Stimulus Package Created Mostly Teaching Jobs
November 4th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.The best symbol of the $787 billion federal stimulus program turns out not to be a construction worker in a hard hat, but rather a classroom teacher saved from a layoff.
That's the latest news from the employment front. It seems that, of the over 600,000 jobs saved or created by the federal stimulus spending so far, over half have been in the field of education. For reasons this article explains, the figures are not entirely reliable, but the gist is correct (New York Times, 10/30/09). Obama's stimulus plan has so far benefited teachers and school administrators far more than anyone else.
Months ago, feminists were exultant that they had been able to convince the Obama administration to direct 42% of stimulus spending toward jobs held mostly by women despite the fact that some 80% of job losses had been incurred in male-dominated industries like construction and manufacturing. Now, apparently because of a time lag in actually spending stimulus money on construction, the lion's share of job creation has occurred in the female-dominated field of education. Some 89% of primary-school and 62% of secondary-school teachers in the United States are women.
Of course no one objects to job creation or retention in education. But in purely economic terms, service-sector jobs like education do little to create what Marx called surplus value. Construction and manufacturing do a lot to create surplus value. And it's surplus value that creates the standard of living to which we've become accustomed in the U.S. Stated another way, an economy that creates surplus value can then redistribute that wealth to those, like teachers, writers, musicians, doctors, etc., who don't create it themselves. If everyone in an economy were a teacher, economic activity would be a zero-sum game of swapping finite money among people. Surplus value expands the pie.
So while there's certainly nothing wrong with paying teachers, it doesn't contribute much to expanding surplus value. And that's what we need to do to get the economy rolling again. Any sensible stimulus program would concentrate on manufacturing and construction and activities related to them. That would expand the economy and everyone would benefit. So far we haven't done that.
As Monty Python says in The Meaning of Life, "I expect they'll get to that in the next bit."
"));
19 queries. 0.666 seconds.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
I don't begrudge a single of those teaching jobs. (I have two kids in school.)
For "Surplus value" reasons, I begrudge far more the increased government jobs, as though it's a good thing to shift commercial jobs into the government sector, or as though creating jobs for paper pushing creates surplus value.
I also begrudge the appalling number of pothole filling vs. bridge repair vs. bridge building jobs.
For example, at the same time that we needed the stimulus, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act came into effect which closed down many private and public pools until they could make child safe pool enhancements. At my apartment complex, that resulted in three pools being scraped out of the ground and repaired and reconcreted. Very expensive and I know that several public pools and I suspect many apartment pools were just closed.
Instead of filling potholes, how wonderful would it have been to just take on the costs of all those pool repair projects.
In the long run, I find it laughable that as manufacturing jobs continue to be destroyed, we are apparently all going to end up working in jobs that can't be offshored, which apparently means everyone gets a job in health care, in teaching, or at WalMart.
Are they economists and politicians that really think that can work?
November 4th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Until we organize, male disposability will continue to dominate.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
No Country for Burly Men by Christina Hoff Sommers .. Well I guess it worked huh?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?pg=1
November 4th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
The Obama assertion that his administration is responsible for stemming the recession is simply ludicrous.
For the men here: he is beholden to feminism, and any man interested in men's rights issues -- even if that man is black, Jewish, or Hispanic -- is doing the movement a disservice by backing him just because he's a member of the Democrat party. The GOP is just as bad or worse on some issues, but it is the lesser of two evils.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Marc A. said...
Lest anybody have any doubts regarding this disposability one only needs to consider the ramifications of the Womens Nation report, the US economic stimulus(no burly men please) package and the WEF Global Gender Gap Report.
The western incapacity for compassion toward any male is being applied on a global scale with greater frequency. The only thing I wonder is whether the west will last long enough to ensure it's disdain for men and boys is successfully infected upon the rest of the world.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Oh stop whinning... All you guys are trying to do is seek eternal victim status for men...
November 4th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
"That would expand the economy and everyone would benefit. So far we haven't done that. "
Why is Robert Franklin reading Marx? or even thinking of mystical concepts like "surplus value"? I love the borrowed terms from the physical sciences like "expand", "rolling", "flowing" etc... that people just keep using (most without even thinking about it)!
Show of hands... Was anyone thinking the "stimulus" was supposed to benefit "everyone"?
November 4th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
gwallan,
Don't kid yourself. Men always have and always will be the disposable sex. Its no fault of the "west".
There exists even less compassion for men in the east - they are just more honest about it. It is only different that the western male has contributed to (and continues to contribute to) his own troubles and that of his future generations of men through political institutionalization of chivalry aka female privilege and misandry aka feminism.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:19 am
A positive side could be that this will result in more men in education and increase the diversity of views children encounter in their education.
I also have to disagree with the general notion that spending on education is bad for the economy. A strong economy needs more knowledge and understanding as much as it needs more buildings and infrastructure.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:52 am
jerry Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
I don't begrudge a single of those teaching jobs. (I have two kids in school.)
You should jerry... because it is all right here for you in black and white... And those teaching jobs were obtained and saved in a Dastardly way and it is WRONG do you understand that...
No Country for Burly Men by Christina Hoff Sommers .. Well I guess it worked huh?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?pg=1
November 5th, 2009 at 7:08 am
I have only seen evidence of two jobs created by Obama's stimulus mess: One for the woman that makes big green signs that say "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" and another for the woman that puts up those signs. They seem to stay very busy...
November 5th, 2009 at 7:09 am
The gender feminist "No Burly Men package"..is symbolic of the selfish and myopic mentality of the gender feminist think tanks. They really don't have a clue that if the backbone of America remains broken or un-fixed..then the body crumbles.
It is encouraging to see some resistance to the "pork-o-crat" rule in washington,
November 5th, 2009 at 7:13 am
So let me see if I understand this correctly.
Since women dominate in the business of education. Right? That means WOMEN got/get the stimulus package, NOT men. This is consistent with all the other perks and advantages women enjoy while men are walked on like dirt.
Did men ever do anything to cause civilization to rise productively to where it is? Or were men always the epitome of worthlessness in society for women and spineless men to walk all over?
The more I think about it, the more I believe and realize this is men's fault for allowing control to slip into the hands of unscrupulous women. I think we fell asleep at the switches and have been hijacked by women for ulterior motives. Now we will need to fight for what once was ours. Men's rights, freedoms and dignity that in today’s world does not exists, no matter how we pretend there is equality. For men there is NONE. It’s just a figment of our delusional imagination!
Attila
November 5th, 2009 at 8:00 am
the question was put to the school supers "was a job saved or created" by stimulus. that was it. just two answers. total clap trap. buyoffs for the unions. pierre is so right.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:00 am
But in purely economic terms, service-sector jobs like education do little to create what Marx called surplus value. Construction and manufacturing do a lot to create surplus value. And it's surplus value that creates the standard of living to which we've become accustomed in the U.S.
I usually love your articles Robert, and you do an all around great job. But as an undergrad in Finance and Applied Economics who is about to graduate I must tell you that your economic analysis is wrong.
Teachers create human capital which is just as important to an efficient and productive economy as physical capital such as roads, bridges, and telecommunications link. You could argue that we are already over invested in primary education, and additional investment won't yield a large amount of marginal gains. And I would suspect that that argument might have some merit; although I haven't had a chance to look at the empirical data. You could also argue that the money spent for the stimulus project could have more effectively been used if it would have been targeted to repair our aging infrastructure. Something that we'll have to pay to do soon anyway, and would have given most of the people currently out of work jobs. But to suggest that putting more money into education; whether though the private sector or public sector, won't improve the performance of our economy is simply incorrect.
...that's what we need to do to get the economy rolling again. Any sensible stimulus program would concentrate on manufacturing and construction and activities related to them. That would expand the economy and everyone would benefit. So far we haven't done that.
Our economy is not growing because of a deficiency of aggregate demand. You fix that by implementing fiscal and monetary policies to increase Aggregate Demand and close the recessionary GDP gap. As far as getting the economy back to it's natural rate of output there should be no difference between targeting that stimulus at teaching instead of construction. But unemployment is a different story. Obviously if people who are out of work are construction workers, and people in manufacturing; then, it makes sense to target the stimulus at those individuals to put them back to work and reduce unemployment. It makes even more sense when you consider Americas aging infrastructure, and the fact that we'll need to spend the money to repair it soon anyway.
In any case thank you Robert for all if the effort you put in, and I hope to see many more articles from you in the future. :)
November 5th, 2009 at 9:27 am
"So while there's certainly nothing wrong with paying teachers, it doesn't contribute much to expanding surplus value. And that's what we need to do to get the economy rolling again. Any sensible stimulus program would concentrate on manufacturing and construction and activities related to them. That would expand the economy and everyone would benefit. So far we haven't done that. "
This is bang on Robert!
We need to build "infrastructure" not "infra-failure!"
What did Herbert Hoover do? He had the Hoover dam built to stimulate the stagnant economy. That was smart spending on infrastructure that seriously benefits people even today!!!
Now if only leaders of today would learn to actually lead in manner that is beneficial and fiscally responsible. I believe we have too many options including the option to rape our resources until it fails!!! Herbert Hoover did not have such luxuries and therefore had to be a lot more frugal with spending money. There was no room for error!
We had our first big warning that our economy and economic infrastructure is seriously in big trouble! We may not survive another economical blunder! Next time we may need to use paddles as the "stimulus package" to “stimulate” the heart as our demise will be immanent!
Attila
November 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Mike Hunter - Thanks for the good comment. The last PhD economist I talked to literally didn't know the term "aggregate demand." I'm glad you do.
I didn't mean to suggest that teachers play no part in creating surplus value. As you say, they improve the human capital which is required to create surplus value. My only point is that their impact is much more attenuated than those who actually build buildings, automobiles, etc. The amount of surplus value obtained for every dollar paid a teacher is far less than what's obtained for a dollar paid an autoworker.
As to aggregate demand, I couldn't agree more. For years seemingly every decision by economic policy makers in this country has had the effect of decreasing aggregate demand in this country. How it is that they believe that they can do that and at the same time maintain living standards in this country is beyond me. It's also beyond Joseph Stiglitz.
But a great deal of enhancing aggregate demand is redistribution of surplus value downward via taxation and spending policies. Therefore, the greater the surplus value created the greater the opportunity to redistribute same. And the way to do that most directly is through jobs that have an immediate impact. I'm not criticizing teaching or nursing or other service sector jobs, but they take much longer to have an economic impact. At least that's my understanding.
Thanks for your comment.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:49 am
F the teachers!
The education industry parallel's the Medical industry in an interesting way. Arguments for nationalizing both industries are similar: There needs to be a safety net for the poor and to improve qualiity and cost.
At least with education, we know that to be total balderdash!
The poor wound up shuffled into dangerous schools that, while well funded and full of teachers with unions that keep their jobs safe, quality has plummeted and cost per pupil has skyrocketed.
In addition, it's eerie, isn't it, that as the educational industry has gotten more and more money students have become largely illiterate compared to just a few decades ago? Want to see something funny? Check out his Real Houses of Orange County quiz show on Jay Leno. It was making fun of the spoiled housewives, but also applies to the modern generation of American kids that don't know what country " The Erie Canal" is in:
starcasm.net/archives/17617
Robert, I think it's the intention of most politicians, of an era and time, to undermine a nation's value if it increases substantially their own. Socialism takes this to the next level by openly advocating that a portion of the electorate can also join in this racketeering scheme even as they may try to go two-faced and promise two groups that the other will be robbed to benefit the other.
And that's similar to what happened with education: The middle class in the suburbs gets to keep most of their education dollars and the inner cities are promised more money but from outside sources (and then it's squandered away.) In both cases, taxes are kept high and the unions cash in.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Mike Hunter,
Are you aware that you are positing theories that belong to the Keynesian school of economics? A system that relies heavily on models which rely on circular logic and bad modeling? Any modeling expert will tell you that model =/= real thing, what happens in the real thing should happen in the model, but what happens in the model has questionable authority in predicting what happens in the real thing..
November 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
"In addition, it's eerie, isn't it, that as the educational industry has gotten more and more money students have become largely illiterate compared to just a few decades ago?"
What an ironic attempt as association = cause. Except that in Cuba the illiteracy rate is way, way lower than ours, in fact among the very highest in the world.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
correction: Cuba's *literacy* rate is among the highest in the world. I guess that's a result of keeping government out of education.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Marc A,
I find it ironic that people argue that "education" that "public" schools provide somehow contributes towards producing wealth - AND believe that the horribly sell-your-children-poor in Cuba are literate thanks to govt schools there!
November 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I said nothing about "producing wealth." I responded to an argument that public schools decrease illiteracy. So that would mean people in Somalia are much better educated than people in Europe or Cuba.
Sorry, but what a load of crap.
I find right wingers just as dogmatic, biased, and intollerant of disagreement as left wingers. They both will say absolutely anything to push their dogma.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
And BTW, I went through public schools all my life and would never have been able to afford private schools, so I happen to be very thankful. Even though I had a broken home the public schools helped me off my feet. I now am doing well, well-adjusted, with a decent income, and have used what I have to make changes to help men's rights and other causes. Maybe I would have done better at the schools in Somalia, and have done much worse in Europe, but I'm thankful for what the public schools did for me here.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
"I'm thankful for what the public schools did for me here."
How is this attitude any different than that of feminists? How is this any different than the attitude that women take towards feminism? It has done "good" for them (i.e. they credit feminism for their betterment, NOT themselves), so whatever facts on the ground are.. they have to be eternally "thankful" to feminism.
i.e. If it is good for me, then it is good. You dare not compare education in Somalia with that of Ethopia... instead compare it with societies that have benefited from industrialization (that originated from liberalization (as in the english dictionary)) for centuries with a decentralized liberalized de-statized Somalia, that never benefited from it.
For now, it might seem as if Europe and USA are benefiting from public schooling - while they engage in capital consumption. Its like a lazy man boasting about how sitting on a chair is better food producing activity than working in the fields, because he can eat from the store of food his ancestors collected. Once the store runs out.. everyone sees who is where. Cuba already ran out of its wealth, but I am sure they are glad that they are literate, even if that means selling their own children into prostitution or risking their lives (literally) to reach the shores of the USA.
Give it time - after all its only been 16 years since Somali people were freed from the clutches of their tyrants .. I am sure Somalia will beat Europe, USA and Cuba once they go through their enlightenment and seems they are not doing theory but implementing it in practice.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
It is evaluation enough that a public school educated person does not know what "rightwinger" or "leftwinger" means, but sure is quick and loves to attribute it to anything whenever he feels like it.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
"How is this attitude any different than that of feminists? How is this any different than the attitude that women take towards feminism? It has done "good" for them (i.e. they credit feminism for their betterment, NOT themselves), so whatever facts on the ground are.. they have to be eternally "thankful" to feminism."
One could make the same comparison to anyone who thanks anyone for anything. When a male victim of DV thanks MRA groups for fighting for men's rights, one could say "how is that any different than the argument feminists make." This really says nothing at all. Again, I'm responding to an argument that somehow public schools decrease literacy. Do you actually believe that? Lots of people who would not be able to afford private schools, like myself, benefited tremendously from public schools even if they're not as good as private schools.
So, yes, I give my own experience as one of many others, and I mention how the literacy rate in Cuba is way higher than our own.
What's the literacy rate in Somalia? I don't know I haven't checked, so I ask out of curiousity.
"selling their own children into prostitution or risking their lives (literally) to reach the shores of the USA."
Ah, again, the typical "see there are problems with it therefore it's all bad." Just like "there are potholes in the road so get rid of the road." Like noone in the U.S. or free market systems have sold their children to prostituation, and nobody from capitalist Mexico tries to get out of Mexico.
"Give it time"
Sure. I'll give it time for Somalia to have a higher literacy rate than Cuba without using public schools. Let me set my watch.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Creating fat pork bloated bureaucracies feeds the gender feminist communities the most. Manufacturing misinformation to petition for state and federal monnies is the way of the the gender feminist pork-o-crats.
Eating too much pork fat gives one heart disease.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Literacy rate in Somalia: 24%
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_literacy_rate_in_somalia
Literacy rate in Cuba: 98%
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Whats_is_the_literacy_rate_in_cuba
But public schools decrease literacy. Yeah right. Again, what a load of CRAP.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
"Eating too much pork fat gives one heart disease."
And pork includes prisons and wars too, whose victims are 90% male.
Or are those things exempt from pork?
Pork includes laws that forbid men from paying for sex, which they DON'T do in Holland and Belgim, and also some right-leaning nations like Mexico as well.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
"It is evaluation enough that a public school educated person does not know what "rightwinger" or "leftwinger" means, but sure is quick and loves to attribute it to anything whenever he feels like it."
Ahh, personal attacks again, huh Pankaj? I've always though those were for the logically frustrated, but maybe I'm wrong.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Its not a personal attack.. its an observation based on comments on here. But again, I would not expect a public school to teach the difference between those two different things. As for decreasing literacy - that you keep talking about - I have to ask the fundamental question of "As compared to what?"
It is well known that parochial schools & charter schools etc are far cheaper and higher quality than public schools. So unless you are arguing for prohibiting people for teaching and others from learning, I don't see where your basis comes from.
I am not saying you cannot be thankful.. I am just disagreeing (I am sure as a "non-rightwinger" and "non-leftwinger" you would be "tolerant" with that disagreement) with your idea that one should be thankful for everything that is imposed on you - because otherwise who knows what terrible fate might have fallen upon you. Apparently by this logic - anything that does not kill you - you should be thankful for.. because it could have been worse. And what does kill you.... well you won't be around so you might as well be thankful for that too!
November 5th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
"capitalist Mexico "
I missed that one... Thanks for the laugh. The home of trotskite communism on American continent is capitalist!
Up is down, freedom is slavery and socialism is capitalism.
Do I need a better argument for public schools?
November 5th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
No Country for Burly Men
How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.
by Christina Hoff Sommers
06/29/2009, Volume 014, Issue 39
What gets me isn't that IF women needed help give it to them. What got me was they DIDN'T need the help the men did and they took it away from them. That is WRONG and sick.
I would never say don't give a woman or man or hispanic or black a drink of water if they are dying of thirst.. That is just wrong.... Christ said love your brother
November 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
That's right, capitalist Mexico. They have hardly any social welfare programs at all, which is why the poor there try to escape. That's not an "attack" on capitalism, but a point that both right and left nations create problems in which the people try to escape from. Perhaps El Salvador would be another example. Somalia too, no?
Oh yes, it's a personal attack. But that's ok. It only reflects on you, IMO.
"As for decreasing literacy - that you keep talking about - I have to ask the fundamental question of "As compared to what?""
I'm not the one who orginally said public schools increase illiteracy, it sure appears the person was comparing public schools to whatever would be "non" public schools. Hence my comparison of Cuba's iteracy to that of Somalia, or the U.S., or Europe.
"It is well known that parochial schools & charter schools etc are far cheaper and higher quality than public schools."
And they can educate as many? They can be just as huge and handle the same number? Ok, then where are they? My gosh, their cheaper and can handle the same number, why aren't they already handling the same number by now? Are they handling the same number, and cheaper, anywhere in the world? Somalia maybe? I'm interested.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
"Do I need a better argument for public schools?"
Again, you're taking this beyond the point. Private, parochial and charter schools are, IMO, better, although I question whether they can educate the population and an affordable rate for those who simply don't have money. That's an inteesting issue that I don't rule out. But my point was that if public schools cause illiteracy then Cuba wouldn't have a 99% literacy rate.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
"Thanks for the laugh. The home of trotskite communism on American continent is capitalist!"
Well thank *you* for the laugh. So, Mexico is communist because Trotsy lived there? That makes it communist? Oh Panjak. Ok.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
"They have hardly any social welfare programs at all, which is why the poor there try to escape. "
Let me get this straight - So the poor are trying to escape - if only they had welfare programs they would not try to escape. Right?
What about Cuba? Are they capitalist too? Why are people trying to escape Cuba? If insufficient "welfare" programs is your test of whether a territory is capitalist, Cuba surely is one too!
If Cuba is capitalist, no place is not capitalist, and if all places are capitalist, then people should be attempting to escape from everywhere.
As for the last para of your post - Do you really want to know why parochial schools are not more prevalent than they already are? Or are you implying that that parochial and charter schools cannot handle the volume? I can't tell whether you are genuinely interested in understanding the issue or are simply doing what typical public school supporters do.
Any case here are some conditions you might consider.
1. The owner of "public" schools decides what parochial schools and charter schools are allowed to teach, how, when and where.
2. The owner of "public" schools does not compete with parochial schools for the patronage of students. It simply assumes/captures it through taxation.
3. The owner of "public" schools charges all its costs through a hidden system and forbids the students a choice to take their business (as in their money and the job) elsewhere.
If you really think these are reasonable or valid restrictions that don't hinder the growth of truly private schools (not what passes for "private" schools in the USA), well.. then it is a big mystery. If you understand these as genuine artificial obstacles in the path of educational infrastructural development, then you should rethink everything you have been taught in public schools.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Marc A,
Apparently, History, politics and economics ... all subjects you should re-enroll for, this time in a parochial school.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Pakaj said: "Let me get this straight - So the poor are trying to escape - if only they had welfare programs they would not try to escape. Right? What about Cuba? Are they capitalist too? Why are people trying to escape Cuba? If insufficient "welfare" programs is your test of whether a territory is capitalist, Cuba surely is one too!"
You change the posture again. I never said people aren't trying to escape Cuba. I responded that people are ALSO trying to escape Mexico, so it isn't just communist countries that people try to get out of. You said people risk their lives to excape Cuba. I said people also risk their lives to escape Mexico. I don't say one is necessarily better than the other. They both have problems. One is caused to being far right (extreme poverty and no significant unemployment or social welfare programs) while the other is caused by being far left (too much restrictions on freedom). My point, again and again, is that it isn't just communist countries that people leave.
And yes, there are slightly different reasons. People leaving Mexico are in extreme poverty and don't have any work at all. People leaving Cuba aren't so much doing it because of unemployment and extreme poverty but because they want to be able to earn more than they do, to start businesses, etc. That doesn't mean one country is worse than the other. It means they both have problems. THAT is my point. BOTH. Not just the communist one. But of course as usualy you miss the point and turn it around like I'm saying there's nothing wrong with Cuba.
You siad: "If Cuba is capitalist, no place is not capitalist, and if all places are capitalist, then people should be attempting to escape from everywhere."
When did I say Cuba is capitalist? You're pulling an Evan Stark again.
You said: "As for the last para of your post - Do you really want to know why parochial schools are not more prevalent than they already are? Or are you implying that that parochial and charter schools cannot handle the volume? I can't tell whether you are genuinely interested in understanding the issue or are simply doing what typical public school supporters do."
Well, there's a difference between a skeptic and a cynic. I'm skeptical, not cynical. I'm skeptical that parochial and charter schools can handle the same number of students as public schools nd still be just as affordable without public funds. As a skeptic, I don't rule it out. But it's not easy for me to believe and I'm wondering whether it has happend in countries with little or no government. Is it happening in Somalia? If not, why not? Are there not enough volunteers to make it happen? Are the war lords preventing it? I don't know the answers but I think if it could happen it would have by now in other places. Again, not cynical, but skeptical.
In any event, that is still beyond my point, which you're good at doing. Again, I was responding to a statement that I heard as saying public schools cause illiteracy. If that's true, then Cuba would not have a 98% literacy rate. I think I stand by that point, regardlesss of whatever other problems Cuba has.
I won't respond to your personal attacks. I think they violate the terms of the site annyway.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:07 am
As for Mexico not being communist - I suggest you check the history of Mexico and the socialist movement there.
As for capitalism, I suggest you check the private property rights that are respected by the regime in Mexico. Either you don't have any idea of what capitalism is OR you are basically defining
not 100% socialist/communist = capitalist.
..which is a false dichotomy anyway(kinda like Republican OR Democrat).
As for social welfare programs = socialism - what happens when there are namesake programs but they cannot provide any help to general people due to lack of funds to support any effort? This is exactly what is happening in Cuba. Cubans know full well now that Santa-socialist-Claus does not exist. Some people in the US have still to learn that, I wish they learn it the easy way.. but I guess some people like to take their lessons the hard way.
I don't think you are a skeptic or a cynic. From the people I have spoken to, most supporters of public school are mysticist. They like to think that had it not been for public schools, the poor would have remained uneducated AND that is what the "right wingers" want.. i.e. anyone that opposes a miserable failing govt system must be meaning harm to YOU or "the poor".
It is amazing that a so-called tolerant person has a problem accepting the idea that there could be more and better ways to solve problems like educating the poor AND still have the hypocritical audacity to call others intolerant.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:17 am
"I was responding to a statement that I heard as saying public schools cause illiteracy. If that's true, then Cuba would not have a 98% literacy rate."
Say, I drag a young child into an empty room for 6 hours a day - i.e. a system - that fails to teach him anything. Thus prohibiting him from seeking other avenues that might benefit him.
Then charge his parents money, that if they fail to pay, I take away their home, garnish their wages etc. If they refuse to cooperate or resist, I threaten to imprison and/or kill them. The poor parents are unable to resist me, and hence go along with it, now the funds they could have spent on purchasing education services of others are taken away by me.
Will you hold me responsible for causing illiteracy in that child? After all, it is possible that some children who undergo this system too will manage to learn and get through life. Does that mean I taught them? Plus, if I want to perpetuate this system overtime, will I not teach the kids to be grateful for the "wonderful" service I provided them?
November 6th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Its also a good idea not to believe everything you hear about Cuba - most of it comes from a source very much interested in lying about its "glorious" success at making the lives of its people better... If you want to know Cuba, go there and live among the people and not as a "Gringo" with US dollars to give them.
What good is it to read and write, if you can't feed yourself? I guess, it makes the misery you are forced to live under, more obvious - not only can you hear your empty stomach growl, you can read on a piece of paper about the delicious feast you just had.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:04 am
"Are there not enough volunteers to make it happen? Are the war lords preventing it? I don't know the answers but I think if it could happen it would have by now in other places."
Somalia, is recoiling from centuries of despotism - as all societies should at some point of time. There are warring factions that cannot tax people, so have to rely on volunteers. They managed their coast guards just fine, they are managing their health care better than their neighbors as well. You may find it hard to believe but they also have a airline industry, cellphones etc. I am sure the educated so-far unemployed are venturing to use their skills to teach to make a living by teaching whoever can pay them and wants to learn. The people are actually in charge of their lives and almost all their income! Is that so horrible? After all, if no warlord can form a govt, means no warlord can tell you not to teach or not to learn.
Regardless, there are numerous other examples where societies have educated their poor through entrepreneurial educators, some even at severe odds at govt rules and regulations - which a moral person who is also skeptic would investigate before taking a position in support of a system funded through threats of violence against people who did nothing wrong.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Gentlemen!
It is crucial that we stay aligned and not fragmented with one another! To have mild discourse with opposing/different views is healthy, but to be inundated in battles of wits is counterproductive and seriously impedes our fundamental objective which is to bring equality for men/fathers and children.
The headline reads:
Stimulus Package Created Mostly Teaching Jobs
“The best symbol of the $787 billion federal stimulus program turns out not to be a construction worker in a hard hat, but rather a classroom teacher saved from a layoff.”
Robert brought an excellent fact to light. The fact that half of the $787 billion dollars of the stimulus package went into the hands of educators who are primarily women.
I have an extensive comprehensive background in business. Surviving two recessions avoiding bankruptcy ($1 million dollar crisis) and building a business from the ground up with my bare hands laterally as I did not have the money to buy equipment that would have made my job easier in the beginning. So my knowledge was not achieved in the business schools of Harvard or the likes. It was obtained in the front line trenches in the world of real business school, with hands on experience academically and operatively. In essence I was the school and every project was my new assignment with the exception that my grades would spell success or failure (pay-cheque or bankruptcy/foreclosure) with real consequences not just a percentage on a sheet of paper! There was no Government bail out for me either! You can bet your ass I made sure failure was not a part of the equation!
The ONLY way I can see the money that was spent to SAVE these “education” jobs as warranted is that otherwise these folks would be at the Government money trough seeking other financial support (welfare etc.). So to maintain the current jobs was perhaps a reasonable position. What I contend is that the amount of money that is poured into our education system we should be turning out nothing but scientists, doctors and professors, but we are not! The education system is one of the biggest financial parasitic drag on our economy, along with DV, women’s shelters etc. The education system needs a serious overhaul!
It is crucial to be literate, even more crucial to be literate in the realm of law which is our rule book for everything. He who knows the rules best has a much better chance of success at anything. Try playing a game of hockey or football without any knowledge of the rules! The result will be failure every time!!! I find it disturbing that men who used to hold the power of literacy are in the gutters while women are excelling academically in droves. The balance of power is listing heavily in favour of women. How do we expect to have any hope of equality when our boys and men are not well educated??? Not in school, not at home not anywhere!
As far as the “stimulus package” (our tax dollars) is concerned it was ill spent!!! The bulk of that money should have gone into infrastructure and ancillary components thereto which would have consequently stimulated education as well.
What the West needs to recollect is what made the USA a superpower? It was a very STRONG manufacturing base. We were leaders in the automotive industry which has been exploited to it’s current demise. We were exporting cars, TVs, farm equipment, airplanes, computers, clothing, food, machines, (weapons) etc, etc, etc. We had great minds inventing all kinds of things, and great factories producing those commodities. Where are our inventors now? Where are our factories now? Now, we import nearly everything from China! Guess who the new super power has become?
In Canada I am unable to buy nickle sheet or coil that is mined 200 miles north of Toronto to manufacture the Tooney ($2 coin) coin blank. Why, because our mills are ALL shut down! Why? Because nobody was buying from them and they had to close their doors. Now I can go to China or India to purchase Canadian nickle. Smart isn’t it?
If we want ANY hope of keeping our economic foothold, educators must teach how to achieve this and it won’t be achieved by importing nearly everything. It will be achieved by becoming a country that manufactures commodities and exports it once again! That will now be a much more difficult feat considering greedy buyers, such as Walmart, Canadian Tire etc. buy their wares mostly from China dirt cheap and sell this cheap product at massively inflated prices back to the consumer. The net result is our money haemorrhages (flows) out into the pockets of other countries who manufacture and into select few pockets who import product manufactured off shore.
This anomaly/error must be changed and corrected immediately otherwise the next stimulus package will be sought from China who are doing a much better job educating than we are!
I am VERY concerned about our human capital as well as our physical capital which has to be well balanced as each is co-dependant on the other. In my view all (human and physical capital) are in shambles and the current trend will not be sustainable without sound correction forthwith!!!
Remember that infrastructure is only the vehicle, success lies in the manner that we chose to drive it.
Attila
November 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
No, I didn't say "not 100% socialist/communist = capitalist." I simply said I consider Mexico capitalist. They are a free market economy with large gap between rich and poor with little or no public benefits for unemployment, etc., Rather than put words in my mouth, I'd rather hear what you consider Mexico to be, politically, if they're not capitalist.
I also don't consider property rights to be the essence of the right versus left dichotomy. I see the essence being the relationship between government and private enterprise, as in private business, and I see things like property rights, human rights, etc. as collateral. So, to me, someone like you, who opposes the existence of government, is on the extreme far right, whereas the extreme far left would be communism. Unfortunately people on both sides like to point to the extremes of the other side without pointing out the more moderate forms of the other side, just like the way you keep pointing to the parade of horribles about Cuba but rarely mention Belgium, Holland, France, Canada, etc., or just like far lefties often point to places like El Salvador but not, say, Australia. It's the same fallacy either way.
And, as I said, it also goes beyond my point, which - again - was that it is not true that public schools decrease literacy. That's why I pointed to Cuba. Not because I say Cuba is utopic. And, as a side issue, there is certainly room for debate about the degree to which the population of Cuba supports Castro - the ones that are in Cuba, that is.
War lords can't tell people how to live their lives? I beg to differ. As I understand it, they can and often do become like the local government when there is a lack of government. In fact Sicily lived like that for years. There was little government around, so the local mob controlled everything, handled disputes, etc. Which is largely why they brought a mob mentality with them to the U.S. back in the 20s.
When I looked up "charter schools" the information says they are publicly funded. Are you talking about something different?
So Somolia is recovering from horribles. Ok. I have set my watch. I want to see their literacy rate catch up without using public funds. Meanwhile I prefer to live here in the U.S. and will remain thankful for the public school system it has, despite its problems.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Marc A.,
Honestly, do you know what parameters you ought to consider to qualify a system as a free market? It irks me because it is utterly nonsensical to just call something a name, kinda like calling a man-eating tiger as a harmless cow because they are both capable of producing milk. Never once asking "Does it eat people?"
Its doubly ironic because we are arguing about education .. so it makes me wonder how much of this irrational behavior is cultivated by the public school (I don't know, you could have always been this irrational). Absence of govt welfare systems does not make a system a free market. Whats with the indulgence in false dichotomies?
"I also don't consider property rights to be the essence of the right versus left dichotomy." Well that explains things much better.. this is why you are going at it all wrong. The word "right" means nothing (unless you want to reinstate the French monarchy!) and the "left" is a much abused and twisted around word. So pretty much anything you want can be "right" and hence capitalist - anything you want can be "left" and hence ...I don't even know where that goes in your worldview.
"So, to me, someone like you, who opposes the existence of government, is on the extreme far right, whereas the extreme far left would be communism."
How do you square the fact that the anti-govt folks Proudhon and free marketeers Bastiat were the original leftists? How do you square the fact that the right was and even today is often associated with authoritarian militarism? How do you figure the fact that communists actually want to abolish the govt as well...
Sorry, but this has gone long enough. Not one term you understand in political theory is correct or grounded in any historical fact other than your feelings. Again, just that we came to this talking about education - and it almost sounds like you are secretly supporting my stance by pretending to be ignorant on EVERYTHING!
As for your insistence that a people who were so impoverished by a government, that they could not even feed themselves and hundreds of thousands died - that because now they have given up on feeding a government - everything should jump back to their feet and compete with Western Europe is amazing! Considering how long it takes to turn around things in the USA .. something about Change, Hope and that guy.. what's his name.. i forget! He needs time. People who are starting off from the utter destitution on the other hand must create utopia.
But I understand, you are looking for utopia - and because Somali people aren't able to create one at your time, they are obviously doing it wrong. On the other hand, public schools aren't exactly utopia, but they have your unwavering loyalty - all the figures, stats, performance measures and KIDS be damned!
I would say go ahead set your watch .. only if you can read it.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
OK, guys, let's get back on topic.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Robert, I'm not the one making personal attacks. That's what people do to cover up their lack of substance or logic.
Such as this: "I understand, you are looking for utopia -- and because Somali people aren't able to create one at your time, they are obviously doing it wrong."
Uh, no, not at all. I never said I'm looking for utopia, you did. You cite the "horribles" of Cuba but don't talk about those of Somalia, and don't talk about more moderate nations like Belgium. So I point it out. And what do you do? Circle right back to the same straw man - that I'm "looking for utopia."
No wonder you have to resort to personal insults! Circle, duck, hide, and insult - Evan Stark style!
"On the other hand, public schools aren't exactly utopia"
Oh here we go again. Ok enough.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Ok, ok, I've gotten emails asking me why I waste time arguing with an idiot. Ok, sorry.
One who uses straw mans, ad homs, circles, says Mexico isn't capitalist but refuses to say what Mexico is, demands definitions of terms but refuses to give them himself, insists my terminology is wrong but doesn't how or give his own, refuses to answer whether charter schools are publicly funded, and then blames it all on my eduction.
So I've come to believe he's right about my lack of adequate education. Had I gone to a private school I would be much smarter than to argue with a total idiot. That's so true. I have learned my lesson. Thank you for emailing me to let me know. I'm going to now re-enroll in a private school that teaches me to not argue with idiots and to instead follow Proverbs 26:4 rather than Proverbs 26"5, which I just did by accident. Had I gone to private school, I would not have.
My watch is ticking for the Somalia, and private school here I come!
November 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Hello MarcA. When you claim that if it wasn't for public education you wouldn't have had one at all, could you please elaborate as to why? Were your parents struggling to make ends meet and couldn't afford even a small private education?
Pubilc education indirectly makes private education more expensive via higher taxes that take away money from the public to spend in addition to greater licensing requirements that the public schools themselves write.
Think of it as the government taking over housing. If they did so outright then trying to buy a "private" home would be bogged down with lots of red tape the bureaucrats control in addition to lower wages. Then some person on the brink would say: "If it wasn't for my public housing overlord, I would be out on the street!'
It's called throw 'em in a pit and toss 'em a carrot and they'll love you forever. But enough about Northeast Rust Belt FDR voters.
The concept of public education brings to mind the whole concept of the welfare state and subsidized child raising: Basic parental responsibilities such as raising children, feeding them, and providing decent housing may be subsidized by the state when the parents are inadequate and this encourages certain parents (namely unwed mothers) to go nuts and have more kids than they can afford.
This brings up a controversial observation, and I want Pankaj's input on this, on where society should hold parents accountable for irresponsible breeding choices. At this time, once a person has a child, they can either demand the state foot the bill or let the kid suffer. We're afraid to impose parental responsibiilties, other than on men of course, for fear of looking like China with their one kid rule and daughters being drowned in streambeds. But this question is still going to come up, eventually. Or will it?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Here is my last word on "public" aka govt education.
If you grab a young mind and teach him things like "one nation under god" or "men start wars" or "boys are stupid throw rocks at them" - eventually some of these will grow up to be judges. You cannot have a problem with the misandric legal system AND not have a problem with a education system that enhanced and indoctrinated - those in the legal system today from their early childhood.
@ the stimulus - if anyone thought the stimulus was supposed to help everyone - I have a lake on the moon for sale that you should buy.
@ the stimulus helping public school teachers - who else did you think it was going to help? Military contractors? yes. Govt bureaucrats? yes. Anyone with a big powerful lobby? Yes.
Anyone who works for their living .. um, we ought to leave someone to carry the burden, don't we?
I can predict the things as they are going to be, urge you to change (because I do believe you don't mean harm to others, at least most of you anyway). On the other hand, every govt believer gets surprised to find out every time he is robbed and someone useless, evil or undeserving benefits from govt efforts. How long are you going to keep up the charade of not getting the game of politics, policy and lies?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
"where society should hold parents accountable for irresponsible breeding choices. "
That is now a tough question, but misleading question. A quick answer is always - but its not all that simple.
However, one must be careful as to what they mean by "society" and make sure that equates to something like "good people around these parents and their children" and not "that entity that will imprison or kill you if you refuse to do as told". Indeed, there is no cure for psychopathic elements and there exist some like that around us. In as much as dealing with criminally irresponsible parents (octo-mom?) is concerned, GOOD people around them can only do so much to help and support the unfortunate children ... as much as they can afford to and choose to.
But that hardly means they should be subsidizing the criminally irresponsible behavior. I strongly suggest that good individuals refuse to deal with such psychopathic parents - that does not mean that everyone must be compelled to boycott them. It has to be done by individual choice and judgement. I embrace the Rothbardian concept of childcare, children's rights etc. This means I also support the right of a child to runaway from parents he/she deems unloving. This also means, a woman has the right to evict a unborn fetus from her body, BUT does not have the right to kill the fetus. This also means that I expect a pro-lifer to take charge of any aborted live fetuses and caring for them.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Pankaj, it wasn't misleading and yes, it is that simple.
Simply trying to ignore psychotic behavior and bad parenting is about as responsible as covering your eyes and going "lalalala!"
Regarding pro-lifers being required to take in orphan fetuses. This position's logic would also imply that if someone thinks it should be illegal to abandon children in the woods then they should be required to adopt abandoned children.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Required? No! I am not for requiring anyone to do anything that they don't want to do with their just property. And no where have I suggested that we ignore psychotic behavior - an "ostracizing stance" is not an "ignore stance". You would not entertain a psychopath at your home.. would you? Well I am arguing to do the same at work, place of business etc. as well. I am also for directing any sympathies directly at the children - not its psychotic parent. I don't understand how you got "just ignore" from that.. maybe I was not clear.
I think by misleading I meant "leading in the wrong direction" - i.e. an entity called "society" (which is not defined anywhere as to who is in it and who is not).
As for pro-lifers taking live fetuses, I meant honest pro-lifers. Not the ones that agitate to impose one or the other morality/responsibility on others. This is why I can consistently support the idea of "choice for men", because it does not advocate killing fetuses. And I am only extending the same type of "choice for women" as well (as opposed to all-out-kill abortions)
IF a pro-lifer is given a choice -
1. either abort the fetus and kill it in the process
2. we extract the fetus alive and you take care of it. Keep it alive or freeze it for later gestation etc.
An honest pro-lifer must always go for choice 2. And I would hope that there are enough honest pro-lifers for this to be the case.
Any claimed pro-lifer must go home and stop claiming that he is "for life", for if and when he takes any other choice other than #2. His choice would not make him a bad person (not everyone can afford to take on more and more children) - just a morally consistent one who is doing the best he can for his fellow human being.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Understand that I have no problem with people expressing and advocating against killing of fetuses (or polar bears!). I only have a problem when one is going to use force others into acting against their will - just so the fetuses and polar bears live, but don't want to pickup the tab of the expenditures incurred to satisfy their demands. In this aspect, the watermelons and christian conservatives are acting alike.
I am not a christian, but I do consider myself pro-life and if given a choice whether someone innocent should die or live, I will always prefer life. And if it has costs associated with - that I can bear - I will or I will try to find someone else who can and is willing to bear them.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Marc, I don't know how you can classify Mexico as an example of a failed capitalist system. Mexico has been ruled by the socialist PRI for most of the past several decades since the Mexican revolution. What next? Are you going to cite Zimbabwe as a failed capitalist state.
And using examples like Somalia not having public education is just silly. This is a perfect example of the kind of correlation versus causation reasoning you previously noted.
Of course countries that are wealthier often spend more money on things like education, health, social security etc. But that is simply because they can afford to do so. You have to create the wealth before you can even consider redistributing the surpluses to fund all those other things. So if you look at the correlation between countries, there might well be a relationship between higher levels of public education and better outcomes. But that doesn't mean more public funding created the better outcomes. It could just as easily mean that economic advantage simply enabled them to spend more.
Who knows? Maybe you were merely citing these as ironic or facetious examples to illustrate the point that correlation does not equal causation. If so, I take the point. But we are still no closer to solving anything.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
What I heard and I might be wrong and I heard this from a couple of different sources so I think I maybe right, and that is that Obama has only spent 10% of the stimulus money, he is saving the other 90% of this money to dump into the ecomony at the last second to make it look like what he is doing is working. My problem with this is many men need this money now and Obama is hurting Americans to further his political career. Is that crazy or what.
Sad Dad
November 7th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
My guess is that most of that 10% is mostly on womens jobs teaching, nursing etc...
November 8th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Sad Dad,
Got a lobby? (Not suggesting that you form one now, but that is the essential question of whether you will get the stimulus money). I don't have any nice thing to say about GW, but at least his "stimulus" was better distributed (RELATIVE to that of Mr. Hopenchange).