Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 173 posts

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#161

Post by zajio1am »

Ntrails wrote: post #30
ramblerman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes workplaces hell for everyone involved, both the idiots and the capable. I think your attitude is what makes the hell tbh. We should definitely teach everyone to be literate, and not just decide they should be "excellent coal miner"s instead.

Slight devils advocate. Is everyone happier with mandatory schooling for longer? It isn't that we shouldn't give everyone the chance to learn, but maybe some people really would be happier dropping out at 14 and just getting a job. Being at school where all you do is fail does not make for a good life experience! I think the answer is probably that we don't want parents pulling kids out of school early just to earn m…

> maybe some people really would be happier dropping out at 14 and just getting a job.

Note that in Europe, mandatory schooling ends in 15-16 in most states.

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#162

Post by high_byte »

rytsEa wrote: post #158
high_byte wrote: post #72

waiting for the next article, "I was CTO for 17 years, but couldn't code"

I don't know about CTO positions but I do know people working as Soft. Engineer barely able to code. Funny enough -as in the article- they are usually attracted to teaching (medium posts, best practice talks, youtube videos...) and mentoring/managing positions. Maybe as a way to escape from coding. Or maybe they want to safe others of struggling with the same problem they have. I don't know.

As the saying goes, "Those who can't do - teach". I get it, it's a position you can't fail. You're the boss, you always learn (a day prior) and you always "know best".

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#163

Post by ricardobeat »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #155
ricardobeat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Economists at large" being a hand picked few and US-centered. Rent control can take many forms: rental caps, incentives/benefits, zoning and housing policies, etc. The view that it's solely a supply-demand equation is way too simplistic. Rent prices are currently falling as much as 10% in Amsterdam despite an extremely strained housing market with a 50k+ deficit on units available vs demand.

Again, I recommend you read the article, as it specifically mentions polls done involving broad cross-sections of economists, and non-American economists. Instead of assuming the article has no valuable insights, I recommend you read it. >>Rent control can take many forms: rental caps, incentives/benefits, zoning and housing policies, etc. Rent control only takes the form of caps on rent, or caps on rent increases. T…

Do you think I decided the article is US-centered just by looking at the URL?

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#164

Post by CryptoPunk »

ricardobeat wrote: post #163
CryptoPunk wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I recommend you read the article, as it specifically mentions polls done involving broad cross-sections of economists, and non-American economists. Instead of assuming the article has no valuable insights, I recommend you read it. >>Rent control can take many forms: rental caps, incentives/benefits, zoning and housing policies, etc. Rent control only takes the form of caps on rent, or caps on rent increases. T…

Do you think I decided the article is US-centered just by looking at the URL?

So you read it, and didn't notice the article provided statistics on the views of economists at large - as opposed to those of a handpicked few - on rent control, or the many mentions of non-American political leaders' and economists' views on rent control?

Can you at least admit that the economics field at large opposes rent control?

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#165

Post by cloudfifty »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #164
ricardobeat wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think I decided the article is US-centered just by looking at the URL?

So you read it, and didn't notice the article provided statistics on the views of economists at large - as opposed to those of a handpicked few - on rent control, or the many mentions of non-American political leaders' and economists' views on rent control? Can you at least admit that the economics field at large opposes rent control?

> Can you at least admit that the economics field at large opposes rent control?

It's pretty pointless to talk about rent control if one hasn't established what the desired outcome is. An "efficient" market? Affordable housing for the common man?

Rent control keeps on providing affordable housing in Europe. Abolishing it would cause the rents to rise (both economists and the people promoting it admits to that) and thus give billions to land lords and property owners. But I guess that's a feature, not a bug?

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#166

Post by CryptoPunk »

cloudfifty wrote: post #165
CryptoPunk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you read it, and didn't notice the article provided statistics on the views of economists at large - as opposed to those of a handpicked few - on rent control, or the many mentions of non-American political leaders' and economists' views on rent control? Can you at least admit that the economics field at large opposes rent control?

> Can you at least admit that the economics field at large opposes rent control? It's pretty pointless to talk about rent control if one hasn't established what the desired outcome is. An "efficient" market? Affordable housing for the common man? Rent control keeps on providing affordable housing in Europe. Abolishing it would cause the rents to rise (both economists and the people promoting it admits to that) and th…

Rent control makes housing less affordable for the common man. This is the near-unanimous conclusion of economists, who have studied this issue for upwards of a century.

Rent control makes housing less affordable than it would otherwise be in Europe too.

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#167

Post by cloudfifty »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #166
cloudfifty wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you at least admit that the economics field at large opposes rent control? It's pretty pointless to talk about rent control if one hasn't established what the desired outcome is. An "efficient" market? Affordable housing for the common man? Rent control keeps on providing affordable housing in Europe. Abolishing it would cause the rents to rise (both economists and the people promoting it admits to that) and th…

Rent control makes housing less affordable for the common man. This is the near-unanimous conclusion of economists, who have studied this issue for upwards of a century. Rent control makes housing less affordable than it would otherwise be in Europe too.

This is simply false. Maybe economists models of an optimal market somehow shows that. But on the ground facts refute it without a shadow of a doubt. One cause of this is usually that government involvement in the production of housing is assumed to be out of the question by those economists.

People are not stupid. Why do you think there's so much resistance in Europe towards market based rents if they think it will actually lower their rents? Should people be thrown out of their apartment they've lived in their whole life just because the property owner can find someone wealthier that's willing to pay more? How is that a desired outcome for the common man? People would rather want that the housing is created by the state than have that crazily class based stratification of our cities.

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#168

Post by CryptoPunk »

cloudfifty wrote: post #167
CryptoPunk wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control makes housing less affordable for the common man. This is the near-unanimous conclusion of economists, who have studied this issue for upwards of a century. Rent control makes housing less affordable than it would otherwise be in Europe too.

This is simply false. Maybe economists models of an optimal market somehow shows that. But on the ground facts refute it without a shadow of a doubt. One cause of this is usually that government involvement in the production of housing is assumed to be out of the question by those economists. People are not stupid. Why do you think there's so much resistance in Europe towards market based rents if they think it will…

You're saying that a belief that has near total consensus among the experts is "simply false". You clearly haven't examined the evidence on rent control, and are simply making assumptions to avoid having to contend with the possibility that your preconceived notion is wrong.

>>Why do you think there's so much resistance in Europe towards market based rents if they think it will actually lower their rents?

1. Because economics is a difficult subject to understand, made all the more difficult by the multitude of special interests who need to discredit economics in order to rationalize the anti-free-market impositions that provide them with rent-seeking opportunities like subsidies and artificially suppressed rent.

2. Because people who already have rent-controlled units in high-demand cities don't want to give up their privilege for the benefit of the people of the nation at large, who, by virtue of rent control starving the housing sector of the capital to build more units in those cities, miss out on the opportunity to find a unit in the high-demand cities.

>>Should people be thrown out of their apartment they've lived in their whole life just because the property owner can find someone wealthier that's willing to pay more?

YES! They're renters. If they want the stability of not having to ever worry about housing costs increasing, they need to buy their own units. They can't rent, and then expect the stability of being an owner.

We need to be giving housing in the highest-in-demand localities to the people who can make the best use of it economically, which would be those who are willing and able to pay the most for it.

We also need to be giving investors the incentive to invest in new housing in these highest-in-demand localities so that more people can live in them, and that requires allowing rental rates to reflect the supply/demand dynamics. This is basic economics.

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#169

Post by cloudfifty »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #168
cloudfifty wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply false. Maybe economists models of an optimal market somehow shows that. But on the ground facts refute it without a shadow of a doubt. One cause of this is usually that government involvement in the production of housing is assumed to be out of the question by those economists. People are not stupid. Why do you think there's so much resistance in Europe towards market based rents if they think it will…

You're saying that a belief that has near total consensus among the experts is "simply false". You clearly haven't examined the evidence on rent control, and are simply making assumptions to avoid having to contend with the possibility that your preconceived notion is wrong. >>Why do you think there's so much resistance in Europe towards market based rents if they think it will actually lower their rents? 1. Because…

> You're saying that a belief that has near total consensus among the experts is "simply false"

Yes, or at least aren't approaching the problem as others are, namely, what the actual effect of their theories would be in practice. We've seen multiple times how much higher rents get with market rents, and how the common man will be kicked out of their homes. Not sure why you keep denying it when the facts are there.

> Because economics is a difficult subject to understand

So yes, you really think people are too stupid to understand that they will actually benefit. Shameless.

> YES! They're renters.

That's putting profits over people and just plainly unethical and is precisely the kind of outcome that justifies rent controls.

> We also need to be giving investors the incentive to invest in new housing

No, we don't. The state can build housing according to need, like other infrastructure. That way, we don't need to kick out the poor folks from their homes. It's already been done in the past, and is being done in for example Wien, Austria.

> This is basic economics.

It's basic and shallow alright. The world isn't some sandbox for trying naive free market models. It's more complicated than that.

Re: I was a teacher for 17 years, but couldn't read or write

#170

Post by fn-mote »

novalis78 wrote: post #65

In 2008 when my kids went to VPK in Florida I was surprised to find out why they memorized words instead of learning how to read. The lady I spoke about this was a veteran teacher of 25 years. She said it was all BS and that a decade or two earlier they had used a book called ‘Learn how to read in 100 lessons’. With that systems, she said, they never had anyone fail. Every child that passed through learnt reading. Sh…

> With that systems, she said, they never had anyone fail. Every child that passed through learnt reading. She said it was like a miracle.

From someone familiar with the trenches of teaching: claims of 100% success need to be met with skepticism. There could be other classes where the lower performing children go (and fail).

There is actually a lot of research on how to teach reading. I'm not saying every school district uses research-supported materials, but I am saying nostalgia for decades-gone-by methods of teaching should be looked at with a (very) critical eye. Who is successful? Who is not? Are there alternative approaches for students for whom the main approach does not work?

On this specific claim: VPK = voluntary pre-kindergarten. Presumably this teacher is not claiming that 100% of children are learning to read before kindergarten? To critically evaluate this claim, one would have to know the grade level being taught. If they were teaching introductory reading to 7-8 year olds (instead of typical US kindergarten ~5 years old), then success rates would be higher... And in fact one of the trends in education has been pushing the skills to lower grade levels, where they (of course?) become more difficult to master - which makes these claims plausible but again, you need to know if you are comparing the performance of 2nd graders from decades ago with kindergarteners now.

Post reply on HN