Jump to content

Menu

American Families Plan, what are your thoughts?


mommyoffive
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

All the evidence suggests that when people who aren't already wealthy get money "dumped on them" they don't "choose to be less productive" - they spend that money, and invest in their futures.

I think there is more evidence that they are productive with cash, where they can see the opportunity cost they are squandering, than free stuff like "free college". There is a lot of squandering in every public school I walk into. Sorry but you would have to provide me with a lot of evidence with all I've seen. Every year, we have a "How do I spend all this government money ?" thread. Well, how about only buy what you need and give the rest back but you know that isn't going to happen.

 

And I've seen an awful lot of waste in showering big companies with money. From unfinished bridges to empty seafood plants and rotting ferries just in my hometown. I'm sorry but you will have to actually provide the evidence.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

All the evidence suggests that when people who aren't already wealthy get money "dumped on them" they don't "choose to be less productive" - they spend that money, and invest in their futures.

Also, I want to know why we should never worry about rising interest rates or people deciding not to loan to us? Why we shouldn't be bothered at all about the potential of default or inflation or ridiculous taxes at some point, besides the too big to fail mantra, excuse me, I mean big dog mantra that makes no sense. 

I have no problem taxing the largest corporations more, but it is naive to think they don't have lobbyist writing in loop holes for them and using the gov't to get rid of upcoming competition. That's the way the real world works and the bigger and more complicated it is, the easier for them to sneak in something advantageous into a bill as long as War and Peace. 

We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2021 at 11:57 AM, bookbard said:

When I did my master's, we had to crunch some numbers and they chose stats around preschool education. In Australia (where childcare is more regulated than the US, I believe), children who attended early childhood education had better outcomes than those at home. Of course that won't always be the case - and I only sent mine 1 day a week - but for many children it is a lifesaver, and for many women, it is a career-saver. There are plenty of women who want kids and don't feel they should sacrifice their career; after all, most men don't have to make that sacrifice. Good quality early childhood education is fantastic, and I can't see why providing access to it should freak people out. If you want to opt out, you can. 

I also think that paid maternity and paternity leave is vital too. 

I have seen studies on this but they basically seem to contradict my lived experience.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, frogger said:

We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. 

I think that technically that’s a fair statement.
But I also think we have to create a bridge between how it is and how “we” (us and future generations) wish and need it to be.

The subject of economics held ZERO interest for me until my health insurance went insane, the realities of post-2000 college costs were in my face, and the housing bust hit me.  While I’ve obviously had no choice but to deal with these things as they are/were, I’ve also had to figure out how to guide my children into futures that weren’t going to have the same on-ramps mine once did, which was already much more steep than the one my parents did. And while I put it in the context of “my” kids, I mean it for everyone’s kids.

If we don’t work our way toward a sustainable future, it’s not only going to get worse while we’re alive, it’s going to be even worse and harder for the next two generations to fix.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, HeartString said:

I'm always curious about this argument.  Isn't college free or nearly so in many other countries?  Are they having that issue? Are American's a uniquely lazy bunch?  This article says at least 7 other countries offer free college.  I'm genuinely curious.   

I know we have some Australians on this board, and I see that college is free at point of service for you guys, then paid back based on income.  How's that working out?

https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-free-higher-education-no-tuition-college

 

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/09/study-now-pay-later/australian-college-plan-has-helped-students-at-a-cost

 

 

I have heard recently that prices have increased a lot maybe because our colleges were kind of being propped up by international student fees and now we don’t have that.  But that might have been purely an opinion I didn’t verify it.  Typically we can study then pay back based on income.  I do know people who study and never use their degrees but I suspect it’s outweighed by those who are able to earn a useful degree that otherwise wouldn’t have the option.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Frances said:

There is nothing more or less complicated about a flat versus a progressive tax system. The complications come from all of the exclusions, deductions, loopholes, etc. Most low and middle income people don’t have the vast opportunities afforded to the upper middle class and wealthy to shield income from taxation or have it taxed at lower rates (e.g. long term capital gains). And since most states have regressive tax systems, the progressive federal system helps to alleviate some of the inequity.

My understanding, admittedly very limited, of a flat tax is that there wouldn’t be any complications- no exclusions, no deductions, no loopholes. Just a percentage of income. Boom. Done. Everyone could afford it because it is based only on income and is easily managed through a simple payroll deduction. Those who are self employed do quarterly taxes and pay quarterly, just like they are supposed to do now. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2021 at 8:53 AM, HeartString said:

I'm always curious about this argument.  Isn't college free or nearly so in many other countries?  Are they having that issue? Are American's a uniquely lazy bunch?  This article says at least 7 other countries offer free college.  I'm genuinely curious.   

I know we have some Australians on this board, and I see that college is free at point of service for you guys, then paid back based on income.  How's that working out?

https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-free-higher-education-no-tuition-college

 

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/09/study-now-pay-later/australian-college-plan-has-helped-students-at-a-cost

 

 

In regards to Americans being a uniquely lazy bunch - I think we have a different mentality here, I’m not sure I would use this to describe it, but it is different. We are very individualistic. We tend to view taxes as the government taking our money away from us and then through social programs, giving it to people who didn’t earn it. This means people who have their money “taken away” resent the people who benefit from the social programs. This resentment has played into the now widespread belief in the myth of the “welfare queen.” There are undoubtedly some lazy people among us, but it isn’t as simple as tying that back to access to social programs, it’s an issue of character formation that occurs over time. 

People I have spoken with from some other countries see taxes as their investment in their society. When you operate from that mindset - benefitting from  something publicly funded carries a sense of responsibility with it, not a sense of entitlement. In countries with wider social nets, more people benefit from the net and more people see the benefits of the net so there is a wider understanding of exactly how their taxes are helping people. People have a sense of responsibility towards each other. 

When it comes to education as Americans, we have a really messed up system in a lot of respects. I won’t go into all of them here. But overall, we don’t convey the benefits of having an educated community. We tend to focus on the individual benefits of education- primarily income potential. We don’t talk about the more general benefits of having an educated community- how reading & writing fluency, math and science fluency, equip us to understand our role in the community. From a practical standpoint, those skills help us understand how taxes and other laws affect not only us, but our neighbors, and how they affect people that we will never meet. They also help us develop as people. Understanding more about the world around us helps us understand how we impact the world. Understanding science & math helps us reduce litter, make better health choices and gives us a curiosity and sense of wonder about the world around us and helps us understand the complexity of trade professions.  Reading fluency informs our ethics as we read widely in fiction and non-fiction alike. It increases our capacity to understand new information as it becomes available and it enables us to become a people who know and understand history, not just what happened but why it happened and to think through the long term impacts of current decisions as we move forward.  Writing fluency means we can synthesize information across disciplines and communicate effectively.  All of these things make us better members of our community. Education isn’t just about what is good for the individual, it’s about what is good for the society. This means we recognize the benefits of special needs education, of making sure people have enough to eat, etc.. Society is better off when we more people can do these things because we make better decisions when we understand how our decisions impact others, including decisions at the voting polls. Oh, and yes, in the US economy, people who are educated tend to have more stable employment & income over time. 

Edited by TechWife
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

. We tend to view taxes as the government taking our money away from us and then through social programs, giving it to people who didn’t earn it. This means people who have their money “taken away” resent the people who benefit from the social programs. This resentment has played into the now widespread belief in the myth of the “welfare queen.”

Not just that, but I want to choose who my money goes to.  I do not want it funding abortions.  And the taxing the rich that is going to pay for it won't work as we are very good at shielding the money. For us, it doesn't matter. He retired. We still give away a ton of money every year to homeless shelters, overseas missions, house where sex workers are recovering, habitat for humanity, disaster relief, etc.  The capital gains tax won't affect us anymore because now all of our IRA's are ROTH.  I'm glad we converted them.  I am committed to making my community better.  I just want to use it for the organizations and causes I believe help.  I do not trust the government at all to use MY money wisely.  And yes, it is OUR money...ok technically not, it is God's.  But we have a responsibility to steward it well. I believe we do a better job than the government can. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TechWife said:

n regards to Americans being a uniquely lazy bunch - I think we have a different mentality here, I’m not sure I would use this to describe it, but it is different. We are very individualistic. We tend to view taxes as the government taking our money away from us and then through social programs, giving it to people who didn’t earn it.

We lack empathy, and disbelieve the extent of the problems we don’t experience or at least witness directly. If something doesn’t fit our narrative, we call it an exception.

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2021 at 9:19 PM, Farrar said:

In addition to the reasons already stated, there are so few protections for motherhood in the work force. If you have a career, pausing it to stay home for a few years isn't really possible in America without risking a lot of long term income. Sure, you only just cover preschool when you're a young mom, but if you stay out of the workforce, you'll lose opportunities and promotions and pay increases that you'll never be able to come close to making up. And if you're not in a career at all, you may risk having to take a lower wage job longer term when you do go back. Essentially, it's not about the money for the scant years of childcare - it's about the long term money.

Yes, exactly this. Working for net $0 during the daycare years isn’t about the daycare years. It’s about the long view to income potential and financial stability. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

We lack empathy, and disbelieve the extent of the problems we don’t experience or at least witness directly. If something doesn’t fit our narrative, we call it an exception.

Yes! Reading & writing fluency would help so much with this - Karen Swallow Prior’s book On Reading Well does a good job of explaining how this can work. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

Having 2 'free' years to not be tied to whatever major because of ridiculous student loans benefits everyone, society included.

Haven't finished reading this whole thread, but this jumped out at me because the well-regarded small liberal arts school that my daughter attended urges students not to declare a major until their second semester of their sophomore year.  They figured most students don't really know what the options are until they actually start taking classes..... ( Engineering students were an exception because of their fully-packed program. )

Dd chose this uni because it was one of the few who offered both Russian and International Relations and she planned to double major.  While there, she got interested in Japanese, dropped the Russian ("too easy, Mom!) and seriously started pursuing  Japanese.  Because of the way the first two years are structured (you need to take x amount of classes in y areas), sometime during her sophomore year, she ended up taking a computer science class and LOVED it.  That became her declared major with a Japanese minor.  4 years later, she's now at a prestigious university getting her Phd in Computer Architecture.

All that to say, I agree that students should be encouraged to explore--they don't know what they don't know--but that doesn't necessarily mean "free" as in no obligations/consequences/expectations.  Exploring should be done with the goal of finding a good match of interest, ability, and  feasibility.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Government debt is different from personal debt, though - especially when the government is that of the USA. It's like they say - when the little guy owes the big guy, the little guy has problems. When the big guy owes the little guy, the little guy has problems.

The USA is the big guy! We're the third most populous nation in the world, I believe we have more people than the post-Brexit EU, and our GDP is the largest by quite a margin.

Which brings me to point two. For an individual person, a trillion dollars is an absolutely inconceivable amount of money. I'd call it "staggering", but that hardly describes it at all. For the US government - well, it's not exactly chump change, but it's just a day's work. You know, a trillion here, a trillion there - sooner or later you're talking about real money, that sort of thing.

Since you're talking about borrowing on your credit card, here's an analogy. Suppose you borrow money on your credit card to go to school so you can earn more money. Then that debt is "good". If this national debt helps citizens be more productive, then the GDP can only go up and tax revenues can only increase. That debt is therefore "good", because it's actually helping everybody get richer.

When a country cannot make the payments on it’s debt anymore, its sources of funding will not loan it any more money.  Having lost on their bad investment, individual bond holders will stop buying bonds, countries will decline to give any more loans.  They may not be able to get their original investment back from the “big guy”, but they sure as heck won’t be giving him any more!  

And then the defaults cascade, as more and more debts come due without the USA being able to pay.  We have Argentina, Greece, Venezuela—a country that simply does not have the dollars to run all those government programs, and we have shortfalls all over the system where people don’t get funds they are entitled to because they simple don’t exist.  Where the shortfalls will hit—social security, Medicare, schools?—who knows?  And these blows come to a population that has grown used to, indeed built their lives around expecting, artificially cheap childcare, free preschool, and a check in the mail every month just for having kids.  The sudden removal of these things, just as the economy tanks, would be devastating to families.
 

People may have enough faith in the “big guy’s” strength to believe he’ll be able to make good and keep lending longer, but eventually the ever-expanding debt is so huge it’s no longer possible to borrow enough to keep up with the payments.  Being the big guy just gives us longer to keep digging our hole before it all catches up to us.  It doesn’t mean that the world economy will keep coming up with ever larger sources of new debt for us to cover our old debt forever.

 

Or alternatively, the government decides it has a mint, it will just print money to pay its obligations instead of defaulting.  We don’t technically default on our loans, but the sudden dramatic increase in dollars drops the scarcity of money that drives its value, and we get Hungary and the Weimar Republic—hyperinflation that wipes out the value of the dollar.  Now suddenly our lenders’ returns are nearly worthless, as each dollar they see return on their investment can buy what cost only cents when they lent the money, and the US is no longer a good investment, because your money plus interest earned is worth less than your original investment was when you made it.  Individuals and countries are no longer willing to lend us money to cover our debt payments, and the same cascade happens as above.

 

The rules of math don’t cease to apply, simply because we are used to being top dog.  The world economy will not sustain infinitely increasing lending to the USA forever.  The money simply doesn’t exist to do that, as our national debt increases at a higher rate than the gross world product.  As long as the debt keeps climbing its exponential curve, it must eventually intersect with the line of debt made available to it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Since you're talking about borrowing on your credit card, here's an analogy. Suppose you borrow money on your credit card to go to school so you can earn more money. Then that debt is "good". If this national debt helps citizens be more productive, then the GDP can only go up and tax revenues can only increase. That debt is therefore "good", because it's actually helping everybody get richer.

This is correct, good debt exists.  But no where have I seen anyone in support of this plan propose that it would bring in anything close to what it will spend, at any length of time for return, not even in the most wildly optimistic estimates.

Edited by Condessa
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasProud said:

Not just that, but I want to choose who my money goes to.  I do not want it funding abortions.  And the taxing the rich that is going to pay for it won't work as we are very good at shielding the money. For us, it doesn't matter. He retired. We still give away a ton of money every year to homeless shelters, overseas missions, house where sex workers are recovering, habitat for humanity, disaster relief, etc.  The capital gains tax won't affect us anymore because now all of our IRA's are ROTH.  I'm glad we converted them.  I am committed to making my community better.  I just want to use it for the organizations and causes I believe help.  I do not trust the government at all to use MY money wisely.  And yes, it is OUR money...ok technically not, it is God's.  But we have a responsibility to steward it well. I believe we do a better job than the government can. 

I used to be right there with you but as I have read more widely in recent years and traveled more than in years past and I have changed. There are all kinds of things in this post that I could unwind. I will say that the US government does fund some things that I don’t agree with and that is one of the many reasons I vote and want to make sure that everyone else can do so easily.  To not agree with the decisions that elected officials make is entirely different than not trusting the institution. I trust the institution, that when the right people are elected, it will function properly. This has been a challenge for our country off and on throughout our history. We must be vigilant as citizens to attempt to elect people who are knowledgeable about a wide variety of matters, are empathetic,  have excellent diplomatic skills and who act ethically as much as we are able to discern. That’s a nearly impossible task and seems insurmountable, but these are not traits most voters currently demand, so there’s that. 
 

Decisions everyone makes about how to save for retirement if they are able as well as how to spend money otherwise are directly affected by the social safety net that is available to us. Changing the safety net would change the way we save and spend money. 
 

We have a philanthropic mindset on our household that is based in the Bible. Reading widely and studying scripture has helped me understand that I am not wise enough to know everything that benefits any given community and that there are needs that I am not aware of, so we need to be careful who we partner with. This has meant that in recent years we have paid much more attention to the results that organizations achieve - how well they steward money and if they achieve goals in the areas that are important to us, one of which is public health.  As a result we have redirected contributions  from a Christian relief organization to our local community hospital because they are better stewards, offer services in our immediate community, are focused on long term public health and they don’t discriminate. 

There are many other ways I have changed as a result of my exposure to and understanding of many different cultures & ideas - all of which I won’t go into here. I will say that I have held each of the changes to the standards of the Bible. Social safety nets provided by governments meet those standards. 
 

 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Condessa said:

This is correct, good debt exists.  But no where have I seen anyone in support of this plan propose that it would bring in anything close to what it will spend, at any length of time for return, not even in the most wildly optimistic estimates.

I agree that it can’t on its own. Other things have to happen as well.  It doesn’t have to be free-college-pays-for-itself.  It can be, as examples, free college making up some of its own difference, plus spending less on pork, plus expanded job opportunities in renewable energy, plus this that and the other thing. (And, no, I’m not running numbers, just off the cuff pieces.). Like pretty much anything else, the big picture has to have multiple moving pieces that adapt to each other.

Is there really any single gov’t program that covers its “bill” independent of anything else? (Genuine question.)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Condessa said:

This is correct, good debt exists.  But no where have I seen anyone in support of this plan propose that it would bring in anything close to what it will spend, at any length of time for return, not even in the most wildly optimistic estimates.

I haven’t crunched any numbers so I can’t speak to the accuracy of your statement. However, there are a number of things we are doing now that we can to stop doing that will decrease government spending. It’s a matter of setting priorities. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

Rather than pulling people in one direction or another with free this or that, let them choose what makes the most sense to them.  Rather than free college, which in my opinion props up a system more than an individual and tells people the gov't knows what is best for you, give people cash. Attach it to their social security number so they can use it anytime in their life. Make it a voucher useable for ANY type of certification, trade school, or class.  Maybe they can't go to school now because their mom has cancer or maybe for some, like my son with dyslexia, a job is better while taking one class at a time. 4 or 5 classes a day is a way to make him fail.  Also, if they see it as their money that will disappear, it will create better incentives. 

Or better yet, fix the darn K12 with that money so kids graduate with more than the equivalent of 6th grade or 8th grade education in other countries. We are stealing the lives of our children under the current system. Sure wealthy districts might have lots of AP classes and people competing for spots in top colleges but that is not your typical rural school or any lower income area. We should have better teacher compensation so smart people compete for those jobs. That is not how it currently works.

Rather than childcare, I'd prefer the child tax credit. Let parents choose what to do with that money. For those that don't pay income taxes they can get it refunded to them as a subsidy. What about the poor person who also has an older parent that can care for their child but needs money to fix their car because they need it for work or wants a different education for their kids or anything besides childcare? What about the lower income parents who feel their child with learning disabilities would be better off homeschooled but they can't quite afford to stay home. They can afford childcare because the gov't pays but they can't afford to do what is best for their child.

I see these kinds of free stuff as wasteful. They aren't flexible when being pushed as giant programs from the government. I really think it is about time to move from the old educational model to a lifelong educational model anyway. Will a job you get in 2040 really be helped that much by two more years of community college decades ago? I doubt it. Instead we are burrowing into an educational model that is very last century.

 

Education gets cheaper every year. A degree gets more expensive. Why is that? I think I know but my post is getting too long.

 

Edited by frogger
Removing a stupid response.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Is there really any single gov’t program that covers its “bill” independent of anything else? (Genuine question.)

Other than public education, none come to mind.  

This is the problem.  This is what keeps driving us toward the cliff. They don’t need to pay for themselves, but the difference needs to be what can be covered by our country’s income.  We have a huge income, but our spending is already so far beyond that.

The wealthiest of men can still drive himself to bankruptcy if he chooses.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I haven’t crunched any numbers so I can’t speak to the accuracy of your statement. However, there are a number of things we are doing now that we can to stop doing that will decrease government spending. It’s a matter of setting priorities. 

Hey, I could get behind a plan that cut government spending by trillions of dollars in other areas before spending it on this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frogger said:

You may lack empathy but I personally feel that people respond to incentives. I actually don't think you lack empathy, but it is wrong to assign feelings to other people who disagree with you to ignore their arguments and you seem a reasonable person so I'm a little surprised.

I find that to be a really interesting response to the words that I wrote. Offhand, I can’t think of any positions on any topic I’ve ever outright ignored except for maybe 2 or 3 that I have zero tolerance for based on convictions similar to religious belief. Though it wouldn’t even be fair to say I ignore those entirely; they still provide material to reflect on.
You’ve just assigned me a position that doesn’t fit based on what I thought was a clear generalization, which I didn’t assign to any specific person.

And I do lack empathy in certain areas. I discover this every time I learn about something I hadn’t considered before. I can’t empathize with situations I’m ignorant to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I find that to be a really interesting response to the words that I wrote. Offhand, I can’t think of any positions on any topic I’ve ever outright ignored except for maybe 2 or 3 that I have zero tolerance for based on convictions similar to religious belief. Though it wouldn’t even be fair to say I ignore those entirely; they still provide material to reflect on.
You’ve just assigned me a position that doesn’t fit based on what I thought was a clear generalization, which I didn’t assign to any specific person.

And I do lack empathy in certain areas. I discover this every time I learn about something I hadn’t considered before. I can’t empathize with situations I’m ignorant to.

I'm sorry, I totally misread that! My bad, completely.

 

I think I'm so used to hearing that the other side "just wants to steal my money" or the other side is just "cold and heartless and doesn't care about people".  It did seem strange coming from you which should have made me reread it! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, frogger said:

 

   I personally respond to incentives and I believe this is true for mankind in general and that people aren't all that different in different countries. 

 

I have no idea if your statement about human nature is true. I do, however, know that for people who do respond to incentives, the reward of the incentive has to be perceived as more desirable to the person than the cost of attaining it. The incentive isn’t always worth the cost to everyone. Some people also react to incentives with rebellion against the standards because they don’t want to be told what to do in general or to be told by a specific person or group.  They would rather have a less than desirable outcome or even do damage than have someone else tell them what to do. 

Incentives can be used to manipulate people into both good and bad behavior. They can also breed resentment because someone holds power over another person. Benefits that are available to everyone don’t create situations where that power can be misused and abused, where help can be denied based on the personal preferences or beliefs of the person or organization that is giving the aid. Incentives can do that when they are mismanaged. It seems, to me, that a person is worth helping by the fact that of their personhood, not by whether or not they achieve a goal or standard set by someone else.

I heard an interview with a priest years ago - he was in charge of a wet house - a safe place where alcoholics could live without having to stop drinking. The interviewer asked him if he was worried that someone would take advantage of the generosity of the church. His response was “No one can take your advantage if you are giving it away.” The truth in that simple statement changed me and how I view both public safety nets and private charity. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2021 at 1:30 PM, SKL said:

The nutrition thing already existed pre-Covid in my area (and it is pretty middle class, not rich or poor).  Not sure who funded it.  Also DE with community college is already free here, starting at 7th grade, and the cost to go to Community College post-high school isn't that high either.

Universal preschool will go the way of Head Start.  People who want better will pay for better, and that will leave those who can't pay in a situation at least as bad as before.  Just my prediction based on life experience.

I don't like the trend of putting more and more of our human needs on the schools and the government.  But I know my views are in the minority here.

As for who will pay for it - I have no doubts about that.  But I think this will get political too quickly if I go there.

Head Start in many areas is honestly better quality than many programs parents pay for. The teacher requirements are higher, child-staff ratio is lower, and it is generally a very good program. There are also medical and dental care aspects and family support included. Qualifying is hard because there are not a lot of spots available and therefore the focus is on the most at risk children. The same is true for Even Start, Early Head Start, Title 1 preschool and Early Intervention preschool.

 

In most states VPK is managed by funding existing programs, not creating new ones. Think funding the local daycare center, not expanding Title 1 or Head Start. Parents who are using child care will get a reduction in costs, for the same program, and generally teacher/staff salaries improve. Family daycare providers can register as well, so it isn’t usually just center based care. 
 

I have seen no plans to make PK mandatory-and if they did, families could easily homeschool pre-k and send  kids to school at K or 1st. As far as it making pre-K the norm, that ship sailed long ago.

 

I am in a state with free CC (but not free DE beyond a very small number of classes outside of middle/early college programs). It has definitely improved things at the local school to have many more capable students choosing to start at the CC vs a 4 year. The honors programs have been enriched, a lot of classes are co-coded with the state U and are often taught by the same faculty, and, overall it’s been a success. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

All the evidence suggests that when people who aren't already wealthy get money "dumped on them" they don't "choose to be less productive" - they spend that money, and invest in their futures.

What evidence is there that shows this?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ability to copy and paste is still screwy, and I ought to figure out what it is and fix it, but I haven't. So rather than google the information for you, I suggest that you google "poverty cash infusion study", "universal basic income results", and "snap economic stimulus" - that last one I can practically quote off the top of my head. For every dollar we put into SNAP - effectively "dumping money on people", albeit money they can only spend on food (though money is fungible) - we get nearly $1.75 back in economic activity. It's the most effective economic stimulus we have in the US, giving us an amazing bang for our buck.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I have no idea if your statement about human nature is true. I do, however, know that for people who do respond to incentives, the reward of the incentive has to be perceived as more desirable to the person than the cost of attaining it. The incentive isn’t always worth the cost to everyone. Some people also react to incentives with rebellion against the standards because they don’t want to be told what to do in general or to be told by a specific person or group.  They would rather have a less than desirable outcome or even do damage than have someone else tell them what to do. 

Incentives can be used to manipulate people into both good and bad behavior. They can also breed resentment because someone holds power over another person. Benefits that are available to everyone don’t create situations where that power can be misused and abused, where help can be denied based on the personal preferences or beliefs of the person or organization that is giving the aid. Incentives can do that when they are mismanaged. It seems, to me, that a person is worth helping by the fact that of their personhood, not by whether or not they achieve a goal or standard set by someone else.

I heard an interview with a priest years ago - he was in charge of a wet house - a safe place where alcoholics could live without having to stop drinking. The interviewer asked him if he was worried that someone would take advantage of the generosity of the church. His response was “No one can take your advantage if you are giving it away.” The truth in that simple statement changed me and how I view both public safety nets and private charity. 

I think you are relegating incentives to be ways one human manipulates another. That is not all incentives are. If I were on a deserted island, I would have incentives still. Most to try to be survive or be comfortable. 

Life is full of costs and benefits. If I get all the costs and benefits to myself, I'll try to maximize the benefits. If I don't, well that is fine but if one person does something that benefits him but costs someone else then it will change the equation. If a company pollutes a river while making money off of producing something, for example, it is important to find a way to make that company recognize the cost. If people won't ever recognize costs that aren't directly to them the costs will grow because the one's paying the cost are not the ones making the decision or reaping the benefits.

I actually believe the highest cost paid for two years at community college is paid by the student. If it is a great school and gets them into an interesting job, the benefits might really make up for it. But if it is two more years of gen. ed. then it very well may be costing the student more than he or she is getting. If a kid has to take a class three times to pass as has been mentioned up thread then we are doing things wrong and wasting a students life. They only get one life and only so many years in that life and how discouraging.

It actually wouldn't have helped my son at all because Engineering requirements often don't transfer to colleges and it is the pre-requisites and order of classes that make things take longer. There are just so many holes with this plan. Some may not be problems and I just need to look into it more but from what I can see there are a lot of issues.

 

I think there are also benefits to society at large for a more educated society but I think there are also dramatically high costs to tying us to an outdated system. 

 

A person is worth helping just because they are a person. We can agree there but we also all need to work together and find the most valuable use for our work. I actually believe that feeling productive or feel contributing is a very human need. 

 

Oh, and I agree with the manipulation part. My mother refuses to get a vaccine not because she doesn't think it's safe. She has a medical degree and is pretty good at reading data. She is just stubborn and rebelling because of how much control the gov't has had and I have a feeling the more vaccination requirements are pushed, the more stubborn she will become. 🙄

So this is a little scattered because I was trying to respond to different parts of your post. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though, honestly, the idea that giving people money would make them lazy is an odd and selfish one to begin with.

Think of yourself. What would you do if you got an extra $1000 a month, no strings attached other than that you can't put more than half in the bank? Would you quit your job? Blow it all on fast cars and fast men? Or would you spend it on your family and your future? (Even if you did decide to spend it all on caviar and movie nights, every time you spend a dollar, you're contributing to the GDP. Your dollar makes everybody a lot richer.)

Now, if you'd spend the money mostly reasonably, with perhaps a few splurges, why do you think that mysterious other people would do something boneheaded with it instead?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I have no idea if your statement about human nature is true. I do, however, know that for people who do respond to incentives, the reward of the incentive has to be perceived as more desirable to the person than the cost of attaining it. The incentive isn’t always worth the cost to everyone. Some people also react to incentives with rebellion against the standards because they don’t want to be told what to do in general or to be told by a specific person or group.  They would rather have a less than desirable outcome or even do damage than have someone else tell them what to do. 

Incentives can be used to manipulate people into both good and bad behavior. They can also breed resentment because someone holds power over another person. Benefits that are available to everyone don’t create situations where that power can be misused and abused, where help can be denied based on the personal preferences or beliefs of the person or organization that is giving the aid. Incentives can do that when they are mismanaged. It seems, to me, that a person is worth helping by the fact that of their personhood, not by whether or not they achieve a goal or standard set by someone else.

I heard an interview with a priest years ago - he was in charge of a wet house - a safe place where alcoholics could live without having to stop drinking. The interviewer asked him if he was worried that someone would take advantage of the generosity of the church. His response was “No one can take your advantage if you are giving it away.” The truth in that simple statement changed me and how I view both public safety nets and private charity. 

Incentives don't tell someone what to do; they "nudge" someone by making the benefit to them greater than the cost to them.  If we think that more people will go to college if it is free, we believe in incentives (and people responding to them).  If we think people will use more health care if it is free, we believe that people respond to incentives.  

I think it is great when churches approach helping and being generous with no concern for being taken advantage of.  It would not be wise, however, for them to go run up hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit card bills (with no reasonable plan of how that debt will be repaid) to be a lot more generous.  They will not be able to continue helping people for long.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Though, honestly, the idea that giving people money would make them lazy is an odd and selfish one to begin with.

Think of yourself. What would you do if you got an extra $1000 a month, no strings attached other than that you can't put more than half in the bank? Would you quit your job? Blow it all on fast cars and fast men? Or would you spend it on your family and your future? (Even if you did decide to spend it all on caviar and movie nights, every time you spend a dollar, you're contributing to the GDP. Your dollar makes everybody a lot richer.)

Now, if you'd spend the money mostly reasonably, with perhaps a few splurges, why do you think that mysterious other people would do something boneheaded with it instead?

Did you read my other posts?

Just money is actually way more productive than pushing this program or that program. Dumping money on an outdated system for people to sit through a gen ed class for the third time IS encouraging them to be less productive. I would not want my own child to sit through two more years of gen ed. even if it was free. I'd certainly not want him stuck taking classes multiple times!  I'm actually trying to help him test out!  Why would I want other people's children to be stuck doing that? 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

Though, honestly, the idea that giving people money would make them lazy is an odd and selfish one to begin with.

Think of yourself. What would you do if you got an extra $1000 a month, no strings attached other than that you can't put more than half in the bank? Would you quit your job? Blow it all on fast cars and fast men? Or would you spend it on your family and your future? (Even if you did decide to spend it all on caviar and movie nights, every time you spend a dollar, you're contributing to the GDP. Your dollar makes everybody a lot richer.)

Now, if you'd spend the money mostly reasonably, with perhaps a few splurges, why do you think that mysterious other people would do something boneheaded with it instead?

It varies.

We happen to have a single family rental house.  A few years back there was this woman who wanted to rent it, but for a little less than we had it listed for, under Section 8, so she had a maximum grant.  I told her that I couldn’t, that it was illegal to charge her the extra under the table and that we were not going to reduce the rent.  She kept calling me over and over and would chat; we each had a toddler the same age.

So it was almost Christmas and she mentioned that she wanted to get her daughter the teletubby toys that were The Big Thing that year.  She said, they were so cute, of course I bought all 4 of them.  

And I couldn’t think of what to say.  They were pretty expensive, and this was 20 years ago when that much money was almost a quarter of a month’s rent.  I had been debating whether it was worth it to even get one.  I thought it was quite a splurge.

Was she moving money into the economy?  Yes, I suppose so. Was she being wise in how she used it?  Absolutely not, it was nuts.  Was this an example of extra available money leading to laziness?  I dunno, maybe not, but definitely to foolishness.  She had a grant that limited her rent to 25% of her income, so she had more disposable income than most in terms of proportion, but she wasn’t saving her funds for the future.  Instead she was spending almost $500 on toys for a child who almost certainly would not even remember them later on let alone be truly enriched by them.  With that same money she could have started to save up for a condo, which was doable then, or for all the things that knock you down—unexpected car repairs, or medical expenses.  Or she could have spent it on better food or on books or other learning opportunities for herself or her child.  Maybe some of it would have gone to a family membership in some enriching place like the local, world-renowned Tech Museum, or the zoo.  Lots of sensible choices were arrayed.  But no.

Edited by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

My ability to copy and paste is still screwy, and I ought to figure out what it is and fix it, but I haven't. So rather than google the information for you, I suggest that you google "poverty cash infusion study", "universal basic income results", and "snap economic stimulus" - that last one I can practically quote off the top of my head. For every dollar we put into SNAP - effectively "dumping money on people", albeit money they can only spend on food (though money is fungible) - we get nearly $1.75 back in economic activity. It's the most effective economic stimulus we have in the US, giving us an amazing bang for our buck.

This is what a basic search shows https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/quantifying-the-impact-of-snap-benefits-on-the-us-economy-and-jobs/:

"Previous research concludes that reasonable estimates for the government spending multiplier under general economic conditions range from 0.8 to 1.5,"

Then the authors go on to use the highest possible multiplier of  1.5.  (Note that if the multiplier used is less than 1--which is within the range of reasonable estimates the result is that SNAP decreases GDP).  

The authors' model is that recipients increase spending on food by $0.30 and spending on other items by $0.70 for every $1 increase on benefits.  Then they extrapolate that this spending will mean new jobs in the agricultural, transportation, and a few other industries.  I cannot see where they ever take into affect the decrease in spending of what else that $1 would have been spent on if this is done with a balanced budget OR the impact that the increased borrowing has on crowding out other borrowing and spending in other sectors of the economy.  

So AT BEST, this suggests a 1.5 (not 1.75) increase in economic activity at the upper range of possibility, and is not evidence that we will be anywhere near that when all things are taken into consideration.

So, I do not see how one can conclude that all evidence shows that more government spending on these types of programs leads to a higher GDP.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Though, honestly, the idea that giving people money would make them lazy is an odd and selfish one to begin with.

Think of yourself. What would you do if you got an extra $1000 a month, no strings attached other than that you can't put more than half in the bank? Would you quit your job? Blow it all on fast cars and fast men? Or would you spend it on your family and your future? (Even if you did decide to spend it all on caviar and movie nights, every time you spend a dollar, you're contributing to the GDP. Your dollar makes everybody a lot richer.)

Now, if you'd spend the money mostly reasonably, with perhaps a few splurges, why do you think that mysterious other people would do something boneheaded with it instead?

I would not attribute the word "lazy" to the choices people make when given money, but economic theory AND empirical evidence point to people responding to incentives.  

People talk about charging their young adult children rent to encourage them toward adulthood--they need to be nudged so that a free room doesn't incentivize them to be slower at finishing school or getting a job.  

Bill Gates has talked about limiting the money he will leave to his children (although little to him is huge to me) because he wants them to be productive; I haven't heard people call that attitude odd or selfish.  

We can't simply spend ourselves to a higher GDP--if I take a dollar from your pocket and spend it, I may be spending one more dollar (and contributing to GDP) but now you can spend one less dollar (and can't contribute it to GDP).  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Incentives don't tell someone what to do; they "nudge" someone by making the benefit to them greater than the cost to them.  If we think that more people will go to college if it is free, we believe in incentives (and people responding to them).  If we think people will use more health care if it is free, we believe that people respond to incentives.  

I think it is great when churches approach helping and being generous with no concern for being taken advantage of.  It would not be wise, however, for them to go run up hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit card bills (with no reasonable plan of how that debt will be repaid) to be a lot more generous.  They will not be able to continue helping people for long.

These realities definitely do have limitations within each piece, especially within individual bubbles, like one church food bank vs. all of WIC.

On a grander scale, we don’t have to limit ourselves to coming up with incentives for underprivileged people to meet their current individual needs.  We can look at the incentives to “give” that we ALL benefit from. It benefits ME to stem intergenerational poverty through welfare, education, child care, nutrition, physical and mental health, environmental responsibility, etc., etc., etc.  MY world, my experience, my well-being, my value to others and to myself improves.

I don’t imagine there’s ever a way to make every individual meet every other individual’s expectations, so nobody twist that on me! But I do often feel like we throw away extremely important ideas for fear of a small percentage of people not doing what we think they should, and it leaves a sea of potential success stories to fail.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

On a grander scale, we don’t have to limit ourselves to coming up with incentives for underprivileged people to meet their current individual needs.  We can look at the incentives to “give” that we ALL benefit from. It benefits ME to stem intergenerational poverty through welfare, education, child care, nutrition, physical and mental health, environmental responsibility, etc., etc., etc.  

 

I agree completely with this. I really think our entire country will be better off with an educated and healthy population.

 

I just don't see how Biden's plan will actually do this. That is what I'm interested in discussing. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, frogger said:

Also, I want to know why we should never worry about rising interest rates or people deciding not to loan to us? Why we shouldn't be bothered at all about the potential of default or inflation or ridiculous taxes at some point, besides the too big to fail mantra, excuse me, I mean big dog mantra that makes no sense. 

 

Yes, the rising interest rates are a concern.  That will mean an even larger deficit as the federal government has to refinance its debt.  

And the interest rate issue goes beyond that.  Because the federal government is borrowing money, other people can't borrow that money.  Every dollar that someone lends to the federal government is a dollar that cannot be loaned to someone else--whether it be an individual who wants to buy a house or an entrepreneur who wants to start a new business.  That means that we all pay higher interest rates right now than we would if the government was not borrowing.  This crowding out in the lending market also means less expansion by businesses in the private sector.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

I agree completely with this. I really think our entire country will be better off with an educated and healthy population.

 

I just don't see how Biden's plan will actually do this. That is what I'm interested in discussing. 

I think it’s the start of the bridge I mentioned. 
 

I certainly don’t have the expertise to play actuary, so there’s that. But there will never be a complete overhaul all at once. Let’s face it, these proposals aren’t going anywhere all at once, lol. You buy a saw. Then you buy wood. Then you buy nails. Yadda, yadda, yadda. You can’t expect the saw to pull a profit all by itself. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the fix K12 before funding Pre-K, I have taught in a school where the average kindergartner came in with a 2 year old level of verbal skills. While some were due to undiagnosed disabilities, most were simply due to lack of environmental stimulation. Many of these were kids who had a parent who worked nights and slept days while the kids were watched at night by a neighbor or family member. The kids pretty much were on their own all day unless there was a crisis. While I had many 5 yr olds who could change the baby and heat a bottle, many had gotten their early experiences from Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow at best and from Soap Operas and daytime talk shows at worst. Those delays stayed with them, and while we had more kids proficient by grade 5 than at grade 3, and more kids who were on grade level at age 3 than who assessed as having age appropriate skills at age 5, it was just plain a hard road to take. And I was in a school that had every teacher trained in Slingerland Phonics and was Phonics first. I can only imagine how hard it would have been had we been a balanced literacy school or Success for All school, or any of the other models as opposed to a phonics first program. It is far easier to have a good K-12 system when kids come in with a good foundation. I'm not talking about coming in reading, or even coming in knowing the alphabet, but things like being able to speak in complete sentences, knowing how to hold and turn pages of a book, and some experience with scissors, crayons, glue, etc.  During the time I was at that school, we went from one ECED class to five-and often the kids who came through Title I or EI preschool (which means they were in the bottom quartile at age 3-4 when evaluated, or had a disability) were at the top of the class years later. It helped. a lot. 

 

So, if you fix preschool, it helps K-12, which then helps college completion rates and graduation rates, and so on.  What would help even more is good health care, because some kids in some neighborhoods regularly start out behind even from infancy due to lack of prenatal care and poorer maternal health. 

 

And realistically, most people have young children early in their careers and adult life. It would be a lot easier to pay for child care as a late career teacher who has had step increases and taken some grad coursework to move up the salary ladder than a new one who is making less than half what they'll make down the road. But few people have babies when they're 25+ years into their professional life. The situation isn't as dire for college educated or skilled tradespeople as those with just high school diplomas or who didn't finish high school-but it can still be hard. 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TechWife said:

My understanding, admittedly very limited, of a flat tax is that there wouldn’t be any complications- no exclusions, no deductions, no loopholes. Just a percentage of income. Boom. Done. Everyone could afford it because it is based only on income and is easily managed through a simple payroll deduction. Those who are self employed do quarterly taxes and pay quarterly, just like they are supposed to do now. 

 

Sure, for wage earners this would be very easy. You could get rid of all the deductions, exclusions, etc and use regressive, flat, or progressive rates. All would be extremely simple to administer. The difficulty lies with all of the non-wage sources of income which already represent the majority of the tax gap in the US and much of the wealth. Accurately measuring, capturing, and taxing that is much more difficult.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Frances said:

Sure, for wage earners this would be very easy. You could get rid of all the deductions, exclusions, etc and use regressive, flat, or progressive rates. All would be extremely simple to administer. The difficulty lies with all of the non-wage sources of income which already represent the majority of the tax gap in the US and much of the wealth. Accurately capturing and taxing that is much more difficult.

This brings up a broader discussion of whether we want to tax simply earned income or all income.

If I work and earn $100, then it is taxed, at say 10%,.  So, if I choose to save part of the my remaining $90 and invest it, let's say $50, then there is a question of whether we want to tax what I earn on the $50 savings.  If I invest the $50 and make a 20% return--that is $10 of unearned income.  It would not be so difficult, in most cases, for that $10 of unearned income to be taxed.  When I get paid the $10 in interest or dividends or capital gains (depending on how I had the money invested), 10%, or $1 could be withheld from most types of accounts.  It would really only be with private transactions that  it would be difficult for the government to collect the money (and all of the complications in our tax code do not make that any easier to collect--in fact it probably makes it more difficult to do accurately.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure if there is any other country with as complicated of a tax code as the US. 

It is interesting to note that the in the US 45% of tax revenue comes from taxing income, profits, and capital gains (the OECD average is 34%); in the US 18% of tax revenue comes from taxing consumption (the OECD average is 32%). The US collects 12% of its tax revenue from property, while the OECD average is 6%. 

Many of the countries that we consider to have a  progressive income tax structure are actually taxing consumption relatively more (which is generally considered a regressive tax)  https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Though, honestly, the idea that giving people money would make them lazy is an odd and selfish one to begin with.

Think of yourself. What would you do if you got an extra $1000 a month, no strings attached other than that you can't put more than half in the bank? Would you quit your job? Blow it all on fast cars and fast men? Or would you spend it on your family and your future? (Even if you did decide to spend it all on caviar and movie nights, every time you spend a dollar, you're contributing to the GDP. Your dollar makes everybody a lot richer.)

Now, if you'd spend the money mostly reasonably, with perhaps a few splurges, why do you think that mysterious other people would do something boneheaded with it instead?

The problem isn't with no strings attached cash. The problem I have is with free college. I already said MANY times I would rather every family receive a tax credit including cash back for lower income earners who may not pay that much in taxes or vouchers people could use throughout their life rather than pushing people toward sitting in classrooms because that is what Biden prefers (and it pushes full time since it is measured in years).

Although, as Bootsie said I do limit my children's cash. They have to pay for their extra curriculars. They also get an allotment of money each month to pay for all clothes, toiletries, sporting goods, extra curriculars etc and I think they are much more careful with it than if things show up free. The have to budget carefully and usually have to earn money to manage extra curriculars. I think they spend much more carefully then children who don't get to see and weigh the costs of things for themselves. No human can weigh costs of things they can't see. Another reason allowing people to use vouchers would be ideal. They would look at different programs and try to get the most for their money.

 

  Some may gain from free college even if not as much as the cost. For some, it would just subtract value as it would take them from pursuing something that would actually be productive. Others that happened to have the colleges with the right degrees for them might actually get close to the value of just getting the cash. There is simple an immense amount of dead weight loss in this. Immense.

Just because something makes people feel good doesn't mean the logistics actually work out. 

In looking at it, I doubt any of my first three could actually make use of it in a reasonable way. I have three kids, so far at least, that couldn't use this as structured even though they took and are taking three very different paths. Unless, it moved to including 4 year universities, in which case the engineer could have used it for a couple years. Otherwise, none. Nadda. Why would I then assume it is dandy for everyone else? 

 

 

Edited by frogger
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dmmetler said:

On the fix K12 before funding Pre-K, I have taught in a school where the average kindergartner came in with a 2 year old level of verbal skills. While some were due to undiagnosed disabilities, most were simply due to lack of environmental stimulation. Many of these were kids who had a parent who worked nights and slept days while the kids were watched at night by a neighbor or family member. The kids pretty much were on their own all day unless there was a crisis. While I had many 5 yr olds who could change the baby and heat a bottle, many had gotten their early experiences from Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow at best and from Soap Operas and daytime talk shows at worst. Those delays stayed with them, and while we had more kids proficient by grade 5 than at grade 3, and more kids who were on grade level at age 3 than who assessed as having age appropriate skills at age 5, it was just plain a hard road to take. And I was in a school that had every teacher trained in Slingerland Phonics and was Phonics first. I can only imagine how hard it would have been had we been a balanced literacy school or Success for All school, or any of the other models as opposed to a phonics first program. It is far easier to have a good K-12 system when kids come in with a good foundation. I'm not talking about coming in reading, or even coming in knowing the alphabet, but things like being able to speak in complete sentences, knowing how to hold and turn pages of a book, and some experience with scissors, crayons, glue, etc.  During the time I was at that school, we went from one ECED class to five-and often the kids who came through Title I or EI preschool (which means they were in the bottom quartile at age 3-4 when evaluated, or had a disability) were at the top of the class years later. It helped. a lot. 

 

So, if you fix preschool, it helps K-12, which then helps college completion rates and graduation rates, and so on.  What would help even more is good health care, because some kids in some neighborhoods regularly start out behind even from infancy due to lack of prenatal care and poorer maternal health. 

 

And realistically, most people have young children early in their careers and adult life. It would be a lot easier to pay for child care as a late career teacher who has had step increases and taken some grad coursework to move up the salary ladder than a new one who is making less than half what they'll make down the road. But few people have babies when they're 25+ years into their professional life. The situation isn't as dire for college educated or skilled tradespeople as those with just high school diplomas or who didn't finish high school-but it can still be hard. 

 

 

I’m not sure how you fix preschool/daycare though without changing adult to child ratios and then it ends up being the same.  I have a couple of friends who work in day care.  One in OSHC.  The daycare has all these fancy educational goals on paper but from what the friends say that is very much where it stays.  When you have one adult to four babies it’s just a rotation of nappy changes, nose wipes etc.  there is no time for talking and vocab development.  I basically believe that - even with twins many people find the baby years hard.  I think with the preschoolers the balance changes a little.  But to achieve best outcomes you need to have a really high ratio of carers to children.  And then you may as well be helping fund parents who want to stay home with their babies as well as the day cares.  One of the big things I love with homeschooling is how much more real world integration the kids have versus school where everything is very structured.  I believe the same is true of preschoolers.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, frogger said:

The problem isn't with no strings attached cash. The problem I have is with free college. I already said MANY times I would rather every family receive a tax credit including cash back for lower income earners who may not pay that much in taxes or vouchers people could use throughout their life rather than pushing people toward sitting in classrooms because that is what Biden prefers (and it pushes full time since it is measured in years).

 

  Some may gain from this even if not as much as it cost. For some, it would just subtract value as it would take them from pursuing something that would actually be productive. Others that happened to have the colleges with the right degrees for them might actually get close to the value of just getting the cash. There is simple an immense amount of dead weight loss in this. Immense.

Just because something makes people feel good doesn't mean the logistics actually work out. 

In looking at it, I doubt any of my first three could actually make use of it in a reasonable way. I have three kids, so far at least, that couldn't use this as structured even though they took and are taking three very different paths. Unless, it moved to including a 4 year universities, in which case the engineer could have used it for a couple years. Otherwise, none. Nadda. Why would I then assume it is dandy for everyone else? 

 

 

I’d very much like to see it in credit increments. So far, none of my kids have been enrolled full-time, and not all of them plan to do full-time in the near future.  I would also LOVE to work my own way through slowly while homeschooling my last two.
Full disclosure, I say that as someone who’s family will/would need to pay full price for the second half of a bachelors.
And I’d be open to free non-credit remedial courses that don’t count against a person’s allotment. If someone is trying, even multiple times, to pass the English or Math requirement, especially to work a trades/services program, I don’t think they should be penalized for their school’s failings or their own issues that they may have had as younger teens.

“Years” doesn’t adequately address people who have to work while in school.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m not sure how you fix preschool/daycare though without changing adult to child ratios and then it ends up being the same.  I have a couple of friends who work in day care.  One in OSHC.  The daycare has all these fancy educational goals on paper but from what the friends say that is very much where it stays.  When you have one adult to four babies it’s just a rotation of nappy changes, nose wipes etc.  there is no time for talking and vocab development.  I basically believe that - even with twins many people find the baby years hard.  I think with the preschoolers the balance changes a little.  But to achieve best outcomes you need to have a really high ratio of carers to children.  And then you may as well be helping fund parents who want to stay home with their babies as well as the day cares.  One of the big things I love with homeschooling is how much more real world integration the kids have versus school where everything is very structured.  I believe the same is true of preschoolers.  

 

QFT. 

Post of the day.

When DD was 8-9 months old, we went and looked at the local Bright Horizons daycare place.  It was the best around, checked all the boxes in the What To Expect books, and I hated it.  I felt like world was saying to me, “Yes, just cut off your arm and leave it here, and walk away.”  It was obvious that kids were only getting any attention at all if they fussed for it, and that was either going to ruin my kid’s quiet, positive disposition, or leave her out in the cold while she was there.

We returned when she was 2 1/2 and liked it better then, but it was clear that the kids were not in a language rich environment.  The workers were busy and quiet, albeit warm.  When they had ‘reading time’, one of them held up a book and turned the pages while playing the words on a CD—she couldn’t read well enough to read to 3 year olds.  And this was Bright Horizons, the best around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, frogger said:

Rather than pulling people in one direction or another with free this or that, let them choose what makes the most sense to them.  Rather than free college, which in my opinion props up a system more than an individual and tells people the gov't knows what is best for you, give people cash. Attach it to their social security number so they can use it anytime in their life. Make it a voucher useable for ANY type of certification, trade school, or class.  Maybe they can't go to school now because their mom has cancer or maybe for some, like my son with dyslexia, a job is better while taking one class at a time. 4 or 5 classes a day is a way to make him fail.  Also, if they see it as their money that will disappear, it will create better incentives. 

Or better yet, fix the darn K12 with that money so kids graduate with more than the equivalent of 6th grade or 8th grade education in other countries. We are stealing the lives of our children under the current system. Sure wealthy districts might have lots of AP classes and people competing for spots in top colleges but that is not your typical rural school or any lower income area. We should have better teacher compensation so smart people compete for those jobs. That is not how it currently works.

Rather than childcare, I'd prefer the child tax credit. Let parents choose what to do with that money. For those that don't pay income taxes they can get it refunded to them as a subsidy. What about the poor person who also has an older parent that can care for their child but needs money to fix their car because they need it for work or wants a different education for their kids or anything besides childcare? What about the lower income parents who feel their child with learning disabilities would be better off homeschooled but they can't quite afford to stay home. They can afford childcare because the gov't pays but they can't afford to do what is best for their child.

I see these kinds of free stuff as wasteful. They aren't flexible when being pushed as giant programs from the government. I really think it is about time to move from the old educational model to a lifelong educational model anyway. Will a job you get in 2040 really be helped that much by two more years of community college decades ago? I doubt it. Instead we are burrowing into an educational model that is very last century.

 

Education gets cheaper every year. A degree gets more expensive. Why is that? I think I know but my post is getting too long.

 

I think it's a good idea to make educational benefits available throughout someone's lifetime. I had mentioned somewhere - to dh maybe - that if it is free "two years of community college," I'd like it to be phrased in such a way that it is by number of credits, not calendar years, so that it can be spread out to meet the needs of more people.  I agree that it should also be available to people doing vocational training, not just people who are seeking degrees.

I absolutely agree on higher compensation for teachers - it will prove to attract more talented teacher. The income discrepancy between private industry and teaching public and private schools is huge in many areas. Other than improving teacher salaries in order to widen the pool of qualified people willing to teach, I don't think adding money to the education budget is necessarily the answer. There are so many areas that could be improved simply by adopting proven best practices, such as phonics. I kid you not, I listened to a long radio piece on how a school improved their reading scores - the teachers developed their own phonics system, but first they had to discover the concepts of phonics. This confirmed to me that we have deprived multiple generations of sound instruction on the basic principles of reading, so much so that there is an entire school, including the principal, who had never heard phonics concepts before. Think of all of the time and money they would have saved if they had been taught to read that way and then had as students learned how to use already published phonics programs. The same is true in math - with teachers now being expected to meet common core standards when they themselves were never exposed to the methodology. Curriculum such as Singapore Math was readily available, and some schools did adopt it, but many schools purchased newly written, more expensive textbooks from publishing companies because they didn't know what they were looking for, much less that it already existed because the methodology had been used in other countries. More money & time wasted. Textbooks are another way that our public schools are getting ripped off - textbook publishers want to sell books, not educate people, and many people are reluctant to realize that. Sigh.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m not sure how you fix preschool/daycare though without changing adult to child ratios and then it ends up being the same.  I have a couple of friends who work in day care.  One in OSHC.  The daycare has all these fancy educational goals on paper but from what the friends say that is very much where it stays.  When you have one adult to four babies it’s just a rotation of nappy changes, nose wipes etc.  there is no time for talking and vocab development.  I basically believe that - even with twins many people find the baby years hard.  I think with the preschoolers the balance changes a little.  But to achieve best outcomes you need to have a really high ratio of carers to children.  And then you may as well be helping fund parents who want to stay home with their babies as well as the day cares.  One of the big things I love with homeschooling is how much more real world integration the kids have versus school where everything is very structured.  I believe the same is true of preschoolers.  

 

Typically Head start, etc does have lower ratios. That’s one thing that funding can help with. I do think that quality infant care is just plain hard. Having said that, it is easier to spend your days providing language development while caring for multiple infants when you don’t have a house to manage and get a full night’s sleep.  I found one baby at home a lot more exhausting than when I had worked with infants.

 

In the US, group care centers are also two adults, which helps some (in the 5 states that I know the laws for, anyway). 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, frogger said:

I think you are relegating incentives to be ways one human manipulates another. That is not all incentives are. If I were on a deserted island, I would have incentives still. Most to try to be survive or be comfortable. 

Life is full of costs and benefits. If I get all the costs and benefits to myself, I'll try to maximize the benefits. If I don't, well that is fine but if one person does something that benefits him but costs someone else then it will change the equation. If a company pollutes a river while making money off of producing something, for example, it is important to find a way to make that company recognize the cost. If people won't ever recognize costs that aren't directly to them the costs will grow because the one's paying the cost are not the ones making the decision or reaping the benefits.

I actually believe the highest cost paid for two years at community college is paid by the student. If it is a great school and gets them into an interesting job, the benefits might really make up for it. But if it is two more years of gen. ed. then it very well may be costing the student more than he or she is getting. If a kid has to take a class three times to pass as has been mentioned up thread then we are doing things wrong and wasting a students life. They only get one life and only so many years in that life and how discouraging.

It actually wouldn't have helped my son at all because Engineering requirements often don't transfer to colleges and it is the pre-requisites and order of classes that make things take longer. There are just so many holes with this plan. Some may not be problems and I just need to look into it more but from what I can see there are a lot of issues.

 

I think there are also benefits to society at large for a more educated society but I think there are also dramatically high costs to tying us to an outdated system. 

 

A person is worth helping just because they are a person. We can agree there but we also all need to work together and find the most valuable use for our work. I actually believe that feeling productive or feel contributing is a very human need. 

 

Oh, and I agree with the manipulation part. My mother refuses to get a vaccine not because she doesn't think it's safe. She has a medical degree and is pretty good at reading data. She is just stubborn and rebelling because of how much control the gov't has had and I have a feeling the more vaccination requirements are pushed, the more stubborn she will become. 🙄

So this is a little scattered because I was trying to respond to different parts of your post. 

 

Yes, that's why I used the word "can" as a qualifier. They can be used to manipulate people. They aren't always used that way, but sometimes they are. One example of weighing cost/benefits for incentives is WIC. In our area (I don't know if this is true across the board), recipients must attend a nutrition class in order to receive their WIC vouchers. Now, WIC vouchers are already very limited - only foods on an approved list can be purchased with them, so no one is going out and buying cookies and kool aid with them. But putting the WIC vouchers out there as an incentive to attend a nutrition class is costly in all kinds of ways. Primarily, it assumes that the parent has the time to attend the classes at the times they are offered. Many work schedules don't operate like that and at some point a parent may have to choose between job security and getting the WIC vouchers that help them put food on the table for their very young children. Does this mean that they are earning enough money to make up the difference? No, it sure doesn't, but the amount they are earning keeps the rent paid. In this case, the opportunity cost of getting the WIC voucher is losing a job due to scheduling requirements. How have we turned into a culture where we expect anyone to choose between feeding their children and providing shelter for their children? It's cruel.

Private charities are often more transparent in their attempts to modify behavior. The Salvation Army is known for requiring people to listen to a sermon before they can get a meal. An organization I know of will give financial help three times to a person, after that they have to jump through hoops set out by the organization - financial management classes, which don't cover how to manage non-existent money, is just the one example I know of. Doing this supposedly demonstrates a commitment to improve their financial situation But, the opportunity cost of a class that meets multiple times over the course of months is calculated in dollars and cents for people who are working lower income jobs. Then, add the need to have child care while attending the class on top of it, and there aren't too many people that accept that offer. It's just impractical for many.  People need food, shelter, transportation, etc.. The hoop of attending the financial class does nothing for people who don't have enough finances to manage. There are a lot of people who have never been able to afford to go into debt, so they don't need to know how to pay off their credit cards - they have never been able to get a credit card! It's just there so that people can say they are trying to do the proverbial "teach a man to fish."

I was actually thinking of the response to covid vaccines & masks when I typed that - I just didn't want to bring it up because there certainly are other examples.

My thoughts are scattered as well.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2021 at 8:21 PM, KungFuPanda said:

Retirement income and the ability to support the family should the husband become unemployed, disabled, or die  . . . or just leave.  And sometimes the mother is the one who carries the medical insurance.

That’s quite a sacrifice for a handful of hypotheticals. 

 I get the insurance thing though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...