Welcome to unstablemolecules.com, the discussion home for mightyavengers.net, uncanon.com and uncannyxmen.net!

Re: Random Thoughts

Level 01: Get to know the other posters better. What do they do when they don't read comics?
User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 3324
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Spectral Knight » 19 Mar 2023, 19:04

tokenBG1009 wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 17:51
I still just can't see a world where a "healthy private sector" is healthy without strong government intervention. Policies enabling a "healthy private sector" just result in those at the top maximizing their wealth while minimizing costs. You have to directly invest in the working class. Not by helping their employers but by helping them either in education or just direct cash infusion. We KNOW that putting money in the pockets of the lower 90% will put more money into the economy.
Direct cash infusion is pointless. It's just wealth redistribution without due cause.

Absolutely with you on education though - but this is what I meant in some of my posts above - education and industry are not very well aligned (at least not in the UK). We spend an awful lot on education in the UK, but I'm not sure it's well orientated.

We don't have the jobs for the academically ungifted except in the service sector, we try to push too many people into university but charge them for it with obscene tuition costs. Even at HS level, grammar schools were dismissed as elitist but that was the route smart working class kids could progress based on aptitude and potential. Mixed ability groups prevents top achievers being challenged and lower ability groups getting the support needed with clear vocational opportunities.

I really enjoyed the challenge of university (and was the first in my family to complete a degree), but was it "worth" it. Probably at that time... just about. But with how expensive FE has become... not a chance is it worth it for most 17 and 18 year olds finishing school from the working classes, and that's frankly criminal.

So I fundamentally believe the state has a role, for sure. But it is in supporting wealth generation not in wealth redistribution.

User avatar
Cable
Posts: 6120
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 18:31
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Cable » 19 Mar 2023, 20:37

Spectral Knight wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 19:04
tokenBG1009 wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 17:51
I still just can't see a world where a "healthy private sector" is healthy without strong government intervention. Policies enabling a "healthy private sector" just result in those at the top maximizing their wealth while minimizing costs. You have to directly invest in the working class. Not by helping their employers but by helping them either in education or just direct cash infusion. We KNOW that putting money in the pockets of the lower 90% will put more money into the economy.
Direct cash infusion is pointless. It's just wealth redistribution without due cause.

Absolutely with you on education though
As a fiscal conservative myself I have agreed with many things you have said, but here I think you are off the mark. With developed countries having the demographic problem of low birth rates, I support policies that make it easier to be a parent. One of the things proposed in the US by the current administration is universal pre-K. This sounds good, but studies show these programs in themselves don't provide any inherent benefit to kids. What does however actually help kids is direct cash infusions:
I have compared the effects of direct income transfers to low-income families (such as the earned-income tax credit, or EITC) with programs designed to increase school readiness (universal preschool and Head Start). It turns out that putting money directly into the pockets of low-income parents, as many other countries do, produces substantially larger gains in children’s school achievement per dollar of expenditure than does a year of preschool or participation in Head Start...Specifically, each of four evaluations of U.S. family income support programs found substantially larger test score increases per $1,000 of public expenditure than resulted from programs specifically aimed at improving educational outcomes by focusing on school readiness. In particular, neither pre-K nor Head Start provided the same amount of improvement as the family support programs did. Other studies of the EITC also show impacts on even later outcomes — such as college enrollment and earned income.
Parents know how to spend money for their kids better than the government does. There is no actual reason to have a government subsidized public program rather than just giving money to parents directly. Those who need pre-K can use it for that purpose and those who stay at home with their kids can use it for that purpose. This direct cash infusion is not pointless, it has tangible benefits for future generations of our society.
Best Comics of Week 21

X-titles: Storm #1 by Ann Nocenti (1) and Sid Kotian (2)
Non-X titles: Hellcat #3 by Christopher Cantwell (4) and Alex Lins (2)

In parentheses number of times creator had best comic this year

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 7337
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by tokenBG1009 » 19 Mar 2023, 22:05

Spectral Knight wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 19:04
tokenBG1009 wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 17:51
I still just can't see a world where a "healthy private sector" is healthy without strong government intervention. Policies enabling a "healthy private sector" just result in those at the top maximizing their wealth while minimizing costs. You have to directly invest in the working class. Not by helping their employers but by helping them either in education or just direct cash infusion. We KNOW that putting money in the pockets of the lower 90% will put more money into the economy.
Direct cash infusion is pointless. It's just wealth redistribution without due cause.

Absolutely with you on education though - but this is what I meant in some of my posts above - education and industry are not very well aligned (at least not in the UK). We spend an awful lot on education in the UK, but I'm not sure it's well orientated.

We don't have the jobs for the academically ungifted except in the service sector, we try to push too many people into university but charge them for it with obscene tuition costs. Even at HS level, grammar schools were dismissed as elitist but that was the route smart working class kids could progress based on aptitude and potential. Mixed ability groups prevents top achievers being challenged and lower ability groups getting the support needed with clear vocational opportunities.

I really enjoyed the challenge of university (and was the first in my family to complete a degree), but was it "worth" it. Probably at that time... just about. But with how expensive FE has become... not a chance is it worth it for most 17 and 18 year olds finishing school from the working classes, and that's frankly criminal.

So I fundamentally believe the state has a role, for sure. But it is in supporting wealth generation not in wealth redistribution.
All of this is why I say direct cash is the answer. UBI isn't perfect. It's probably not THE answer, but if we are under the assumption some people will never be able to work above a certain ceiling we need to be able to support those people. More education may not be the answer for them, but ensuring they have the funds to meet their needs will. Hell, sometimes the direct money COULD go towards education in the form of childcare or just giving them the opportunity to not worry about making ends meet.
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 3324
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Spectral Knight » 19 Mar 2023, 22:33

Mrs Knight works in Early Years education (6 months to 3 year olds), albeit in the private sector so this particular issue is quite high on my agenda. Not to mention there's been a significant shift in the UK Government in its most recent budget re: EY Education.

That said, I'm in two minds - principally - the need; is low birth rate an issue? In the UK, I don't know. Honestly.

Checking the data, following the fertility plunge in the 70s, it's been reasonably flat over the best part of 45 years (there's been shorter term peaks and troughs but overall trend is fairly flat). Secondly, population (and consequently) population density continue to rise, and is forecast to continue to rise for decades.

What I would say is that we do have a significant challenge in an aging population - and this has lots of consequences particularly in social and health care. One might argue that increasing the fertility rate will help to rebalance this...but given the level of population growth, it feels it wouldn't be the right policy in the UK as you'd be setting a huge trap for the future generations, not least as house building still remains WAY behind schedule, so I'm really not certain aiming to raise TFR works for the UK and driving population growth without the basic infrastructure to support. A flat and predictable TFR is probably a safer bet.

Don't know enough about the balance in the US to comment though so it may be a very different desirable policy to grow population by increasing the TFR.

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 3324
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Spectral Knight » 19 Mar 2023, 22:41

tokenBG1009 wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 22:05

All of this is why I say direct cash is the answer. UBI isn't perfect. It's probably not THE answer, but if we are under the assumption some people will never be able to work above a certain ceiling we need to be able to support those people. More education may not be the answer for them, but ensuring they have the funds to meet their needs will. Hell, sometimes the direct money COULD go towards education in the form of childcare or just giving them the opportunity to not worry about making ends meet.
But this is where I disagree...! I don't believe that having a different vocation necessitates poverty at all. Going way back to some of the earlier posts, my dad was not college educated, and drove a bus for a living. He was a house owner in London in his early 20s.

I have a BSc and an MSc, and it took me until my 30s before I could get on the housing ladder.

The challenge is raising wages across those sectors where the less academically successful are likely to find work (and having tbose jobs in the first place...!) particularly, but not only, in secondary industries. This is the crux of my argument, I generally feel we need to be much more productive as a society and that will raise standards for all.

There will still be inequity. Always will be. But the "base" level should be much higher.

User avatar
Cable
Posts: 6120
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 18:31
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Cable » 19 Mar 2023, 23:29

Spectral Knight wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 22:33
Mrs Knight works in Early Years education (6 months to 3 year olds), albeit in the private sector so this particular issue is quite high on my agenda. Not to mention there's been a significant shift in the UK Government in its most recent budget re: EY Education.

That said, I'm in two minds - principally - the need; is low birth rate an issue? In the UK, I don't know. Honestly.

Checking the data, following the fertility plunge in the 70s, it's been reasonably flat over the best part of 45 years (there's been shorter term peaks and troughs but overall trend is fairly flat). Secondly, population (and consequently) population density continue to rise, and is forec ;) ast to continue to rise for decades.

What I would say is that we do have a significant challenge in an aging population - and this has lots of consequences particularly in social and health care. One might argue that increasing the fertility rate will help to rebalance this...but given the level of population growth, it feels it wouldn't be the right policy in the UK as you'd be setting a huge trap for the future generations, not least as house building still remains WAY behind schedule, so I'm really not certain aiming to raise TFR works for the UK and driving population growth without the basic infrastructure to support. A flat and predictable TFR is probably a safer bet.

Don't know enough about the balance in the US to comment though so it may be a very different desirable policy to grow population by increasing the TFR.
Focusing on the birth rate issue ignores all the other benefits derived from those direct payments as stated in the quote from the article above.

Regardless, the birth rate in the US and UK is currently well below replacement rate (1.56 in the UK and 1.64 in the US when replacement is 2.1). Meanwhile as you said the population is aging. In the US there are 98,000 people over the age of 100. The Census Bureau predicts by 2050 this number could possibly be in the millions. These people all expect to draw on social security (don't know what you call it there but I am sure you have some pension system for the elderly).

This is a demographic disaster in the making. A shrinking youth population cannot possibly hope to economically support a growing senior population (this is precisely why China reversed its One Child policy). You can try to raise the retirement age but France could tell you how that is going right now ;) . I don't know what the politics are in the UK but in the US the social security system is likewise basically untouchable. Democrats just oppose revising welfare systems in general and Republicans count the elderly as one of their more reliable voting blocs and seniors are easily whipped into a panic when any talk of reforming the system is brought up (even if you tell them it won't affect current or soon retirees). This is partly because many voters have a misunderstanding of how social security works but I won't go into the weeds on that. But both our major parties have absolutely no plan to fix social security despite it being a mathematical fact that it is headed for insolvency.

It will only get worse as the birth rate continues to be so low. Now of course you can try to solve population decline with more immigration, and some level of immigration should always be desired, but the higher you make that number a host of other problems come with assimilation concerns.
Best Comics of Week 21

X-titles: Storm #1 by Ann Nocenti (1) and Sid Kotian (2)
Non-X titles: Hellcat #3 by Christopher Cantwell (4) and Alex Lins (2)

In parentheses number of times creator had best comic this year

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 7337
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by tokenBG1009 » 19 Mar 2023, 23:33

Spectral Knight wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 22:41
tokenBG1009 wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 22:05

All of this is why I say direct cash is the answer. UBI isn't perfect. It's probably not THE answer, but if we are under the assumption some people will never be able to work above a certain ceiling we need to be able to support those people. More education may not be the answer for them, but ensuring they have the funds to meet their needs will. Hell, sometimes the direct money COULD go towards education in the form of childcare or just giving them the opportunity to not worry about making ends meet.
But this is where I disagree...! I don't believe that having a different vocation necessitates poverty at all. Going way back to some of the earlier posts, my dad was not college educated, and drove a bus for a living. He was a house owner in London in his early 20s.

I have a BSc and an MSc, and it took me until my 30s before I could get on the housing ladder.

The challenge is raising wages across those sectors where the less academically successful are likely to find work (and having tbose jobs in the first place...!) particularly, but not only, in secondary industries. This is the crux of my argument, I generally feel we need to be much more productive as a society and that will raise standards for all.

There will still be inequity. Always will be. But the "base" level should be much higher.
I'm lost on what "much more productive of a society" means because we're producing far more than we could dream. It's just that wages don't keep up with inflation so a dollar 20 years ago has more buying power than it does today. Companies aren't going to do this on their own and so the ceiling exists and the government has to step in to fill in.

Honestly, it doesn't sound like we're far from each other in argument. I just have no faith in the private sector to do what it would need to do to fix the problem so I'm looking to the government to do it themselves by injecting money. I REALLY wish I could remember if it's real, but I swear I recall a US politician talking to business people and asking if they would re-invest tax savings into their employees and basically no one said they would. Money put into employers only ends up in that employer finding more ways to be efficient and save money. In an era that "requires" constant growth this is inevitable.
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 3324
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Spectral Knight » 20 Mar 2023, 01:41

Cable wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 23:29
Focusing on the birth rate issue ignores all the other benefits derived from those direct payments as stated in the quote from the article above.
Apologies, as you introduced that I thought that was your root argument - the need to drive the TFR.

That being said, I dare say I'm in agreement (to an extent) that parents understand where cash can be used more effectively for their kids / family than the Government. There are, or at least should be...but...state sector waste... efficiencies in economies of scale if procurement was at a national level but I daresay they'd make a bit of a hash of it.

All together though - I feel a better means of leaving parents with more cash is to reduce taxation rather than reimbursement tax through cash injection. This might me where you can use more creative tax policy (like child tax credits) or simple things like reducing consumption taxes on essentials. It's pretty much my guiding principle- rather than handouts where you give back money you've taken from people just don't take it from them in the first place. I know that's mass simplification but it is so blindingly obvious.
Regardless, the birth rate in the US and UK is currently well below replacement rate (1.56 in the UK and 1.64 in the US when replacement is 2.1). Meanwhile as you said the population is aging. In the US there are 98,000 people over the age of 100. The Census Bureau predicts by 2050 this number could possibly be in the millions. These people all expect to draw on social security (don't know what you call it there but I am sure you have some pension system for the elderly).
Oh yes we have a pension system that is struggling to ve funded.. and yes we should be expecting the elderly population to continue to rise.

But... this is what I meant by warning of a massive trap for the future...! Say there's policy which creates a population boom over the next ten years...

Where are these families going to live and what does that do for the cost of housing in the mid term? We already don't have enough housing to support the population growth we've experienced.

Secondly... this boom of kids... what's going to happen to them in 65+ years? With life expectancy continuing to rise, you've caused a much larger group in the elderly that will require this additional support in the future. It's worse than chasing your tail...! You're not just kicking the can down the road, you're basically chucking a whole crate of cans to go down with it. Essentially this is the first time in human history where two or even three generations may be retirees. Our social security systems were not designed to support as long a life expectancy after retirement. But birthing our way out of it isn't the answer.

Increasing TFR works when you have low population density with low housing costs but the UK has the opposite. Comparing it to China as you did, it's twice as more densely populated.
It will only get worse as the birth rate continues to be so low. Now of course you can try to solve population decline with more immigration, and some level of immigration should always be desired, but the higher you make that number a host of other problems come with assimilation concerns.
No shit lol. But managed immigration is a red flag to the left (in the UK) far more than raising the state retirement age has been.
tokenBG1009 wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 23:33
I'm lost on what "much more productive of a society" means because we're producing far more than we could dream. It's just that wages don't keep up with inflation so a dollar 20 years ago has more buying power than it does today. Companies aren't going to do this on their own and so the ceiling exists and the government has to step in to fill in.
Yes - the Government does have a responsibility, and it cannot just be left to the free market. But a healthy private sector where there's a need for workers through growth gives power to workers to switch employers if their current one's conditions are not competitive. I generally want the Govt. to actively drive competitive industry (hence why I referenced controls to prevent monopolies etc waaay back)

I think the State has a vital role. I don't think that role should primarily be about wealth distribution through taxation.

User avatar
Cable
Posts: 6120
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 18:31
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Cable » 20 Mar 2023, 02:00

Spectral Knight wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 01:41

It's pretty much my guiding principle- rather than handouts where you give back money you've taken from people just don't take it from them in the first place. I know that's mass simplification but it is so blindingly obvious.
But this doesn't work for low income people because they already don't pay income taxes. But that is where the money is going to make the most difference for those kids.

What is the fundamental difference between spending more money on the public education system over giving that money directly to parents?
Best Comics of Week 21

X-titles: Storm #1 by Ann Nocenti (1) and Sid Kotian (2)
Non-X titles: Hellcat #3 by Christopher Cantwell (4) and Alex Lins (2)

In parentheses number of times creator had best comic this year

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 7337
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by tokenBG1009 » 20 Mar 2023, 02:23

Spectral Knight wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 01:41
tokenBG1009 wrote:
19 Mar 2023, 23:33
I'm lost on what "much more productive of a society" means because we're producing far more than we could dream. It's just that wages don't keep up with inflation so a dollar 20 years ago has more buying power than it does today. Companies aren't going to do this on their own and so the ceiling exists and the government has to step in to fill in.
Yes - the Government does have a responsibility, and it cannot just be left to the free market. But a healthy private sector where there's a need for workers through growth gives power to workers to switch employers if their current one's conditions are not competitive. I generally want the Govt. to actively drive competitive industry (hence why I referenced controls to prevent monopolies etc waaay back)

I think the State has a vital role. I don't think that role should primarily be about wealth distribution through taxation.
Man, things are very different in the UK vs the US. These are talking points that'd get any Republican labeled a RINO and laughed out of the party. It's interesting to see the difference.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. If I had faith the government would actually enact AND ENFORCE these policies I would be less inclined to think they need to put money directly into the pockets of people to fix the problem.
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 24892
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Blackcyclops » 20 Mar 2023, 03:40

I think the State has a vital role. I don't think that role should primarily be about wealth distribution through taxation.
I fundamentally disagree here. But not because of something as straightforward and potentially wrongheaded as maybe a UBI (which I’m not totally against) but because through taxation government can be funded to do things. And by doing things, they indirectly spur on the economy. I know it was decades ago at this point but for the US most of our 20th Century growth was indirectly spurned on by something done by the government and not because they just put money in people’s hands.

As it’s been seen time and time again recently, when corps get extra funds they don’t pay people more or even reinvest in innovation, they fatten the pockets of shareholders. I’d much rather that money be focused on government doing things that can ignite jobs. Even if that money was given just to states to use, I’d be okay since states do have a tendency to know their people better than the federal government. Just make sure the fed has things in place to protect the vulnerable.
So on one hand we have the existence of a being who can reset the entire timeline, destroying everything…, and on the other hand we have a few mind wipes and some gaslighting. You're right, totally evenly weighted.
-Cly

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 3324
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Spectral Knight » 20 Mar 2023, 06:06

Cable wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 02:00
But this doesn't work for low income people because they already don't pay income taxes. But that is where the money is going to make the most difference for those kids.
No, but as the video from Token demonstrated they are still paying (as a percentage of their income) considerable amounts of other taxation.
What is the fundamental difference between spending more money on the public education system over giving that money directly to parents?
Sorry, you've lost me a bit there - what education setting are you referring to? Early Years (preschool), standard schooling, 6th form (16-18 year olds) or HE.

I see an obvious need for state funded education. To me, that's an investment in the future skills needed by the country.
tokenBG1009 wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 02:23
Man, things are very different in the UK vs the US. These are talking points that'd get any Republican labeled a RINO and laughed out of the party. It's interesting to see the difference.
Yeah, I mean I don't have loyalty to the Tory party either. I don't consider myself a right-winger per se at all, but I see the absolute need for the private sector to be encouraged rather than discouraged. BUT...some of my policies would be interventionist - I fundamentally believe there is a need to offer additional tax benefits to industries in low income areas*. Drive the industry, drive employment, release the reliance on the service sector, and particularly London.

I also would fully support starting a national policy of housebuilding include state held housing stock would be considered very left wing, but it addresses a critical problem in our economy of the cost of housing and drives construction employment too.

I'm also okay with protectionism of local industry if alternative imports are only cheap because of other failings (abhorrent working conditions, environmental disregard, child labour etc.)

This polices may be be seen as "wealth redistribution" but I see a philosophical difference in state encouraged growth policies rather than simple benefits.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. If I had faith the government would actually enact AND ENFORCE these policies I would be less inclined to think they need to put money directly into the pockets of people to fix the problem.
To reference some of my early points, I DON'T have that trust in the UK Government. Nor in any alternative party (atm). But I do think that what is happening in the UK isn't working at all and we have a fairly substantial tax burden. We're in a slow decline so something has to change now.
Blackcyclops wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 03:40
I fundamentally disagree here. But not because of something as straightforward and potentially wrongheaded as maybe a UBI (which I’m not totally against) but because through taxation government can be funded to do things. And by doing things, they indirectly spur on the economy.
I am not saying the Government shouldn't do things. That's actually the opposite of what I've said.

What I've argued primarily is you need the sweet spot of low taxation to actually increase tax receipts as productivity is increased.
I know it was decades ago at this point but for the US most of our 20th Century growth was indirectly spurned on by something done by the government and not because they just put money in people’s hands.

As it’s been seen time and time again recently, when corps get extra funds they don’t pay people more or even reinvest in innovation, they fatten the pockets of shareholders. I’d much rather that money be focused on government doing things that can ignite jobs. Even if that money was given just to states to use, I’d be okay since states do have a tendency to know their people better than the federal government. Just make sure the fed has things in place to protect the vulnerable.
I don't think we're that far apart - I've been continuously talking about igniting jobs. I still believe in low corporate tax if possible as I appreciate it's a competitive macro economy and I'd prefer corps to invest in the UK versus somewhere else. That doesn't disregard that a lot of what I've talked about is also targeting growth.

User avatar
Cable
Posts: 6120
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 18:31
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Cable » 20 Mar 2023, 10:53

Spectral Knight wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 06:06
What is the fundamental difference between spending more money on the public education system over giving that money directly to parents?
Sorry, you've lost me a bit there - what education setting are you referring to? Early Years (preschool), standard schooling, 6th form (16-18 year olds) or HE.
It doesn't matter because it's a conceptual question. What I'm saying is you acknowledge elsewhere in your answer in being ok with "wealthy redistribution" if it is "state encouraged growth policies rather than simple benefits." I don't understand why you would cling to this if it is something that will result in inefficiency. As I alluded to before, it comes across like you thinking government bureaucrats are going to more efficiently spend money than individual citizens: quite a liberal position! If studies can prove that a direct cash infusion to families results in greater educational achievement in the long-term than comparable amounts of proposed public school program funding, why would you oppose that infusion?
Best Comics of Week 21

X-titles: Storm #1 by Ann Nocenti (1) and Sid Kotian (2)
Non-X titles: Hellcat #3 by Christopher Cantwell (4) and Alex Lins (2)

In parentheses number of times creator had best comic this year

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 3324
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Spectral Knight » 20 Mar 2023, 12:28

I think it's not as hard and dry as that, I don't believe state education has to be inefficient, but I don't believe academic achievement is the end goal for state education in any case as I'll allude to later, and unless you have state standardisation, you've got no means with which to assess education achievement in any case (i.e. the setting of a national curriculum and national exam boards)

As I mentioned, I think there's a disconnect between the economic needs (in industry and in our workforce skills gaps) and the orientation of schooling. I think with the conversion of secondary moderns to secondary comprehensives, it pushes non-academic pupils down an academic pathway that isn't right for them and they're likely to under-perform in, and isn't right for the needs of the country as it doesn't resolve the skills gap that is then filled by migration (particularly something we've seen in the construction related industries, with all the challenges that comes with it, as I've alluded to). Fundamentally, schooling should provide pupils with skills for life and maximising that pupils' potential - underperforming in an academic field whilst being untrained in non-academic fields puts them on the back foot and more vulnerable to poverty. It doesn't need to be that way at all.

But... if there's a standardised curriculum in any case, whether it is a delineated between secondary modern / grammar split, or harmonised within the existing secondary comp system, the economies of scale would suggest this would be more efficiently funded by the State rather than individuals.

That's broad-sweep. I don't particularly feel kids need to be in pre-school education at all. Cash infusion may work better there.
Cash infusion at primary and secondary school age groups would be daft.

HE - the old format of student grants for the working classes worked quite well before they tried to send half the school-leaving population to university and needed to introduce top-up tuition fees and loans instead to pay for it. Failing to recognise the issues this has caused, some on the left (Blair!) want this to increase even further. It was an insanely foolish policy.

So like everything, it depends. I have a philosophical bias to pragmatism :lol:

User avatar
Cable
Posts: 6120
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 18:31
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Cable » 20 Mar 2023, 14:20

Spectral Knight wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 12:28

But... if there's a standardised curriculum in any case, whether it is a delineated between secondary modern / grammar split, or harmonised within the existing secondary comp system, the economies of scale would suggest this would be more efficiently funded by the State rather than individuals.
I just think this is an assumption that can be pushed back on and open to further study. Of course there needs to broadly speaking be a public school system. But when end results are not to the standard hoped for, there needs to be more creative supplemental solutions considered than throwing more money on the bonfire of the education bureaucracy. This has been shown to not work. And it stands to reason that parents know best what their specific child needs to thrive.
Best Comics of Week 21

X-titles: Storm #1 by Ann Nocenti (1) and Sid Kotian (2)
Non-X titles: Hellcat #3 by Christopher Cantwell (4) and Alex Lins (2)

In parentheses number of times creator had best comic this year

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 3324
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Spectral Knight » 20 Mar 2023, 14:29

To that, I'd simply say funding isn't, by and large, my biggest issues, with the education sector. It's much, much broader.

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 24892
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Blackcyclops » 20 Mar 2023, 16:52

Controversial statement: as a parent/an educator/husband of an educator, I think broadly on the most basic and overly generalized level, that parents know what’s best for their child but that idea in practice is contextual, circumstantial and not to be overly generalized.
So on one hand we have the existence of a being who can reset the entire timeline, destroying everything…, and on the other hand we have a few mind wipes and some gaslighting. You're right, totally evenly weighted.
-Cly

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 24892
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Blackcyclops » 20 Mar 2023, 16:56


This polices may be be seen as "wealth redistribution" but I see a philosophical difference in state encouraged growth policies rather than simple benefits.
Reading this, I see fully what you’re saying. The thing is that some people argue that any of what you said that does support working class people but isn’t benefits, is twisted into essentially being framed as the same thing as benefits. And things like you mentioned that do give support to the very wealthy and corporations isn’t benefits. And that’s why it felt as though we were disagreeing so much.

Although in a US context, there are probably things that we would consider as benefits and you would too but not as problematic…like healthcare.
So on one hand we have the existence of a being who can reset the entire timeline, destroying everything…, and on the other hand we have a few mind wipes and some gaslighting. You're right, totally evenly weighted.
-Cly

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 7337
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: Random Thoughts

Post by tokenBG1009 » 20 Mar 2023, 19:27

Chuck Austen is a guest on this week's episode of the Cerebro Cast and, honestly, his run is growing on me. Hearing his thoughts on his ideas refocuses them a bit
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 3324
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by Spectral Knight » 20 Mar 2023, 19:45

Blackcyclops wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 16:56

This polices may be be seen as "wealth redistribution" but I see a philosophical difference in state encouraged growth policies rather than simple benefits.
Reading this, I see fully what you’re saying. The thing is that some people argue that any of what you said that does support working class people but isn’t benefits, is twisted into essentially being framed as the same thing as benefits. And things like you mentioned that do give support to the very wealthy and corporations isn’t benefits. And that’s why it felt as though we were disagreeing so much.

Although in a US context, there are probably things that we would consider as benefits and you would too but not as problematic…like healthcare.
Oh yeah I remember speaking to you years ago about how I see a free at the point of use health system as essential. I can't fathom why it wouldn't be seen as such as I very much see it as investment - a healthier population is a healthier workforce but also reduces the need for social security.

That said, inefficiency is rife in the NHS. So it's not perfect by any stretch - it's an enormous financial drain but it's too important to fail. Too many managers not managing it particularly well and too few front line staff. Plus some crazy policies on where/how resources and services are sub-contracted to the private sector which...honestly, baffles me.

Edit: I should add as well... like most people I think there's always a compromise. I don't think all policies can easily be classed as right or left, or liberal or conservative. There's often singular policies that may be seen as one or the other, but in reality it's how they work together that really dictates how effective they will be. There's some things I'm very interventionist on, and others I'm far more laissez-faire about. It's about finding the most appropriate balance, rather than trying to advocate for these broad unwieldy schools of thought that don't allow deviance. It's a nonsense, of course
Last edited by Spectral Knight on 20 Mar 2023, 19:54, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AntiBody
Posts: 3103
Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 14:42
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Random Thoughts

Post by AntiBody » 20 Mar 2023, 19:50

tokenBG1009 wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 19:27
Chuck Austen is a guest on this week's episode of the Cerebro Cast and, honestly, his run is growing on me. Hearing his thoughts on his ideas refocuses them a bit
I am SO excited to listen to this one, and I CANNOT believe Connor is doing an episode on Annie :lol:
he / him

📖: Morrison's New X-Men | DnA's Cosmic Saga | Hickman's New/Avengers & Secret Wars | Dawn/Reign/Destiny Of X
📺: Guardians | Black Panther | Ragnarok | Infinity War/Endgame | WandaVision | Loki | No Way Home | Multiverse Of Madness

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 7337
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: Random Thoughts

Post by tokenBG1009 » 20 Mar 2023, 22:44

AntiBody wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 19:50
tokenBG1009 wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 19:27
Chuck Austen is a guest on this week's episode of the Cerebro Cast and, honestly, his run is growing on me. Hearing his thoughts on his ideas refocuses them a bit
I am SO excited to listen to this one, and I CANNOT believe Connor is doing an episode on Annie :lol:
The good thing about it is Annie has so little to talk about it becomes an episode about Austen's entire run. It really gave me some thinking to do regarding his run.
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
BardicOne
Posts: 288
Joined: 11 Jul 2020, 06:00

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by BardicOne » 21 Mar 2023, 06:00

Interesting. As someone who doesn't list it as the worst-run in an X-Book, just in the bottom tier, I might give this a listen.
Formerly Known As RingOtaku
posting vlogs and game streams at: https://www.youtube.com/user/gotyoursomething/videos

User avatar
das_boot
Posts: 5605
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 15:24

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by das_boot » 21 Mar 2023, 10:09

I mean… it’s my least favourite X-Cast with my least favourite host and least favourite writer but I’m somehow intrigued
Sinister’s Lab now secretly altering other player’s posts in the RPG section

User avatar
AntiBody
Posts: 3103
Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 14:42
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Re: Random Thoughts

Post by AntiBody » 21 Mar 2023, 16:18

tokenBG1009 wrote:
20 Mar 2023, 19:27
The good thing about it is Annie has so little to talk about it becomes an episode about Austen's entire run. It really gave me some thinking to do regarding his run.
Thanks for the heads-up on that, token. I'm currently doing a huge re-read of my whole X-Men collection, and I'll be in the Austen era soon. I do think back on it fondly, as I had just gotten back into comics at the time and caught a lot of these stories as they were released. I think I'll pair this episode with my finishing of his run! Like Bardic and Booty, I'm really curious about what he has to say about it all, and about its legacy.
he / him

📖: Morrison's New X-Men | DnA's Cosmic Saga | Hickman's New/Avengers & Secret Wars | Dawn/Reign/Destiny Of X
📺: Guardians | Black Panther | Ragnarok | Infinity War/Endgame | WandaVision | Loki | No Way Home | Multiverse Of Madness

Post Reply