It's simple: If the wages are not high enough and growing fast enough, then the economy is destabilized by lack of purchasing power. So instead of steady growth, there is boom and bust.
Stupid In America
- Thread starter Cryptic_Snow
- Start date
It's simple: If the wages are not high enough and growing fast enough, then the economy is destabilized by lack of purchasing power. So instead of steady growth, there is boom and bust.
MisterCooper has it backwards, I'd say.
Yes, labor is too weak. And when I say 'labor' I mean all labor other than executives whose decisions have a direct bearing on the economic success of the company.
So middle managers, according to me, are labor. Secretaries, interns, IT, marketeers, HR - all of these positions are staffed with Labor. The select few who aren't are Officers, Member of the Board, Cxx's, and that's about it.
The way the regulations stand in the US, share price must be maximized every quarter. This is stupid. It maximizes short-term profits at the expense of medium-to-long-term stable growth.
But even that's a canard. It is a physical impossibility that growth can continue forever. Even 2% growth will devour all the resources on the planet within something like 1000 years (I suspect I'm being generous here).
So whether we call Labor weak, or incentives perverse, the end result is the same: extract as much profit from the business of the company as possible in the shortest amount of time. Those profits will likely be reinvested in other companies, wash rinse & repeat.
End result is the 99% of people not earning an income from the stock market and investments have a smaller and smaller piece of the economic pie to fight over.
This, I believe, is a fool-proof recipe for oligarchic tyranny.
So let's illuminate the flaw in my argument
Yes, labor is too weak. And when I say 'labor' I mean all labor other than executives whose decisions have a direct bearing on the economic success of the company.
So middle managers, according to me, are labor. Secretaries, interns, IT, marketeers, HR - all of these positions are staffed with Labor. The select few who aren't are Officers, Member of the Board, Cxx's, and that's about it.
The way the regulations stand in the US, share price must be maximized every quarter. This is stupid. It maximizes short-term profits at the expense of medium-to-long-term stable growth.
But even that's a canard. It is a physical impossibility that growth can continue forever. Even 2% growth will devour all the resources on the planet within something like 1000 years (I suspect I'm being generous here).
So whether we call Labor weak, or incentives perverse, the end result is the same: extract as much profit from the business of the company as possible in the shortest amount of time. Those profits will likely be reinvested in other companies, wash rinse & repeat.
End result is the 99% of people not earning an income from the stock market and investments have a smaller and smaller piece of the economic pie to fight over.
This, I believe, is a fool-proof recipe for oligarchic tyranny.
So let's illuminate the flaw in my argument
Cryptic_Snow
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 435
Teaching, but I got out, I have a science degree and can earn more in the medical field. Working in education, especially the teaching side of the equation, feels like you're pushing against string. I might feel otherwise if I was an administrator with a six-figure salary.
Yes, the horrible salary was one of the major reasons I got out of teaching as well. I made more money in my first year of recruiting than I would with 3 years of teaching service....and thats without working the 60+ hours a week I spent teaching. You'll never get the teachers you need without paying competitive salaries, but that, of course, requires money.
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
What do you mean? Are you denying the universal right to free education?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Is that not the evolutionary outcome of education?
How can I deny a step in the process? Much less the outcome of the process? I am not denying anything, just putting forth a preposition.
One can be offered free education. One cannot be forced to learn.
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
Whether they want to learn or not, a good public education is always beneficial, if not for their job, then at least for their minds. Everybody deserves a good education.
Have you any opinion as to how some countries manage to do it?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Some people see the need for education as greater than the need for money? I am not saying that is why downtown came to a similiar conclusion.
I was in a good paying job and lost it. It is hard to think of going back to square one, or waiting for another "great" opportunity to come along. I would just be happy to have a job that did not make you feel constricted or worthless. I think that teaching is probably under paid and it takes someone to realize they are helping to form the next generation of workers and thinkers.
Of course the all illusive mammon and the things that it can buy tends to push people into areas where people like to spend and make money as opposed to form future brains.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Link to video.
Well one problem I had in school is that fact that so often you are put in classes where there is a massive difference in learning abilities that those who were higher up, like me were often found bored during class since we easily did most of the work in class with time to mess around. It meant that as a result I got into bad habits and thus did not really learn as much as I could have. The current system is just far too rigid and puts everyone into neat little boxes and not as individuals.
Link to video.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Do you have any clue how ridiculous you sound when you write such nonsense?
Absolutely insane.
Here's my thing, in the USA, throwing more money at it isn't the issue. There are tons of "poor" school districts that get tons of federal money, etc, and end up having higher per student dollar amounts.
What's the solution then? Hell if I know.
Here's something that I do know... like in many other areas, the US spends more, and gets less in return. Why?
Also, I know this much, I really don't believe kids are getting genetically dumber, so it must be the system that is failing us...
I don't have the answers on how to repair it.
Yup. It isn't really rocket science. Other countries get bigger bang for their buck because:
1) They do not deal with the same systemic poverty that the US has.
2) They have a welfare state that takes care of some of the obligations that are placed on US schools
3) They do not have the same language instruction difficulties that we do, by virtue of having a very diverse population
4) Teaching is a selective and respected profession, with high degrees of professional autonomy in many other countries. This is NOT the case in the US.
5) Other countries have a more stable revenue stream for schools.
6) Our most wealthy and connected families bail on our school systems.
I see. That makes a lot of sense, and does not sounds very easy to fix
[EDIT] Except perhaps 4 and 5. If the "throwing money at it" included more pay and training for teachers do you think that would help? What about just having more of them, that is what people are on about a lot here.
The other thing that occurs to me is which of these does the UK have, as I suspect we are getting less bang for our buck than many other countries in Europe. I guess by 2 you mostly mean a national health service? we have on of those. Other than that, in many areas we have a fairly diverse language distribution, frequently significant poverty levels (I do not know how this compares to the US, I would imagine it is similar), many wealthy people using private schools. I THINK teaching is a fairly respected profession, though not that well paid.
I see. That makes a lot of sense, and does not sounds very easy to fix
[EDIT] Except perhaps 4 and 5. If the "throwing money at it" included more pay and training for teachers do you think that would help? What about just having more of them, that is what people are on about a lot here.
The other think that occurs to me is which of these does the UK have, as I suspect we are getting less bang for our buck than many other countries in Europe. I guess by 2 you mostly mean a national health service? we have on of those. Other than that, in many areas we have a fairly diverse language distribution, frequently significant poverty levels (I do not know how this compares to the US, I would imagine it is similar), many wealthy people using private schools. I THINK teaching is a fairly respected profession, though not that well paid.
I don't think it would be as simple as just throwing money at salaries. I think we have to look long and hard at the requirements for entering the teaching profession, and how one progresses through it.
In the US, virtually everybody is required to have a teaching license. You typically get this by getting an undergraduate teaching degree, and then most states have a classroom hours or other coursework requirement. Most states eventually require you to get a Masters degree. These licenses are expensive, and very few opportunities exist to enter the profession without one (these are typically also reserved for fairly elite candidates, like Teach for America, which I participated in). Studies have shown little to no correlation between teaching success and those licenses though, which leads credence to the idea that we really don't know how to teach teachers very well.
Once you're in the system, your pay either goes up by seniority, or with "merit pay bonuses", typically based on test score performance. Multiple studies have shown that merit pay has failed to boost student achievement, and frustration with the seniority scale pay grade tends to suck the better teachers out of the system and back into industry (where they can make more money). The more "meh" teachers tend to stay for 40 years.
Increasing salary would help, but to be honest, inner city teaching just sucks as a job. I would have quit even if I got a 10,000 raise. I would have to make a LOT of money to stay. I think you'd have better luck if you focused those investments on not just salary, but on initial training and teacher quality of life.
I can verify much of what you say here for the New York City system, at least, of all 5 of my friends that went through the Teaching Fellows program, not a single one stayed on teaching after 5 years. 1 still is teaching, but she didn't go through the program. Clearly, offering a free Master's isn't drawing dedicated young teachers to the NYCDOE.
Education is one area where I wish Democrats would really start hammering Republicans about having 'skin in the game'.
Of course, I'm sure private school attendance doesn't correlate with political party.
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
I used to respect John Stossel when he appeared on 20/20, because he exposed myths with facts, evidence, and science, but since his betrayal to Fox "News" and his conversion to libertarianism, I have lost that respect. His segments now are just right-wing propaganda. Yeah, sure, education is bad because of lack of competition. What country do you know where education is not primarily the responsibility of the state?
