Anime Mp3's !!!

Again, just making excuses. Why not mention pay for his pre-k through high school education, pay for his car, his gas, his medical expenses, his food while he was growing up, his home, etc

And that's avoidance.

People need help sometimes. They don't always need thousands of dollars, but refusing to give anyone any sort of help is just being stingy.

You take two men and let them start their own businesses. One of the men comes from a rich family and gets all sorts of money to finance his business. (Note that he didn't earn the money; his family did. All he did was live to inherit the money.) The other man only has the little bit that he can earn himself. Whose business is going to succeed? It's a no-brainer - the rich person will easily drive the regular man out of business. Is this fair?

To make it a little more fair, the government may give the regular guy a little bit of money, so he can buy some advertising or better products, whatever. He gets a little bit more money so he can actually compete against the rich guy. The regular guy creates competition for the rich guy. Everyone knows competition is good for capitalism. And because the regular guy can stay in business, he's able to hire people, so there's more work. But really, the most important part, two men are able to survive, instead of just one man being able to survive. And that's what society's all about - not making one person very happy, but making a whole lot of people somewhat happy.

Is that fair? It may not be, but who the fuck cares? Life isn't fair. If life was fair, no one would have cancer or diabetes or be ugly. But people do get cancer, people do get diabetes, and people are born ugly. Because life's a bitch. Our job as a society is to help the people who get the short end of the stick. The people who get cancer, and the people who aren't born into rich families. Because it's harder for them. We don't have to do everything for them, but even if we did pay for everything for a poor child, it wouldn't compare to what a rich child gets. I say helping the poor helps make things a bit more fair.

OBJECTION. Communism failed horribly for a reason. They tried to "equally" distribute wages and look at the half assed crap that came out of their factories...


The person might sell off the clothes you gave and keep the old garbs to get his next fix of whatever...

It's not avoidence to refuse to give something to another. It just means the person doesn't want to squander away their own hard earned cash just so the other person might squander it away and betray the giver's good will. As Fpod already mentioned, the person might start to think society owes him/her the stuff and ask for more without making an effort to getting the things they need on their own...

How can you argue capitalism is bad when it seems you don't know the system? The reason why doctors and nurses get paid more is because they got a college degree. They put themselves in debt and put in effort early on so later on in life they can make more money to have a satisfying life. Simple. Also there is more demand for doctors and it's a harder job compared to a burger flipper. When I see everyone getting a college degree and start putting equal amounts of effort to have a better life is when I'll be agreeing with your statement that we should switch over to what you call equal opportunity and what I call communism.

It is nitpicking because you point out a minor flaw in a Chinese proverb. You can argue a better point than saying that the man can hypothetically starve to death in the confines of a proverb that is probably a couple thousand years old.

People become nurses and doctors for two reasons 1) they want to help people. 2) they are enticed by the awesome paychecks. The reason those people are paid so well is because they serve a vital role in society compared to the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds or making your sandwich at Subway.

Why is a person who flips burgers less important that a doctor? The role they play in society, doctors save lives, the people at McDonalds serve the unhealthy food that sends people to the doctor.

A "fairer slice of the pie" is how it is now. Doctors and nurses go through extremely hard jobs but, because of their education and the hardships of their jobs Doctors earn a HUGE paychecks. You claim that working at McDonalds is difficult, but you have never even seen anything that is actually difficult. The police officers that risks their lives everyday have a difficult job, the firemen who puts his life in danger to rescue guys like you and I from danger have a difficult job, the miners who face toxic gases or cave ins every day have a difficult job. Hell, roofers have a higher risk of dieing on the job than fast food workers. Anyone can serve a Big Mac but, how many of us can correctly diagnose and treat illness? That is the reason that McDonalds workers don't deserve the same pay as a doctor. I'll shoot myself when burger flippers are paid $200,000+ a year for their job.

The only reason you can argue that a doctor, nurse, lawyer,etc should be ..Um honestly, I can't think of any reason and I can't even google a reason. There isn't a logical reason for your argument. I can't even play devils advocate here. Usually, I can find something to support. I can find more reasons to support Barrack Obama (People like whitelion and Gourmetprince are familiar with my dislike for Obama)than I can for supporting your argument.

I agree things would be better if everyone could have access to education and everything else but, that access shouldn't be at gun point (Government uses guns to prove it's "point")

You know what's really weird with capitalism?

A person can learn some lines and show a little emotion and earn millions of dollars. Or a person can be in charge of teaching children how to write and speak properly and earn less than $40,000 a year.

Now, that's not weird. What's weird is that it makes sense. Movies bring in a ton of money, and where's the money going to go? It'd be ludicrous to earn twenty million dollars off of a movie and only pay the lead actor $40,000. So, it makes sense to do things that way, but it still seems like such a total rip-off that a person doing what is essentially a pointless job gets paid so much more than a person whose job it is to care for the very future itself.

You can compare being a movie actor to every other business, and you'll get the same result. Doctors are very important, but they make chump change compared to movie stars. Same with construction workers, district attorneys, pretty much every other job in the world.

It hurts my head thinking about that. A man can earn in six months what I'll never be able to accumulate in my lifetime. Makes me think of Kaiji. Makes me wish my dad was a famous director or actor or something and that I was born with good looks.

That is sentiment that we share. I hate how celebs get paid much more than we ever will and yet they do next to nothing then try to claim they are "in touch" with middle America. They are so far out of touch that I can't even come up with an analogy.

Making an argument is a lot stronger if you read what's already been said. It's all about supply and demand and education and how many people can fulfil that role.

It takes six to ten weeks to learn how to be a cop or a fireman. It takes six to ten years to become a doctor. Education, Demand,etc affect how much people are paid. That and, there isn't much of a desire for "fullfilling" government jobs.

I'll just point you to here

http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/job-doesnt-pay-well/

Question was answered in the previous post. Also questions can be asked in an argumentative manner.

The low wages paid to certain important groups(nurses, though that has been improving, especially teachers) almost don't make sense. Most people want good healthcare and good schools, but they offer rock bottom wages to important players in these fields.

Everyone is concerned about firing the bad teachers and increasing accountability. While not wrong, this method currently ignores the fact that if we fire all the bad teachers, there won't be anyone to replace them. The low wages discourage a lot of talented people from entering teaching. If we raise wages across the board, we might initially reward bad teachers, but we will also attract more qualified people to the field and the increased availability will allow schools to actually select good teachers and not be forced to hire bad ones due to lack of supply.

I'm studying to be a teacher though, so perhaps I am biased.

They have one of the most powerful unions in the country. They arguably have more money and influence than the teamsters union. They get annual raises, a couple months off each year and various other perks but, because they are government workers they get paid what the government says they get paid. Government jobs aren't that hard to do. While the current situation isn't the best for teachers since some children are complete hell spawn and they have to work long hours. One of the problems that is preventing teachers from receiving even higher pay and more benefits is their union is blocking all attempts to privatize schools or hold teacher accountable. In a nutshell the bad and lazy teachers are making things harder on the good and ambitious teachers.

If you think teaching is easy, you're completely wrong. You have, technically, shorter hours, but you have constantly submit lesson plans which you have to write outside of teaching hours. You have to constantly deal with children who cause problems, and be able to deal with them while also not taking away from the education of the other students.

Teaching is difficult, and critically important. This is the same logic we use to justify paying doctors and lawyers high wages. Also, teaching requires a graduate degree in most states.

Sure, the union needs to stop fixating on "tenure" ideas, but as it is, if we just obsess over accountability and fire all the "bad" teachers, the fact is, we won't have enough other teachers to fill their places. Who wants to get a graduate degree to go into a job where you start out earning $40,000 a year? Even if you normalize for the 3 months off, that would be $54k. Why bother to go to school for 6 years to learn to teach math when you can go for 4, become a programmer, and make much money? Or even go to school for 5 and become an engineer and make way more.

It's basically supply and demand at work. The low wages we pay teachers are discouraging a lot of skilled people from entering the field, because they can easily much money doing something else.

One can whatever about accountability and unions, but busting the unions and firing the incompetents won't make a difference if teaching continues to be such a low wage job that skilled people don't want to do it.

Then become a teacher at a private school. They pay a more than the government equivalents. You don't have to deal with troublesome students and if the student is too bad then the school will kick them out.

You also apparently don't understand supply and demand on jobs. If very few people were becoming teachers then the schools would have to offer more to attract people in order to fill those jobs. The pay remains "low" because there are enough people who will work for 54,000 a year with annual raises and the other upsides. $54,000 a year is more than respectable. My ex works at IBM and earns $23/hr and earns less than that. Sorry, if teaching doesn't pay 100k a year. They just aren't worth that much. The market has set a specific pay for teachers. If you want higher wages either go to the private sector or socialize all schools and have the union intimidate more democrats into raising the teachers pay to 100K a year.

I'll also point you here

Private schools generally pay less than public schools. They can do this and still compete with public schools because you have to deal with more difficult students in public schools. Because the wages for teachers at public schools are set by the government, private schools have an easy time competing for the best and don't have to offer anything much because it's mostly not a free market.

As for your assertion that supply of teachers is high enough to drive down wages, this implies the assumption that you think, overall, the US public school system has an acceptable level of teaching quality. There are enough bodies to put in classrooms, certainly, but how qualified are these people? If there are 1000 slots(demand) for Job X and exactly 1000 people willing to do Job X, then you are forced to hire all those 1000 people, both the competent and the incompetent, to fill demand. Schools actually do need to offer more if they want to attract highly skilled and qualified people to become teachers. We don't want doctors who muddled their way through school and displayed little skill once practicing operating on us. Why would we want such people teaching the future generations?



Did your ex graduate from a high level university with a 4 year degree in a relevant field(programming, math, physics, etc)? See what I am getting at?

Either the government decides to invest more in teacher salaries, or else they will be stuck with incompetents and firing these people will do nothing to improve quality on a large scale. We see this happening all the time. Bad teachers tend to get fired by good public schools that are desirable to teach at(fewer problem students, better environment) and all end up in the worst schools, ensuring that these schools stay bad. Plenty of programs have showed that putting good teachers in bad schools does make a difference, but the system we currently have in place assures that there are not enough good teachers to fill the jobs, and that bad schools are then forced to hire what is left: bad teachers, ensuring the preservation of mediocrity.

The overall theme here is that, if one desires a better quality of education in this country, and most people do, there is no way to achieve this without paying teachers more, or improving the value of their jobs in some other way.

Didn't even finish college. She attended a minor college for slightly over a year for photography or some other bullshit (can't remember) and still landed the job of a project lead at IBM. Basically, in the tech department if she gets one more promotion she'll earn 50,000+ a year



All I ever hear from teachers is bitching about how hard their jobs are. The only people preserving mediocrity are the teachers themselves. They choose to work for the government. They demand higher pay while their output is pathetic and that is being overly generous. Tell me why the pay should be raised when the majority of the schools are complete sinkholes for money and are terrible excuses for an education. If a private school educated its students so poorly then parents would immediately withdraw their children and resort to educating them at home.

Your solution of reward people first then expect them to perform on their end is simply utter nonsense. Offering higher pay won't draw more "dedicated" teachers. It'll just draw more fuck ups and more tax money will be pissed away on good for nothing jerk offs. This is why schools are now going by merit pay. If you don't perform then you don't get paid and that is how it should be. Those who perform will be rewarded with better pay while those screw ups won't perform and will have to find a new career.

The best solution is to privatize schools, give low and middle income families a tax break or a check worth roughly the amount of education a month (based on family income). While only giving the dirt poor a free ride and basically making low and middle class pay smaller portion of the "fees" or whatever to attend school. The only thing left up to the people is making sure their child behaves itself while in school. Schools would compete with one another to draw students and better teachers. More would be required from teachers but, the private sector would pay them a lot more than the government does and it wouldn't be at tax payers expense. If a school doesn't perform for the student then the parents can remove their child and send them to a different school. The tax payer would have it's taxes lowered. Everyone receives access to education, student receive better education than the pathetic government education, teachers are paid more and the demand for good teachers will increase thus drawing more people to the job since the pay will be good and the "problems" teachers currently face will be screened out before the child even steps foot in the classroom.

If you think about it. A shortage of fine teachers is the best thing for a teacher. As having so few around, a teacher can almost set their price. Schools will scramble to acquire the best teachers.

Though, this will never happen because the union members won't allow it to happen. They put themselves before the education of our youth.

Edit: Just to be clear. I think the level of education in public schools is so poor that I will never send my child (if I ever have any) to a public school even if they do reform the entire system.

In your rush to discredit a government enterprise, you neglect basic economics. If you offer more money for a job, more and better people will want to do that job. It works in the NBA. The NBA wants only the best point guards in the world, so they offer the huge contracts to get them.(And, of course, so Latrell Sprewell can feed his family)

This concept applies to every other field, why would it not apply to teaching? It is true that in the short term, you do end up paying bad teachers more, but this is so you can fire them in the long term. My point is, you can complain all you want about bad teachers, but if you just fire them, it doesn't achieve anything because we don't have anyone better to take their place. You can say "we expect better from you" or "get better or we will fire you," but those threats don't work so well when you have no reasonable way to back them up. Some teachers are inexperienced and will get better, and some might lack skills but be motivated and get them. However, there are some bad teachers that have no drive to get better and aren't going to get better. You need to be able to fire these people, and have better teachers available to fill their spaces.

You can look at Teach for America and see what I mean about attracting better teachers. The program gets students from top schools to come spend a few years teaching, but it's seen as charity work, compared to the money these people can make. They only stay for a few years. The program has gotten some results that way, but how much better could they do with that kind of career teacher? More money would entice some of these people to stay.


Merit pay, in concept, is a good idea, but the issue is, merit pay systems haven't reliably implemented a good way to measure merit. Test scores encourage narrow teaching and teacher cheating. Peer review is better in my opinion, but is used much less, and people complain about politics.


My proposal is that you simply pay teachers more across the board, and in exchange, they give up the ridiculous tenure options you can get and can be fired like regular employees. In this case, the tenure options are of greater value to bad teachers, who know tenure is the only thing keeping them employed, while the downside of not having tenure is not a big deterrent to teachers who know that they have to skills and intelligence to perform well. So trading tenure for more money makes the job's value rise for teachers who are good, or at least think they can be good, and makes the value fall for teachers who know they are incompetent.

As your privatized system, I will comment in depth later, but I think it suffices to say that, just as things are now, the rich would get a good education and the poor would get a lousy education. Good schools would charge high prices, ensuring that only the well off can afford to go, and use the money to hire the best teachers. The poor would be stuck going to the cheap schools that don't have the money to compete for good teachers. Partial government aid, as you suggest, would not fix this. The rich schools would make the gap as large as they could get away with, likely too large for small subsidies to matter much.