Maternity leave

[KrazyHorse]

I don't hope that you are referring to :

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2005/02/welfare_states_.html

That is one of the most lame arguments that you have ever made

Really? Because it links to two academic studies which show extremely low rates of return to educational spending.

But how about instead of engaging in actual argumentation you just mumble some more platitudes.

Not that we've ever seen you do that before.

[Jon Miller]

So why should we encourage your parents to have kids?

Just because people are poor at time B, doesn't mean that they were poor at time A before B, for example.

But if the rich are encouraged to have kids, but the poor are not, then that is very unegalitarian. It also ignores that the kids born to the poor parents might have all other things needed for great success in the future except wealthy parents, while the kids of wealthy parents might be missing all these things.

We have had systems like this in the past, it was in the 19th century (And before), and productivity/wealth/overall welfare was much lower. We had a much higher percentage of people in poverty than we do now.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Not just because the students pay tuition. But if it becomes true that the tuition costs/etc were on the level of the pay scale involved.

?????

Someone who is paying nothing or just a few thousand isn't going to try and bribe thousands to get a good grade. Someone who is paying 200+ thousand might (Rather than fail, and see a lot of that money wasted).

So now there's going to be a bribery problem. Come on, dude. This is what you're down to? Public education so that the value of education is low enough that bribery is reduced?

[KrazyHorse]

Just because people are poor at time B, doesn't mean that they were poor at time A before B, for example.

But if the rich are encouraged to have kids, but the poor are not, then that is very unegalitarian.

JM

This from the man who wanted to give more money to rich women to have kids.

[notyoueither]

Such as?

Literacy. Numeracy. Social and political stability.

[Jon Miller]

This from the man who wanted to give more money to rich women to have kids.

I want to give money to everyone, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor, to have kids.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Literacy. Numeracy. Social and political stability.

The first two are benefits enjoyed by the educated. Insofar as they have measurable social benefits they're already included in the studies provided. And they don't seem to be of any great effect.

I'm interested in why you think education leads to political and social stability. There's nothing more dangerous to the established order than a poor, educated man.

[KrazyHorse]

I want to give money to everyone, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor, to have kids.

JM

You said that you wanted to give more money to rich women.

[KrazyHorse]

The government should pay at a level that is dependent on the level that she had when she had the child.

Basically, the government already pays at a low level. So someone who works at McDs doesn't face much hardship by having children.

Someone who is a lawyer on the other hand does.

Currently, the way that society is set up (materialistic, flat benefit to those who have kids) it favors poor people having more kids and rich people having less (or none).

[Jon Miller]

You said that you wanted to give more money to rich women.

Because it costs (opportunity, not for the capitalist class, but for the wealthy or middle class) more for them to have kids.

And you are arguing for putting considerable hardship to raising kids for the poor.

JM

[notyoueither]

The first two are benefits enjoyed by the educated. Insofar as they have measurable social benefits they're already included in the studies provided. And they don't seem to be of any great effect.

You're kidding, right?

You are saying a society with 95% literacy is not preferable to one with 5%?

I'm interested in why you think education leads to political and social stability. There's nothing more dangerous to the established order than a poor, educated man.

Yes there is. A smart yet poor, uneducated man who feels jobbed by his society.

That's when Aggy gets to have fun with lamp posts and people who favour gross inequality in society.

[KrazyHorse]

So what? They also buy more nicer cars. Should we subsidize their car purchases because they have a taste for expensive things?

[Jon Miller]

An educated man gives education as a value to his children. If his children then have the luck and traits to become very productive, then they will also (likely) have more of the non-genetic traits needed to be productive if their parents are educated versus their parents not being educated.

JM

[Jon Miller]

KH, compare the parts of society that have education and value it, with the parts of society that don't have education and don't value it.

Which has higher welfare?

Which is more productive?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

You're kidding, right?

You are saying a society with 95% literacy is not preferable to one with 5%?

5% literacy?



You do realize that the UK in the middle to late part of the 19th century had a literacy rate of ~80%?



I have no clue what gives you the idea that the lack of a public education system would lead to a total lack of education.

That's when Aggy gets to have fun with lamp posts and people who favour gross inequality in society.

This is entirely my point: AGGIE IS THE QUINTESSENTIALLY USELESSLY EDUCATED MAN