5 ms·

It's pretty obvious: our society, because it's based on representative government, requires a baseline of general welfare sufficient that as many citizens as po

It's pretty obvious: our society, because it's based on representative government, requires a baseline of general welfare sufficient that as many citizens as possible have leisure time and are not subject to PTSD-inducing levels of stress. This is at odds with the increasing inequality and increasing cultural and class stratification within our society. As it is increasingly only possible for upper-middle class and up parents to care for children effectively, the rest of the child-age population will continue to be worse and worse off, while the upper middle class pull the ladders up after themselves out of concern and fear over the future welfare of their own children being completely zero sum. The most urgent things that need to happen to stop this are: - Ensuring sick leave, vacation time, and improving wages, especially on the lower end, such that 1.5 incomes are sufficient for 2 child homes so that parents can have time for their children. - Policies that severely disincentivize vouchers, private, and charter education so that there are fewer incentives to try and create "tides that selectively lift boats." - Increasing the housing supply.

shiroiushi 2y ago
None of that stuff is going to happen. Just look at the recent election results: Americans don't want any of that stuff.
- clarionbell 2y ago
  You seem to be confusing "Wanting that stuff" and "Believing that solution can be implemented by the same people I do" Americans, overwhelmingly, agree that things are not going in the right direction. What they are split on, is how to fix it, and what is the greatest driver.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    No, I'm not at all. If you really think the GOP is going to promote legislation to "[Ensure] sick leave, vacation time, and [improve] wages, especially on the lower end", then you are seriously delusional. You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that GOP politicians are going to push for any of this stuff, because they've never done so in the past, and it certainly isn't part of their current platform. Those goes even more for disincentivizing private school, vouchers, etc., since those are things the GOP has been actively promoting for ages. They've also said nothing about wanting to increase housing supply.
gabaix 2y ago
This is a good analysis. About #2 (disincentivize charter education): parents created charter schools because they disagreed on the choices that was made for them in public education. It is very hard to fight this, as 1- they see a huge difference in test results 2- they want to give their children the best chances in life.
- Arkhaine_kupo 2y ago
  > It is very hard to fight this Finland solution was to ban all private education. Once rich kids were forced to go to public schools, then suddenly education became a larger part of the gov budget, those parents spent more time asking for reforms, volunteering etc. They have one of the best performant school systems in the planet. And all it takes is not allowing a percentage of the population think of education as optional
  - reliabilityguy 2y ago
    > And all it takes is not allowing a percentage of the population think of education as optional How does the existence of private schools enables this thinking?
    - cutemonster 2y ago
      Those who care about education, can leave to a private school instead, and not spend time trying to improve the public schools, just leave them to their fate: noisy school-is-boring kids sabotaging the classes for everyone. Or that's how I interpret what GP said. Happening a bit where I live: richer families don't want their kids go to school in problematic suburbs.
      - reliabilityguy 2y ago
        > and not spend time trying to improve the public schools > noisy school-is-boring kids sabotaging the classes for everyone. It seems that those parents realize that if the system does not care about ensuring that kids in school actually learn things, then they better leave than trying to fix the kids of others (i.e., parents who does not care). I would argue that it is a net positive for those public schools: those parents still pay local taxes while making sure that there are fewer students -> better student/teacher ratio.
renewiltord 2y ago
Are the places that are doing better doing these things?
- portaouflop 2y ago
  Yes
addandsubtract 2y ago
But capitalism and the people in power have no incentive to change any of those issues... so now what?

shiroiushi 2y ago

None of that stuff is going to happen. Just look at the recent election results: Americans don't want any of that stuff.

clarionbell 2y ago
You seem to be confusing "Wanting that stuff" and "Believing that solution can be implemented by the same people I do" Americans, overwhelmingly, agree that things are not going in the right direction. What they are split on, is how to fix it, and what is the greatest driver.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  No, I'm not at all. If you really think the GOP is going to promote legislation to "[Ensure] sick leave, vacation time, and [improve] wages, especially on the lower end", then you are seriously delusional. You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that GOP politicians are going to push for any of this stuff, because they've never done so in the past, and it certainly isn't part of their current platform. Those goes even more for disincentivizing private school, vouchers, etc., since those are things the GOP has been actively promoting for ages. They've also said nothing about wanting to increase housing supply.

gabaix 2y ago

This is a good analysis. About #2 (disincentivize charter education): parents created charter schools because they disagreed on the choices that was made for them in public education. It is very hard to fight this, as 1- they see a huge difference in test results 2- they want to give their children the best chances in life.

Arkhaine_kupo 2y ago
> It is very hard to fight this Finland solution was to ban all private education. Once rich kids were forced to go to public schools, then suddenly education became a larger part of the gov budget, those parents spent more time asking for reforms, volunteering etc. They have one of the best performant school systems in the planet. And all it takes is not allowing a percentage of the population think of education as optional
- reliabilityguy 2y ago
  > And all it takes is not allowing a percentage of the population think of education as optional How does the existence of private schools enables this thinking?
  - cutemonster 2y ago
    Those who care about education, can leave to a private school instead, and not spend time trying to improve the public schools, just leave them to their fate: noisy school-is-boring kids sabotaging the classes for everyone. Or that's how I interpret what GP said. Happening a bit where I live: richer families don't want their kids go to school in problematic suburbs.
    - reliabilityguy 2y ago
      > and not spend time trying to improve the public schools > noisy school-is-boring kids sabotaging the classes for everyone. It seems that those parents realize that if the system does not care about ensuring that kids in school actually learn things, then they better leave than trying to fix the kids of others (i.e., parents who does not care). I would argue that it is a net positive for those public schools: those parents still pay local taxes while making sure that there are fewer students -> better student/teacher ratio.

renewiltord 2y ago

Are the places that are doing better doing these things?

portaouflop 2y ago
Yes

addandsubtract 2y ago

But capitalism and the people in power have no incentive to change any of those issues... so now what?