Once again, a very very small part of the problem.
I'm not so sure. When the administration of the school board was a separate entity, we did see more teacher turnover. Now many school boards are directly controlled by the same parties that handle the teachers, so I don't know if I trust the evaluations.
The biggest problem I see is that the only way we can evaluation teachers is to have truly independent grading and testing systems. The most recent testing programs were passed by the unions for approval. This is not the right way to test the testers.
Can you earn minimum wage and not be poor?
I believe minimum wage laws keeps people poor and keeps neighborhoods on welfare doles. Mininum wage prevents people with no skills from getting an entry level job and proving their worth (and their value) to industry.
Below a certain income level, you can't provide for yourself AND improve yourself.
So you get rid of minimum wage laws and you give people opportunities to learn trades by working at the bottom. No one stays at the bottom long -- if they're truly valuable and hard working, they'll climb the ladder. My own father came to this country with no education and no money and worked his way up until retiring as the CEO of a large company. I left home when he was still a tiny engineer in a tiny company but I learned that hard work, not education, is what makes you successful.
Why would we expect the wealthy to magically donate to this cause?
We can expect many people to. I already donate over 5% of my income to a private school in Illinois. I will soon be donating another 5% of my income to a private school in Wisconsin. The wealthy have always sponsored education, libraries and other programs for one big reason -- ego. Nothing wrong with it. Competitive charities would work to show the rich that the money actually is making a difference. The reality is that education is not as expensive you think it is once you remove the monopoly of government from the structure.
Excellent example! Should we start serving up fast food style education? Or should we import it Wal-Mart style from China? Goooo capitalism!
The food at McDonald's and Burger King is healthier than you'd get 50 years ago at most restaurants. Throw away the bun and ketchup, substitute the fries for an apple, dump the cola and get water or their sugar free soft drinks and you have a reasonably balanced meal. I know, I lost 20 pounds (out of a total of 50) eating fast food for 3 months. Don't say the food is bad because it isn't. Myth, myth, myth.
I haven't seen a public school system where i child with involved parents couldn't get an excellent education.
I've seen dozens. In 2007 I'll be working with a free market education co-op to try to prove how bad things really are. Until then, all I can say is that I don't want to fund anyone's education because I am trying to save up money so I can have kids.
Why should I be responsible and let everyone else be irresponsible with my money? Education is not a right, it should never be a right, and I honestly don't care if people learn or are stupid. I want to save my money so I can have kids and I can raise them well and educate them and give them an opportunity. I was the poorest kid in my town growing up and my parents did the same. They saved. They taught me. They didn't realize how bad the public education system was even in the 80s, so I learned outside of school. The parents of my friends borrowed and spent and both parents worked and you can see what the outcome was. Public education has zero to do with a poor child's future -- I am a great example of that. I also won't put my kid in the system, I want to pay for it myself. Yet I have to pay thousands a year in taxes to support the children of the lazy and irresponsible.
That is reason enough to lock the door and throw away the key to public education -- you are using force to keep irresponsible people breeding and making more irresponsible people.
Exactly. You paid a premium for a high quality product with higher quality service. The free market in action:)
Samsung is the ONLY television company I will buy from right now (other than large screen projectors). The last 3 TVs I helped people buy were from Samsung. My cell phone is from Samsung. These people answer their e-mails and phone calls, and they've fixed any problem I've had in recent years.
Yes, I believe you are right. I also believe that the Internet is starting to bring free market ideals into action. I don't believe mega-corporations can exist for very long without government subsidies or favoritism. Now we have instant information, reviews, and feature and price comparisons. Sony can't compete on that level.
I believe Sony's (and most megacorps') best option would be to spin off into 5-10 separate companies. There is nothing wrong with these 10 companies (and maybe 20 other companies in other industries) getting together to fund R&D groups. In the long run, the "sell everything to everyone" idea will fall apart as you find companies that can specialize on specific markets. In the "old days" you had enough trouble selling one type of product to one market region. Now you can create new megamarkets that are very niche, but are international. The need to appeal to everyone all the time is quickly falling away.
ut its also isolated to NYC - like a lot of problems NYC has.
Watch the 20/20 episode -- this problem is NOT isolated to NYC. My town (suburban, halfway between Chicago and Milwaukee) has 2 teachers that should have been fired years ago -- but the school administration can't. The union has threatened to walk if the teachers are canned. I am very involved with my school board (I constantly go to review why my stolen taxdollars are being wasted on useless programs).
However, you remain completely silent on the fact that many poor simply wouldn't get an education.
Since when is this a fact? The poor eat, right? The poor generally have televisions and cell phones also. Some of the poor in this country are indoctrinated poor people -- they're poor because it means less work.
Jacon Hornberger comments about how the poor would get educated in a free market education system. Voluntary donations by the wealthy. In fact, this has been happening for decades already.
The poor today already get the worst educations -- their schools are run over by gangs, drug dealers and unsafe environments. From what I've seen in my volunteer time with my church in very bad neighborhoods near my town, the poor are sent to school to keep them together. Kids with the desire to get away from their poverty have no chance -- the system won't allow it.
There are also places where it completely fails - particularly when there just isn't much market competition involved.
Yet McDonalds and Burger King can provide a meal for $3 (cheaper over time actually), but education has to increase its costs 10% every year? Wal*Mart can provide clothing at lower and lower prices every year, but we need to keep adding more topics for teachers to teach even though we're already paying way more than we should be?
Before we had public education, our poor had higher literacy rates. Current literacy rates do not actually test reading skill, they are based on how many years a student has studied English. Been in school for 6 years? You're literate, at least for statistical purposes.
To me, it seems that public education stifles 90% of the kids in order to try to help the 10% at the bottom. This is not how it should be. By trying to make everyone an average citizen, how can you expect some to excel and become the next wealthy generation? How can you expect some to have to settle in lower paying jobs to keep the economy driving strong?
I think the proper title should be "the consumer market killed off some of Sony's fad products." Sony wouldn't kill off products that made them a profit. A profit is the only proof of a product's viability -- if people are willing to pay you to perform a service or build a product, your ability to profit proves if the product/service is worthy of your time.
I think we'll see more of these fad/trend items from other Asian manufacturers start to fall out of the production lines. The U.S. is one of the biggest consumers of these useless products, and personal debt is way too high to keep buying more stuff that depreciates 60% the minute it hits the house. With Americans buying less, Asian manufacturers have to reorganize their product lines for items that we do need.
Sony is already out of my buying schedule -- the rootkit and the overall low quality of products they've made in recent years have led me to decide to never buy their products again. I help a few cEOs and upper management types from my client base purchase home electronics and appliances -- I'll always tell them never buy Sony. I remember a few years ago how many of these 6+ figure income types were asking about Aibo and other eccentric toys, nowadays I hear nothing of the sort. Even worse, I don't even hear the wealthy elites asking about the latest flat panel TVs, high end GPS systems or the latest computer gadgets. If the wealthy are having a hard time staying on the 18 month upgrade cycle, what does that say about the economy?
Sony is probably smart to start slicing and dicing. The best thing they can do is refocus on their higher end line -- people who can afford the expense will want the best quality product available. I hate seeing a company I loved become a company I hate. They chased the common man, and their products suffered for it. They chased markets created out of force against consumer action (music, movies, etc) to give their previous customers even more reason to hate them.
Sony, if you're listening and you want to be pragmatic (meaning practical), chop it all out. Sell it all off. Return to Japan, make high end products with meticulous attention to detail and care. Love your customers again -- those willing to pay for the product quality and service. Don't chase the Best Buy guy (or the Circuit City kitty?) -- let the upper echelon come to you.
Billions in annual sales at a 2% margin makes less sense than hundreds of millions at a 20% margin. Here's a hint for all you future entrepreneurs: the only thing that will keep you profitable is to keep your customers happy and offer them a consistency in your performance -- product quality and customer service. Ignore the trends, the fads and trying to sell everything to everyone.
(I was at 49% in highschool, I've been top 5% in college and I felt the first 2 years were nothing but review)
I was in the bottom 5% of my high school, but I was earning over teacher's pay by 16. I learned through work, and I believe others can as well.
Don't you feel terrible that your first 2 years of college -- a competitive system where YOU choose which school and how much you're willing to pay -- has to reteach everyone for 2 of the 4 years? Why is that?
I was ready for college by 13 (I started my first business at 13). I would have loved to take a few classes (say, 6 hours a week) for 8 years while working, receiving mentorship from entrepreneurs, and paying for it myself.
Yet I was practically mandated to go to high school. Freshman year they wanted to place me in an LD class (low attention span to my classes) but I received the highest ACT and SAT scores in my district 2 years later. I was also a D- student because I tried to force the issue of skipping high school and going straight into the work program.
50% of my friends and employees have gone to college. All of them gained 4-5 years of college and social debt and a piece of paper. None of them are smarter or better socially than those friends and employees of mine who never went to college. My best employee is a high school drop out and he is sharp as a whip -- and his parents are complete morons.
At 18 I recommend taking the money and time you'd spend on college and starting a business. I've helped many teenagers do this over the years, and almost 90% of them are still in business and well ahead of their peers.
College is now primarily to teach kids what they didn't learn in 12 years of public education. As the government starts funding almost 70% of college educations, the prices have gone up and the quality has gone down. I don't even look for degrees any more in any of my businesses. Today I am visiting a customer who has a US$100 million gross income in their field and I'll be helping them hire a few new thinkers. Of the top 10 candidates, only 5 have college degrees. The process I use to hire is to put them to work for an hour and see who comes out sweat free and confident. College doesn't seem to teach those skills.
Come on, how many parents know how to teach children - and I mean really know?
Today? Few -- because they give up that responsibility of parenthood to the State. I won't have a child until I can educate them in the system I choose with my own funding. I strongly believe that you shouldn't have children until you can accept the responsibility of them. If you do "by accident" there are churches, mosques, synagogues and pagan churches that are willing to help you fund their growth and education. Don't come asking me (a responsible human being) to pay for your error.
What about the child? The child is screwed anyway -- if the parents aren't ready to parent, the public education system will have a monster on their hands. I see public education as the new parent, and this is not what I want.
I'd rather see the bottom 10% of the poor having to get their education through the church or even work mentorship programs than see 90% of the kids be held back because of equality laws and mandates.
The real problem is that there is a poor chain of responsibility. Teachers don't get backing from parents or the pricipal. Parents would rather blame teachers than take responsibility for their kids.
I'll never blame the teachers -- I do blame the teachers unions. I offered an idea about separating teaching from grading -- offer teachers the ability to teach a given curriculum, and then let a private organization grade the students. I found out the teachers unions don't allow this. I wish I could grade my own work that I perform, I'd always give it a "C" -- that way I can ask for more funding to try to do better with what I have to work with.
I also blame the government mandates. It is very hard to fire a teacher -- I blogged about this a week ago, and I quoted this recent 20/20 episode:
We tried to bring "20/20" cameras into New York City schools to see for ourselves and show you what's going on in the schools, but officials wouldn't allow it.
In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence.
It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student.
You can download this 20/20 episode via torrent, if you want the link e-mail me.
The teachers are not necessarily to blame, although I do tell my friends that are teachers to leave the union (almost 20% of them have!). Government funding also tends to run up the costs without the actual workers getting the benefit -- more government money attracts more government cronies.
Before public education literacy was not very high.
This is a myth, and I hear it all the time from friends of mine who are part of the teachers union.
Literacy rates have fallen since we've increased the funding to public education:
Teacher Linda Shrock Taylor shows that literacy rates are not based on actual literacy but on the amount of years a student has attended an education curriculum. Scary scary scary!
Ok, so you're happy with public education in Wisconsin. Don't you see it being a better system if it is funded locally instead of sharing funds between counties or states? Why would someone proud of being from your area want to waste money on people you can not hold accountable and you can't audit or review?
I believe that "public" education might have a chance if the funds are kept locally -- preferably voluntarily funded.
I am not against a group education system, I just see the waste in kowtowing to the teacher unions and the public worker unions.
I don't see a rise in literacy rates, and as an employer of youths, I see a terrible bifurcation in the intellect of the average teenagers -- a very small minority are REALLY bright, but the large majority are what I would consider "dumb."
You make interesting points, but I'm not in agreement.
Many who are barely making it by right now will instead say "Hey, educating the kids is no longer mandatory and I finally have the money to really get by. The kids can get a job like delivering papers, I can keep working my job, and we'll finally be secure."
I'm fine with that. My parents came from poor countries and thr=ey self-educated after coming to the US. They learned trades while working.
If families decide to not convert the savings into private education, so
No way for his son to get a better life in any field his father doesn't understand.
No, not true. Some people are born with the desire to learn. They'll have to possibly work while learning, but it has happened for thousands of years -- the desire to do better. It might take a generation, but it would be earned and respected by the learner.
Public education has brought the UK and US decreasing literacy and competency. I can't se4 how we're better off.
I'm against all public education systems. I don't believe they've worked.
That being said, if we must have them, let's focus on pure education -- facts, repetition, useful classes: how to read, write and perform basic math. At most, some basic scientific theory might be OK.
Everything else -- health, PE, higher sciences, diet -- leave it to the family or to competitive higher education.
If we cut back public education to ages 6-11 and strictly teach the basics, we can return thousands back to each family in tax savings. It'll be more than enough to let a parent stay home, teach with other parents helping and they can save money to send their kids to private upper education.
With gas prices being so high, all that's standing in the way of Ethanol is this constant argument over whether or not it's energy positive or not
Gas is not expensive. It has dropped in price versus inflation, leading me to believe we're not running out.
Ethanol is much more expensive in the long run -- compare mileage for the same amount.
Oil isn't leaving us any time soon. Oil created the best quality of life increases in all of history. Be thankful we have it.
That laptop you use? Oil-based plastics. Those contact lenses? The sneakers? The UV-reflecting coatings on glass? Part of the insulation in many homes?
IANAL. From what I understand, ONLY the Governement can restrict the FIRST Amendment. What I'm getting at is that a corp can do what ever the fuck they want to.
Incorrect. Read the Constitution, it is simple English.
The Constitution merely sets government's limited powers. Government can only do what the Constitution sets out.
The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) list what Government can not regulate as there are basic inalienable rights every human is born with. Even non-Americans.
the exact reasons that was a dumb idea? (e.g. it would allow calling a cop motherfucker to his face, free hate / death rally speech etc.)
No government has any right to restrict speech, per the Constitution.
Hate speech, death rallies, they're all speech. The fact that government does censor us (and you're ok with it) proves to me that I'm fights the good fight in repudiating copyright and any laws restricting voluntary trades.
You kids today prove you're indoctrinated by public education.
I've been thinking about how a viewer-funded TV show could generate additional income without requiring copyright to protect future profits. One way I came up with would be fan-paid trips to the set, and even fan-paid walk on appearances.
I've offered to US$500 to sponsor another season of Firefly. I'd likely pay US$2000 to get my name in the credits somewhere. I've done it at museums and other sponsorship activities -- not out of altruism but out of pure ego.
I'm not a browncoat, but I do love the show. I bought the DVD set before watching the TV show or even hearing about it anywhere, and it sat in the shrink wrap for months. Once I watched it (after 2 false starts) I realized that we need the first viewer-produced show.
I'd love to see Firefly v.2 be Whedon's real trial into seeing what one could do with an Open Source style show. Honestly, the costs of doing a show differently than a la Hollywood could bring in way more income without having to require people actually pay for the show. Let us produce it (meaning pay for it), let it be freely downloaded by the masses (maybe give it to the sponsor/producers first though and let them give it away to friends and family and then throw it online).
I think it would be very interesting to see how it goes. Of course Whedon would never allow it, but I'd put my money where my mouth is to get it going and the best way to generate interest is to offer it as the first big major production given away, with the full rights to the characters and name in the public domain. Imagine the fan fiction that could come out of it if the production company also offered to add fan-fic vignettes into the actual "official" episodes. Render your own battle scenes, video tape your own bar cut scenes, whatever. Want it in the show? Send it to us. Help us keep the show alive with your cash, while you're at it.
Serenity/Firefly is the most anarcho-capitalist plotline I've ever seen. I'd love to see freedom in the next production, not just in the plotline.
And I believe wages are lower because both parents work. Once women entered the workforce en masse, they increased the supply of available workers, lowering the demand, and therefore lowering wages, too.
The mess starts with government, it ends with government, and it has government in the middle too.
Basic health, including diet and exercise, are others.
So you want the same government that promoted the Food Pyramid death trap to teach your kids how to eat and exercise? Sorry, but I'm a pro-fat pro-protein anti-sugar anti-starch kind of guy, and I know that the teachers are teaching kids that bread is good, butter is bad. It is the other way around, friend, and you're going to poison your kids with that garbage.
The problem lies in figuring out what should be common to everyone and what should be left to the individual's family and culture.
There is no common morality as I see it. The only rule I can think that needs to be taught to kids is "don't hurt anyone else, don't hurt their property." The side comment of this is "if two adults share cooperate voluntarily with each other, no one should stop them from transacting any barter or trade." That's it. The parents teach that, the schools teach education. I'm against public funding of education entirely, but stretching it to cover morals or health is ridiculous.
However, way too many parents either don't have the time or inclination to be parents, so often the teachers end up filling that role as best they are able.
In 1980, the household tax burden was under 30% of total income to government at every level. In 2005, the household tax burden is over 50% of total income to goverment at every level.
You want to know WHY parents don't have time? They're too busy paying off the bad decisions the voters made 20 years ago. End the public education system, dump the property taxes that pay for it, and you'll be able to return mom (or dad) back home to take care of the children. Don't tell me to pay for your bad voting decisions.
The government sees what is happening and tries to take on some of that itself instead of leaving it up to the already-overworked teachers.
Overworked? When teachers have to teach homosexuality, AIDs, exercise, diet, government-written history, and economics to children, of course they are overworked. These are subjects that should come from family-paid higher education or the home, not from teachers. We can cut education to 3 hours per day, refund 70% of the money people pay in taxes for education, and fix the problem in 1 year or less.
If I'd seen it, I'd've grabbed the other kid and made him take me to his parents to let them know what he'd done, and hope they'd agree that was wrong.
I'd have grabbed the kid and called my lawyer. I also wouldn't let my 2 year old be wandering around without me. I wouldn't let my 6 year old or 10 year old do so either. It is the parents' job to monitor their child completely until that child is a major, at which point that adult (no matter the age) is responsible for themselves. If an 8 year old is wandering around alone, he's an adult in my eyes.
Actually the football coach begged me to join Freshman year (I was hard to tackle when we played smear-the-queer at recess) but I hated football. I also held records for some stats for almost a decade after I graduated (pull ups, climbing speed, and track). I'm no jock, but I'm very athletic.
Art class and history can be fun electives -- electives that are chosen by the student and paid for by the student. I don't see the need for a state funded 8-3pm education. Grammar/spelling/reading, mathematics (up to pre-algebra) and writing/typing are all I want to see the public system doing. Basic bare education, and let the parents fund the rest.
I don't want to fund kids jumping up and down, that is the parent's job to make sure their child is healthy, not my job.
The proper role of education is RRR - Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. The idea that a school (a public one no less) should be enforcing diet or exercise or moral structure or anything other than a basic education is crazy.
How about we stop funding these nutjobs who want to be parents to our children, no educators?
No, money is not only money. Money is a store of labor -- my labor. Laboring is part of why we live.
If someone decides they want to threaten me, on my property, and take from me, I will teach them the lesson of using forcing aggressively. I am fully in support of using force defensively on your own property to repel an attack, an intruder or any criminal. If they think they can take what is mine, they have another thing coming.
There is no difference to me between a thief, a rapist, a murderer or an arsonist. My body is my property, my land is my property and my business is my property. If my property is harmed directly by someone for bad reasons, I will defend my property completely.
Haha. Actually, anti-gun advocates always tell me to get a dog instead of my weapons.
Why should I have to take care of the dog 24/7 when I can properly maintain my weapon a few times a month?
If I had a kid in the house, I might consider getting rid of the piece, but I surely wouldn't tell anyone. Hell, you can buy weapons that have been disabled completely, and they still work to chase off criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, a very very small part of the problem.
I'm not so sure. When the administration of the school board was a separate entity, we did see more teacher turnover. Now many school boards are directly controlled by the same parties that handle the teachers, so I don't know if I trust the evaluations.
The biggest problem I see is that the only way we can evaluation teachers is to have truly independent grading and testing systems. The most recent testing programs were passed by the unions for approval. This is not the right way to test the testers.
Can you earn minimum wage and not be poor?
I believe minimum wage laws keeps people poor and keeps neighborhoods on welfare doles. Mininum wage prevents people with no skills from getting an entry level job and proving their worth (and their value) to industry.
Below a certain income level, you can't provide for yourself AND improve yourself.
So you get rid of minimum wage laws and you give people opportunities to learn trades by working at the bottom. No one stays at the bottom long -- if they're truly valuable and hard working, they'll climb the ladder. My own father came to this country with no education and no money and worked his way up until retiring as the CEO of a large company. I left home when he was still a tiny engineer in a tiny company but I learned that hard work, not education, is what makes you successful.
Why would we expect the wealthy to magically donate to this cause?
We can expect many people to. I already donate over 5% of my income to a private school in Illinois. I will soon be donating another 5% of my income to a private school in Wisconsin. The wealthy have always sponsored education, libraries and other programs for one big reason -- ego. Nothing wrong with it. Competitive charities would work to show the rich that the money actually is making a difference. The reality is that education is not as expensive you think it is once you remove the monopoly of government from the structure.
Excellent example! Should we start serving up fast food style education? Or should we import it Wal-Mart style from China? Goooo capitalism!
The food at McDonald's and Burger King is healthier than you'd get 50 years ago at most restaurants. Throw away the bun and ketchup, substitute the fries for an apple, dump the cola and get water or their sugar free soft drinks and you have a reasonably balanced meal. I know, I lost 20 pounds (out of a total of 50) eating fast food for 3 months. Don't say the food is bad because it isn't. Myth, myth, myth.
I haven't seen a public school system where i child with involved parents couldn't get an excellent education.
I've seen dozens. In 2007 I'll be working with a free market education co-op to try to prove how bad things really are. Until then, all I can say is that I don't want to fund anyone's education because I am trying to save up money so I can have kids.
Why should I be responsible and let everyone else be irresponsible with my money? Education is not a right, it should never be a right, and I honestly don't care if people learn or are stupid. I want to save my money so I can have kids and I can raise them well and educate them and give them an opportunity. I was the poorest kid in my town growing up and my parents did the same. They saved. They taught me. They didn't realize how bad the public education system was even in the 80s, so I learned outside of school. The parents of my friends borrowed and spent and both parents worked and you can see what the outcome was. Public education has zero to do with a poor child's future -- I am a great example of that. I also won't put my kid in the system, I want to pay for it myself. Yet I have to pay thousands a year in taxes to support the children of the lazy and irresponsible.
That is reason enough to lock the door and throw away the key to public education -- you are using force to keep irresponsible people breeding and making more irresponsible people.
Exactly. You paid a premium for a high quality product with higher quality service. The free market in action :)
Samsung is the ONLY television company I will buy from right now (other than large screen projectors). The last 3 TVs I helped people buy were from Samsung. My cell phone is from Samsung. These people answer their e-mails and phone calls, and they've fixed any problem I've had in recent years.
Good choices, good post.
Yes, I believe you are right. I also believe that the Internet is starting to bring free market ideals into action. I don't believe mega-corporations can exist for very long without government subsidies or favoritism. Now we have instant information, reviews, and feature and price comparisons. Sony can't compete on that level.
I believe Sony's (and most megacorps') best option would be to spin off into 5-10 separate companies. There is nothing wrong with these 10 companies (and maybe 20 other companies in other industries) getting together to fund R&D groups. In the long run, the "sell everything to everyone" idea will fall apart as you find companies that can specialize on specific markets. In the "old days" you had enough trouble selling one type of product to one market region. Now you can create new megamarkets that are very niche, but are international. The need to appeal to everyone all the time is quickly falling away.
ut its also isolated to NYC - like a lot of problems NYC has.
Watch the 20/20 episode -- this problem is NOT isolated to NYC. My town (suburban, halfway between Chicago and Milwaukee) has 2 teachers that should have been fired years ago -- but the school administration can't. The union has threatened to walk if the teachers are canned. I am very involved with my school board (I constantly go to review why my stolen taxdollars are being wasted on useless programs).
However, you remain completely silent on the fact that many poor simply wouldn't get an education.
Since when is this a fact? The poor eat, right? The poor generally have televisions and cell phones also. Some of the poor in this country are indoctrinated poor people -- they're poor because it means less work.
Jacon Hornberger comments about how the poor would get educated in a free market education system. Voluntary donations by the wealthy. In fact, this has been happening for decades already.
The poor today already get the worst educations -- their schools are run over by gangs, drug dealers and unsafe environments. From what I've seen in my volunteer time with my church in very bad neighborhoods near my town, the poor are sent to school to keep them together. Kids with the desire to get away from their poverty have no chance -- the system won't allow it.
There are also places where it completely fails - particularly when there just isn't much market competition involved.
Yet McDonalds and Burger King can provide a meal for $3 (cheaper over time actually), but education has to increase its costs 10% every year? Wal*Mart can provide clothing at lower and lower prices every year, but we need to keep adding more topics for teachers to teach even though we're already paying way more than we should be?
Before we had public education, our poor had higher literacy rates. Current literacy rates do not actually test reading skill, they are based on how many years a student has studied English. Been in school for 6 years? You're literate, at least for statistical purposes.
To me, it seems that public education stifles 90% of the kids in order to try to help the 10% at the bottom. This is not how it should be. By trying to make everyone an average citizen, how can you expect some to excel and become the next wealthy generation? How can you expect some to have to settle in lower paying jobs to keep the economy driving strong?
I think the proper title should be "the consumer market killed off some of Sony's fad products." Sony wouldn't kill off products that made them a profit. A profit is the only proof of a product's viability -- if people are willing to pay you to perform a service or build a product, your ability to profit proves if the product/service is worthy of your time.
I think we'll see more of these fad/trend items from other Asian manufacturers start to fall out of the production lines. The U.S. is one of the biggest consumers of these useless products, and personal debt is way too high to keep buying more stuff that depreciates 60% the minute it hits the house. With Americans buying less, Asian manufacturers have to reorganize their product lines for items that we do need.
Sony is already out of my buying schedule -- the rootkit and the overall low quality of products they've made in recent years have led me to decide to never buy their products again. I help a few cEOs and upper management types from my client base purchase home electronics and appliances -- I'll always tell them never buy Sony. I remember a few years ago how many of these 6+ figure income types were asking about Aibo and other eccentric toys, nowadays I hear nothing of the sort. Even worse, I don't even hear the wealthy elites asking about the latest flat panel TVs, high end GPS systems or the latest computer gadgets. If the wealthy are having a hard time staying on the 18 month upgrade cycle, what does that say about the economy?
Sony is probably smart to start slicing and dicing. The best thing they can do is refocus on their higher end line -- people who can afford the expense will want the best quality product available. I hate seeing a company I loved become a company I hate. They chased the common man, and their products suffered for it. They chased markets created out of force against consumer action (music, movies, etc) to give their previous customers even more reason to hate them.
Sony, if you're listening and you want to be pragmatic (meaning practical), chop it all out. Sell it all off. Return to Japan, make high end products with meticulous attention to detail and care. Love your customers again -- those willing to pay for the product quality and service. Don't chase the Best Buy guy (or the Circuit City kitty?) -- let the upper echelon come to you.
Billions in annual sales at a 2% margin makes less sense than hundreds of millions at a 20% margin. Here's a hint for all you future entrepreneurs: the only thing that will keep you profitable is to keep your customers happy and offer them a consistency in your performance -- product quality and customer service. Ignore the trends, the fads and trying to sell everything to everyone.
(I was at 49% in highschool, I've been top 5% in college and I felt the first 2 years were nothing but review)
I was in the bottom 5% of my high school, but I was earning over teacher's pay by 16. I learned through work, and I believe others can as well.
Don't you feel terrible that your first 2 years of college -- a competitive system where YOU choose which school and how much you're willing to pay -- has to reteach everyone for 2 of the 4 years? Why is that?
I was ready for college by 13 (I started my first business at 13). I would have loved to take a few classes (say, 6 hours a week) for 8 years while working, receiving mentorship from entrepreneurs, and paying for it myself.
Yet I was practically mandated to go to high school. Freshman year they wanted to place me in an LD class (low attention span to my classes) but I received the highest ACT and SAT scores in my district 2 years later. I was also a D- student because I tried to force the issue of skipping high school and going straight into the work program.
50% of my friends and employees have gone to college. All of them gained 4-5 years of college and social debt and a piece of paper. None of them are smarter or better socially than those friends and employees of mine who never went to college. My best employee is a high school drop out and he is sharp as a whip -- and his parents are complete morons.
At 18 I recommend taking the money and time you'd spend on college and starting a business. I've helped many teenagers do this over the years, and almost 90% of them are still in business and well ahead of their peers.
College is now primarily to teach kids what they didn't learn in 12 years of public education. As the government starts funding almost 70% of college educations, the prices have gone up and the quality has gone down. I don't even look for degrees any more in any of my businesses. Today I am visiting a customer who has a US$100 million gross income in their field and I'll be helping them hire a few new thinkers. Of the top 10 candidates, only 5 have college degrees. The process I use to hire is to put them to work for an hour and see who comes out sweat free and confident. College doesn't seem to teach those skills.
Come on, how many parents know how to teach children - and I mean really know?
Today? Few -- because they give up that responsibility of parenthood to the State. I won't have a child until I can educate them in the system I choose with my own funding. I strongly believe that you shouldn't have children until you can accept the responsibility of them. If you do "by accident" there are churches, mosques, synagogues and pagan churches that are willing to help you fund their growth and education. Don't come asking me (a responsible human being) to pay for your error.
What about the child? The child is screwed anyway -- if the parents aren't ready to parent, the public education system will have a monster on their hands. I see public education as the new parent, and this is not what I want.
I'd rather see the bottom 10% of the poor having to get their education through the church or even work mentorship programs than see 90% of the kids be held back because of equality laws and mandates.
The real problem is that there is a poor chain of responsibility. Teachers don't get backing from parents or the pricipal. Parents would rather blame teachers than take responsibility for their kids.
I'll never blame the teachers -- I do blame the teachers unions. I offered an idea about separating teaching from grading -- offer teachers the ability to teach a given curriculum, and then let a private organization grade the students. I found out the teachers unions don't allow this. I wish I could grade my own work that I perform, I'd always give it a "C" -- that way I can ask for more funding to try to do better with what I have to work with.
I also blame the government mandates. It is very hard to fire a teacher -- I blogged about this a week ago, and I quoted this recent 20/20 episode:
We tried to bring "20/20" cameras into New York City schools to see for ourselves and show you what's going on in the schools, but officials wouldn't allow it.
In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence.
It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student.
You can download this 20/20 episode via torrent, if you want the link e-mail me.
The teachers are not necessarily to blame, although I do tell my friends that are teachers to leave the union (almost 20% of them have!). Government funding also tends to run up the costs without the actual workers getting the benefit -- more government money attracts more government cronies.
Before public education literacy was not very high.
This is a myth, and I hear it all the time from friends of mine who are part of the teachers union.
Literacy rates have fallen since we've increased the funding to public education:
Teacher Linda Shrock Taylor shows that literacy rates are not based on actual literacy but on the amount of years a student has attended an education curriculum. Scary scary scary!
Ok, so you're happy with public education in Wisconsin. Don't you see it being a better system if it is funded locally instead of sharing funds between counties or states? Why would someone proud of being from your area want to waste money on people you can not hold accountable and you can't audit or review?
I believe that "public" education might have a chance if the funds are kept locally -- preferably voluntarily funded.
I am not against a group education system, I just see the waste in kowtowing to the teacher unions and the public worker unions.
I don't see a rise in literacy rates, and as an employer of youths, I see a terrible bifurcation in the intellect of the average teenagers -- a very small minority are REALLY bright, but the large majority are what I would consider "dumb."
You make interesting points, but I'm not in agreement.
Many who are barely making it by right now will instead say "Hey, educating the kids is no longer mandatory and I finally have the money to really get by. The kids can get a job like delivering papers, I can keep working my job, and we'll finally be secure."
I'm fine with that. My parents came from poor countries and thr=ey self-educated after coming to the US. They learned trades while working.
If families decide to not convert the savings into private education, so
No way for his son to get a better life in any field his father doesn't understand.
No, not true. Some people are born with the desire to learn. They'll have to possibly work while learning, but it has happened for thousands of years -- the desire to do better. It might take a generation, but it would be earned and respected by the learner.
Public education has brought the UK and US decreasing literacy and competency. I can't se4 how we're better off.
I'm against all public education systems. I don't believe they've worked.
That being said, if we must have them, let's focus on pure education -- facts, repetition, useful classes: how to read, write and perform basic math. At most, some basic scientific theory might be OK.
Everything else -- health, PE, higher sciences, diet -- leave it to the family or to competitive higher education.
If we cut back public education to ages 6-11 and strictly teach the basics, we can return thousands back to each family in tax savings. It'll be more than enough to let a parent stay home, teach with other parents helping and they can save money to send their kids to private upper education.
I think not.
Look around you -- everything plastic came from oil. Many synthetic products, too.
Oil is cheap and plentiful. We're not running out and we won't in our lifetimes. Oil has not increased in price versus inflation.
Be thankful to oil producers for all they provide, cheaply.
With gas prices being so high, all that's standing in the way of Ethanol is this constant argument over whether or not it's energy positive or not
Gas is not expensive. It has dropped in price versus inflation, leading me to believe we're not running out.
Ethanol is much more expensive in the long run -- compare mileage for the same amount.
Oil isn't leaving us any time soon. Oil created the best quality of life increases in all of history. Be thankful we have it.
That laptop you use? Oil-based plastics. Those contact lenses? The sneakers? The UV-reflecting coatings on glass? Part of the insulation in many homes?
Oil based.
IANAL. From what I understand, ONLY the Governement can restrict the FIRST Amendment. What I'm getting at is that a corp can do what ever the fuck they want to.
Incorrect. Read the Constitution, it is simple English.
The Constitution merely sets government's limited powers. Government can only do what the Constitution sets out.
The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) list what Government can not regulate as there are basic inalienable rights every human is born with. Even non-Americans.
The youth scare me. Greatly.
the exact reasons that was a dumb idea? (e.g. it would allow calling a cop motherfucker to his face, free hate / death rally speech etc.)
No government has any right to restrict speech, per the Constitution.
Hate speech, death rallies, they're all speech. The fact that government does censor us (and you're ok with it) proves to me that I'm fights the good fight in repudiating copyright and any laws restricting voluntary trades.
You kids today prove you're indoctrinated by public education.
I've been thinking about how a viewer-funded TV show could generate additional income without requiring copyright to protect future profits. One way I came up with would be fan-paid trips to the set, and even fan-paid walk on appearances.
I've offered to US$500 to sponsor another season of Firefly. I'd likely pay US$2000 to get my name in the credits somewhere. I've done it at museums and other sponsorship activities -- not out of altruism but out of pure ego.
I'm not a browncoat, but I do love the show. I bought the DVD set before watching the TV show or even hearing about it anywhere, and it sat in the shrink wrap for months. Once I watched it (after 2 false starts) I realized that we need the first viewer-produced show.
I'd love to see Firefly v.2 be Whedon's real trial into seeing what one could do with an Open Source style show. Honestly, the costs of doing a show differently than a la Hollywood could bring in way more income without having to require people actually pay for the show. Let us produce it (meaning pay for it), let it be freely downloaded by the masses (maybe give it to the sponsor/producers first though and let them give it away to friends and family and then throw it online).
I think it would be very interesting to see how it goes. Of course Whedon would never allow it, but I'd put my money where my mouth is to get it going and the best way to generate interest is to offer it as the first big major production given away, with the full rights to the characters and name in the public domain. Imagine the fan fiction that could come out of it if the production company also offered to add fan-fic vignettes into the actual "official" episodes. Render your own battle scenes, video tape your own bar cut scenes, whatever. Want it in the show? Send it to us. Help us keep the show alive with your cash, while you're at it.
Serenity/Firefly is the most anarcho-capitalist plotline I've ever seen. I'd love to see freedom in the next production, not just in the plotline.
and all I got was Britney Spears.
Sheesh.
And I believe wages are lower because both parents work. Once women entered the workforce en masse, they increased the supply of available workers, lowering the demand, and therefore lowering wages, too.
The mess starts with government, it ends with government, and it has government in the middle too.
Basic health, including diet and exercise, are others.
So you want the same government that promoted the Food Pyramid death trap to teach your kids how to eat and exercise? Sorry, but I'm a pro-fat pro-protein anti-sugar anti-starch kind of guy, and I know that the teachers are teaching kids that bread is good, butter is bad. It is the other way around, friend, and you're going to poison your kids with that garbage.
The problem lies in figuring out what should be common to everyone and what should be left to the individual's family and culture.
There is no common morality as I see it. The only rule I can think that needs to be taught to kids is "don't hurt anyone else, don't hurt their property." The side comment of this is "if two adults share cooperate voluntarily with each other, no one should stop them from transacting any barter or trade." That's it. The parents teach that, the schools teach education. I'm against public funding of education entirely, but stretching it to cover morals or health is ridiculous.
However, way too many parents either don't have the time or inclination to be parents, so often the teachers end up filling that role as best they are able.
In 1980, the household tax burden was under 30% of total income to government at every level.
In 2005, the household tax burden is over 50% of total income to goverment at every level.
You want to know WHY parents don't have time? They're too busy paying off the bad decisions the voters made 20 years ago. End the public education system, dump the property taxes that pay for it, and you'll be able to return mom (or dad) back home to take care of the children. Don't tell me to pay for your bad voting decisions.
The government sees what is happening and tries to take on some of that itself instead of leaving it up to the already-overworked teachers.
Overworked? When teachers have to teach homosexuality, AIDs, exercise, diet, government-written history, and economics to children, of course they are overworked. These are subjects that should come from family-paid higher education or the home, not from teachers. We can cut education to 3 hours per day, refund 70% of the money people pay in taxes for education, and fix the problem in 1 year or less.
If I'd seen it, I'd've grabbed the other kid and made him take me to his parents to let them know what he'd done, and hope they'd agree that was wrong.
I'd have grabbed the kid and called my lawyer. I also wouldn't let my 2 year old be wandering around without me. I wouldn't let my 6 year old or 10 year old do so either. It is the parents' job to monitor their child completely until that child is a major, at which point that adult (no matter the age) is responsible for themselves. If an 8 year old is wandering around alone, he's an adult in my eyes.
Actually the football coach begged me to join Freshman year (I was hard to tackle when we played smear-the-queer at recess) but I hated football. I also held records for some stats for almost a decade after I graduated (pull ups, climbing speed, and track). I'm no jock, but I'm very athletic.
Art class and history can be fun electives -- electives that are chosen by the student and paid for by the student. I don't see the need for a state funded 8-3pm education. Grammar/spelling/reading, mathematics (up to pre-algebra) and writing/typing are all I want to see the public system doing. Basic bare education, and let the parents fund the rest.
I don't want to fund kids jumping up and down, that is the parent's job to make sure their child is healthy, not my job.
The proper role of education is RRR - Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. The idea that a school (a public one no less) should be enforcing diet or exercise or moral structure or anything other than a basic education is crazy.
How about we stop funding these nutjobs who want to be parents to our children, no educators?
Money is only money
No, money is not only money. Money is a store of labor -- my labor. Laboring is part of why we live.
If someone decides they want to threaten me, on my property, and take from me, I will teach them the lesson of using forcing aggressively. I am fully in support of using force defensively on your own property to repel an attack, an intruder or any criminal. If they think they can take what is mine, they have another thing coming.
There is no difference to me between a thief, a rapist, a murderer or an arsonist. My body is my property, my land is my property and my business is my property. If my property is harmed directly by someone for bad reasons, I will defend my property completely.
Haha. Actually, anti-gun advocates always tell me to get a dog instead of my weapons.
Why should I have to take care of the dog 24/7 when I can properly maintain my weapon a few times a month?
If I had a kid in the house, I might consider getting rid of the piece, but I surely wouldn't tell anyone. Hell, you can buy weapons that have been disabled completely, and they still work to chase off criminals.