• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

It's statements like that from 2&2 that make it appear that there is a war on education. Also I thought you were an attorney. What did you major in?

Eta: I don't believe you need an advanced mathematics degree to be able to properly run a study and interpret the results. As most know, majors in the humanities and social sciences generally have a quantitative and qualitative analysis course requirement for graduation.

I went through Calloway, so I took both levels of Quant in Calloway, plus the generic non-Calloway stats class in the regular University. Comparing them is like comparing the SEC to the SoCon. Maybe the math classes get harder at the graduate level, but the basic math / non-math student division takes place way before that.

ETA: I also picked up a Sociology minor while there because, well, it was easy. I would not attempt to compare the math abilities of the two sets of students.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people who were good at math go into non-STEM fields. What a stupid argument. Quantitative analysis makes up the bulk of social science research.

I could pull a Townie and post my personal credentials but I'd be overreacting to a ridiculous argument.

Again, not meant to be a call-out to you.
I don't disagree that quant makes up the bulk of social science research, I'm saying that the people who end up doing it are maybe not the best suited to be doing it.
 
It's pretty clear that there is little or no correlation between spending per student and student performance. There is a pretty good discussion of this in another thread.

A substantial portion of education spending unfortunately has been directed to outside the classroom spending that doesn't help kids. Among other trends, you have spending on technology (some in classroom, much for management), increased cost of building schools in an increasingly suburbanized landscape, and the building up of layers and layers of middle management in school systems. That last part is driven partly by tenure and union rules, which make it easier to create an administrative job for a bad teacher than to fire one. More importantly, all that middle management comes from "accountability" and the de-professionalization of classroom teachers, creating legions of curriculum coordinators and testing coordinators and test coaches and curriculum testing coordinator facilitators, all expensive moons orbiting around the sun of standardized testing.
 
^A great thing to be forced to pay for. More PhD. sociologists are needed to invent words that mean "fuck the taxpayer".
 
Funding is typically presented in terms of percentage of the budget.

The bulk of education funding is from state and local. Obviously federal education spending has gone up due to NCLB. Little of that actually goes to the kids.

A much better way of looking at this number would be amount spent per student, adjusted for inflation. I haven't had time to look those numbers up, but it would present a real picture that answers the question of whether or not spending went up or down.
 
Most of the available numbers for this are just $ spent divided by # of students, which isn't really (sadly) indicative of the amount spent per student.

This article gets at unequal spending and also spending cuts - http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/06/03/states-spending-the-most-and-least-on-education/

The numbers used in most of these reports are complete fabrications by the state governments. They always try to obscure the real cost so that people will think they are actually getting something for their tax dollars. In NC's case, the number given in the "report" is a actually "current spending". It sdoesn't include capital costs (buildings) or the costs of all the retirement benefits, among many other things. The public schools waste a huge amount of money.

 
"Poor clients pay just to apply for a public defender

...

NEWARK, N.J. — Newly elected Mayor Ras J. Baraka, a former high school principal and son of the late poet Amiri Baraka, ran on promises of compassionate reform. He would strengthen the public schools, alleviate poverty and use community policing to bring peace to his majority-African American hometown. But in November, a few months into his term, Baraka quietly helped pass a law that criminal justice advocates say will hurt the city’s most vulnerable: He quadrupled the fee Newark Municipal Court can charge poor defendants applying for free legal representation.

The fee hike, from $50 to $200, is the latest notch in the national trend of charging “user fees” to fund struggling courts. The Sixth Amendment and a long line of Supreme Court cases promise a lawyer to every person accused of a crime, even those who cannot pay. In practice, though, indigent clients often do pay for their attorneys, particularly in lower-level courts.

Around the same time as the fee increase in Newark, New Jersey’s superior courts raised a raft of fees to file and respond to civil cases. And the Office of the Public Defender, or OPD, which works in the superior courts, announced that it would charge a flat fee per case, instead of an hourly sum, to encourage more clients to pay.

...

New Jersey’s local courts, like those across the United States, have been underfunded for decades.

The budget gap is partly attributable to the war on drugs. When the United States resolved, in the 1980s, to pursue an aggressive policy of crime and punishment, it funneled lavish resources to police forces and prisons. But as for the step between enforcement and incarceration — that is, the courts — “They forgot the middle,” said Tim Young, director of the Ohio’s office of the public defender. As a consequence, judicial systems became dependent on fees and fines.

...

Over the past few years, criminal justice advocates and journalists have uncovered a trend of “cash register” courts more focused on padding local budgets than carrying out judicial functions. Municipal courts in states including Alabama, California, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas have pursued a fiscal strategy of offender-funded justice, cutting back on indigent defense, increasing fees, fines and interest rates, hiring for-profit companies to collect debts and privileging jail time over community service for those too poor to pay."


http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...nts-payfeesjusttoapplyforapublicdefender.html


Representation in the justice system is a major problem in the income inequality debate. See Diamon, Jamie.
 

What is funny to me is that I bet this tax proposal would go over much better with conservatives if it did not feature a component for how it would be funded and its proponents just claimed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. The irrationality is just mind boggling to me sometimes. Unfunded Bush tax cuts contribute to a widening deficit and disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans = good economic policy. Proposed tax cuts to benefit millions in the middle class and funded by a transfer tax = bad economic policy. The dems plans may prove to be unworkable for reasons beyond my grasp of tax and economics, but the knee jerk labeling from the get-go is laughable.
 
It's certainly bold...but I question if the only time we actually get bold policy ideas is when the party has zero chance of it ever seeing the light of day.

The real test will be whether any Democratic presidential hopefuls run on it. I think Hillary would probably not want to support anything like this, given how deep in the pockets of Wall Street she and Bill have been for the past 20 years. It's right up Warren's alley though.

From a policy standpoint, I have very mixed feelings about this proposal. I like the very modest tax on high speed traders, one of the most useless segments of our economy, and transferring that wealth to the middle class to stimulate growth. The attack on CEO pay is terrible, not because I think CEOs are underpaid, but because they're proposing piling on yet another complicated mess onto a tax code that is already way, way overcomplicated. All that does is cause companies to spend even more money on tax planning and tax avoidance and give them a reason to shift income and high level corporate jobs offshore to avoid it. Instead of doing that, they should be looking to achieve the same impact by simplifying the code, broadening the base, and lowering rates.
 
Wait...why is it shameless?

It is unabashed stealing. It would benefit me, but still it is nothing more than stealing money that someone else earned and giving it to me and others like me. I find it hard to imagine that I have to explain the immorality of stealing someone else's earned money and giving it to people that we feel "deserve" it more.

Typically democrats do a better job of hiding their intentions, but this is straight shameless theft. How do you morally support theft?
 
Back
Top