Simple: Get rid of the party system and elect people with innovative, original non binding ideas.

 

Meaning what, exactly?

 

Parties form organically because people united by a common vision are more powerful when organized than disorganized. In fact, the benefits of organization are so strong that parties form even among people who are not completely united by common visions, making intra-party tensions a reality and party discipline a powerful weapon. I seriously don't see a way in which you could organize a government free of political parties. At the very least, you can't point to a single industrialized nation that has done so.

Stop supporting the two major parties for one.  Read "The Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny"

 

Support people who make sense and are focused on the big issues regardless of their background/party affiliation/non-affiliation.

Simple: Get rid of the party system and elect people with innovative, original non binding ideas.

 

Meaning what, exactly?

 

Parties form organically because people united by a common vision are more powerful when organized than disorganized. In fact, the benefits of organization are so strong that parties form even among people who are not completely united by common visions, making intra-party tensions a reality and party discipline a powerful weapon. I seriously don't see a way in which you could organize a government free of political parties. At the very least, you can't point to a single industrialized nation that has done so.

Stop supporting the two major parties for one. Read "The Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny"

 

Support people who make sense and are focused on the big issues regardless of their background/party affiliation/non-affiliation.

 

A lot of buzzwords there.  Not a lot of specifics.  "Making sense" could mean anything.  Any issue could be one of "the big issues" to someone.

 

2) I'm a living, breathing example of tax policy incentive. I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on ditching my planning career for a masters' in mid-level healthcare, and if the progressive tax curve was, say, 50% higher, I would abandon that plan. It literally just wouldn't be worth it.

 

One thing that we need to think about, is that if there is truly a need for this position, the job market will move and the salary will rise to the point where a person can afford to pay the sunk cost (mostly educational) and the taxes. A example the job market adjusting is that usually the exact same job in Texas will pay less than one in one Ohio, because  Texas has no income lower tax and slightly cheaper housing but your take home pay will be roughly the same.

 

And for what will make America rise again? The post war boom was largely due to the rest of the industrialized world be blown to bits and the flow of money from the GI Bills allowing the emergance of a true middle class. It was a self sustaining cycle for around 25 years until the rest of the world got up and running again or industrialized. What do I wish for? I would love to see the US make products again, not just assemble parts shipped over from Japan (I am looking at you Toyota, I know that Honda actually builds most the accord from the ground up in Ohio). I think we need to reevaluate education, everybody needs an education but not everyone "needs" to go college. Especially when a large part of our industry is service based.

I wasn't clear there Scrabble, personal income that's spent obviously goes back into the economy.  Income saved does not.  And beyond a certain income level spending drops off, unless we're talking about ice sculptures that pee.  The additional income just increases someone's personal fortune, which warps the free market.  It doesn't provide any churning of the economy and its investment may or may not create jobs.  For purposes of growing the economy, not all personal income is equal.  That's a big reason why not all marginal tax rates are equal.

Spending is what makes the economy go, so it's curious to me why everyone wants to tax it more.

Private spending makes the economy go, not government spending. When governments spend money, that money comes from the sweat of the citizenry's collective brow.

 

Taxing income takes money out of the free market.

 

No. Taxes are one of the biggest things supporting the free market. Infrastructure and education are the grease that keep the market humming. Those things come from taxes.

 

2) I'm a living, breathing example of tax policy incentive. I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on ditching my planning career for a masters' in mid-level healthcare, and if the progressive tax curve was, say, 50% higher, I would abandon that plan. It literally just wouldn't be worth it.

 

One thing that we need to think about, is that if there is truly a need for this position, the job market will move and the salary will rise to the point where a person can afford to pay the sunk cost (mostly educational) and the taxes. A example the job market adjusting is that usually the exact same job in Texas will pay less than one in one Ohio, because Texas has no income lower tax and slightly cheaper housing but your take home pay will be roughly the same.

 

I would like to see statistics for this.  Perhaps it's the case that workers in Ohio *demand* more for their work--but the net effect of that is simply that Ohio has higher unemployment than Texas, because the employer faced with a demand for excessive labor costs can simply say "no."  Also, I know that in my profession, salaries are generally higher in Texas.  I would be surprised if my profession is alone.

 

And for what will make America rise again? The post war boom was largely due to the rest of the industrialized world be blown to bits and the flow of money from the GI Bills allowing the emergance of a true middle class. It was a self sustaining cycle for around 25 years until the rest of the world got up and running again or industrialized. What do I wish for? I would love to see the US make products again, not just assemble parts shipped over from Japan (I am looking at you Toyota, I know that Honda actually builds most the accord from the ground up in Ohio). I think we need to reevaluate education, everybody needs an education but not everyone "needs" to go college. Especially when a large part of our industry is service based.

 

I think that this focuses too much on a past that will never return rather than a future that could be even better.  Manufacturing, 1950s-style, will never return as a mass employer and a gateway to the middle class for millions of high school graduates.  A factory that took 5,000 people to man in 1950 can achieve the same output today with a substantially smaller labor force--very possibly under 500.  To the extent that we see a resurgence in manufacturing in this country, it's going to be high-skill, high-information manufacturing a la nanofactories.

 

If you're talking about manufacturing output rather than manufacturing employment, though, a common misperception is that America's industrial base has eroded in absolute terms.  Manufacturing output has actually steadily increased in this country over the past generation, and <a href="http://www.economistblog.com/2009/02/22/made-in-usa-is-alive-and-well-manufacturing-goes-high-end-and-the-usa-is-still-the-global-leader/">we are still the world leader</a>; it's just required fewer workers to do it.

 

The largest sector of the economy in the future is likely to be health care, not manufacturing, and that will be the case whether or not that sector is dominated by the government.  Health care is harder to outsource and more personal.

Spending is what makes the economy go, so it's curious to me why everyone wants to tax it more.

Private spending makes the economy go, not government spending. When governments spend money, that money comes from the sweat of the citizenry's collective brow.

 

Taxing income takes money out of the free market.

 

No. Taxes are one of the biggest things supporting the free market. Infrastructure and education are the grease that keep the market humming. Those things come from taxes.

 

A certain minimum of taxes and government services provided with those taxes are essential.  Infrastructure, public safety, national defense, enforcement of property and contract rights, public health, and environmental protection could all fall under that umbrella.  As for education: most of the highest-caliber education in this country takes place in private schools, and that is even more the case in many of the countries that are charging hard to challenge us in the economic sphere (the Indian education sector is far more friendly towards private enterprise than our own, for example).  The crushing unfunded liabilities of our entitlement programs are not motivated by a concern for free market principles; attempting to characterize them as such is starting with a conclusion and torturing a rationale into leading to it.  Whatever positive role infrastructure and education spending play in supporting the free market, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security play no such role, and these form the vast majority of federal spending, dwarfing even defense (and, for that matter, dwarfing all discretionary spending combined).

 

Our public schools today are not institutions of learning.  Most are one step above prisons--overpriced day care centers staffed with overpaid and overqualified babysitters.  Calling them the grease that keeps the market humming is laughable.

Any book on free markets will tell you, early on, that free markets are purely theoretical and can only work--even in theory-- when everyone in the market has equal wealth.  So maybe we can Rise Again if we stop viewing egalitarian principles as being inimical to free market principles. 

 

Continuing with the example, sure we can eliminate workers with robots... but if the result is an entire region of ruined cities and a crashed economy, perhaps our net societal gain from replacing all those workers was never propery accounted.  So what if the company is more profitable, so what if productivity has increased.  The products made by these robots perversely become less affordable, not more, because the robots have displaced their own market.  And there are places on earth where industry great and small is still performed by employed humans.  And we all buy their products, so apparently that method still works well enough.

Any book on free markets will tell you, early on, that free markets are purely theoretical and can only work--even in theory-- when everyone in the market has equal wealth.  So maybe we can Rise Again if we stop viewing egalitarian principles as being inimical to free market principles.

 

"Any book?"  Funny how I managed to go through an undergraduate economics minor with a 4.0 and a legal research assistantship in law & econ without ever finding any such book.  To which books might you be referring?

 

If by "egalitarian" you mean "redistributive," then yes, redistributive principles are absolutely inimical to free market principles. 

 

Continuing with the example, sure we can eliminate workers with robots... but if the result is an entire region of ruined cities and a crashed economy, perhaps our net societal gain from replacing all those workers was never propery accounted.  So what if the company is more profitable, so what if productivity has increased.  The products made by these robots perversely become less affordable, not more, because the robots have displaced their own market.  And there are places on earth where industry great and small is still performed by employed humans.  And we all buy their products, so apparently that method still works well enough.

 

Yes, but not performed by 5000 humans at one site earning $50,000+ per year.

 

If we could replace all manufacturing with robots and those robots were utterly maintenance-free and ran on minimal electricity, then yes, it would absolutely be economically rational and lead to a net improvement in worldwide living standards.  Over time, the human workforce would simply shift from manufacturing things directly to manufacturing the robots that would manufacture consumer goods, and would shift to other sectors requiring more of a human touch.  The same happened to the agricultural sector with the advent of mechanized farming, which has been an unparalleled and unqualified social and economic advancement notwithstanding the temporary upheaval caused by urbanization.  The same would happen with the transition from human-centered to electronic manufacturing.

 

There is absolutely no free market justification, and quite frankly, no ethical justification, for making a system deliberately inefficient just to preserve the purchasing power of a privileged few.

Yes, but not performed by 5000 humans at one site earning $50,000+ per year.

 

JMO, but this is the key, to me.  All the junk being manufacturered in China, those people are getting paid practically NOTHING.  This is why the manu. jobs began to be outsourced to begin with - they could get stuff made more cheaply elsewhere, thus making more profit.  But it created a big monster, and now we can't go back.  Nobody in America would be willing to make children's clothes all day for what those making them in China make per hour by making those clothes, and Americans are not willing to pay more money for the same product, made in America, if held side by side with the one made in China which costs less money.  In other words, the Wal-Marting of America.

Any book on free markets will tell you, early on, that free markets are purely theoretical and can only work--even in theory-- when everyone in the market has equal wealth. So maybe we can Rise Again if we stop viewing egalitarian principles as being inimical to free market principles.

 

"Any book?" Funny how I managed to go through an undergraduate economics minor with a 4.0 and a legal research assistantship in law & econ without ever finding any such book. To which books might you be referring?

 

If by "egalitarian" you mean "redistributive," then yes, redistributive principles are absolutely inimical to free market principles.

 

If you missed it, then look to the texts your texts are citing to for the basic theory.  The original authors of these theories stated their assumptions clearly... after which everyone has chosen to ignore those assumptions and hold onto the pieces-parts of the theories that justify what they want to belive.  Free market idoelogy was conceived in an agrarian society.  The archetype for the "free market" is a farm product exchange, in which each market player is small enough that his individual decisions cannot by themselves move the "invisible hand." 

 

The moment one farmer's market share or buying power becomes larger than the others, he gains a market advantage allowing him to steer value toward himself unfettered.  He is no longer a hostage to market forces, he takes control of them.  The invisible hand becomes a glove with his hand in it.  At this point it stops being a free market. 

 

On another thread, it was noted that big-time executives always find a way to get paid massive sums, no matter what anyone tries to do to stop it.  This is another example.  The se people have sufficient control over their own market to dictate what their services are "worth."  But that has nothing to do with any "free market."  That's corporate ownership being severed, by law and by trick, from basic management decisions.  Under what free market principle does an exec get paid 10 million for bankrupting their company?  That's my version of "a system deliberately inefficient to preserve the spending power of a privileged few."

 

Redistribution?  Now you're talking about the Bible... Leviticus 25 beat Marx to the punch by a couple thousand years. 

Our public schools today are not institutions of learning.  Most are one step above prisons--overpriced day care centers staffed with overpaid and overqualified babysitters.  Calling them the grease that keeps the market humming is laughable.

 

You had a lot of thoughtful comments until negated your credibility with your astoundingly ignorant last line, above.

 

How dare you! How dare you call my wife an overpaid and overqualified babysitter. She is a public school teacher, and she teaches the kids whose parents can't afford the elitist private schools you praise. She tries to teach kids whose parents are absent or uninterested. She teaches kids with mental and emotional disabilities. She typically works about 10 hours a day, more on some days, plus hours grading papers on weekends. Her lunch hour is 15 minutes at her desk. Some days she even has time to go to the restroom. She and other public school teachers work as hard as anybody in America. Yes, there are bad teachers who just collect a paycheck -- just as there are bad bankers who just collect a paycheck and bad workers in any private or public endeavor who just collect a paycheck. But your blanket condemnation of an entire profession is ignorant and outrageous.

JMO, but resumes carry very little weight on informal internet forums.  After all, I was a Roads Scholar and nobody seems to listen to me.

 

To respond to the topic, america has already risen.  We are still the greatest nation despite our numerous flaws.  While you will always hear the hell in a hand basket argument from the older generation and those who are inately pessimistic, be mindful not to lose sight of the forest while staring at all the trees.  Our system and society is in a. Continuing state of evolution.  We will never be perfect and other nations will surpass us here and there on a variety of issues, but our overall package is still #1 and, IMO, will be for the foreseeable future.  Now matter how much you may dislike TPTB at any given time for any given reason, don't underestimate the power of our society to overcome any roadbumps and excel as one.

After all, I was a Roads Scholar and nobody seems to listen to me.

 

Do you mean Rhodes Scholar?

^Right... sorry.  That was during my time at Ocksford.  Fuzzy days.

No worries... Just clarifying that you weren't referring to a truck driving school. :)

^Right... sorry. That was during my time at Ocksford. Fuzzy days.

 

LOL

Our public schools today are not institutions of learning. Most are one step above prisons--overpriced day care centers staffed with overpaid and overqualified babysitters. Calling them the grease that keeps the market humming is laughable.

You had a lot of thoughtful comments until negated your credibility with your astoundingly ignorant last line, above.

 

If you thought that, then you should have given my last line at least a more serious and less emotional response.

 

How dare you! How dare you call my wife an overpaid and overqualified babysitter. She is a public school teacher, and she teaches the kids whose parents can't afford the elitist private schools you praise. She tries to teach kids whose parents are absent or uninterested. She teaches kids with mental and emotional disabilities. She typically works about 10 hours a day, more on some days, plus hours grading papers on weekends. Her lunch hour is 15 minutes at her desk. Some days she even has time to go to the restroom. She and other public school teachers work as hard as anybody in America. Yes, there are bad teachers who just collect a paycheck -- just as there are bad bankers who just collect a paycheck and bad workers in any private or public endeavor who just collect a paycheck. But your blanket condemnation of an entire profession is ignorant and outrageous.

 

The numbers are on my side with respect to teacher compensation in public schools vs. private schools.  I said nothing about "elitist" private schools, or even elite ones, which is probably the more appropriate adjective.  I would like to see all schools privatized, as free to hire and fire as any other private sector business, with vouchers from the state for everyone to send their children to the best school for their particular needs.  Yes, that would mean that your wife would probably end up getting paid less than she currently does, just as most teachers at most private schools do.  The same would apply to my own sister, who is also studying for her M.Ed. at the moment.  To the extent that any candidate is demonstrably superior to other candidates, however, that would not be the case.  (For the record, I consider the voucher programs the state has experimented with in the past good starts but nowhere near as dramatic or ambitious as they need to be.  The scholarships should be worth twice what the state currently offers.)  What privatization would do would be to expose the calcifying institutions of seniority promotion and tenure to the creative destruction of the marketplace.

 

I would also get rid of compulsory attendance.  There are many bodies in the public school system who simply have no business being there; school should be a privilege and an honor, not a chore that needs to be mandated.

JMO, but resumes carry very little weight on informal internet forums.

 

I agree.  It was a gut-level response to the "as any book will tell you" comment.

 

To respond to the topic, america has already risen. We are still the greatest nation despite our numerous flaws. While you will always hear the hell in a hand basket argument from the older generation and those who are inately pessimistic, be mindful not to lose sight of the forest while staring at all the trees. Our system and society is in a. Continuing state of evolution. We will never be perfect and other nations will surpass us here and there on a variety of issues, but our overall package is still #1 and, IMO, will be for the foreseeable future. Now matter how much you may dislike TPTB at any given time for any given reason, don't underestimate the power of our society to overcome any roadbumps and excel as one.

 

Couldn't agree more.

Our public schools today are not institutions of learning. Most are one step above prisons--overpriced day care centers staffed with overpaid and overqualified babysitters. Calling them the grease that keeps the market humming is laughable.

You had a lot of thoughtful comments until negated your credibility with your astoundingly ignorant last line, above.

 

If you thought that, then you should have given my last line at least a more serious and less emotional response.

 

How dare you! How dare you call my wife an overpaid and overqualified babysitter. She is a public school teacher, and she teaches the kids whose parents can't afford the elitist private schools you praise. She tries to teach kids whose parents are absent or uninterested. She teaches kids with mental and emotional disabilities. She typically works about 10 hours a day, more on some days, plus hours grading papers on weekends. Her lunch hour is 15 minutes at her desk. Some days she even has time to go to the restroom. She and other public school teachers work as hard as anybody in America. Yes, there are bad teachers who just collect a paycheck -- just as there are bad bankers who just collect a paycheck and bad workers in any private or public endeavor who just collect a paycheck. But your blanket condemnation of an entire profession is ignorant and outrageous.

 

The numbers are on my side with respect to teacher compensation in public schools vs. private schools. I said nothing about "elitist" private schools, or even elite ones, which is probably the more appropriate adjective. I would like to see all schools privatized, as free to hire and fire as any other private sector business, with vouchers from the state for everyone to send their children to the best school for their particular needs. Yes, that would mean that your wife would probably end up getting paid less than she currently does, just as most teachers at most private schools do. The same would apply to my own sister, who is also studying for her M.Ed. at the moment. To the extent that any candidate is demonstrably superior to other candidates, however, that would not be the case. (For the record, I consider the voucher programs the state has experimented with in the past good starts but nowhere near as dramatic or ambitious as they need to be. The scholarships should be worth twice what the state currently offers.) What privatization would do would be to expose the calcifying institutions of seniority promotion and tenure to the creative destruction of the marketplace.

 

I would also get rid of compulsory attendance. There are many bodies in the public school system who simply have no business being there; school should be a privilege and an honor, not a chore that needs to be mandated.

 

I'm sorry. You can't have private schools with public vouchers. Those come from tax dollars. Government shouldn't be involved in education.

 

I realize private-school teachers get less than public-school teachers. That does not mean public teachers are overpaid -- it means private teachers are underpaid.

 

I would also get rid of compulsory attendance. There are many bodies in the public school system who simply have no business being there; school should be a privilege and an honor, not a chore that needs to be mandated.

 

Well, that certainly sounds elitist. It certainly is contrary to 200 years of American ideals and public education, starting with the Northwest Ordinance, which set the framework for westward expansion and the growth of a nation. It established townships and set aside land in each township for public education.

^Not in all cases.  Private school teachers often have a much easier job due to more interested parents and more disciplined students.  Smaller classes helps for sure.  They also often get free meals for lunch and may have longer summers depending on the school's schedule.  Additionally, public schools sometimes have additional requirements (coaching or other extracurricular involvement) that private schools do not.

I'm sorry. You can't have private schools with public vouchers. Those come from tax dollars. Government shouldn't be involved in education.

 

Government shouldn't be involved in education at all?  That doesn't sound like something I'd imagine you saying.

 

I realize private-school teachers get less than public-school teachers. That does not mean public teachers are overpaid -- it means private teachers are underpaid.

 

That's your opinion.  It's not the judgment of the market where the market has been allowed to operate.  "Underpaid" by whose standards?  By what definition?  What do you use to define the appropriate level of payment for a job if you're just going to ignore its market value?

^Not in all cases. Private school teachers often have a much easier job due to more interested parents and more disciplined students. Smaller classes helps for sure. They also often get free meals for lunch and may have longer summers depending on the school's schedule. Additionally, public schools sometimes have additional requirements (coaching or other extracurricular involvement) that private schools do not.

 

Public school teachers would have an easier job due to more interested parents and more disciplined students if they were more free to get rid of those students who are neither interested nor disciplined, which could be done much more easily in a world free of compulsory attendance laws.

 

Many private schools also have extracurricular requirements, too.  In fact, from the student perspective, many private schools have substantially more extracurricular requirements than public schools, which necessarily implies that someone is coaching, directing, etc. the extracurriculars in question.

^And their salaries are supplemented for doing so.

 

IMO, doing away with compulsory attendance laws is not the answer.  The answer lies more in separating those students who are a disruption from those who genuinely are there to learn and/or not disrupt others in that pursuit.  When I went to Cle Hts High, we had Taylor Academy a few blocks away that was for the kids who were outright disruptions and/or needed a more structured environment to thrive.  I believe that program was cut for budgetary reasons, but am not sure.

 

I would also get rid of compulsory attendance. There are many bodies in the public school system who simply have no business being there; school should be a privilege and an honor, not a chore that needs to be mandated.

 

Well, that certainly sounds elitist. It certainly is contrary to 200 years of American ideals and public education, starting with the Northwest Ordinance, which set the framework for westward expansion and the growth of a nation. It established townships and set aside land in each township for public education.

 

I'm pretty sure that we didn't have widespread public education in 1810.  Also, the state of our public schools *now* is contrary to any rational conception of American ideals.  Just because something has been done by the government for a long time does not mean that the government should continue to do it, especially when the government doing it has become less and less adept at doing it, allowing foreign competition to surpass us.  The Northwest Ordinance accomplished a great deal, but that doesn't mean that all individual components of it are defensible on their own merits.  (For example, the Northwest Ordinance provided for a substantial religious presence in education.  That has gradually faded in practice.)

(For example, the Northwest Ordinance provided for a substantial religious presence in education.  That has gradually faded in practice.)

 

What?  No it doesn't.  It provides for education, and it provides for freedom of religion, and it states that religion, knowledge and morality are important... but in no way does it provide for "a substantial religious presence in education."  It just does not say what you're claiming it does, and why would it?  How could there be religious freedom if the public schools are teaching a religion?  That's inconsistent with the document's wording and with the founders' openly stated desire not to have government tell anyone what religious beliefs to hold.

(For example, the Northwest Ordinance provided for a substantial religious presence in education. That has gradually faded in practice.)

 

What? No it doesn't. It provides for education, and it provides for freedom of religion, and it states that religion, knowledge and morality are important... but in no way does it provide for "a substantial religious presence in education." It just does not say what you're claiming it does, and why would it? How could there be religious freedom if the public schools are teaching a religion? That's inconsistent with the document's wording and with the founders' openly stated desire not to have government tell anyone what religious beliefs to hold.

 

OK, I'll stand corrected on that point.

 

It doesn't change anything I said earlier about the failure of the existing public school system.

 

After all, I was a Roads Scholar and nobody seems to listen to me.

 

I thought I recognized you, you're the guy who holds the SLOW/STOP sign!  I love how you can rotate that so smoothly!

^Not in all cases.  Private school teachers often have a much easier job due to more interested parents and more disciplined students.  Smaller classes helps for sure.  They also often get free meals for lunch and may have longer summers depending on the school's schedule.  Additionally, public schools sometimes have additional requirements (coaching or other extracurricular involvement) that private schools do not.

 

Public school teachers would have an easier job due to more interested parents and more disciplined students if they were more free to get rid of those students who are neither interested nor disciplined, which could be done much more easily in a world free of compulsory attendance laws.

 

Many private schools also have extracurricular requirements, too.  In fact, from the student perspective, many private schools have substantially more extracurricular requirements than public schools, which necessarily implies that someone is coaching, directing, etc. the extracurriculars in question.

 

And then what to we as a society do about all the uneducated sons and daughters of uneducated parents? And don't say let 'em fend for themselves in the free market. Real life is not about just economic considerations. We as a society have collective responsibilities. We as people have moral responsibilities.

 

Also, despite the economic costs of providing public education, I would argue there are greater economic costs to failing to educate people.

 

^Not in all cases. Private school teachers often have a much easier job due to more interested parents and more disciplined students. Smaller classes helps for sure. They also often get free meals for lunch and may have longer summers depending on the school's schedule. Additionally, public schools sometimes have additional requirements (coaching or other extracurricular involvement) that private schools do not.

 

Public school teachers would have an easier job due to more interested parents and more disciplined students if they were more free to get rid of those students who are neither interested nor disciplined, which could be done much more easily in a world free of compulsory attendance laws.

 

Many private schools also have extracurricular requirements, too. In fact, from the student perspective, many private schools have substantially more extracurricular requirements than public schools, which necessarily implies that someone is coaching, directing, etc. the extracurriculars in question.

And then what to we as a society do about all the uneducated sons and daughters of uneducated parents? And don't say let 'em fend for themselves in the free market. Real life is not about just economic considerations. We as a society have collective responsibilities. We as people have moral responsibilities.

 

We let them fend for themselves in the free market.  Real life is not just about economic considerations, but our non-economic responsibilities do not extend to trying to force learning into the minds of those who don't want it and serve primarily to disrupt the learning processes of superior students and poison the academic atmosphere (by creating a culture in which academic achievement is grounds for ridicule instead of honor).  Our collective responsibility is to produce the most productive and accomplished graduating classes possible, which means separating wheat from chaff.  We have the responsibility to make quality education universally available, but we cannot force those to whom it is available actually avail themselves of it.

 

In addition, I do not think that dropout rates would rise substantially in an all-private world with vouchers.  Because vouchers are tied to enrollment, schools would actually have to be certain that they were losing less by getting rid of both the student and his voucher than by keeping him.  In other words, the question every time the issue of expelling a student came up would be "is it really worth $6000 or $7000 to get rid of this kid?"  If the majority of the teachers themselves in a given school say "yes," then that should be the end of the matter.  After all, they tend to be a lot more sentimental about their roles than I am (in case you hadn't noticed), so they wouldn't make the decision lightly even if there were no financial ramifications, and if they're willing to take a pay cut to get rid of a kid, that should be the end of it, as far as I'm concerned.  In addition, however, some alternative schools in areas where the public schools have traditionally underperformed--<a href="http://www.kipp.org/">KIPP Academies</a>, to take one example--have shown that it *is* possible to overcome disadvantages of class and family structure (i.e., many broken families).  I'd take a city full of 10 KIPP Academies over the Akron Public Schools, sight unseen.  A privatization-and-vouchers system would give that an opportunity to happen.

 

Also, despite the economic costs of providing public education, I would argue there are greater economic costs to failing to educate people.

 

We're paying both of those costs right now, though.  Large numbers of public school graduates are graduating functionally illiterate and innumerate.  That's $10,000/student/year completely wasted, which could be far better spent providing better opportunities for better students.

There are so many faulty things in your reasoning I hardly know where to begin. First off, the quality of teachers and public education is probably as good as its ever been, or better. What has changed, radically, is our society and economy. Fifty, 100 and 150 years ago, there were jobs for dropouts and those who did not do well in school or didn't belong there. But those factory jobs are long gone and aren't coming back. As a consequence, more people are staying in school longer, and our society and economy are screaming for people with more education.

 

The question is: How do we as a society prepare people for this changing world? The reality is that a lot of public schools have real problems. (Show me a "failing school" that is not in a failing neighborhood filled with failing families in a failing local economy.) And there are a lot of bad teachers. But there also are a lot of bad private and charter schools. A lot of the charter schools around the state have mismanaged money and failed to educate kids. Even the KIPP school in Columbus is having problems. It's not a magic bullet. Meanwhile, there are a lot of extremely good public schools and a lot of extremely good private and charter schools. Abundant research shows that household income is a major factor in education. There are a whole lot of variables here. Reducing something as important as this to a public vs. private debate is disingenuous, a smokescreen.

 

I suspect that part of your response is will be that we, as a society, have no responsibility for this. If that is the case, there no more use discussing this because our differences are so fundamental that we might as well be on different planets. I think the idea of economic and social Darwinism are amoral.

 

Do people exist to serve the economy, or does the economy exist to serve the people?

If that is the case, there no more use discussing this because our differences are so fundamental that we might as well be on different planets. I think the idea of economic and social Darwinism are amoral.

 

Do people exist to serve the economy, or does the economy exist to serve the people?

 

The people *are* the economy.  Economics is a social science.  It describes how people act in response to incentives and their own values.  The economy exists to serve the people because it arises from people trying to serve other people in order to get something in exchange.  On the flip side, people do not exist to serve the economy, but they do have to do *something* for the economy if they want it to serve them in return.

 

I agree that the world is changing.  The difference is that I think that our education system has to change with it, whereas you apparently want to throw even more money at a failed status quo.  Do you really think that--returning to the topic of the thread, as modified by the qualification that we don't need to "rise again" because we're already risen--America can maintain its position in the world with the education system we have now?  Do you realize how much more school staff salaries have risen than inflation since 1960 with no appreciable increase in learning?

 

I'm aware that there are a lot of bad private schools out there.  The good thing about the private sector is that the market will get rid of them.  By contrast, Columbus Public, Akron Public, etc. should have gone bankrupt years ago, but they are allowed to continue because of the power of the state.  That is simply unconscionable.  Those schools need to be exposed to the competitive pressures of the market and forced to face the consequences of their failures.

I'm monitoring this schools conversation and will move or create a new thread for it if it continues in this direction.

Just out of curiosity, how much tuition to parents pay to send their kids to public schools like those in Columbus or Akron?

 

I thought so.

^Right... sorry. That was during my time at Ocksford. Fuzzy days.

 

Did you happen to see a certain Mr. Jay Gatsby in your days as an "Oggsford" man?  He went there too ya know.

I'm monitoring this schools conversation and will move or create a new thread for it if it continues in this direction.

 

Is it really that far off the topic of "How America Can Rise Again?"

 

(I'm really, really not trying to be snarky here ... I just actually thought this one stayed pretty close, even though the original article was more concerned with infrastructure.)

Just out of curiosity, how much tuition to parents pay to send their kids to public schools like those in Columbus or Akron?

 

I thought so.

 

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.

 

Also, in a private system, a parent who still wanted to send their child to Columbus South could do so.  They could just also use their voucher to send their child to Grandview Heights, Pickerington, etc. as well.  Jurisdictional boundaries are arbitrary, and far too many had their origins in less-than-pure motives (economic and racial segregation).  A private system would open the doors of suburban schools to families whose parents can't afford to live in the suburbs, and would force the schools in poorer areas to adapt or die.

It's hard enough finding talented teachers, as is. Pay all teachers less, and you will get even less. That's a horrible solution.

 

Complain about unions, if you'd like (although they provide other perks of the job, like great health insurance), for keeping bad teachers on the job. But if you take away pay and perks, you will find less people willing to teach.

 

In an urban setting, where many parents are minimally involved in their children's lives, we NEED teachers who know how to reach the students, and that is a RARE but real breed of people.

 

Making school optional is also ridiculous. Who makes that decision? Nearly all parents want their children in school. Even if it's just to get the kids out of their hair. Or do we let a 12 year old decide they don't want to go to school anymore? There's a reason kids are minors under the law -- their brain chemistry and life experience do not allow them to make reasonable decisions for the future.

 

Private schools are, by and large, funded by churches and religious organizations that back them. Charter schools are really only partially private...if you introduce vouchers, you're not really talking private. Anyhow, there are many successful charter schools, but there are also many that are failures. Because of the way the voucher system works, there are plenty of parents sending their kids to the failing charter schools, just the same. If you flood the market, you're just going to put public school issues in the hands of "private" schools. The private schools perform better due to the dedication of parents.

 

I honestly think you're talking about a very complicated subject, Gramarye, and you're looking at it through over-simplification glasses. There's no magic bullet.

 

You do also have an inaccurate, patronizing view of professional educators. UrbanSurfer was right to take offense, but the truth is that a lot of people share this view. "Teachers have short work days, summers off, etc. It's such an easy job." Blah, blah...if it's so easy and overpaying, why don't you go ahead and do it for a while? Then come back here and reformulate your opinion.

It's hard enough finding talented teachers, as is. Pay all teachers less, and you will get even less. That's a horrible solution.

 

There is actually already a glut of graduates in the field.  The market will ensure that compensation does not fall too far in the same way that it will ensure that it does fall some: it balances the supply with the demand.  That applies to the labor market as much as to any other.

 

In an urban setting, where many parents are minimally involved in their children's lives, we NEED teachers who know how to reach the students, and that is a RARE but real breed of people.

 

You make it sound like (a) the market is incapable of finding employment for such people (when in fact those are precisely the teachers who would succeed the most under a private-enterprise system, whereas the current one rewards seniority and conformity) and (b) the current system actually can produce such people in the needed quantities notwithstanding its perennial failure to do so.  That the American public can maintain its faith in this institution notwithstanding its demonstrable lack of results in proportion to the resources poured into it is absolutely incomprehensible to me.

 

Making school optional is also ridiculous. Who makes that decision? Nearly all parents want their children in school. Even if it's just to get the kids out of their hair. Or do we let a 12 year old decide they don't want to go to school anymore? There's a reason kids are minors under the law -- their brain chemistry and life experience do not allow them to make reasonable decisions for the future.

 

Parents would make the decision, unless their children were emancipated minors.  However, the teachers could also make the decision simply be refusing to take the student and his voucher, meaning that schools could get rid of children who are more destructive than the value of the money they would bring in.

 

Private schools are, by and large, funded by churches and religious organizations that back them. Charter schools are really only partially private...if you introduce vouchers, you're not really talking private.

 

A fair point.  To the extent that vouchers are "not really talking private," though, I am advocating vouchers, not an entirely private system.  No one should be denied education due to a lack of resources.  A lack of effort, a lack of discipline, a lack of basic human decency and consideration for fellow human beings and students, perhaps, but not a lack of resources.  The vouchers I envision would be in the neighborhood of an actual match to the state's per-pupil expenditures ... $10,000+ per year.  That's enough to put even Columbus Academy within reach for some parents (though they would still have to come up with substantial out-of-pocket money for that one) and would put most less-elite private schools within reach.  In addition, this would ensure that those public schools, converted to private schools, that successfully kept the students they have would not lose a dime, and could even grow--Grandview Heights, for example, would very likely keep all of its own kids and (space permitting) be able to admit more from the nearby neighborhoods of Columbus where the kids are now condemned to Columbus Public.

 

Anyhow, there are many successful charter schools, but there are also many that are failures. Because of the way the voucher system works, there are plenty of parents sending their kids to the failing charter schools, just the same. If you flood the market, you're just going to put public school issues in the hands of "private" schools. The private schools perform better due to the dedication of parents.

 

I honestly think you're talking about a very complicated subject, Gramarye, and you're looking at it through over-simplification glasses. There's no magic bullet.

 

I have a simplistic view on this?  You're the one who just threw out the platitude that "private schools perform better due to the dedication of parents."  Really?  The dedication of teachers, administrators, and students has nothing to do with it?  The freedom from asinine bureaucratic red tape has nothing to do with it?  I think I have put forward a significant and complex proposal into which I've put a lot of thought.  No one else has offered anything other than pouring money into the existing system and "getting better teachers" or "making parents care more," with no specific proposals as to how that might happen (nor explanations for why it has not already, given how many decades we've sat and watched the existing system decline now).  My views are not simplistic.  They are exactly the opposite.  The view that we can simply double down on the existing failure is the simplistic one.

 

You do also have an inaccurate, patronizing view of professional educators. UrbanSurfer was right to take offense, but the truth is that a lot of people share this view. "Teachers have short work days, summers off, etc. It's such an easy job." Blah, blah...if it's so easy and overpaying, why don't you go ahead and do it for a while? Then come back here and reformulate your opinion.

 

I was a teacher, and tutor, for a while, though never in a public school and never full time.  I don't need to do it for a time to see the obvious any more than I need to be a firefighter or soldier for a while to understand that they put a lot on the line for my safety, and no more than others on this board feel the need to run a business for a while before opining on the subject of executive compensation.  My sister, who is studying for her M.Ed., had the misfortune to be assigned to student teach in the Columbus Public Schools and validated every stereotype you've heard about it and worse.  The teacher *was* overpaid, underworked, and apathetic, and the students were all of the above save overpaid.  The teacher also had incredible seniority and status in the local teachers' union.  In other words, it was far more rational for her to be a good bureaucratic player than a good teacher.  That is a perverse incentive system, and I look forward to the day when that becomes sufficiently undeniable to a sufficient number of people to force genuine reform.

I'm monitoring this schools conversation and will move or create a new thread for it if it continues in this direction.

 

Is it really that far off the topic of "How America Can Rise Again?"

 

(I'm really, really not trying to be snarky here ... I just actually thought this one stayed pretty close, even though the original article was more concerned with infrastructure.)

 

I think you just answered your own question.

It's hard enough finding talented teachers, as is. Pay all teachers less, and you will get even less. That's a horrible solution.

 

There is actually already a glut of graduates in the field. The market will ensure that compensation does not fall too far in the same way that it will ensure that it does fall some: it balances the supply with the demand. That applies to the labor market as much as to any other.

 

That is certainly true in Ohio, but not necessarily true in other states. I know that southern states have a shortage -- perhaps those states' overemphasis on sprawl has kept the young teachers away.

It's hard enough finding talented teachers, as is. Pay all teachers less, and you will get even less. That's a horrible solution.

 

There is actually already a glut of graduates in the field. The market will ensure that compensation does not fall too far in the same way that it will ensure that it does fall some: it balances the supply with the demand. That applies to the labor market as much as to any other.

 

That is certainly true in Ohio, but not necessarily true in other states. I know that southern states have a shortage -- perhaps those states' overemphasis on sprawl has kept the young teachers away.

 

I'm not sure how you're suggesting the two are related.  After all, are you suggesting the converse is true--that Ohio's underemphasis on sprawl drew the young teachers here?  That sounds like both a bad premise (Ohio doesn't exactly "underemphasize" sprawl, notwithstanding that some Southern states sprawl even more) and a bad conclusion (that teachers are somehow intrinsically or organically attracted to cities rather than suburbs or rural areas).

I spent time as a fulltime teacher in an inner-city public school. Several teachers there were extremely adept at reaching students, but many were not. From the viewpoint of the school, they had a shortage of teachers already, and it's better to have a stable face in front of the classroom than a constant rotation of substitutes. That is not to say that the unions do not keep sour apples on board, but that's not nearly the whole story.

 

Some of the senior teachers lamented that they were more effective 20 or 30 years ago, as student culture has changed. I can't really speak to that, but they said overall students used to have more respect. The merits of kicking someone like that out of the profession are debatable, but there is something to be said also for job security. I suppose it varies by situation.

 

You'd have to be an idiot, a glutton for punishment, if you start the job with the intention of having a cushy job. New teachers frequently quit and run back to corporate jobs, where the pay is better and their blood pressure is not as constant a threat.

 

So, no, I do not think private schools perform better due to the dedication of the teachers and administrators. They have an easier job to start with, stemming from the fact that their parents are involved in their child's education enough to choose which school they go to.

 

Does it require dedication on the part of private/charter school teachers and administrators? Yes. That's why you end up with failing charter schools. If, however, you remove the exclusively-choice component, and everyone must go to a charter school, you will see all the public school issues brought into the charter schools.

 

You also must understand that uninvolved parents will want their children in school. The choice of schools to deny students would just concentrate all the "bad" students into schools which will take them (and there will be schools that will take them), effectively emulating the system we already have. Perhaps making it worse, though, as you give incentive to creating a larger and larger student body, as more vouchers = more $$$$ for the administrators.

 

Your whole system is based on a premise that public school workers are primarily at fault for the failure of schools. A better argument would be to blame teachers unions. Either way, it's an oversimplification of a deeply entrenched problem. Waving a magic voucher wand will not change the underlying social problems which lead to public school deficiencies.

 

Do you believe teachers and administrators in high-performing suburban public school districts are more dedicated to their jobs than those in underperforming, inner-city districts? Inner-city teachers watch, year after year, as their colleagues bail out of the inner-city districts for the suburbs. It's perceived to be, and is, an easier job. Same thing goes for private schools: easier job.

You'd have to be an idiot, a glutton for punishment, if you start the job with the intention of having a cushy job. New teachers frequently quit and run back to corporate jobs, where the pay is better and their blood pressure is not as constant a threat ... Inner-city teachers watch, year after year, as their colleagues bail out of the inner-city districts for the suburbs. It's perceived to be, and is, an easier job. Same thing goes for private schools: easier job.

 

I observed this as well in my own public school, but I don't think this detracts from my point.  The whole point is that a choice-based system would allow these teachers to take jobs that, as you say later in your post, are easier on their blood pressure because they have eliminated most of the students that cause the vast majority of the problems.  In practice, about 80% of the problems come from 20% of the students.  In other words, it should be possible, even with the endemic parental noninvolvement, broken households, etc., to form a private school in an urban area that would set high expectations and get students on board with the goal of meeting them.  The fact that this is all but impossible to find an example of is evidence of just how broken the system is.  Far too many of our high schools are turning out graduates that will not be able to contribute substantially to preserving America's historical position in the world.

 

Does it require dedication on the part of private/charter school teachers and administrators? Yes. That's why you end up with failing charter schools. If, however, you remove the exclusively-choice component, and everyone must go to a charter school, you will see all the public school issues brought into the charter schools.

 

You also must understand that uninvolved parents will want their children in school. The choice of schools to deny students would just concentrate all the "bad" students into schools which will take them (and there will be schools that will take them), effectively emulating the system we already have. Perhaps making it worse, though, as you give incentive to creating a larger and larger student body, as more vouchers = more $$$$ for the administrators.

 

There is definitely some truth in this, but I would qualify it with this: It would at least result in *some* schools in a given district that are high-achievers.  My proposal is *not* a recipe for getting the worst of the worst to shape up.  It is a recipe for removing them from the same facilities in which more dedicated students in delicate situations are trying to better their futures, and for getting the truly bad eggs out of the system entirely.  (There would at least be some that no school would take, though this might correlate with the number who currently end up expelled today.)  Right now, simply living on one side of one street vs. the other can make an incredible difference in a child's future: live on one side of the street and you go to Columbus Public; live on the other and you go to Upper Arlington.  How is there justice in that?  How is that fair to students from poorer families?  If Upper Arlington were private, it would be both able and financially incentivized to accept students from outside its traditional jurisdictional boundaries.  That means opportunities for those students in the city whose ambition outstrips their parents' incomes.  Where is the problem in that?

 

Your whole system is based on a premise that public school workers are primarily at fault for the failure of schools. A better argument would be to blame teachers unions. Either way, it's an oversimplification of a deeply entrenched problem. Waving a magic voucher wand will not change the underlying social problems which lead to public school deficiencies.

 

My premise is that the problem is with the institution, which is why I'm after institutional reform, not reform of individual teachers or of teachers' unions.  As a government near-monopoly protected by the power to tax and compulsory attendance, it has extremely few incentives for improvement other than simply trusting that everything will be fine if you throw enough money at the schools.  That has not worked, and so I believe it is time to try something new, using the same principles of private enterprise that have worked in other sectors of the economy.

 

Do you believe teachers and administrators in high-performing suburban public school districts are more dedicated to their jobs than those in underperforming, inner-city districts?

 

As I said above, the problem is with institutional design.  Create a system in which those who are in fact dedicated to their jobs can flourish and those who are not no longer enjoy government protection, and we'll find out which schools are really worth preserving and which aren't, and we would also open the door to new schools and new investment in schools that is currently crowded out of the market by the fact that all the money in the market, save at the highest end (when parents can afford both property taxes *and* private school tuition), is directed to the inefficient government monopoly with which we're currently saddled.