Wait - so your saying theres no change?

Don't understand what you're asking. By the way, as I've mentioned before, I think people who have children should be the ones who pay for their schooling, not the rest of the taxpayers. Can't afford to send three to school? Have two! Problem solved!

I must disagree with your suggestion of having only people with children pay for school.

Educating children is a benefit to the entirety of society, its not meant to be a public babysitting service, but the foundation for the growth of the next generation, which those who have no children will depend upon in their later years to continue to provide all the services they enjoy now, be it roads, medical treatment, technological advancement, all of it depends first and foremost on the education of the young being up to the task.

If you were to limit these funds to those ONLY payable by those who have children, the ability of states & counties to provide that education would be severely hamstrung.

Because it is socially beneficial to all, and because the fiscal cost of doing so is notable, it is a burden that must be supported by the entire population.

In short, if my children don't learn how to read, they may be robbing you some day, if they DO learn to read, they invent something to help you some day...so share the wealth.

Of course, my little ones are home schooled, the city school system sucks.

Robert - I would accept your premise if it were not for the fact that government schools have never had any other purpose but indoctrination in the guise of education.

And in the past thirty years, even the guise has dropped by the wayside. A fair number of graduates from public high schools are functionally illiterate, but the know that global warming is destroying the planet and that the United States is responsible.

In other words, if you believe that an educated populace is a public good, the worst thing you can do is put that responsibility in the hands of the government. What you get (on average) is a bunch of dunderheads whose best career hopes are internet porn star or burger flipper deluxe.

I don't have kids yet, but am considering home schooling. It will largely depend on where we end up living, of course, and what the schools are like. It sure would be nice to pay less taxes if I didn't use the public schools, and to spend the money on books, courses, and course materials instead. But it is not to be.

I have such mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think public schools are ineffective (I went to one of those "excellent public schools" where the kids have high SAT scores... but a huge chunk of them were cutters, or had eating disorders, or were suicidal), awful places, but on the other hand, I know most parents can't afford private schools and don't have the time or ability to educate their kids themselves. On the one hand, I think people shouldn't put kids into public schools except as a last resort, but on the other hand I would like to see the schools be as good as they can be, with everyone having equal access to learning the basics.

Very mixed feelings, here.

I have such mixed feelings. On the one hand...

Very mixed feelings, here.

And it appears you have four hands. ;-)

Unions in public institutions always seem to be a problem. But at the same time I can see they sometimes have valid points. Such as this: [Dayton, OH] Union workers reject pay freeze plan.

Then next day the union came out with the rest of the story. While City Hall is also taking a wage freeze, they are still getting their bonuses this year, and wouldn't guarantee there wouldn't be layoffs. So it boils down to what benefit for them if they do take the deal?

Maybe it's too complicated for me, but we have a well funded school district that is unable to provide an education good enough for the president's daughters. I'll go out on a limb and propose that more money might not solve this problem.

So, why don't we have some competition, in the form of vouchers and alternative schools? That's a bad thing, but allowing the children of the rich to opt out is OK?

I'd ask why do you hate my kids and want to force them to stay in failing schools, but mine have already graduated and the answer is the teacher's union anyway.

The hypocrisy is amusing, but it's kind of tough on the kids who get out of school without the skills to actually get a job or go to college. Well, we get what we vote for sometimes.

I don't care to engage in the proverbial envious-evil-eye argument of the
"haves and have nots" . Obama's kids OR any kid for that matter should be able to be afforded the best education possible.

However, I'd have less of a problem if he had answered the question asked of him about his stance on home-schooling, by the Home School Legal Defense Association. He has yet to respond.

He did mention twice that he is in support of home-schooling in his book "Audacity", but then contradicts this as he is in support of the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child (at odds with parental rights over their child’s education). And again, when officially asked about his support, has declined to respond.

In Feb 2008, he told the Teachers Unions he was against the DC Voucher Programs.
In Illinois, in 1999 Obama voted against an income tax credit for parents who send their kids to private schools, religious schools, and/or who home-school their kids.
I think we can all agree, public schools aren’t really serving our children’s best interests and with Teacher’s Unions stronger than ever I don’t see education improving without any competitive advantages coming in.

So, while Obama's kids are afforded the very best in education (as they should be), then perhaps the bigger issue is why then are other tax paying American's being stripped of the freedom to do the same thing?

If Obama believes in the very best in education for his children, and he is able to make the choice to do so, should he not also then support of our rights to do the same?

I guess that's the sticking point for me.

What's good for the goose, should be good for the gander, no?

First, leave the Obama kids alone. Let their parents provide the best they can for them just as my parents did for me and I tried to do for my rug rats.

I did my homework and moved to a community that had the best public schools available. My guys have four higher education diplomas between them and are working on two more. It’s not the school that counts it’s the kid and parental involvement that make a difference.

"In short, if my children don't learn how to read, they may be robbing you some day,"

In short, pay for my brats or I will raise them to be robbers! Puke. Entitled much? Having kids is a choice - you choose to have them, you can bloody well pay for their education. Don't like it? Don't have kids.

And to follow your ridiculous argument to the extreme, no I would not care if every single person on the planet decided they didn't want to have kids. I *still* would not pay you to have them.

"In short, if my children don't learn how to read, they may be robbing you some day,"

In short, if you fail at parenting, I may be shooting your child some day.

Amy, society could take your absolutist position only if today's children were not expected to eventually provide benefits to today's adults via social security, medicare and other income transfers from them to the future elderly. Those future elderly are, in essence, paying for better-prepared (i.e., more economically productive) people to someday support them. In that way, it is in the self-interest of today's taxpayers to make children more productive citizens/taxpayers decades hence. Universal education is quite easily shown to have that benefit of making the population, on average, more economically productive.

There are, of course, examples where specific school systems are near disasters within the larger universal education structure. But there are also, I think, many more schools that provide excellent return on the taxpayer's money. In short, don't indict the universal education system as a poor performer just because some examples are awful.

Should we identify the poor schools and reform them without pity? Yup. Alternatively, we could simply permit vouchers and let a thousand private education providers bloom. That is a debate people can have for many hours without much progress.

But people who argue that today's adults should not pay for today's children's education are--quite rightly, I think--seen as libertarian fringe (dare I say outright cranks) who would refuse the undeniable social benefits of universal education in order to obtain some misguided purity in social arrangements between generations.

In fact, you could see this as a wonderful contrast to last week's circumcision discussion. With circumcision, adults impose a painful "cost" on someone unable to express choice in order to satisfy adult aesthetic preferences (albeit preferences dressed up with dubious claims about medical benefits that kids could actually later select for themselves). But when it comes to universal education, today's adults are imposing a cost on themselves to provide a benefit to those unable to express an informed choice. Adults do this in the hope that the resulting benefits to both the children and the adults will be shared among them via income transfers.

That long term reason for engaging in the decision is part of what makes mankind unique among animals. We can take a very long view of things and organize matters to maximize potential benefits to all, but only if we have some mechanism of contract to employ. When it comes to universal education paid for by society, it seems to me to be a classic example of a public good that government should provide. Whether our current system is the most efficient one possible to provide that education is another question.

"Amy, society could take your absolutist position only if today's children were not expected to eventually provide benefits to today's adults via social security, medicare and other income transfers from them to the future elderly."

Which is precisely why social security, medicare, and other income transfers to the elderly should not exist in the first place. Have you not noticed that these programs are nothing more than morally (and financially) bankrupt pyramid schemes that a private business person would be thrown in jail for trying to run?

People need to get a freakin' grip and provide for their own selves in old age. If you have had your entire life to work and save money, yet have failed to do so, well guess what, Wal-Mart is hiring greeters.

Besides, while it's true that if you have kids they will pay into the system, has it occurred to anyone that they will be future drains on the system as well?

"undeniable social benefits of universal education"

Yes, yes, I agree there are benefits of universal education, if by "universal" you mean that everyone is educated. But universal does not mean government-run. In fact, putting the government in charge of our schools is pretty much guaranteeing that we are universally stuck with mediocrity in education. Why not let free markets do for education what they have done for grocery stores and electronics? We could have an enormous variety of choices which would keep improving in quality and getting cheaper through competition. If there are really, really poor people who can't afford to educate their kids, well, first let's sterilize them. Then, we give them the educational equivalent of food stamps. We have ways of feeding kids that don't involve the government running the grocery stores, so we can help provide their educations without the government running the schools.

"Which is precisely why social security, medicare, and other income transfers to the elderly should not exist in the first place."

When that imagined universe arrives, let me know. Until then...

Dropping my annoying sarcasm for second, I am as up on my St. Milton of Chicago as the next wild-eyed apostle of Hayek. But public education strikes me as the quintessential and undeniable public good and something we should fund, even if we are frothing libertarians.

The never-to-go-away income transfers (seriously, get used to them. Death and taxes, my friend) provide an additional quite tangible reason for universal education. But even if we get rid of those, the benefits of universal education are still there.

"Why not let free markets do for education what they have done for grocery stores and electronics? We could have an enormous variety of choices which would keep improving in quality and getting cheaper through competition."

Obviously, you missed key qualifiers in in my earlier post.

"If there are really, really poor people who can't afford to educate their kids, well, first let's sterilize them."

Um, do you want to rethink that one a bit?

""If there are really, really poor people who can't afford to educate their kids, well, first let's sterilize them."

Um, do you want to rethink that one a bit?"

Heh heh ... okay, so that was my own little bit of annoying sarcasm. No, I don't want the kiddies running around any more illiterate than they already are, which is why I threw in the food-stamps-style education idea at the end of my post. (It's actually vouchers, if you think about it.) But only for the very poor - everyone else should pony up for their own kids' educations. And I guarantee you we'd all be getting a lot bigger bang for a lot fewer bucks if it worked that way.

It's kind of surprising to me, really - the average person doesn't think anyone else should be paying for their kids' shoes, clothes, toys, food, glasses, or whatnot. Why education?

Thank you, Spartee, for saying there is another good reason for people to be educated than paying into the current income transfer programs.

However, I'm not entirely sure those programs are here to stay. They will run out of money before long, regardless of how educated the next generation is. When SSI runs out of money, the government will try to prop it up by running the national debt even higher. And that will work for a while, until it reaches its credit limit. Where she stops, nobody knows, but we would all be wise to not plan on needing to have these programs around.

"Why not let free markets do for education what they have done for grocery stores and electronics? We could have an enormous variety of choices which would keep improving in quality and getting cheaper through competition." That's exactly what should be done for 99% of the population. Governments have never been able to run anything as efficiently as the private sector.

I struggle, however, with the fate of the last 1%. Should the government cover education costs for orphans? What about kids that have been abandoned? What about that kid whose mother has decided the extra money will go to buy crack instead of her kid's education? I guess this is the "bleeding heart" in me, but I am not sure a 100% absolutist position is appropriate here.

Hi! I lost interest in this thread! But now I'm back!

> Or, if you can't afford it, have an
> abortion. The answer isn't that
> other people pay for your choices
> and gambles, and having a kid is a
> gamble.

That is some SERIOUSLY,GROTESQUELY FUCKED-UP shit, Amy.

Bye 'til next time!

I'm tempted to brew coffee and type until dawn laying it out for you, but there's just no point. If you made a blog post saying that young children should be encouraged to sip from puddles on the way to school in the morning, I'd be confident that someone would set you straight, eventually. This is kind of like that.

You're apparently bloodthirsty; you appear to be deranged. In your eagerness (no doubt sincere and well-meaning) to protect access to abortion, you've latched on to a preposterously extreme position: Not only that abortion has no moral dimension (none!) for you personally, but that it should have no meaning to others either; so you'll demand it of anyone who risks burdening the commonweal (as if you have reliable predictive powers), and will do so in the most hurtful terms, and with robotic dispatch.

We've got to get you out of the house. You've got to get to a church, or a synagogue, or a mainstream (mainstream!) community service agency... Someplace where you actually see what happens to people who lead lives with beliefs not precisely congruent with your own.

You'll be amazed how much they have to offer.

These are the facts: Rich people who can afford lots of children have very few children; poor people who cannot afford any children have lots of children.

By paying for their education and even for their food, we encourage the poor to have even more children they cannot afford. Spending my money to educate your child does not keep him from robbing me, worse, it makes for an educated thief who is able to steal even more.

If education were the answer to crime then with all the billions spent we should have almost no criminals at all. Abortions have done more to lower crime than anything else. Sterilization of crack whores and similar types would lower it even more.

I know sterilization sounds like a terrible thing, but besides having a lot of kids, crack whores also have a lot of abortions. And if you have any respect for the sanctity of life, or even the pretense of caring about it, what is worse, one sterilization or 6 abortions?

Actually, it's not just 6 abortions that we prevent with one sterilization, but also another half dozen worthless pieces of crap entering our society.

But don't oppose sterilization because you think yourself humane. Is it humane to allow one baby factory to produce an endless stream of lost souls that are destined to end up criminals and that aborts an equal number of souls? Where's the humanity in that?

There are two ways to keep the wolf population down: sterilize the mothers or shoot the children. Sadly, because we pretend we are civilized and humane, we have opted to shoot the children.

Damn Pirate Jo, I don't say this often, but your suggestion is just plain stupid.

If the only people to have children were the ones who could afford a private education from kindergarten to the age of 18, then we'd be right back to the way things were 200 years ago, when a small educated elite, and a massive ignorant population.

Public education is a necessity, and EVERY citizen benefits from it.

I'm not saying all people should pay for college education, but your basic education levels of first grade through 12th should be properly funded.

If we only paid taxes on the things we personally use, there wouldn't be enough money for any damn thing.

We pay taxes to support public education so that we have an educated public.

Maybe this has eluded your reasoning, but you DO benefit from the education of next generation.

Oh you don't have kids? So you shouldn't pay? Alright, by that reasoning, why should you benefit from anything those kids produce when they grow up?

You know, when you're 70 years old and need a doctor, don't go to anyone younger than yourself, after all, you had nothing to do with his education.

Fact is that we all pay taxes to provide free education to our children.

Those kids aren't a burden (well, a few will be) they're an INVESTMENT.

EVERY single one of you will need one of those children one day, whether it is one of them as a cop hauling your butt out of a burning vehicle, treating your illnesses, inventing the products you will depend on, and of course, paying taxes to support the infrastructure we have.

Without them, eventually, you have nothing. As I said, my own are home schooled right now because I dislike aspects of the city system.

My tax dollars still pay for that system regardless of whether or not my child is in it. I don't begrudge that, because those kids need an education too.

This is the problem with people dying of old age, we suffer from C.R.S. syndrome, "Can't Remember Shit". What happens when the only people who get educated are the ones with great sums of money?

Use whatever brains you have, imagine the worst case scenario, or god forbid, pick up a history book that talks about the lot of UNeducated masses in early societies.

Innovation...done
Social mobility...done
Science...ground to a halt
Medicine...go to mexico
Free flow of information...Done
Freedom...DONE
(If you think that's extreme, check the literacy rates before the enlightenment, and compare it to during, the call for liberty arises only with the knowledge of its possibility, and the means for defining ones own hardships, that only comes with education)

Its a sad truth in some ways Brian, but the school is only going to be as good as the parents expect.

If a child is graduating from school illiterate, well lets face facts, if there are 30 students per class, and each teacher has 6 or 7 classes, that's as many as 210 kids, there are limits to how much attention a teacher can give to any one student, no matter our ideals or the quality of the teacher.

The most important factor in a child's education will ALWAYS be parental involvement. That teacher has maybe 210 kids, a parent, probably doesn't have more than 4. So who is to blame first when a child can't read?

The parent who didn't take enough interest in their own child to do a parent's job.

But not all public schools have been that way.

I came out of public school after all, granted I came from educated parents who instilled a life long love of knowledge & education...that helps a lot. But I had some damn good teachers too, ones that would take the time to sit and help me work through rougher subjects, and I learned what I needed in order to attend to the business of gaining a higher education.

We get the education we demand for our children, parents who don't give a shit, get teachers who don't give a shit.

The reality of the situation is, that the Libertarian viewpoint had it's day and society decided they really didn't like the results. It's easy enough to wax poetic at the injustice of it all. "I'm so very responsible, how dare those who aren't as responsible as me, expect me to pony up and pay into a system I abhor." And on one level, that argument seems pretty reasonable.

But the reality is, that a great many years ago, the society you envision is exactly what we had. And that society was fucking ugly. Ugly enough that an overwhelming majority of people decided that they didn't want our society to look like that anymore. Ugly enough that fairly extreme measures were taken to ensure that our society wouldn't look like that anymore.

This is not to say that there is nothing wrong with public education in the U.S., there certainly is (though it's not, as brian puts it, because public schools are indoctrination centers). That doesn't mean that we should put the whole burden on parents to pay for it themselves. The bottom line is that everyone in our society should and can benefit from the cost we put into ensuring that everyone gets an education. And it's not just the notion that providing said education reduces the odds of this kid or that one becoming a criminal.

Amy - when I worked for an abortion rights group, I toured a "for-profit" abortion clinic. The waiting room walls were covered with heart-shaped letters from women, written to the fetuses they intended to abort. Most of the letters expressed deep love for the life for which the women believed abortion was the best, most loving option. The women wrote notes expressing their belief that the life they would abort would be best cared for by going to, to paraphrase many letters, "a better place," and most of all, by avoiding being born into pain or into the poverty the women themselves experienced. I'm writing this because, if one hasn't read these letters or otherwise heard directly from women who have had an abortion, it is far more common just to see the impact/ havoc wrought from men and women who reproduce unconsciously.

To Robert at November 27, 2008 4:40 PM: you nailed it. But as for your later comment - "We get the education we demand for our children, parents who don't give a shit, get teachers who don't give a shit." To the letter of your comment, I have to object. My mother spent over three decades as a public school teacher, teaching "special education - learning disabled, emotionally disturbed" students. Even the kids who had mothers too drunk and fathers otherwise too absent to show up to IEP meetings received the time and attention of an immensely dedicated and talented teacher, beloved by many of her students. And that, I believe, goes to/ is consistent with the heart of your comments about the value of public education - that powerless children and unwitting adults alike: benefit immeasurably from publicly-financed education by giving children the opportunity to develop themselves and participate in capitalism/ society beyond what for which their parents' financial circumstances and personal educations/experiences alone would provide. As long as we cannot control the circumstances into which we are born, but are required to pay the costs of transgressing the laws into which we are born, or to prosecute, penalize (or shoot - hi Brian) those who transgress those laws - then paying the costs of public education is likely the better bargain.

DuWayne - ditto. Thank you for nailing it. Also, I hope that your kids and your sweetheart are well.

Crid - you went over the deep end here. Not a lick of rational argument to your comment. Off topic - over a year ago I bailed out of a conversation mid-thought (mid-rant on your part, frankly) about organized labor and the global economy. I believe I owe you a response. Will do so at dogkysser[at]gmail[dot]com, if you prefer.

> You've turned this into an
> argument for abortion in general.
> It's not.

It's worse! You hold your beliefs about the morality of abortion to be a fait accompli, the starting point from which the whole society should move without further discussion.

Whelp, there are some problems with that.

First, some people (many people) believe it to be murder. So there's that. And maybe they're wrong, but they're not wrong by a whole lot, because.....

Secondly, most people (lefties, righties, innies, outies) believe that abortion (in the best case) is unnecessary killing. (These are the people I admire.) It's not the sort of thing you sprinkle around casually in order to save a buck or two. If you wanna run a civilized society, you better get used to the idea that Joe Schmoe is going to pay taxes to clean up messes that he personally had little to do with. That's what civilization means. It doesn't mean insisting that distant parties terminate lives when you're in the mood to economize.

Michelle- You're quite the alluring rhetor.

correction: beyond ~that realm~ for which

Ooooh....a Eugenics chat? Urgh, here comes my dinner. So exactly where do we draw the line for voluntary versus mandatory policies? Anyone have the perfect blueprint?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Amy, you moving to a cabin in the woods anytime soon? Because you sure seem to want to check out of society. Yes, we know, you don't care if no one has kids. You don't care for kids or like them at all (how your friends can stomach having you over to see their baby is a mystery to me). And you must prove it to all of us by saying it's ok with you if society ends at your generation, so long as you save the property taxes you don't pay as a renter from being used to educate kids.

Crid's 100% correct on his views of your abortion statement.

The patent absurdity of the pay your own kids educational fees argument is fairly obvious, so I won't rehash it. Read a history book for your own education, if you must. You might find that your little experiment has been implemented, to the detriment of society, many a time.

I respect the repubs for wanting choice, which would lead to competition in schools. Competition is how you get excellence. I have no respect for the libs on this one. No, I don't think you SHOULD be able to choose private, if you are in a position of authority to force others to go local and public. Much like I (prolifer though I am) don't think you should be able to get an abortion if you are in a position of authority to deny it to others.

> Anyone have the perfect blueprint?
>
> Anyone?
>
> Anyone?

Juliana's growing on me. See the later thread about CG

Whoops, see the later comment thread about the Deford daughter... I couldn't help wondering if Any would have demanded a more aggressive process of cost abatement.

"I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world" - John Sulston, Nobel prize winner's stance on eugenics. Sounds very similar to Amy's stance at 7:35 a.m.

Eugenics as an idea looks neat and tidy and has lovely hospital corners. It begins with the noblest intentions. All black and white. However, in practice, it has failed every time, sometimes quite spectacularly. Why?

Too broad a spectrum, too many ideas of what is "undesirable". We as a race do not have the patience of someone expertly trimming a bonsai tree. Someone always gets fidgety with the scissors; we don't wield power well. Personal prejudices surface and we start hacking away at a segment of the population that should otherwise be left alone. I'm not going to start throwing out examples. Anyone interested just needs to google the subject. There's hours of reading. It starts with the most enlightened minds, but always turns into a grotesque travesty.

Oh, and no one ever wants to see themselves listed in the undesirable category....

"If the only people to have children were the ones who could afford a private education from kindergarten to the age of 18, then we'd be right back to the way things were 200 years ago, when a small educated elite, and a massive ignorant population."

Um, no, because the massive ignorant population wouldn't be having kids. Poverty and ignorance would die out in a single generation, simply because they wouldn't reproduce themselves. Yes, it's just a fantasy. Obviously people who are too stupid and irresponsible to educate and take care of themselves aren't going to suddenly do a 180 when it comes to birth control.

Lots and lots of problems would be solved if people who can't afford kids would make the responsible decision to not have them. (And just because you can't afford a kid at 20 doesn't mean you will be in that situation when you are 30 - it's called delayed gratification.) I don't know how to keep stupid people from breeding, but for chrissake we can at least stop paying them to do it. What gives? We don't feel sorry for people who buy cars and then can't make the payments. We don't feel sorry for those boobs who bought $700K houses they can't afford. We don't feel sorry for people who rack up credit card debt buying vacations and clothes or who in any other way live beyond their means. But when it comes to popping out brats, it's okay for people to line up with their hands out?

If a kid grows up, becomes a doctor, and provides treatment for me, I PAY HIM FOR HIS SERVICES. THAT is his incentive to get the education and good-paying job. I don't have to invest in him - he invests in himself. His investment pays off when he provides something useful and then gets paid for it. If I'm supposed to pay for his education just on the chance that he makes something of himself, then by that logic he should provide all his services to me for free when he grows up.

Pirate Jo, do you really think so? How many born-wealthy people go on to innovate, or invent, or go to med school? Not very damn many. When you have money, there is NO incentive to spend 20+hour days for years on end in a garage making a usable personal computer. There just isn't. Heading into business using your contacts is the usual MO, where they proceed to run companies into the ground while enriching themselves. No pride of ownership, no duty to others.

Well over 90% of the good things invented and done in this world come from what you call the ignorant breeding masses. Oh, and if poor people stopped breeding, who would do the ickier necessary low paying jobs? Not the well-educated or their offspring. Want to take your own trash to the dump? Want to pay an educated person the 6-figure salary they would demand for providing that service to you?

Were you homeschooled? Or private school? If not, you really need to shut your mouth about removing a service you've already taken advantage of but don't care to pay your share of. Because yes, people do pay for their education. You go to school, then you work and pay your taxes. Basically, we make an investment that is paid back. It's nowhere near the same thing as paying people money to sit home and pop out kids.

Amy, how are those kids next door who make you melt educated? Just curious.

Private school, here in Austin, a not particularly expensive place to live, is between 15 and 20K a year. How many people could afford to shell out 60 or 80k a year for multiple kids? Do we really want a world full of self-centered only children? What if you can afford one but get twins or triplets? Do you have to abort the others? Do please explain, Amy and Pirate Jo and others, exactly how you see this "you pay" plan working? Amy, where did you learnt to read and write, thus getting started on your career? Did your parents pay private school?

Born-wealthy people? Who said you have to be born wealthy to be able to afford your own kids?

As to the people who perform the ickier, low-paying jobs, we certainly have no shortage of people qualified for those. If the supply of unskilled labor did go down, however, those people would make more money, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

A kid's education costs, lets average, $20k a year. That's for one kid. You got that lying around? I would call people who do wealthy. Did you pay to educate your own kids, or did the system do it? Again, it's a loan paid back when they earn and work and pay taxes. It's not a handout. What is hard to understand about that?

And you say we have no shortage of people willing to do those jobs. But if poor people stop breeding like you dream of, there will be NO people to do those jobs. And yeah, people getting higher wages to perform them might be a good idea if you like inflation, but you yourself personally are not going to want the $400 a month trash bill you recieve to pay the educated, fewer children to do that job. Nor will you want to pay $20 more a meal to have someone bus your table and wash your dishes.

"A kid's education costs, lets average, $20k a year. That's for one kid. You got that lying around?"

Why does education cost that much? I'll grant you a kid's parents might not be able to teach him everything he needs to know. But reading, yes, and they can learn a lot of things once they know how to read. What are you getting for $20K a year that your kid really needs and is worth paying that much for? Could it have something to do with the fact that parents, in our current government model, have no reason to negotiate price with the people providing the service?

"But if poor people stop breeding like you dream of, there will be NO people to do those jobs."

Machines would do some of them, immigrants would do others, and maybe some of those nice, educated kids, too, who just want to make a decent living and don't really care about being a career hound. As wages for these jobs rose, they would attract more workers, and the supply and demand would balance out eventually. The people working these jobs, as they earned more, would then be able to afford kids, and the supply of labor would then increase, too. (Which would eventually drive prices back down until an equilibrium was reached.)

"Machines would do some of them, immigrants would do others, and maybe some of those nice, educated kids, too, who just want to make a decent living and don't really care about being a career hound. As wages for these jobs rose, they would attract more workers, and the supply and demand would balance out eventually. The people working these jobs, as they earned more, would then be able to afford kids, and the supply of labor would then increase, too. (Which would eventually drive prices back down until an equilibrium was reached.)"

This is just creepy. Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon......

"This is just creepy." What, that the laws of supply and demand apply to human labor just like they do to every other useful resource on the planet? Sorry if you don't like it.

We don't live in farming communities anymore. Homeschooling on a society-wide scale (which you're suggesting I think, as why it shouldn't cost much to educate) would not work. We have to learn to function in a societal setting, and school does that. So, maybe parents could form co-ops. They'd have to buy the supplies, and lets not forget the computers and microscopes and other items more expensive than books. Then whoever teaches the kids is going to want pay for that. And probably health insurance. Someone has to provide the room, either in their home or by renting space. Hmmm, see how that cost goes up pretty quickly? One mom might stay at home and teach her kids. But to lower the costs of the equipment, she would have to go in with other families. And while she might teach her kids free, she won't do so for other's kids. And, since there are non-family members on premises, there has to be insurance. That's another cost. And before long-hey! It's a school.

There are reasons costs go down as more people are added.

Actually, I kind of imagine it would resemble community college. I'm currently taking two programming classes for about $300 each. So at those prices, even if you had your kid enrolled in five full classes each semester, that would only be $3,000 a year, not $20,000. Depending on the age of your child, the difficulty of the material, and how important it was to you to save $300, you might just pick up the textbook and teach some of the classes at home - totally up to you. Maybe you'd teach them two subjects at home and they'd take three classes at school. As they got older, they'd take more of their classes at school.

Things would be different, though - there wouldn't be a prescribed program for your kids based on age, and they wouldn't be taking every class with kids exactly their own age. Also no mandating that they take the same subject matter over and over and over - once they mastered a certain level of a subject, you could go on and enroll them in the next level up. No guarantees that your kid will pass the class, though, and I don't imagine these teachers would waste ANY class time providing discipline if you can't teach your kid to go to school and behave and not be disruptive. As for subject matter, that would be based on parental input - I imagine these schools would offer a combination of classes that taught basic reading, math, etc., and some that taught specific job skills. If you wanted college to be an option for your kid, you'd take their admissions requirements into consideration when you picked your kid's curriculum.

Community colleges are tax supported. Try again.

Hey, why are we subsidizing your education? Give me my money back you mooch!

They can also be used by *everyone.*

So can public schools. One assumes your parents availed themselves of that fact, since most do. Next?

Oh, and not true, since I doubt a 5 year old could register. Much like an adult can't register at elementary school.

hello! I love your site :)
If u are looking for Paid Surveys this is the site for u.
Start advancing your paychecks at http://tinyurl.com/9pul65