4 ms·
Yeah. It’s the wrong argument, really. Economics isn’t a charity. You can’t really argue “I deserve to be paid more!” (Unless you’re not into capitalism, which
by Waterluvian 3y ago
Yeah. It’s the wrong argument, really. Economics isn’t a charity. You can’t really argue “I deserve to be paid more!” (Unless you’re not into capitalism, which is valid)
I think the more valid foundational argument is whether or not the government is incorruptly ensuring the system is functioning equitably.
That is: the solution to this perceived problem isn’t to tip the scale. It’s to ensure the scale isn’t being tipped.
- anothernewdude 3y agoEconomic concerns are bigger than that. Quality of education is core to a well functioning society. A dollar spend now on education is worth the investment.
- pauldenton 3y agoYes, but there's no evidence that throwing more money at the problem results in better outcomes https://youtu.be/f0JorXgqxiU https://youtu.be/f0JorXgqxiU Camden can be the highest funded and lowest performing school in the state. Inner city schools often have the highest amount of money available and lowest performance
- ipaddr 3y agoBecause parents and social expectations play a greater role than money
- coredog64 3y agoThere's a danger in classifying education as an investment. If I look at how my investments are performing, and I see a broad group that isn't doing well, I don't shrug and say "thems the breaks", I move my money where it will do better. To bring this back to the topic, if we look at the outcomes from "investing" in majority-minority school districts, are we going to decide that it's yielding appropriate returns? If not, what happens next?
- nemo44x 3y agoIt’s not really a capitalism thing (private ownership) as much as a free market/market economy thing. Although intertwined they aren’t necessarily the same thing. IMO a lot of gripes about “capitalism” are really grievances with competing in the market economy.