Ignoring the immorality of mass indoctrination, they apparently can't raise the value of the students to the minimum wage, so the government has to use force to raise the wages of high school graduates. If these teachers after more than a decade can't make the students valuable enough for a "living wage" then why should they be paid more?

Teachers are likely the last thing standing against common core.

The argument for higher paid teachers is so that you can actually hire smart teachers, which get lost to the better paying sectors of the market. Basically, pay enough to convince people to go do the job that wouldn't do so otherwise.

Secondly, the quality of education in the American education system is just so bad, that generally speaking making it through college is necessary to have the education at which people are willing to pay you a "living wage"

Thirdly, the US has a massive wealth and wage gap, and a terrible distribution at that, which can be blamed on the lack of gov't attempting to help the poor get better jobs, which can be attained through higher levels of education.

:D Ah, the libertarian core assumption that your salary directly correlates with the value you actually contribute.

I think you've finally encountered the point where it becomes absurd! Congratulations!

You do know about vocational school?

The government is the organization most responsible for the wealth gap, through regulations that prevent the poor from getting into sectors of the economy, the minimum wage that prevents unskilled folk from getting jobs, and flooding college with dumb folk so the smart ones can't actually use them and be able to get through.

The government is the rich folk you hate, and they're not going to go away if you make this country fully socialist, they're just going to change their behavior to take advantage of the situation. Right now they use anti-economic freedom policies to their advantage by cutting down competitors via government force and regulation.

The biggest problem with the US education system today is the fact that a chunk of people believe they can make a good living without a good education due to the existence of celebrities and sport stars that fit that mold, and many believe they can make it, and put education secondary. The easiest solution is to basically get everyone, especially the kids, but also the parents, teachers, and school administrators focused on the idea of getting everyone to succeed academically, and at least weaken, if not entirely remove the idea that you can not try in school academically, and succeed financially(Reasons why I think we need more sport stars and celebrities with actual college degrees).

Except you already did that for decades and you ended up raising the costs of college to a ridiculous level, and made college effectively worthless on a intellectual level.

These troubles don't stem from the dying remnants of the free market you've slaughtered for decades, they come from your awful policies that have been implemented for a very long while.

Edited 5/12/2016 02:44:23

Well, MGSB explain Scandinavia.

Secondly, we actually have college institutions closing do to a lack of students, so no, let's get people into f*cking college.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/28/moodys-predicts-college-closures-triple-2017

Thirdly, the only part the gov't can be considered responsible for the wage gap is due to a lack of things like wage ceilings, higher taxes(which are both socialist), and the issuing of licenses(which I agree are at times totally pointless, but some of them are probably necessary)

Lastly, removal of the minimum wage isn't going to work, the last time the US lacked a minimum wage of sorts we had even more disproportionate wealth(It was called the Gilded age), and claiming its going to lose jobs is not entirely accurate either.
https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

It really depends on what the teachers are paid now.

The argument for higher paid teachers is so that you can actually hire smart teachers, which get lost to the better paying sectors of the market. Basically, pay enough to convince people to go do the job that wouldn't do so otherwise.

Ok, but we're not paying, say, particle physists to do the job of a teacher. Or at least not their income.

the quality of education in the American education system is just so bad

There's pretty much no proof to say that at all. FICA scores always show America as being in the highest ranks (and even they are missing many countries). American government spends the most on teaching, and top 10 by each student. to have the education at which people are willing to pay you a "living wage"

Thirdly, the US has a massive wealth and wage gap, and a terrible distribution at that

America is one of the wealthiest countries with a very healthy income spread - if anything, it's not disparate enough. America beats out every country that isn't very small (over 10 million population) in median income, and frankly, it ranks very high even from the folk who are in the bottom 10%. It always irks me when folk say that America has a bad standard of living - it's one of the greatest in the world.

lack of gov't attempting to help the poor get better jobs

I totally agree with a 100% job guarantee policy. But rid welfare and crap like that, it'd just be redundant. Also, a job is a job - it doesn't have to be fun or well-paying. If there's an agreed upon work->reward exchange going on, then I really don't see the problem.

The biggest problem with the US education system today is the fact that a chunk of people believe they can make a good living without a good education due to the existence of celebrities and sport stars that fit that mold, and many believe they can make it, and put education secondary.

America ranks 5th on the UN teaching index, which basically is the average proportion of years that free low schooling is given, and how often it is fulfilled. So, I don't think this is a problem, either.

MGSB explain Scandinavia.

It's already been explained to you - they've historically been rich countries, and quite capitalist until the 1930s/1970s, while they are relatively stagnating in their socialist times now, except for Norway (petrol found). Now you explain the USA.

we actually have college institutions closing do to a lack of students, so no, let's get people into f*cking college.

They're closing since noone wants to go to a small university, since university teaching has became such a brand and so twisted.

claiming its going to lose jobs is not entirely accurate either.

Don't bring in your biased thing here. http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/

Good sides and bad sides of minimum wage. worth noting: "they suggest that the biases of authors and journal editors make it more likely that studies with negative estimates will be published."

Edited 5/12/2016 02:59:12

America is one of the wealthiest countries with a very healthy income spread - if anything, it's not disparate enough. America beats out every country that isn't very small (over 10 million population) in median income, and frankly, it ranks very high even from the folk who are in the bottom 10%. It always irks me when folk say that America has a bad standard of living - it's one of the greatest in the world.

I'm not saying standard of living, I'm stating spread of wealth. Secondly, Japan has 100 million people, and a much better distribution. Germany? check. France? check. UK? check.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/

KEY POINTS

The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there are children, especially boys, the family has a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
In the kitchen, the household has a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences include a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
The home of the typical poor family is in good repair and is not overcrowded. In fact, the typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has.
By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed, and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Poor folk in America have more than enough of what they need.

Why rob folk of their money and give it to folk who already live well? Screw off, Sheriff of Nottingham.

Edited 5/12/2016 03:01:20

well, without any education, you can't move up the income ladder, and today an education of such a degree costs way too F*cking much. My basic suggestion is to cover the cost of education for everyone by using the money from people like the waltons(who combined own as much as the bottom 42% of the Americans in terms of pay(duh), because Murica!)

I'm not saying standard of living, I'm stating spread of wealth. Secondly, Japan has 100 million people, and a much better distribution. Germany? check. France? check. UK? check.

Socialists always try to do as if wealth disparity is a bad thing. The spread is skewed, which means an addicting growth to excel. Made it to 30% from 20%? Well, if you make it to 40%, you'll get even more money than you did for 20-30! And for the tip, wealthy businesses = big businesses = money gets respread through jobs. Anyhow, let's see other countries with a great wealth spread. Ukraine, check. Kazakhstan, check. Afghanistan, check. Mm, we should catch up to Afghanistan, maybe some Islamic law for 10 years to catylise...uh, the wealth equalisation.

yeah, but the Waltons own as much money as the bottom 42% of the populous, we have major problems, they can basically run the country in terms of economic power.

Edit: Secondly, Minor wealth disparity I'm okay with, but the degree on which occurs in the US is just F*cking ridiculous. If the top 20% owns 90% of the wealth, and 40% of the populous is net negative in wealth, we have major issues.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-top-10-of-americans-own-76-of-the-stuff-and-its-dragging-our-economy-down/
http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/

Yep, 3 sources, I think I got one from the left, right, and middle.

Edited 5/12/2016 03:20:06

So you're advocating the organized robbery of folk because they efficiently met the needs of poor folk? Screw off, they made that money and you have no right to it, especially when you're trying to destroy the economy even more with your stupid policies that have been disproven already.

without any education, you can't move up the income ladder

Sure, you can. Less than half of all Americans even have an university diploma. It's not easy, just like that, and maybe you don't want to do the work for a higher paying job, but it's fully feasible.

today an education of such a degree costs way too F*cking much

First, that's like saying a genetic show costs too much...then don't get it if you don't afford it. Both are just for your own interest.

My basic suggestion is to cover the cost of education for everyone by using the money from people like the waltons(who combined own as much as the bottom 42% of the Americans in terms of pay(duh), because Murica!)

They're already hiding assets as is, also, have you heard of any big businesses from socialist countries - they leave and don't get built, which is sometimes ok, if there's enough employment in government.

The Walton family has around 150 billion dollars. The US spent 3.688 trillion dollars last year. Did they teach you math in your public school or just socialist propaganda?

@MSGB explain Scandinavia(destroyed economy?)

Secondly, I'm not advocating for big business or their removal, I'm advocating for a reduction in the wealth of people like the waltons, because they own way way too much.

Lastly, @MSGB, maybe you should go look at this "Hard-earned" money. Let's see some of it is inherited, some comes from playing the stock market, and some is actually earned by you being a CEO, which you could argue is hard earned, but compared to the person working a manual job 16 hours a day just to make it by, it is not even remotely "hard-earned". Basically, your advocating for the lucky to become rulers of the world.

@MSGB, socialist propaganda, excuse me?(I'm living in TEXAS), and secondly math, yes I'm a junior in BC calc, and expecting a 5 on the test(I cleared the bar by 15 AP points on the practice exam with no review) so you can shut your mouth.

Edited 5/12/2016 03:28:52