Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

For all the genuine flaws of the American education system, the nation still has many high-achieving public-school districts. Nearly all of them are united by a thriving community of economically secure middle-class families with sufficient political power to demand great schools, the time and resources to participate in those schools, and the tax money to amply fund them. In short, great public schools are the product of a thriving middle class, not the other way around. Pay people enough to afford dignified middle-class lives, and high-quality public schools will follow. But allow economic inequality to grow, and educational inequality will inevitably grow with it.

By distracting us from these truths, educationism is part of the problem.

whenever i talk with my wealthy friends about the dangers of rising economic inequality, those who don’t stare down at their shoes invariably push back with something about the woeful state of our public schools. This belief is so entrenched among the philanthropic elite that of America’s 50 largest family foundations—a clique that manages $144 billion in tax-exempt charitable assets—40 declare education as a key issue. Only one mentions anything about the plight of working people, economic inequality, or wages. And because the richest Americans are so politically powerful, the consequences of their beliefs go far beyond philanthropy.

A major theme in the educationist narrative involves the “skills gap”—the notion that decades of wage stagnation are largely a consequence of workers not having the education and skills to fill new high-wage jobs. If we improve our public schools, the thinking goes, and we increase the percentage of students attaining higher levels of education, particularly in the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering, and math—the skills gap will shrink, wages will rise, and income inequality will fall.

kalm wrote:I think Hanauer nails it here. Average Americans are more educated and more productive than ever but the wealth gap increases. Education isn't the problem, consolidated wealth and power is. Talk about wealth redistribution...

I'll be curious to see Ganny's and AZ's take on this.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:I think Hanauer nails it here. Average Americans are more educated and more productive than ever but the wealth gap increases. Education isn't the problem, consolidated wealth and power is. Talk about wealth redistribution...

I'll be curious to see Ganny's and AZ's take on this.

1) Bemoaning a rigged system while residing at the middle or bottom of that system isn't "news"
2) We've developed a financial culture where the middle actively hates the bottom
3) and have fine tuned this financial culture giving the middle the assigned job of also defending the top

and
everybody follows their instructions perfectly



In any other financial culture on earth a three time bankrupted fraudster would be in jail
but in our system he is assigned the seat of President and lauded for his ploys and trickery
and overwhelmingly supported by the poorest participants

ponder the genius of that design !

GannonFan wrote:We don't have, and never have, had the goal of income equality. Is that something we really want anyway? Income inequality will always increase when the economy increases. If everybody's 5% richer than before, simple math tells you that 5% for the lower income guy is less than 5% for the upper income guy. The economy got better (which everyone agrees is good) but the income inequality got greater (which some people will wail is bad, even though everyone is richer). The only time that we've been able to successfully shrink the income inequality gap is during the Great Depression. So again, do we really want a goal to be income equality? I think we can go after the other stuff that people really want (i.e. equal accountability for people under the law regardless of income and a government that isn't beholden to people of higher income) without conflating the issue with the red herring that is income inequality.

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Hanauer’s work is all of a piece with Warren Buffett and a few other bleeding heart billionaires: I’m richer than God, so please tax me more so I can help the little people and feel better about myself. Well, I had a successful career, and I have a nice nest egg, but I’m damned if I want some idiot like Liz Warren imposing a “wealth tax” to “level the playing field” at my (and my heirs’) expense. We give a shytload more money to charity than the Obamas and the Bidens combined. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:We don't have, and never have, had the goal of income equality. Is that something we really want anyway? Income inequality will always increase when the economy increases. If everybody's 5% richer than before, simple math tells you that 5% for the lower income guy is less than 5% for the upper income guy. The economy got better (which everyone agrees is good) but the income inequality got greater (which some people will wail is bad, even though everyone is richer). The only time that we've been able to successfully shrink the income inequality gap is during the Great Depression. So again, do we really want a goal to be income equality? I think we can go after the other stuff that people really want (i.e. equal accountability for people under the law regardless of income and a government that isn't beholden to people of higher income) without conflating the issue with the red herring that is income inequality.

Careful. That confuses chizzy.

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Hanauer’s work is all of a piece with Warren Buffett and a few other bleeding heart billionaires: I’m richer than God, so please tax me more so I can help the little people and feel better about myself. Well, I had a successful career, and I have a nice nest egg, but I’m damned if I want some idiot like Liz Warren imposing a “wealth tax” to “level the playing field” at my (and my heirs’) expense. We give a shytload more money to charity than the Obamas and the Bidens combined. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Hanauer’s work is all of a piece with Warren Buffett and a few other bleeding heart billionaires: I’m richer than God, so please tax me more so I can help the little people and feel better about myself. Well, I had a successful career, and I have a nice nest egg, but I’m damned if I want some idiot like Liz Warren imposing a “wealth tax” to “level the playing field” at my (and my heirs’) expense. We give a shytload more money to charity than the Obamas and the Bidens combined. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

Chizzang wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Hanauer’s work is all of a piece with Warren Buffett and a few other bleeding heart billionaires: I’m richer than God, so please tax me more so I can help the little people and feel better about myself. Well, I had a successful career, and I have a nice nest egg, but I’m damned if I want some idiot like Liz Warren imposing a “wealth tax” to “level the playing field” at my (and my heirs’) expense. We give a shytload more money to charity than the Obamas and the Bidens combined. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

Right on queue...
AZ and Ivy acting like billionaires in the cross hairs
I got news for you two - you ain't who anybody is after regarding wealth redistribution
not even close, so stop flattering yourselves



But please act out step 2) and 3) as directed above

Ivytalk wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Right on queue...
AZ and Ivy acting like billionaires in the cross hairs
I got news for you two - you ain't who anybody is after regarding wealth redistribution
not even close, so stop flattering yourselves



But please act out step 2) and 3) as directed above

I guess that’s right, Chizzang. They’re coming after you. You’re a veritable new-age sociologist. Why don’t you write a book?

Ivytalk wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Right on queue...
AZ and Ivy acting like billionaires in the cross hairs
I got news for you two - you ain't who anybody is after regarding wealth redistribution
not even close, so stop flattering yourselves



But please act out step 2) and 3) as directed above

I guess that’s right, Chizzang. They’re coming after you. You’re a veritable new-age sociologist. Why don’t you write a book?

Chizzang wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Hanauer’s work is all of a piece with Warren Buffett and a few other bleeding heart billionaires: I’m richer than God, so please tax me more so I can help the little people and feel better about myself. Well, I had a successful career, and I have a nice nest egg, but I’m damned if I want some idiot like Liz Warren imposing a “wealth tax” to “level the playing field” at my (and my heirs’) expense. We give a shytload more money to charity than the Obamas and the Bidens combined. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

Right on queue...
AZ and Ivy acting like billionaires in the cross hairs
I got news for you two - you ain't who anybody is after regarding wealth redistribution
not even close, so stop flattering yourselves



But please act out step 2) and 3) as directed above

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Right on queue...
AZ and Ivy acting like billionaires in the cross hairs
I got news for you two - you ain't who anybody is after regarding wealth redistribution
not even close, so stop flattering yourselves



But please act out step 2) and 3) as directed above

I'm not suggesting we are. Just commenting on the article, jagoff.

Chizzang wrote:you ain't who anybody is after regarding wealth redistribution
not even close, so stop flattering yourselves

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:you ain't who anybody is after regarding wealth redistribution
not even close, so stop flattering yourselves

Bullshit Cleets.

Chizzang wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: I guess that’s right, Chizzang. They’re coming after you. You’re a veritable new-age sociologist. Why don’t you write a book?

They aren't after me either...
Anybody below the 99% percentile can relax

UNI88 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
They aren't after me either...
Anybody below the 99% percentile can relax

I don't know. I don't think they can get enough revenue from the 1%ers to pay for everything that Bernie and AOC want to do. Those two and others dream about a return to pre-Reagan tax rates (top marginal rate of 70%) to fund their socialist utopia and seaside dachas.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote: Bullshit Cleets.

Well I call bullsh!t on your bullsh!t

UNI88 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
They aren't after me either...
Anybody below the 99% percentile can relax

I don't know. I don't think they can get enough revenue from the 1%ers to pay for everything that Bernie and AOC want to do. Those two and others dream about a return to pre-Reagan tax rates (top marginal rate of 70%) to fund their socialist utopia and seaside dachas.

Comparing the income gap in the US to other countries is fine but doesn't give a complete picture. You also need to compare average incomes for say the bottom 10%. I'm guessing that being poor in the US isn't that bad.

And I'm on record as believing that CEOs in general are paid too much and focus on short term market focused results rather than building great companies.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk