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=TPUHIeaVl-tXKxWXlhwZO0y8S7oq70F_-T4GULglUBs&s=sjVJGJZ3E2zwc2Gl1GVUlXw4I_xiskRlR6irFkUqOoI&e= > <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=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LkRH_pI5DiizGQY-sLZ8mZQMZamOXd3QaGMId80jO-M&s=7H2pGIsTr69l1PBcRJBl6p0ZEt3u66WkgltRyZAU5yY&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://eur02.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%7Cb3ef71344f8f4b244abc08d74db90f11%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063329524090039&sdata=LUl4%2F7KOfuIMsjpXcBAMO6B6Jnv8A%2Fe6uuIXcs0oI%2Bs%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__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&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LkRH_pI5DiizGQY-sLZ8mZQMZamOXd3QaGMId80jO-M&s=aqikfK6BOH2YIzT2i-EF96Eh3mzHCwGkiU29qYxyvSI&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__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&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LkRH_pI5DiizGQY-sLZ8mZQMZamOXd3QaGMId80jO-M&s=hitIkMir_xhkfs9FugVk8P6ZxRwo-AFW1Uoj915Sn80&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