<p>I agree, the teachers aren’t spectacular. But I think it goes hand in hand. When you have over 80% of the class on ipods, texting, talking, or ditching, it distracts those who actually care and the teachers couldn’t care less because they get paid and it’s not their life.</p>
<p>My goal really wasn’t to create a flame war, so this is my last comment in this thread. I just wanted to point out that CA’s K-12 system really isn’t that bad, but some districts need serious reform (namely LAUSD).</p>
<p>^Yeah but then its just an argument of what came first, the chicken or the egg. In my experience we were told through many avenues that we were not expected to make it, we didnt have what it took, and no one cared otherwise. I made it out because people cared about me, most of the kids i knew didnt have that going for them you know what I mean? </p>
<p>Honestly its just the process of becoming an American. In 200 years we will think its lame the way we treated Latino Immigrants but we will be complaining about those damn dirty Martians taking all our jobs and draging down our economy.</p>
<p>Statism simply means control and planning by a government. Extreme forms of it are communism and fascism. In the US we obviously have a lesser form of it. </p>
<p>Whether the state taxes, it appropriates private property. When it operates schools and sanctions unions, or regulates private business, it’s an act of control and planning. </p>
<p>And yes, I admit I am quite radical (of the libertarian-esque variety.)</p>
<p>^ You would admit though that the unions (at least once) played a vital service. Do you really believe that the working conditions and pay that predated the unions is the way it should be. That was what no government intervention would look like, what it did look like.</p>
<p>No, I don’t admit that. I know that’s what it says in textbooks, but it’s simply illogical that business owners would be able to get away with exploiting workers. </p>
<p>First of all, consider the enormous influx of immigrants to the US before the rise of unions. Did they come here to be exploited? </p>
<p>Second, If the employers have so much power, why do some workers receive more money than others? It would then make sense that they could pay everybody the absolute minimum and there would be nothing any worker could do about it. But the fact is that employers compete for workers just like that compete for consumers. </p>
<p>Plus, as it has been shown by people like Milton Friedman, the wages and working conditions of workes have been rising long before unions came onto the scene.</p>
<p>…so you believe that working conditions were fine previous to unions, they were paid fair wages and they just decided to try to organize so they could get beat up, black listed, run out of their homes, and even killed becuase…sorry friend but you are being illogical and trying to rewrite history. You may think its illogical but THEY DID!!! Its a fact.</p>
<p>The reason they organized is to benefit at the expense of others (at least the leaders did it consciously.) It’s not at all rare that some people would seek to capitalize at the expense of others. </p>
<p>What they did is demand higher wages and better conditions. Normally the business owners would respond by hiring workers who agree to work for whatever was contractually agreed upon, but the unions used violence and threats against those who would undercut the demanded wage, thus taking away their freedom and employment opportunity. </p>
<p>So basically the unions took away from the competition for jobs in their respective field. Competetition for jobs is what reduces wages, and reduces costs, thus reducing prices. So they screw over every single consumer. (BTW, this is why the biggest supporters of the minimum wage and tariffs are unions, to reduce competition for employment.)</p>
<p>Of course they organized to benefit themselves but to pretend that they were not exploited workers who lived and worked in terrible conditions is pretty silly at best. A worker has a right as a human to work in safe conditions and to be paid a fair wage. I wonder what your argument against textile factories or sweat shops would be if you did not recognize that right. So far as I can see your current philosophy provides no protection in the marketplace against Corporate tyranny. You do realize that the Corporation itself is extremely organized and possesses the power to exploit its working force and the consumer without proper checks and supervision?</p>
<p>In a truly free market, corporations have much less power than people realize. If they do have the power that you’re talking about, why then do companies like Google provide very good conditions? It’s not because they’re nice, it’s in order to get the most productive employees. </p>
<p>Also, the conditions of sweat shops were bad compared to what? Yeah they’re worse than what we have today in the US, but not worse than what was before. </p>
<p>And I don’t agree that people have a natural right to any kind of wage or working conditions. That implies that there are these people with a stamp of their forehead that says “employers” who are slaves to the workers and must comply to whatever is arbitrarily decided to be a decent wage. People should only get what is voluntarily agreed upon by both sides. And where was this “human right” for decent wages back in the stone age? It couldn’t have existed back then, so now it popped out of nowhere just because technology and industry have progressed? </p>
<p>Anyway, I gotta go to sleep. May be I’ll continue the lecture some other time.</p>
<p>too long, no one read any of it. And they all started with something like “I agree but…” or “you’re right about…but”. and you guy’s came to an agreement at the end.</p>
<p>now it’s your bedtime. real flamewars cause ppl to say up late going from well constructed and thought out arguments to something to the effect of:</p>
<p>y0 b1tch, Imma drop you if i ever c U on mai street. Ya HeArd. Don’T brINg that S*it in my hood.</p>
<p>^ I don’t believe anyone was trying to start a flame war haha.</p>
<p>But to respond to the last post now that my eyes are not burning…</p>
<p>First: Google does not exist in a completely free market so you cannot use it as an example. It exists in a regulated market with rules and standards. Furthermore, Google cannot be compared to a steel factory, sweat shop, or textile mill. When you try to pretend that a completely free market does not exploit the worker and the consumer you are denying history and common sense for that matter. It’s really not an issue of debate. </p>
<p>Second: Sweat shops are not a thing of the past. Bad compared to what? Well assuming that you were referring to their introduction to the United States during the industrial revolution they were way worse than what was before. Previously these urban factory workers were skilled workers that lived mostly in rural villages and on farms. When big industry came and ran these men out of work they were forced to move into the big cities to pursue work at the new factories. And if you don’t believe the working conditions, extremely long hours, and pay were absolutely atrocious I suggest you read a book or watch the History channel sometime. </p>
<p>Third: Well your third comment would be humorous if its ideology was not so scary. Where were these rights in the Stone Age? I don’t know, where was the rights of democracy, freedom, human equality (be it race, ethnic, gender, and the many more people were pretty f’d up about for most of history), liberty, freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, self government, due process ect. None of these existed for the majority of human history so I guess by your logic they are not real (read some Locke, Madison, or Jefferson sometime). And give me a break trying to paint the employer as the “slave.” Are you for real? Your ideology might have been convincing in the 1980’s but honestly its old news and is basically constructed upon false assumptions. Wake up.</p>