How to raise employment

[The Rabbi]

Good thing too, because they don't have to. Education can be provided at much lower cost privately than through bloated inefficient gov't bureaucracy.
Imagine what would happen to property taxes if education were eliminated.

then why do private K-12 schools cost 10,045$ just for yearly tuition? Your mistaken in that the cost to society would just go away, taxes may be lower, but people would still have to shell out thousands to charities and tens of thousands to pay for their children's education yearly. Spreading out the cost over all of society lets more people become educated.

And how has public education worked out for us so far?
You see the people even on this board. They cannot spell, they cannot write, they cannot marshal a coherent argument and they cannot assess evidence and evaluate it. Some of them cannot read a simple paragraph and draw logical conclusions from it. And yet I would gather most of them actually hold or held jobs in their working lives.
Ending public education would free up huge amounts of money in property tax. In my city, a sizeable metropolis, about 45% of the budget goes to education. Imagine if that money were freed for people to innovate their own educational communities.

 

[Rshermr]

Partially.
There are functions that gov't has that are difficult for the private sector to do. Setting weights and measures. Patents. Courts. Defense.
I wouldn't count education as one of those things, though.

You have to at least expect the government to to fund poor peoples education, don't you?

Not really.

perhaps you can name a country who has a primarily private education system who is better rated than the us education system.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have to at least expect the government to to fund poor peoples education, don't you?

Not really.

perhaps you can name a country who has a primarily private education system who is better rated than the us education system.

As soon as you can explain why that's relevant.

 

[Rshermr]

Not really.

perhaps you can name a country who has a primarily private education system who is better rated than the us education system.

As soon as you can explain why that's relevant.

That should be pretty simple even for you, for christs sake. There are about 35 industrial nations in this world. Many have better education outcomes than we do. So, if you believe in a concept like private education, then to check it out, you could, if you were a bit rational, take a look at those countries with good education systems and see what is working well for them.
I know your methodology is to simply post con dogma. But you have really poor facts, and very little reasoning behind your con dogma. Try a little reasoning, if it is not too much trouble.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

perhaps you can name a country who has a primarily private education system who is better rated than the us education system.

As soon as you can explain why that's relevant.

That should be pretty simple even for you, for christs sake. There are about 35 industrial nations in this world. Many have better education outcomes than we do. So, if you believe in a concept like private education, then to check it out, you could, if you were a bit rational, take a look at those countries with good education systems and see what is working well for them.
I know your methodology is to simply post con dogma. But you have really poor facts, and very little reasoning behind your con dogma. Try a little reasoning, if it is not too much trouble.

the reasoning is that private education is competitive so results become important unlike our current liberal union system wherein being last is not a problem, let alone a matter of survival.
A child can follow this reasoning.

A liberal will supporrt the status quo even when our kids are the dumbest in the world.

 

[Rshermr]

So, bored dead says:

Here is my hypothesis on taxing and spending's effect on the unemployment rate: taxing and spending can create or destroy a net amount of jobs based on the quality of the jobs government creates through spending.

Nice hypothesis, I guess. Stupid, but kind of fun to play with, as long as you are sitting around making up economic hypothesis from whole cloth. I would suggest looking at history, where you should be able to show destruction of jobs as a result of government spending in a bad economy, that is, one with high unemployment. You show no examples. Why would that be? Because you can not find any. Why would that be? Because there are no examples to show. Which should make you wonder why such a hypotheses is worth considering.

For example, I'm going to say taxing 40,000$ (The per capita personal income, the average amount one job pays I believe) costs one job in the private sector,

Sorry, there is no evidence that this is true at all. You are saying that increasing taxes will cause a decrease in jobs. It has never done so, in the aggregate, as is easy to see. If it did, it would indicate that increasing taxes would increase the unemployment rate. You can not find a case where this has happened. Secondly, you are saying that companies lay of employees as a result of taxes, rather than in response to decreases in demand. So, if demand stays the same, and my tax rate increases a bit, am I going to cut employment and therefor production so that my revenue is decreased? Does not happen that way. You are dealing here with conservative concepts funded by the wealthy.

while the government can counter that by creating one 40,000$ public sector job (salary and benefits total). Or, according to this hypothesis, the government can create 2 public sector jobs that pay 20,000$ each. The important part of this is that government can kill two PS jobs by taxing 80,000$ and making one public sector job that pays 80,000$, which is similar to what the US government is doing now.

Sorry, but again you are making statements about what is happening from whole cloth. No economic theory. Just conservative dogma. Are you aware that federal spending creates jobs immediately in both the private and public sectors??? That is, if you were to consider an infrastucture project, predominately private jobs would be created to do the work, with fewer public jobs to support the project. iF you are saying that is what is currently happening, you are completely wrong. If you have some proof, lets see it. You need to support your hypotheses. Because it is looking wronger and wronger.

My explanation as to why: Taxes in the economy no doubt destroy jobs, this should be obvious, as when you take 1000$ from someone they don't spend it, and the retail service that the money would of gone to doesn't get it, and they see smaller sales, and then they have to downsize.

But,of course, that is completely untrue. Again, making an argument from whole cloth. If you raise taxes, you do not get an increase in unemployment. Unless, of course, you are stupid enough to do nothing with the money. Perhaps you should go back to the Reagan admin, read a little history of what happened when he LOWERED taxes greatly. Within 18 months, we had the highest unemployment rate since the great depression. Never been higher since. And you would begin to understand the proble with your hypothesis.

But the other side to taxing is government spending. Money that was previously taxed (not printed or borrowed, hopefully :\ ) is spent and jobs are created through the creation of government jobs, and by giving private sector companies business (causing them to expand).

You almost have it. But you are missing the real point. Kind of looks like it pained you to have to admit this much. The issue, me boy, is that you have created demand. What then happens seems to allude you, however.

Also, high paying government jobs require higher taxes, thus more killed jobs for less created jobs.

Again you need to prove that increasing taxes "kills" jobs. I know you want to believe it, but you will see, if you look at history, that you are wrong, and simply buying con dogma. And, studies show, for like jobs there is little to no difference in pay between private and public jobs.

Now, public sector jobs pay vastly more than private sector jobs, 2x more according to the second paragraph of this source. This means according to this hypothesis, the government destroys 2 jobs for every 1 job it creates.

No one with a clue actually believes that what this sentence says is true. If you would actually read the source you quoted, you would find it did not even agree with your above sentence. Perhaps you would care to read a source that should know. Below is a quote from a recent PDF produced by the CBO. So, based on what is true, everything you say from here forward is drivel. Nice try. You must really want to believe this crap.

"Similarly,in both the federal government and the private sector (see Summary Figure 1). However, federal civilian workers with no more than a high school education earned about 21 percent more, on average, than similar workers in the private sector, whereas federal workers with a professional degree or doctorate earned about 23 percent less, on average, than their privatesector counterparts.  Overall, the federal vernment paid 2 percent more in total wages than it would have if average wages had been mparable with those in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable haracteristics of workers."
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-30-FedPay.pdf

How this can be fixed is to lower the wages and benefits of public sector jobs to their private equivalents, maybe even pay less if we want to lower unemployment further.

Yup, you can get stupider. Try to find a time when that has worked. It has been tried, but never worked. Simply created greater unemployment Jesus, what a stupid idea.

Another hole in employment government creates is through entitlements. They cost tax dollars, thus jobs, but no jobs are created with the money.

Yes, well, what you may be unaware of is that SS and Medicare have never contributed to the deficit, because they are insurance policies. And as such, recipients look poorly on politicians messing with their insurance. Maybe stupidest idea yet.

How that can be solved is by creating "welfare jobs" instead of entitlements. How they would work is that the government would pay a person to work, but they would work under private sector companies.

Jesus. Go take a look at history and see how this idea worked out.

Obviously an exception would have to be made for the disabled.

What do you guys think?

Being kind, I would say you are massively ignorant of economics. But the more I read, the more I see your "hypothesis" as nothing more than conservative dogma wrapped in an attempt to deceive. It was a waste of time, and I really hate having my time wasted.

 

[The Rabbi]

perhaps you can name a country who has a primarily private education system who is better rated than the us education system.

As soon as you can explain why that's relevant.

That should be pretty simple even for you, for christs sake. There are about 35 industrial nations in this world. Many have better education outcomes than we do. So, if you believe in a concept like private education, then to check it out, you could, if you were a bit rational, take a look at those countries with good education systems and see what is working well for them.
I know your methodology is to simply post con dogma. But you have really poor facts, and very little reasoning behind your con dogma. Try a little reasoning, if it is not too much trouble.

You might as well say the issue is that we speak American English.
You still haven't explained why it is relevant. The fact that other countries do things differently is neither surprising nor relevant.

 

[akelch]

I've been working on a hypothesis as to what taxing and spending does to the unemployment rate in the economy, and here is how it has shaped up so far. I want to debate/discuss it with everyone.

Here is my hypothesis on taxing and spending's effect on the unemployment rate: taxing and spending can create or destroy a net amount of jobs based on the quality of the jobs government creates through spending.

For example, I'm going to say taxing 40,000$ (The per capita personal income, the average amount one job pays I believe) costs one job in the private sector, while the government can counter that by creating one 40,000$ public sector job (salary and benefits total). Or, according to this hypothesis, the government can create 2 public sector jobs that pay 20,000$ each. The important part of this is that government can kill two PS jobs by taxing 80,000$ and making one public sector job that pays 80,000$, which is similar to what the US government is doing now.

My explanation as to why: Taxes in the economy no doubt destroy jobs, this should be obvious, as when you take 1000$ from someone they don't spend it, and the retail service that the money would of gone to doesn't get it, and they see smaller sales, and then they have to downsize. But the other side to taxing is government spending. Money that was previously taxed (not printed or borrowed, hopefully :\ ) is spent and jobs are created through the creation of government jobs, and by giving private sector companies business (causing them to expand). Also, high paying government jobs require higher taxes, thus more killed jobs for less created jobs.

Now, public sector jobs pay vastly more than private sector jobs, 2x more according to the second paragraph of this source. This means according to this hypothesis, the government destroys 2 jobs for every 1 job it creates.

How this can be fixed is to lower the wages and benefits of public sector jobs to their private equivalents, maybe even pay less if we want to lower unemployment further.

Another hole in employment government creates is through entitlements. They cost tax dollars, thus jobs, but no jobs are created with the money.

How that can be solved is by creating "welfare jobs" instead of entitlements. How they would work is that the government would pay a person to work, but they would work under private sector companies.

Obviously an exception would have to be made for the disabled.

What do you guys think?

Just read your post....good job! Very well written.
You need to add one thing though....productivity and innovation = profits.

The private sector works for profits ...thus expanding the economic pie. More profits, more money, more jobs. The pie gets bigger. The public sector..as you pointed out... Takes from the private sector resources in form of taxes. Thus, slowing down the growth of that economic pie. Government is a none for profit organization thus doesn't create profits and in turn can't grow the economy. Any "growth" they contribute to government spending is all from borrowed or printed money not from taxes. You inject new money in the system you will see a bump in growth. But it is a false growth....someday you will need to pay it back thus, pull that same money plus interest out of the economy .....then you have a recession.

 

[Rshermr]

akelch says:

The private sector works for profits ...thus expanding the economic pie. More profits, more money, more jobs. The pie gets bigger.

So far, so good.

The public sector..as you pointed out... Takes from the private sector resources in form of taxes. Thus, slowing down the growth of that economic pie.

Really? So, in a bad economy, you can show that tax increases slow growth?? But you did not. Because you can not. Because, you see, your premise is incorrect.
Raising taxes allows government investment in stimulative opportunities, allowing decreases in unemployment. Which is provable.

Government is a none for profit organization thus doesn't create profits and in turn can't grow the economy. Any "growth" they contribute to government spending is all from borrowed or printed money not from taxes.

So, you are saying that if stimulus spending creates jobs, they are false jobs? That the money these employees, public or private, spend is not real money? And that any growth in the economy that we have seen in the past was just an mirage??

You inject new money in the system you will see a bump in growth. But it is a false growth....someday you will need to pay it back thus, pull that same money plus interest out of the economy .....then you have a recession.

And your proof of this piece of nonsense is what? You just made a statement that is completely unsupportable, simply because there is no semblance of fact in it.
You actually could us a little economic theory, or perhaps even a link to proof that what you suggest has any support in the history of this country.

 

[Rshermr]

And the Rabbi says:

You might as well say the issue is that we speak American English.
You still haven't explained why it is relevant. The fact that other countries do things differently is neither surprising nor relevant.

We are talking about education systems.
And, of course, you are correct that other countries do things differently. So, you are apparently suggesting that the fact that they do them better should be of no concern to us. Not relevant? Why would that be, Rabbi?
Perhaps it is because they do not have predominately private education systems. Perhaps it is because they have public systems that work, and you do not want to entertain the fact that they have found a better way. Perhaps because if you look at the subject closely, you will find that all of these countries, which have very successful education systems, which are public, believe that the concept of a private education system is a non starter. But mainly, Rabbi, because it is not the con dogma that you pursue on a regular basis. Private schooling makes lots of $ for the very wealthy private education companies that support the cons that you support.
So, next time another country invents something new, lets ignore it. Because, in Rabbi's mind it is not relevant.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not relevant because there are dozens of other socio-economic factors at play that would equally explain a better outcome than we get. The proof is looking at children of immigrants who come here but attend US public schools. They always outperform their native born peers.

 

[Rshermr]

What your post explains is that you do not want to consider why other education systems work. Lots of analysis out there. But you are uninterested. Because you want to believe what you believe. Sad.

 

[The Rabbi]

What your post explains is that you do not want to consider why other education systems work. Lots of analysis out there. But you are uninterested. Because you want to believe what you believe. Sad.

You haven't presented any evidence. I've made a cogent argument why othre countries' educational systems dont matter to us.
You lose.

 

[BoredDead]

It's not relevant because there are dozens of other socio-economic factors at play that would equally explain a better outcome than we get. The proof is looking at children of immigrants who come here but attend US public schools. They always outperform their native born peers.

How do you know those socio-economic factors aren't the real weakness in our education system?

 

[Rshermr]

What your post explains is that you do not want to consider why other education systems work. Lots of analysis out there. But you are uninterested. Because you want to believe what you believe. Sad.

You haven't presented any evidence. I've made a cogent argument why othre countries' educational systems dont matter to us.
You lose.

You have made no such argument. And you don't get to determine who wins or looses. Because, you see, you are delusional.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not relevant because there are dozens of other socio-economic factors at play that would equally explain a better outcome than we get. The proof is looking at children of immigrants who come here but attend US public schools. They always outperform their native born peers.

How do you know those socio-economic factors aren't the real weakness in our education system?

I dont.
Except we've had similar SE factors for 50 years and education was much better 50 years ago.

 

[The Rabbi]

What your post explains is that you do not want to consider why other education systems work. Lots of analysis out there. But you are uninterested. Because you want to believe what you believe. Sad.

You haven't presented any evidence. I've made a cogent argument why othre countries' educational systems dont matter to us.
You lose.

You have made no such argument. And you don't get to determine who wins or looses. Because, you see, you are delusional.

You dont get to determine what is a cogent argument or not. And you calling me delusional is rich, after you've done nothing but spouted a bunch of bullshit you can't support.

 

[Rshermr]

You haven't presented any evidence. I've made a cogent argument why othre countries' educational systems dont matter to us.
You lose.

You have made no such argument. And you don't get to determine who wins or looses. Because, you see, you are delusional.

You dont get to determine what is a cogent argument or not. And you calling me delusional is rich, after you've done nothing but spouted a bunch of bullshit you can't support.

Ah, but I can call you delusional. Because, you see, you are. You are making the argument that other countries education systems are immaterial. I see that as self serving and stupid. You would need to do some research. I have done so. But this is not math. There is no right or wrong. Just base logic, which is obvious enough: you should never invent wheels if it has been done before by someone else. And, if there is a good idea, like yours of private education, then it surely has been done successfully somewhere else. So, you should look. Then determine if it is material or not. Not determine it is not material, and refuse to look.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not relevant because there are dozens of other socio-economic factors at play that would equally explain a better outcome than we get. The proof is looking at children of immigrants who come here but attend US public schools. They always outperform their native born peers.

This is true. I once met a woman who taught in the South Bronx. She said 5 year olds who had been raised in Bangledesh without clothes and electricity did better in her classes than the local American born black ghetto kids.

The Bangledesh kids wanted to pull themselves by their boot straps while the black kids had been brainwashed to want only the liberal welfare entitlement lifestyle.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have made no such argument. And you don't get to determine who wins or looses. Because, you see, you are delusional.

You dont get to determine what is a cogent argument or not. And you calling me delusional is rich, after you've done nothing but spouted a bunch of bullshit you can't support.

Ah, but I can call you delusional. Because, you see, you are. You are making the argument that other countries education systems are immaterial. I see that as self serving and stupid. You would need to do some research. I have done so. But this is not math. There is no right or wrong. Just base logic, which is obvious enough: you should never invent wheels if it has been done before by someone else. And, if there is a good idea, like yours of private education, then it surely has been done successfully somewhere else. So, you should look. Then determine if it is material or not. Not determine it is not material, and refuse to look.

You can call me Barack Obama if you want. Doesn't make it true.
We did not have public education in this country until the mid 19th century. And we did just fine. England worked about the same.
On the flip side, the cultural differences between the US and, e.g. Singapore are so huge you cannot attribute academic performance solely to their educational system.
You lose. Again.