Re: Debate: Teachers Wages
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Education (at all levels, although moreso pre-college) is paid for by society as a whole, not just by the "consumers". Since the education of children benefits society as a whole, I think that is appropriate, Im sure others dont.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Society as a whole may reap some external effect, but by and large, the people who are benefitting the most from education are the students. I'm much better off personally spending the money that would otherwise go to push a few kids through class on my mortgage, some other investments, or entertainment. <font color="red">A teenager who thinks he knows more about what is good for society than every government in the world. You are entitled to your opinion, as asinine as it is, but obviously have no concept of individual good vs societal good. </font>
A few big chain stores recently came into my area, and as a result there has been something of an economic boom; more stores have come in, as have more small businesses. The "externality" of the initial chain stores was a positive one on society, but that does not mean that everyone should be funding the businesses. <font color="red"> because it is a business to move goods, and if they are goods you dont want, need or can find at a better price it is a bad business. It benefits no one but the people who find value their. Education helps everyone. </font>
[ QUOTE ]
A free enterprise school company can attempt to capture a regional market to take advantage of those efficiencies and natural affinities, but once a "chain" becomes established competition is again restricted because fragmenting that market destroys those efficiencies, strengthening the natural monopolistic nature of education.
[/ QUOTE ]
In order to become a chain, wouldn't that school need to be providing a good service? You know, one that people like at an affordable cost? <font color="red"> if you had the intellect to follow the post you would understand that those chains would be establishied during the transition from public to free enterprise schools, years before any evidence of quality could possibly emerge </font>
[ QUOTE ]
4. Evaluation of a good "education" is problematic. Overall success or failure can take years to be clearly established. Therefore the response of the market is necessarily very slow and underperforming schools cant lose market share quickly enough to encourage free market competition.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's because "education" has no actual goal. What is the point of education? Literacy? Social skill development? IQ development? Job training? A wide mix of trivia that the student is never going to use? Discipline? Why are you forcing kids to go through something they don't enjoy six hours a day (plus a few hours for homework time) for twelve years straight? Are they otherwise doomed to anarchic illiterate stupor? <font color="red">this may unfortunately be your truest statement, since you are a prime example </font>
If education is useful in building careers and leadership qualities or whatever, is it because the education the students are recieving are conducive to same at the price paid for them, or (more likely) because they are mandatory prerequisites by society (and if the latter, the solution doesn't lie in more education)?
[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">try working for a few years and see how far the educated leave you behind. You were on ignore for a reason, thank you for reminding me. </font>
|