Ok, I can see how that could work if there is a negative income tax. I
think it has to be a pretty generous negative income tax though.
Best,
Helen
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 3:45 PM Alexander Elung <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi Helen
> Maybe those cases you are talking about, part of the problem is that they
> do not really have any alterative to the public school in their district.
> Right now many parents in low-income households do not have an option to
> choose better schools, even if they wanted to and that also has to do with
> governmental regulation, because the private sector is not allowed to
> compete directly and offer alternatives to the current government model.
>
> It’s not that poor communities should compete with wealthier communities.
> The way I see it, the question is rather if we can create competition in
> the educational options which is offered to poor neighbourhoods. If we
> removed educational regulation and allowed private enterprises to compete,
> my argument is that you would see a change happening very fast – especially
> if you combined it with closing down governmental programs which are very
> expensive and ineffective and used that money for a negative income tax
> instead, so poor families could actually afford better education.
>
> Best
>
> Elung
>
>
>
> *Fra: *Helen Wu <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sendt: *10. oktober 2019 22:20
> *Til: *[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Emne: *Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> Hi Elung,
>
>
>
> After working in this field for a while, it's actually not hard to
> find examples of incidences in which the child's education is on the lower
> tier of a parent's concerns. Poor communities have a lot going on and some
> families don't have the mental space to deal with some basic needs. I also
> agree that the government is inefficient and sometimes don't have the best
> ideas around education. Thinking of my own childhood in a poor community, I
> have several disagreements with how schools are run. However, I just don't
> see how poor communities are going to have the money to compete with
> wealthier communities for the good teachers and principals if we change to
> a private school system.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:58 PM Alexander Elung <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I think you would be hard pressed to find a parent who doesn’t understand
> the value of a good education. People are even getting jailed for trying
> to get their kids into better schools.
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.refinery29.com_en-2Dus_2019_03_227024_tanya-2Dmcdowell-2Dcollege-2Dadmissions-2Dscandal-2Darrested-2Dprivilege&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JxOXWYSPzOmzCzSL9l4Gz5myyLngSEZ2Umb8p3SxNWg&s=gVB06VGGLZG8y5ty9bK9opz3uWP0sBSKrOEzf1Vn-9w&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.refinery29.com-5Fen-2D2Dus-5F2019-5F03-5F227024-5Ftanya-2D2Dmcdowell-2D2Dcollege-2D2Dadmissions-2D2Dscandal-2D2Darrested-2D2Dprivilege-2526d-253DDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DLkRH-5FpI5DiizGQY-2DsLZ8mZQMZamOXd3QaGMId80jO-2DM-2526s-253D7H2pGIsTr69l1PBcRJBl6p0ZEt3u66WkgltRyZAU5yY-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C18e193a880c54082868d08d74dbf58ac-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063356528379488-26sdata-3DUE7iN9sv-252FH-252Bl22qHaOPylPaHwqlptMuAdk5Y3jWhx44-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4BKdl2AsLrzWM9Uy1QMknWYMUtWr74K5go6zO0ZRj2M&s=Os28Aq8-BIhwiRleZeCnIhnvNWuzAOyEGkwHUUNrfOk&e=>
>
> The real problem is that the quality of educations is very low in many
> public schools and especially in poor areas, where schools are little more
> than jails. The real problem is the public schools system itself and how
> much government regulation is in the school system in general. Why are we
> just assuming that the way schools are currently organized is the most
> efficient way to educate children ? Why are we assuming that the subjects
> we are teaching kids are the most relevant to their lives and work ? By
> allowing competition in the educational field and removing unnecessary
> governmental regulation, I think we could solve many of the problems.
> Maybe forcing kids to read poetry and learn subjects that some government
> official has decided on, is not the best way to help poor people. Maybe it
> would be better if they chose their own subjects ? Maybe they have a better
> idea what will be relevant for their lives.
>
> Since the government is designing our educational systems, there are no
> competition where we could test what works best. What makes things cheap
> and raise quality is competition.
>
> Best
>
> Elung
>
> *Fra: *Helen Wu <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sendt: *10. oktober 2019 21:35
> *Til: *[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Emne: *Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> The problem with the issue of teachers' paid is complicated by community
> values. Some communities really value education and families will actively
> try to get their kids into good schools hence increasing paid for teachers
> in those areas. Some communities don't value education as much or are just
> too poor to pay teachers well. What do we do about the latter situations?
> It's not fair for the children that they will fall behind others in life
> because of where they happen to be born. How do we promote healthy values
> across this nation without being overly intrusive into personal choice and
> freedom?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 2:09 PM Alexander Elung <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> I am basing my understanding the Austrian school of economics, which is
> rooted in neoclassical thinking. I would argue that the Marxist models you
> are using are simply wrong, because they don’t accurately represent what
> is actually happening in the marketplace.
> It’s possible to talk about use-value, but the problem with such a concept
> is that nothing has a fixed value. Air for instance can be worth nothing or
> worth everything if you are under water. Simple wheat can be worth
> everything if you are starving and nothing if you aren’t. I wouldn’t pay
> anything for a 5 kg of raw wheat right now – it would be of less value to
> me currently than a single dorito chip.
>
> so the first difference between Marxist and neo-classical thinking, is the
> realization that value is subjective. If you are using models where you
> are expecting to find use-value or labour-value to be accurately
> represented in exchange-value, then your models will fail almost
> immediately.
>
> There is no such thing as labour-value, since Picasso can spend five
> seconds on a doodle and it would be worth more than a very skilful painter
> using 100 hours or Kim Kardashian could take a single selfie which could be
> worth a months wages of a school teacher.
>
> But let’s tackle the problem, we both think teachers provide something
> which should be valuable, but isn’t really valued that much in the market.
> Let’s say we both agree that teachers should be paid more, I will make the
> argument that my models can solve the problem and your models will
> misdiagnose the problem and ultimately make the problem worse.
>
> You think teachers are underpaid because of an economic signal from
> society. I don’t think teachers are underpaid. Underpaid is a concept that
> doesn’t have any meaning, unless you are looking at a field of competition
> where someone isn’t getting the same pay as others in the same field – if
> their labour is worth more than they are paid, then they can sell it
> another place.
>
> so no, I don’t think teachers are underpaid at a principle. However, let’s
> solve the problem you raised. Why do we not value teachers work more ?
> I think teachers are “underpaid” because most schools have become a
> terrible business-model. There are private schools which have excellent
> payment for their teachers. The problem is that public schools are run by
> government and the government is insanely inefficient at using money,
> because it’s not in competition with anyone. If schools were in
> competition with each other, they would compete on low prices for the
> students and higher prices for qualified work. They would compete to have
> the best teachers, because that would get them more students.
> Currently you can be an amazing teacher or a terrible teacher and get paid
> the same in the public school system and therefore teachers are generally
> underpaid.
> competition helps everyone – both the teachers and the students. Public
> run schools helps nobody, since it makes everything more expensive and less
> profitable.
> Under a free market, teachers can become rock-stars and make as much money
> as Kim Kardashian. If all entertainment was socialized and ran as public
> institutions– none of the stars would make any money.
>
> However with the models you are using, you will never come to such a
> realization, because you are thinking in terms of what people “should” get
> paid – instead of looking at payment as a representation of the value a
> person is providing.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Elung
>
>
>
> *Fra: *Zachary Stein <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sendt: *10. oktober 2019 19:33
> *Til: *[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Emne: *Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> This is super interesting. Thanks Alexander. My preference is civility as
> well, so please forgive my preemptive armoring.
>
>
>
> I think we are at a paradigmatic impasse, as the (neo-classical?) models
> you are using I simply don’t use. For example, I find it useful to make a
> distinction between *use value* and *exchange value,* which is a
> distinction you might find disagreeable. I am also interested in the
> category of *objective value* — this is why I say that when Kim Kardashian
> makes more with a months worth of instagram posts than the best school
> teacher will make in her entire life, I think this is a problem akin to our
> society placing value on the wrong things (i.e., valuing something that is
> not really valuable). My sense is you might also think that kind of thing
> is a problem, but of a different kind? Indeed you speak of unnatural
> inequality, which sounds a lot like my idea of *extreme* inequality. Help
> me understand the difference please.
>
>
>
> Note my concern here is with the underpaid teacher, as it has been all
> along ;-) … Childishly… I am worried about my teachers still, who I guess
> don’t add value according to the models you are using? … Sincerely, I am
> asking how you would model this problem of underpaid, but highly skilled
> people in crucial social roles… I see that they consistently receive an
> economic signal that they are not of value to society, but I think that
> signal is simply an error that should be corrected…
>
>
>
> zak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Alexander Elung <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I don’t think you have mistaken me for someone else. I have been in a lot
> of discussions with Bard recently where personal attack became involved,
> but I never used them over arguments and I very rarely use them in
> general. I much prefer civil discussion – in this case however, you were
> the one who came swinging fists right out the gates. But I will try to be
> as civil as humanly possible.
> -
>
> Income isn’t directly tied to skill nor should it be. Your income is
> tied to what value you are able to provide in the market. The value is
> determined by what people are willing to pay for what you are providing.
> What value you are able to provide is therefore indirectly tied to skill,
> but there are more factors connected to it than that.
>
> So we should in fact not expect skill and income to be directly
> correlated. You can be extremely skilful and not provide something which
> people are interested in or you have can have relatively low skill and
> provide something which a lot of people values very highly. This
> misunderstanding is your first problem. Unless you make a living off
> coercion, your income is based on how much value you are providing I.e what
> people are willing to pay you. Skills factor into that, but it’s not the
> only factor , since value is subjective.
>
> your argument that certain things are being over-evaluated is also a
> fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. Value is subjective
> Zac – things are only worth the value they have in the market and value in
> the marketplace is determined by what people are willing to pay.
>
> Your second problem is that you think inequality is an accurate measure
> for societal problems. It’s not. Poverty, suffering, lack of dignity,
> exploitation and so on are actual markers which one can use to analyse if
> something is wrong in a society. Inequality is really a bad marker, since
> it doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not the difference is natural
> or not and whether or not it’s harmful.
>
> When harry potter makes billions of dollars that makes the income
> inequality very high compared to how much the average person makes, but it
> doesn’t reflect a problem. People inheriting money also does not reflect
> a problem at all. You seem to be very focused on people you think are “
> too rich” instead of focusing on people who are suffering because of
> poverty – that is why I think this is subconsciously childish envy.
>
> Don’t get me wrong – there can be unnatural inequality. If you wanted to
> make an actual argument, you could argue that legal protectionism has
> created some unfair advantages for corporations which has led them to be
> able to hinder competition and therefore get larger market shares than they
> would in a free market – that is an actual problem. But inequality in
> itself isn’t and thus far you haven’t made a single argument as to why.
>
> I recommend that you read “economics in one lesson” by Hazlitt or “human
> action” by Mises.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Elung
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C76abc7c4684e458ad6ad08d74da7f6fa-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063256101465301-26sdata-3D-252FIspkM3eOSavoTd8PuXi-252FupK1FJt4V7KatNgf0rcJOM-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DCYwJkXJ7uzCPpuP0hp8slbBoa5qAW47CK-webDpgIyE%26s%3D8Ag8jVV1nipkkJAtjpLq_UXNzyr054nTR8fW9-Y_BTM%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7C18e193a880c54082868d08d74dbf58ac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063356528379488&sdata=NL3TKlqb7sa11AUtrEs9Ub6HIMp3ru%2FMbmtRhk96dUo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cb3ef71344f8f4b244abc08d74db90f11-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063329524110055-26sdata-3DrZOkINp88mnA6niVCCq4TwqjOIIOdo0LViy3t9wepd8-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DLkRH_pI5DiizGQY-sLZ8mZQMZamOXd3QaGMId80jO-M%26s%3DaqikfK6BOH2YIzT2i-EF96Eh3mzHCwGkiU29qYxyvSI%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7C18e193a880c54082868d08d74dbf58ac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063356528389497&sdata=4Rt6EpJxSv%2BXRaMBXnP921cRfckcCPuMFaE5S8VX5ME%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cb3ef71344f8f4b244abc08d74db90f11-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063329524120066-26sdata-3DQlIvrs91roQqe2F3-252FMH6COSMoITh7j-252FHPzc-252Fd0fGDo8-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DLkRH_pI5DiizGQY-sLZ8mZQMZamOXd3QaGMId80jO-M%26s%3DhitIkMir_xhkfs9FugVk8P6ZxRwo-AFW1Uoj915Sn80%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7C18e193a880c54082868d08d74dbf58ac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063356528389497&sdata=Re0Fzt1PodogUMeiZMLJXhfS8wfxg%2BCkxShj%2FlLNRYQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C18e193a880c54082868d08d74dbf58ac-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063356528399507-26sdata-3DF6I-252Fu-252B0HdXuv7Z4s-252FAcWen32aJ5iER-252F6wiqW8UrT5EE-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4BKdl2AsLrzWM9Uy1QMknWYMUtWr74K5go6zO0ZRj2M&s=h267wP9eimSlRA3OL7a6ItwJXadjGOwSAGgbA8WVdFk&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C18e193a880c54082868d08d74dbf58ac-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063356528399507-26sdata-3DF6I-252Fu-252B0HdXuv7Z4s-252FAcWen32aJ5iER-252F6wiqW8UrT5EE-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4BKdl2AsLrzWM9Uy1QMknWYMUtWr74K5go6zO0ZRj2M&s=h267wP9eimSlRA3OL7a6ItwJXadjGOwSAGgbA8WVdFk&e=>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
