'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#101

Post by openasocket » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:50 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #64

Goronmon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we force people to subsidize other people's poor children, we create perverse incentives to have a maximum number of children with minimum personal investment in each. It cannot end well for society. You have it reversed. Not providing, say, an education to all children, regardless of parental investment, will leave us with a large number of uneducated citizens languishing to fend for themselves. That sounds prett…

Historically that's not what has happened. Before the era of government education, education was improving rapidly, with literacy rates rising. As government involvement in education has increased, education outcomes have stopped improving: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... I'm making the case that forcing people to pay for the costs of raising poor children will create an incentive for…

First off, your link explicitly blames teacher's unions, not government involvement, for the lack of increase in education outcomes.

You think there are poor people out there thinking: "hey I can have a bunch of kids and they'll all get free educations, let's do it!" Why would they? So that the kid will grow up and get a great job and support them? That's not so much a get-rich-quick scheme as it is a get-rich-in-twenty-to-thirty-years scheme. Plus you'd still have to raise a bunch of kids, which isn't exactly a walk in the park.

And the evidence is on my side. Increased access to education is associated with lower fertility rates, not higher: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/completingfert...

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#102

Post by nailer » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:52 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #89

Jabanga wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's very constructive. The parent comment said [X] should be the rallying cry. I said in my opinion it shouldn't, and I gave my rationale. By all means bring out your chestnuts. I welcome a rigorous discussion, instead of blind conformity to mainstream political mores.

No, you don't welcome a rigorous discussion. You want to repeat discussions we've already had, in which you were not persuaded to others' points of view, and you didn't persuade them either. The likelihood that we'll all see the divine light of von Mises and convert this time is extraordinarily low. Stop trying.

> The likelihood that we'll all see the divine light of von Mises and convert this time is extraordinarily low.

I disagree with Jabanga but the "market incentive to pay for smart kids to learn" is interesting - I'd say it's also very risky - a poor child's parents don't want to pay for the child's education, they're not smart, they decide to rob people, this isn't good for anyone.

But I welcome the discussion and Jabanga has been polite so far.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#103

Post by Jabanga » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:53 PM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #96

Jabanga wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great ideal to strive toward, but I don't see the case for forcing everyone to adopt that ideal.

You know, you're welcome to live in one of the hellhole countries that don't care about promoting the general welfare. We have that "ideal" literally written in the constitution.

You're also welcome to not respond to me if my views bother you. I'm simply expressing my viewpoint.

There is nothing in the Constitution about social welfare programs to provide equality of opportunity. It's all about the "general welfare", which had a distinctly non-redistribitive definition in the 18th century.

> it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

- Thomas Jefferson

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#104

Post by cmdrfred » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

EthanHeilman wrote: post #72

cmdrfred wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system.

>Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year. Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. >The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners wou…

>Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners.

Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? Or would you tax the already low wages these people have earned at a rate sufficient to give those groups a similar standard of living as those whom happen to be employed and not old or sick? If you did so with 100% efficiency you would have an after tax income at a number somewhere between yours and mine. That number would be very likely less than the federal minimum wage.

And even so the government hasn't built a road or a school yet.

>And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners would have household income of 30,000 rather than 15,000.

Children of single mothers would have it pretty rough then. Typically communist systems will give extra resources to parents of children in order to assist with the cost of raising them. I suppose this will not be the case in this brave new world? A bold choice as early childhood mortality will likely be very high as well as the numbers of parents abandoning children they can't afford.

>Are you confusing median and mean here?

Neither was mentioned in this context. The US federal minimum wage (FYI Walmart has a national minimum wage that exceeds that number by roughly 25% very few actually make this little) earned for 40 hours a week work, 52 weeks a year will give you a gross income of a little over 15 thousand dollars annually.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#105

Post by ikeyany » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

boona wrote: post #45

ikeyany wrote: post #5

Obama used a few phrases that not only sounded pleasing, but accurately addressed what's happening to Americans: "Everyone, including the rich, need to pay their share." "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." He tapped into equality of opportunity, while acknowledging that some will be more successful than others. Th…

> "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." While the rich pay more than their fair share and then some ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KENaWXPmBr0 ), I would think that quality education is something we could all get behind. It's unfortunate though that the left in large part seem to be opposed to school choice. That…

> While the rich pay more than their fair share and then some

Do you honestly think every tax bracket pays the same effective rate as the middle class? I think you will learn a lot in this thread.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#106

Post by openasocket » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:56 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #91

openasocket wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidizing education is absolutely not redistribution of wealth! It is an investment. Giving a child a good education increases that child's lifelong income, some of which is taken as tax, which can mean putting money into education can result in a profit over time. This is especially true when you consider that giving a child a good education decreases their likelihood of having to live on welfare or unemployment.…

It is a component of child-rearing. Forcing people to pay for the education of other people is redistributive. If it's truly an investment, we could let the student loan market handle it, since the returns (in increased income) exceed the costs. As for social benefits, I believe the negative effect of encouraging people to have children when they're not capable of personally supporting them, and of reducing the incen…

> If it's truly an investment, we could let the student loan market handle it, since the returns (in increased income) exceed the costs.

Student loans? I'm talking about primary and secondary education, not college education. I'm assuming you aren't talking about privatizing those and using students loans to funding things, right?

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#107

Post by Rapzid » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:57 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #83

Rapzid wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only 100 years ago? A lot? It appears the federal government has been involved in public education nearly from the start. Article I Section 8 of the constitution provides impetus; "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;". From the very start the federal government has provided la…

The federal department of education was only created in 1980. All government spending on education, as a percentage of GDP, was a tiny fraction of what it is today. And the revenue for the education spending was weighted far more towards local sources, making it less redistributive.

Which superseded the Office of Education, established in 1867. I don't believe the solid historical foundations supporting your point of view(or adopted point of view for playing devils advocate) exist. Even if it did exist I doubt many people are in a hurry to revert our society and education system along with it back to 1789.

I think you would have a hard time finding any credible sources that indicate public education has been anything but good for the world. Cherry picking historical facts and turning a revisionists blind eye to our country's history won't help. As well, the debate over which LEVEL of government should be paying for education is orthogonal to the merits.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#108

Post by Jabanga » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #101

Jabanga wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically that's not what has happened. Before the era of government education, education was improving rapidly, with literacy rates rising. As government involvement in education has increased, education outcomes have stopped improving: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... I'm making the case that forcing people to pay for the costs of raising poor children will create an incentive for…

First off, your link explicitly blames teacher's unions, not government involvement, for the lack of increase in education outcomes. You think there are poor people out there thinking: "hey I can have a bunch of kids and they'll all get free educations, let's do it!" Why would they? So that the kid will grow up and get a great job and support them? That's not so much a get-rich-quick scheme as it is a get-rich-in-twe…

Centralising spending in the hands of a monopoly inevitably leads to rent-seeking behavior, like the rise of teachers unions and legislation like collective bargaining acts.

I think the net level of support people can expect their children to receive from redistributive programs plays a role in their decision to have children when they have low income. It's also important to note that it won't just be schooling if the goal is to provide equality of opportunity. It will have to be food as well, and other resources needed to have an equal opportunity.

As for education and fertility rates, this is not guaranteed to last. Formal education is not something humans were evolved for. But evolution has a way of quickly adapting to maximize its programmed objective: reproduction.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#109

Post by Jabanga » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 5:05 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #106

Jabanga wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a component of child-rearing. Forcing people to pay for the education of other people is redistributive. If it's truly an investment, we could let the student loan market handle it, since the returns (in increased income) exceed the costs. As for social benefits, I believe the negative effect of encouraging people to have children when they're not capable of personally supporting them, and of reducing the incen…

> If it's truly an investment, we could let the student loan market handle it, since the returns (in increased income) exceed the costs. Student loans? I'm talking about primary and secondary education, not college education. I'm assuming you aren't talking about privatizing those and using students loans to funding things, right?

I'm saying that if funding primary education produces societal returns, that must mean the net increase in earning potential exceeds the cost of the education, and therefore it would be profitable to issue student loans to the poor parents of children who would make good use of that education.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#110

Post by vibrato » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

ebencooke wrote: post #13

Jabanga wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally disagree that this should be the rallying cry. Why should someone who invests nothing in their own children get to see their children have equal opportunities to the children of another person who invests everything into their children? Why should a person who has 10 children get to see each one have the same amount of opportunity as each one of the children of someone who has 2 children, assuming equal…

I disagree because I think children should not be punished for the quality of their parent(s). I also think you are making a big (and incorrect) assumption that children who do not receive "investment" have parents that are neglecting them, rather than have parents who lack the means to make a substantial "investment".

There's no way to avoid children being punished or rewarded for the quality of their parents. At a minimum, they are the DNA of their parents. Practically, parental quality in development is hugely important and how could it not be? Will the state read bedtime stories to all children?