the chances of the same, even among children without a father. The voucher system is better than the current property values-based system because it provides a higher level of free market incentives for schools to perform better. It's not perfect, but it's much better than the current system based purely on local property taxes while costing about the same amount (not taking into account future tax savings from having lower rates of illiteracy, crime, etc.)
Yeah but oskar said:Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Do you openly embrace fanaticism, or is it something you do by mistake?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
(I'm legitimately curious.)
You're not wrong. But my original response stands...
So?????
While this is true, do you really think that better school funding is going to un-fuck that kid??Quote:
I'm talking about the 10-year-old who can't read with no parent or teacher or other mentor figure who gives enough of a shit about them to guide them in the right direction. That kid is fucked,
There is surely a black kid being born right this very second, less than a day old, who is already FUCKED FOR LIFE! His dad won't be around. His mom will be hooked on drugs. Good school or not, without that parental motivation, he's unlikely to gain a useful command of the english language. He'll be growing up in a neighborhood full of street crime, violence, and drugs. He'll be exposed to gangs. Every media source he comes into contact with will be telling him how cool it is to be a thug and how badass it is to treat women like garbage. His role models will be telling him that the system is rigged, and he shouldn't bother trying.
THAT KID IS FUCKED. FOREVER. And he's only 5 seconds old.
You can't un-fuck that kid. You can't do ANYTHING legislatively that is going to bring about the kind of changes required to put kids like this on the right track. These kids are absolutely lost causes. Trying to fix unfixable problems is just an exercise in stupidity.
The best thing we can do for that kid, is try to make it so he's never born in the first place.
I think you're overstepping here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Cold, unbiased, provable, repeatable, irrefutable facts are compelling to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Do physicists feel differently?
I agree with your general sentiment that the kid is going to have an uphill battle, to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
However, if what you're arguing (that there is 0 chance) was strictly true, then there would be a 0 percent success rate for those kids. There's not.
Additionally, I'm not talking about more school funding. I'm talking about changing how the distribution of funding is determined by using free market principles. It's a freeroll.
Massively hyperbolic understatement. I prefer the term "hopelessly fucked for life". I think that's far far more accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It's close enough to 0. I believe any evidence of a non-zero success rate is anecdotal. I'm also having a hard time envisioning how government would be driving any of these success stories.Quote:
However, if what you're arguing (that there is 0 chance) was strictly true, then there would be a 0 percent success rate for those kids. There's not.
Neither am I. I said "better funding", not "more".Quote:
Additionally, I'm not talking about more school funding.
The free market says that a meritocracy should exist where people who are successful in keeping their community property values high through enhanced school programs, low crime rates, investment in business, increased amenities, and decreased pollution are entitled to the benefits of that success.Quote:
I'm talking about changing how the distribution of funding is determined by using free market principles. It's a freeroll.
It's not a freeroll to those people if the government takes their money and then gives it to other communities where people don't care about crime, where they don't invest in business, where they don't take care of their land, and where they openly shirk any sense of personal responsibility.
There's a term for that and it's not "freeroll". It's actually called taxation without representation.
And if you want to talk about redistributing education money, let's talk about teachers.
The average teacher in Chicago makes almost $80k per year, plus health, dental, and pension. This in exchange for working a job with every weekend off and six months vacation time.
And if you google "dropout rate Chicago", you'll lots of articles touting the city's recent PRIDE over raising the graduation rate to 73 percent. That number is also BS cause it's a "5-year graduation rate". Meaning that the REAL graduation rate is actually lower. Looks to me like these extremely highly compensated, but apparently low-skilled employees can't even hit a 2/3 success rate.
I'm not sure if you understand how the voucher system works and how it doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Under the current system, a low-income parent is forced to send his or her child to school X. They have no choice. The representative funding for that child is given to that school directly from the government regardless of how that school performs. There is no incentive for the school to perform well.
Under a voucher system, a low-income parent gets to decide to send the child to school X, Y or Z. They do have a choice. The representative funding for that child goes to the school that is chosen. This provides incentives for the schools to perform well to be competitive. Otherwise, they're out of jobs.
This also creates an upward pressure in public education in general, which currently doesn't exist.
Sure. I hear you. That money is guaranteed no matter if they suck or if they don't because parents don't get a choice. They have to send their kid to school X, and school X gets the funding. Unions don't exactly help the situation (gee, wonder why they're so against a voucher system and want to maintain the status quo), and teachers get blown-up compensation that does not reflect their performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The voucher system introduces an element that ties pay to performance that does not exist under the current system. Your complaints in the quote above are exactly why something needs to change. They're getting paid to not do their fucking jobs.
Don't even get me started on unions in general, but why a teacher's union exists is completely fucking beyond me.
It's a nice dream, but there are so many "what if's" and "yeah buts" that I just don't see it being viable except in maybe a few locales.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I have a sister, sister-in-law, and a brother-in-law who are all teachers. They all tell me that they joined the union because the cost is minimal, and they will have your back if you get sued. Apparently it's common enough for kids to turn molehills into mountains, or for over-zealous parents to claim some kind of professional malpractice that it's definitely +EV to join the Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Of course it's +EV to join the teacher's union, or they wouldn't do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Those fucks in Chicago didn't get all that money for not doing their jobs for nothing.
For example, how would vouchers help this situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarem..._New_Hampshire
You're probably not familiar with the geography of Claremont, but it's WAAAAAAY the fuck out there, accessible by only secondary roads, surrounded by sprawling rural-ness.
Their school blows. If you gave a parent in Claremont a voucher, what would he do with it?? Is he gonna commute to Newport to drop off and pick up his kid from school? How do we know that this school in Newport even has room for Claremont kids? Sure, you're saying "the voucher pays for the additional capacity". To a point that's true. But kids still have volume. They take up space. Eventually a school building will need to expand if enough kids come from out of town. School overhead increases....now your voucher money doesn't go as far. Who pays the difference??
Are you gonna go back to the town of Claremont and ask them for the money? How could they pay it if they can't even afford to take care of their own school?? Does Newport pick up the bill? How is that fair? They were doing fine until all this Claremont trash came into town.
And what if Newport high sucks too?? (it does). Are claremont families gonna commute even farther cause there is a better school in Keene?? Do they really care when ultimately a high school diploma is totally generic anyway? When was the last time someone asked what high school you went to as a measure of your academic credibility? Isn't it more likely that most of the Claremont families would just spend their vouchers on the school that's most convenient?
So that puts us right back where we started. How does a voucher solve this problem?