Teachers vs. Wall Street
Thought this was hilarious. Just want to piss off ANT really. :D
Trending Content
| +89 | Zoomers are doing life wrong | 28 | 1d | |
| +71 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 49 | 25m | |
| +42 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 22 | 10h | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 1d | |
| +37 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 12h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 1d | |
| +31 | Framed Photo of CEO on desk. | 16 | 1d | |
| +26 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 9 | 7h | |
| +25 | How to sound more eloquent? | 9 | 59m | |
| +24 | BO -> ??? | 14 | 5d |
Career Resources
If you don't see the hypocrisy of the right wing right now, you are truly blind.
Really ,because I think you are the one that is blind.
The fact that the teachers are public employees and Wall Street is a private company makes all the difference in the world and don't give me that crap about the bailout because I really don't want to get into a debate about it being right and wrong and will only point out that Uncle Sam got paid back with about 20% interest--drop it already. The difference between private and public employees is the same reason no one cares about how much a football player or a movie star makes---it's none of our goddamn business. If you ask me the difference between right and left is how people think. When I was younger , I saw movie stars and rich guys all over TV and I thought "How do I make my own fortune?" A person on the left looks at someone who is rich and thinks "How do I make what's their's mine?"
The argument about paying bonuses to retain talent was a valid point and also touched on keeping the free market economy with pay. A union stops the free market economy with pay from functioning and forces schools to keep every teacher regardless of skill. Everyone loves to talk about how much teacher pay will be hurt, but did you ever consider the possibiliites.....How shocking that the best teacher in the school might actually receive the largest paycheck or that marginal teachers actually lose their job.
Couldn't have said it any better! But i bet if somebody proposed raising taxes on those very same people to pay those teachers more money all hell would break loose among main street.
You see, you can't say "drop the whole bailout thing, I don't want to hear that crap," that's not how reality works. Again, the bailout is more than just TARP. When are we getting paid back for the backdoor AIG bailout? How about the numerous other programs to absolutely ensure that the banks would make tons of money (TALF, overnight changes to bank holding companies for GS and MS, etc.) But, oh yeah, it's private industry and they picked themselves up by their bootstraps.
Get the fuck out of here with your fairytale views of the bailouts.
Loved it.
lolz pretty funny saw this last night
i personally think mixing some right wing and left wing ideas together brews the best possible outcome for our country... except given that the reps 'won' the wall street thing and if the dems 'win' this union thing we'll have a mixture but a god-awful worst possible case scenario. mixture.
Hahah sb for this. Thanks for the laugh
Loved how it was the same woman (Fox news anchor) arguing for rescinding teacher contracts, but for keeping Wall Street contacts. Major props to the daily show for catching it - you could not make hypocrisy like this up.
Yeah, because some moronic comedian is who I want to get my news from.
I love people who shit all over Fox News and then in the same breath will say how they are informed watching comedy central. What a joke.
Wall Street is a private employer. They generate profits and get to keep some of those profits.
Teachers are salaried, public workers. They do not generate profits. They teach. Schools are not private companies with investors that demand returns.
Yawn. Liberal bullshit.
I honestly wish we would have let all the banks fail. It would be hilarious to see this country descend into the stone age again and all public pensions disappear. I am sure main street would love it with all the bank runs. Also, all the companies that employ main street would be thriving without their LOC's, swaps, etc.
Man oh man, just think of the good ol days. Everyones 401(k)'s wiped out. So sweet. Main street would be having a party.
Hey Monkey, try spending some time reading and watching quality material. Comedy Central is garbage and so it Stewart.
ant just riped u to pieces OP
I also love how everyone uses the bailout as if people on Wall Street got away scott free.
Nothing like two major banks going under, a couple major banks having to be acquired, massive layoffs and slow downs, etc.
Naa. Wall Street got bailed out. They don't do anything for this country. Teachers pensions are not invested in the market at all.
Yeah, retired people don't invest in money markets or anything.
Bankers put guns to the heads of investors and forced them to lie on mortgage contracts or triple leverage their life.
Dick Fuld personally went into people's houses and held their family hostage until they maxed out their Visa on H2's and plasma TV's.
I am waiting for Wall Street to be arrested on criminal threats and false imprisonment charges for holding these people against their will or intimidating them.
It was all Wall Streets fault. Only Wall Street.
They also do nothing. Companies don't need to go public or raise capital for expansions. Who needs bonds or a liquid market.
But I do understand how some voters can see things differently than you and me. I think a healthy debate- one that actually helps change folks' minds- starts with us respecting different views. I should be angry at the federal government when they claim banks got a bailout- moreso than you- but part of being a good neighbor in a democracy is understanding how someone could take a different perspective. And taxpayers are looking at all of this and saying, "Hey- before the crisis, we had $8 Trillion in debt. Now we have 14.3. What gives?"
No, but the way some people see it is that these banks made these loans for these huge McMansions that people couldn't afford. Now these homes are foreclosed on by banks, and just sitting there housing drug dealers and squatters. Some voters believe that their tax dollars ultimately paid for those homes through the banks' irresponsible lending and now the banks won't even knock them down or rent them out. Well, I think the fact is that if you are working on a project with two average people and one brilliant guy who has always gotten a lot more credit for past successes than the other folks- and the project fails- maybe one person deserves more blame than the others. Or maybe he doesn't. I really don't know. What I do know is that it's not entirely unrreasonable for people to focus more on the multimillionaires who got rich off of this on the way up as part of the cause than middle class homeowners, right or wrong. The economy could run on a cash system if it really needed to- it wouldn't be pretty, but it has been done in the past. That said, we can't really run the economy without police officers, farmers, doctors, train engineers, utility linemen, and oil rig workers. So I think it's natural for most voters (read: people I just mentioned above) to think they are less dispensible to the economy than "overpaid" bankers.I agree with you that a lot of the blame is getting misdirected. But it is not worth calling people who disagree with us idiots. That doesn't change their opinion of wall street.
I saw the OP and the following comments and was going to say something...then I scrolled down to see Gekko21 and Ant came in and just owned this place...so I'll sit on the side and enjoy.
+1 LOL
This shit blows my mind.
I would have no problem paying for good teachers. How much money do private school teachers make? No one complains about that.
Actually, this is pretty interesting.
Private school teachers produce a much better product, with no unions or pensions. They have a higher salary though.
How come no one is comparing public school teachers with private ones.
Public school teachers are producing a shit product. I agree that their job is hard and teaching is miserable, but everyone knows this going in. If you know the facts going in and you still do it, you should be responsible for the product you produce.
" I knew banking was hard and long, I knew it was intense and what would be required, but now that I am working I want you to pay me XYZ and uphold my contract even though I am doing a shitty job and taking naps, cool?"
Dude, come on.
Private schools produce a much better product because they are teaching motivated kids from wealthier families in facilities that are far better equipped. The teachers are a small part of it. How is a teacher supposed to do her job well when 25% of the kids in her class have kids of their own, skip school, have drug problems, are in and out of jail, etc. They just become baby sitters. Is it really their fault if the kids who have no desire to do anything to better their situation do poorly on a standardized tests?
While I do agree that the system needs to be reformed (specifically the tenure system), I take issue with the fact that the government is taking away collective bargaining rights from citizens. Surely from your libertarian perspective this is the definition of government intrusion and coercion.
I also take issue with the fact that private citizens (the hyper libertarian Koch brothers) are using their wealth to fund movements and sway government officials to squash unions. This is so incredibly unethical that I am really surprised that you guys support what they are trying to do in WI.
I take a major fucking issue with unions extorting money from their members then using it to get Democrats elected. These same Democrats that get elected and then are owned by the unions. Talk about unethical...
Caroline Hoxby's research on charter schools and vouchers begs to differ...
I believe this thread is the equivalent of putting a coke in a paint shaker.
ANT is the can of coke. Don't hurt yourself man :D
I stopped watching the Daily Show a while ago; now I remember why.
I am sick of people like John Stewart bashing "bankers" and "Wall Street" when 99% of people on the street had no involvement in the crisis.
If anyone on the street was responsible, it was the risk management and real estate securitization employees. Even so, blame really should roll down hill in this instance, down to the local branch giving a mortgage to a family that can't repay it, and finally to that family for accepting the loan. Ignorance is no excuse- a home purchase is the largest financial transaction most people ever participate in, so it would only make sense to understand it.
Not to bash on teachers (a lot of my family members are teachers), but they are not exactly the best and the brightest. If a Harvard grad putting in 100+ hour weeks shouldn't be making 6 figures, who should? On a per hour basis, including benefits, these teachers are probably better compensated than the average IBD analyst.
Teacher compensation is excessive relative to the other options for those people. Where else can somebody with a BA in Communications in the bottom third of their class at a barely accredited university make 100k all in? Even federal employees don't have it that good.
Finally, as previous posters said, it comes down to public vs. private. Private firms maximize profit; if they don't, they go under. Public firms are under an obligation to minimize costs. Even if you halved benefits, I seriously doubt these teachers would quit; they would still be better off than anywhere else.
Forget Harvard, bottom tier...all that stuff. Just look at the salary figure that you stated + benefits...and now compute this: 40 hours per week (with an abundance of sick days) + 3 full months of full vacation (where they can choose to make a pretty penny or go chase around hookers in Las Vegas.) That is ridiculous compensation for the nature of the work.
You're an idiot if you think teachers only work 40 hours a week. So many of their extra hours are spent OUTSIDE of the classroom creating lesson plans, grading, tutoring students, explaining to parents why their "princess" isn't doing well in classes. Also, do you know how much of their own money teachers spend buying supplies and equipment for labs so their students have the opportunity to learn? C'mon man.
edit: If you are talking about university professors, I completely agree, but you might want to re-think your "chasing hookers" comment as professors are pressured to do research and pump out papers or risk losing their professorship. But in response to high school teachers, I disagree as teachers in California make about ~50,000, and no they don't get a bonus if their student gets into a target school.
Good point. I've seen stats that some years IB analysts make less per hour than McDonald's employees...
Dick Fuld also went to college and told kids that if they didn't go into teaching he would kill their whole family. Now that they are in teaching, they cannot leave because they are drugged and forced against their will to stay in their field.
The US government keeps teachers drugged and restricts their internet access. They also have their fingers broken so they cannot type and update their resumes, thereby preventing them from looking for other careers.
Teachers are a lot like bankers. Once a banker gets laid off they kill themselves because they can't do other things or possibly change careers.
It sucks to not have free will or live in a free country :(. One day in America, you will be free to choose your career and if you get into a job you don't like, you will be free to leave that job and do something else. Until America becomes free, teachers will be forced to be shitty at their job, complain about it all the time, yet continually get more and more money.
One day . . .
What I love is how teachers bitch, but keep teaching. Fucking quit and do something else.
But we love to teach. Cool, stop bitching.
Also, stop producing retards. Maybe it isn't your fault, but when you are called a teacher and you don't fucking TEACH, there is an issue.
I don't know about you but i would love to have Tenure at my job lol
Stop it guys. There is hypocrisy somewhere in that video and we all must find it.
If you can't find it at least just pretend it is there. We don't want to hurt feelings or anything.
Econ, WTF. There is hypocrisy because Wall Street makes a lot of money and making a lot of money = evil.
Shhhhh. Comedy Central is akin to the Cato Institute. Shhhhh, people are being informed by Stewart. He has no agenda. Shhhhh.
Comedy Central > Fox News > BBC > NPP
Comedy Central is where the educated folk go. Shhhhh.
Haha! ANT, seriously man, I can't imagine what this forum would be like without you.
So you are against Soros and what he does for liberals?
Also, yes, some private schools have rich kids, but many schools have vouchers now or satellite schools.
Listen, I agree it is hard, but that is your job. Banking is a bitch also, but you are expected to crank out quality product. All I am saying is that people are free to do other jobs if they want.
Also, let me say one more thing. I view inner city school teachers different than suburb teachers. The city teachers have some excuse for the kids that come out. The suburban kids should all be decently educated. That isn't the case.
Completely agree. Statistically speaking I went to a pretty good high school, I think something like 90% of the students attending went on to pursue some form of higher education. What they didn't include in those statistics, was that half of those students went to a community college, and approximately half the kids attending community colleges either flunk out, or don't transfer to a 4 year school when the time comes. In my eyes, an Associate's degree from a community college, is not much better than a high school diploma.
You really think it is the teachers fault? You cannot write off home life, parents income level, parents education level, divorce, lack of motivation, crime, drugs, etc etc.
Motivated kids will do well no matter what school they go to, if the kids are not motivated and don't want to learn then you seriously are shit out of luck. How do you assess teachers when they were dealt with a shit deck of cards? You can't assess them on students grades, standardized test scores, etc because it is largely not their fault if the kids don't give a fuck.
That's obviously true to some degree, but I think it's exaggerated to excuse shitty teachers:
(there's a great example of a student who's failing, his teachers give those lame excuses, 20/20 pays for him to hire a private tutor, and miraculously he learns...)
Watch the movie "Waiting for Superman" you will see all sorts of crazy shxt. Horrible teachers that can't be fired even though that haven't produced a single decent student, teachers who are against pay for performance, after seeing that movie I seriously believe a good amount of these teachers are to blame for the horrible education.
TheKing uses the bail out for everything. Fucking broken record.
Once again, please help me understand how "bailing out" banks (or as I like to call it, keeping a functional financial system running) screwed main street and helped make bankers rich?
The whole country would have suffered immensely if the financial sector was allowed to fail. This wasn't a bail out, it was a life saving event.
I mean look what happened when just Lehman went under.....imagine if others followed suit. The gov't has even said letting Lehman fail was a mistake.
I find it funny how you are so quick to drop names like "liberal" but are a staunch defender of the bailouts and so willing to look past all the extra special treatment the TBTF banks and friends were given and how many of the programs went beyond TARP and we will never see a dime of that.
I bring up the bailouts again and again because the richest of the rich were given (and are still given) every possible advantage to keep and grow their wealth by any means necessary regardless of what they had done - no lessons were learned other than "if you do something bad, the government will bail you out, so keep on doing it and get rich in the mean time." The fallacy that the economy would have been destroyed beyond recognition if we hadn't bailed out Goldman and Morgan Stanley is total horse shit. But, let's continue shilling for the banks as though we get paid to do it.
Dick Fuld walks away with $400 million after helping to crater the economy, meanwhile, we're on here arguing about "spoiled" teachers. Wait, what? I'm not saying that the teachers unions deserve their benefits or are even right, I'm saying that some very real, very serious problems were overlooked and brushed under the rug.
For the record, I think Soros is a prick. Crashing currencies to make a buck is pretty fucking sick.
Like woah dude, get the hell out of finance if you don't see that what Soros did was a SERVICE to society. Correcting mispricings in the market provides the market with more accurate information and allows for optimization of the allocation of goods and services. What Soros did is a good thing; you can argue that a lot of things in the finance world are shady, but profiting by identifying and correcting mispricings is not one of them.
For example, if more people had shorted the housing market sooner, the bubble wouldn't have been as big and a lot of poor saps would still own their house today instead of being in a financial hell and/or homeless. So, would those that profited be "sick" or would they be providing a service to society by correcting the mispricing and not having people go house crazy? In much the same way, if Soros hadn't done what he did, the Pound would have gotten even more mispriced and the eventual damage done would have been far greater.
Not really related, but the private school I went to (a very good one, though no Phillips Exeter), paid their teachers in general less than public schools by ~25-50%. The upside to their jobs was having the ability to teach students who they knew were smarter and more motivated than at a public school.
Of course, Department Heads/senior admins were making easily between 150-300k/year.
I'm a big libertarian, but you have to be braindead to not see the logic and truth to what Jon Stewart is saying.
I agree that we should switch teachers to a more pay for performance structure and get rid of the unions (i.e. make them more like private schools). It's actually funny because some European countries with the best academic outcomes actually employ a "public" school system that is actually more "private" than ours (i.e. you don't have to send your kid to the nearby school, you can send them wherever, so that means shit schools get closed, and the teachers fired because no one sends their kids there).
At the same time though, never bail out Wall Street and end too big to fail. The banks got bailed out not just with the bailout money but also via all this money printing, it's far too simplistic to say "oh we paid the gov. back so don't compare the two". Everyone harps on all the value the Street adds to society. But Wall Street does take advantage of some really big economic rents and market failures that are fixable (but that the political elite doesn't care to fix and sometimes makes them worse as they did with Dodd-Frank).
Also, while I agree that the rich create value for society; we should also appreciate the fact that society is not perfect. I have seen first hand that not every person who is wealthy created their wealth (inheritances anyone?) or that they didn't have some huge advantages in getting it (i.e. pseudo-wealthy parents that gave them a stable home and good education). I have also seen first-hand how the very wealthy take advantage of their wealth to take advantage of the ideas of others. There is a lot more to wealth creation than just being great at something and adding value via hard work/good ideas. There is not an exact correlation between income and contribution to society. Sometimes you get diluted away and you don't have ownership of the company (or work for someone else), sometimes you're just living off your inheritance, sometimes you just got lucky (lotto, married into it, got promoted to a cushy corporate job were you just live off the real work of others). Sometimes you can capture all of a market just by being slightly better than your competition. Take athletes as an example of a group that has benefitted tremendously from the homogenization of culture/society. Let's say every player died overnight and the league started anew with new players. What would these players make? They'd probably end up making just as much as the old players, because they'd be the next best thing; but are they better? Are they adding the same amount of value (they are the best players avail. but the dead ones were better)? Yes, because the value comes from the entertainment of watching two teams (consisting of the best available talent) duke it out, not from the quality of the play, per se. This is an analogy for corporations as well. It's easy to see how a fair number of people at the top might be living off the fruits of their situation more than adding real value (i.e. their replacements, who currently make much, much less; would do almost as good a job).
Alex, what happened to your star/certified status
Here is the real problem.
If you want to be a history teacher, you should get a masters in history. These clowns are getting masters in education.
How about you become educated before you try and educate. Just a thought.
God bless you Alex.
Two things to add:
1.) You don't need to be anti-bailout to see the hypocrisy here. Unless of course you wear partisan politics horse blinders like our friend ANT.
2.) The idea that the bailouts were essential to "save the economy" is total horse shit. Here is a fairly concise article which sums up some high level points as to why it wasn't. Or, at the very least, why a program could have been deployed that stabilized the economy without bailing out (and growing) the TBTF banks. http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/05/was-tarp-bailout-necessary/
[quote=TheKing]Two things to add:
1.) You don't need to be anti-bailout to see the hypocrisy here. Unless of course you wear partisan politics horse blinders like our friend ANT.
2.) The idea that the bailouts were essential to "save the economy" is total horse shit. Here is a fairly concise article which sums up some high level points as to why it wasn't. Or, at the very least, why a program could have been deployed that stabilized the economy without bailing out (and growing) the TBTF banks. http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/05/was-tarp-bailout-necessary/[/quo…]
These threads always turn into one big libertarian circle jerk. The few people with even slightly moderate views always get flamed on.
So wait.
Teachers are paid to teacher. When the kid comes out and goes to Harvard it is because of good teachers.
When the kid is a retard it is because of parents.
If parents and a good home life are what matters why pay teachers at all?
Their salary is to make a difference, not just come up with excuses.
@King - You are right. Dick Fuld making 400MM is complete bullshit. I am cool with allowing one douche bag to get paid so that the entire country can have a functioning banking system.
It was a bail out of the USA. All the banks would have collapsed and there would have been a run on the banks. The money markets would have broken the buck and massive withdrawals would have crippled the funds. How this is only benefiting Wall Street, the same place that lost 2 major IB's, 2 major commercial banks as well as countless jobs, all magically benefited is beyond me.
The loans were paid back. The government made money and the US consumer benefited.
FYI, we cannot function without a financial sector.
That is like arguing the bailing out the medical sector only benefited rich doctors while glossing over the fact that if all the hospitals closed, people would die.
Man, you aren't making any sense. You said it yourself, teachers are paid to teach, that is it. They are not paid to babysit scumbag delinquent children from families who don't instill their children with a sense to better their situation via education. As long as they are teaching the kids who want to learn (and are teaching them to the best of their ability), then they are doing their job.
The kids who want to learn and do well normally do. I honestly think it's rarely the teachers fault when a kid doesn't make it. There are always anecdotal stories about kids from broken homes with lazy drug addicted parents doing well, but it is rare. Many kids have their fate sealed at birth, I don't think it is the teachers fault.
Right, because TARP (and all the other goodies you brush under the rug) is the only way we could've maintained an economy. You probably would've signed off on TARP after getting the bullshit 3-page memo from Paulson. You fear-mongering, big government liberal.
ANT, I thought you were a libertarian? TARP/Bailout is contrary to what most libertarians believe in. Would a massive failure in our banking / financial industry doom us all? I don't think so. Most likely we would recover, restructure and start over with new players in the game, right?
He's a "common sense" libertarian. He also buys into the bullshit that Hank Paulson and his super friends put forth - that we needed to the bailouts or else we'd all be basically dead. In reality, they just needed the bailouts to continue business as usual. Thanks Hank!
he's a libertarian when its convenient.
I remember once viewing a lil documentary on this guy who went to teach at an inner city school and taught the kids about running your own business and how to make money and how the world works. He taught kids that you could make money if you applied yourself and you could make more. For example, one of those kids opened a small radio station/music studio because he realized he could monetize his love for music and make a decent living.
I've always thought that give me pencils, paper, and calculators, and I can make any group of kids good enough to go to a good college. Teaching is not about knowing material, it's about motivating students to learn material. Most students are unmotivated because they don't see the value in what they're learning or feel like they're screwed from the start. In fact, schools need to unteach this "learned helplessness" just as much as they need to teach academic material.
Yup, I am partisan.
Who needs banks. Who needs a financial sector. Everything was fine, no other banks were going to collapse.
Is this a forum of college educated people or two year olds. This shit blows my mind.
Lehman Bear ML Wachovia WaMu AIG Fannie Freddie Citi BoA
All of those would have failed. If you think all of those firms would not have brought down all the rest you are out of your mind.
Losing everyone of those firms would have caused massive runs on the banks, all banks. the government's FDIC fund could not backstop all of that. Emergency money would have had to been authorized.
Either way you baill someone out. Except by bailing out the banks you keep a vital portion of the economy.
But your right, fuck it. Let it all collapse because we don't want Fuld to get $400MM. That is mature thinking.
I agree that the bail out was necessary, but where is the accountability? Nothing happened to the executives at those firms who made the shitty business decisions. That is what people take issue with, not the bail out in general.
Yeah, libertarian jerk off.
Yeah guys, sorry for promoting liberty. I am an evil Fascist.
Why can't you all be more "moderate" and just do what I tell you to do.
Yeah, AWM is real good at wanting you to do as he says, but not as he does. No hypocrisy there...
$400MM that we tax at the top tax bracket and then re-distribute to main street.
Everyone hates WS, but WS pays the federal budget. Not main street.
A lot of you guys here are seriously blind / have a seriously skewed perspective about how the world works. I'm not saying that I have more wisdom/a better perspective than you do, but you need to realize that some teachers DO want to teach, it's just that some students just don't give a crap about learning.
I have taught classes and tutored students so I have a little experience with teaching. Teaching isn't something like working out, where if you do the right things and work hard, you see results. Teaching is more like...pitching: you work hard to pump out a great teaser, but sometimes if your client just doesn't want to sell, you're not going to get that deal done. Now, do you fire the analyst for putting out a crappy pitchbook, or do you just chalk it up to the client not wanting to participate? It's a two-way street--it takes two to tango. I'd even go as far to compare a successful M&A deal to private schools: both students and teachers want to be there which is why you have success.
Look, I came from a pretty crappy high school--but crappy in the sense that students didn't give a crap about learning. I learned from some of the greatest teachers and people I've ever met in my life, and if any of these teachers got fired because of shitty test scores, it's not because they didn't teach, it's because HALF THE CLASS WASN'T THERE HALF THE TIME. Hell, I had classes where the student enrollment was at 50+(yes, 50 students in one class) in the beginning of the semester, but dwindled to under 30 in less than a week because students just stopped coming to class.
Many of us posting in this thread and shooting for some sort of finance position are lucky, lucky because we come from backgrounds where our parents/guardians/mentors knew the importance of an education which lead to enrollment in some decent schools. I'm not saying there aren't shitty teachers out there, but I have no doubt that there are some great educators that are trying to make change, but are simply hamstrung from shitty students / underfunding.
You bring up a lot of good points. I'd just like you to also consider that public schools are not exposed to competition and a market system, so people shouldn't be surprised that poor kids get a horrible education. I know that's a little counterintuitive, in the sense that sometimes people think that markets benefit the rich. But under closer scrutiny, I think you'll notice that many businesses cater to poor people and improve their standard of living. I suspect education for poor people would be a lot better if we had firms competing for their business (even if it was publicly funded, like a voucher system).
"Man, you aren't making any sense. You said it yourself, teachers are paid to teach, that is it. They are not paid to babysit scumbag delinquent children from families who don't instill their children with a sense to better their situation via education. As long as they are teaching the kids who want to learn (and are teaching them to the best of their ability), then they are doing their job.
The kids who want to learn and do well normally do. I honestly think it's rarely the teachers fault when a kid doesn't make it. There are always anecdotal stories about kids from broken homes with lazy drug addicted parents doing well, but it is rare. Many kids have their fate sealed at birth, I don't think it is the teachers fault."
Guys, please look at the verbage coming out of this guy.
"I honestly think it's rarely the teachers fault when a kid doesn't make it"
"Many kids have their fate sealed at birth"
"You said it yourself, teachers are paid to teach, that is it. They are not paid to babysit scumbag delinquent children from families who don't instill their children with a sense to better their situation via education."
So teachers get to pick and choose who they are graded on? I suppose you should pick which deals went well on your review?
Real nice to take credit for the good kids and blame someone else for the bad. Don't ever work for me dude. Fucking excuse factory.
How am I not making any sense. Teaching involves learning. If teachers are not teaching kids they are not doing their jobs.
I also said in a couple posts above that I exclude inner city teachers from this discussion. Their duties are a lot harder and with different complexities.
Teachers don't get to pick and choose who they are graded on, but how the fuck do you assess a teacher who has to teach kids who have absolutely no desire to learn? Entire schools are failing even with millions of federal dollars getting pumped into them, you think that this the teachers fault and not the demographic of the school?
You cannot write off every other factor and just blame poor performance on bad teachers. They have to stick to a mandated curriculum, its not like they can walk into the classroom one day and whip up some amazing lecture on topics the kids want to hear about.
You have a misunderstanding about the importance of teachers. Look at a regression of what variables lead to economic success - when you control for the fact that people who have more of other factors like wealth, job security, health, etc., the quality of primary education explains very little of future expected success. The important variables are family stability, parent income and family health.
This is the result when professional statisticians analyze data and control for conflating variables.
I am not making any point about your overall view on theories of justice (which is really what this whole debate turns on), I'm just fact checking you to make sure you present your points fairly.
Furthermore, if you are such a staunch defender of all of the bailout programs, then how the fuck are you ok with the troublemakers at the top getting away with so much money and no prison time. These mother fuckers should be investigated and thrown in pound-me-in-the-ass prison. But, no, in your view you "don't care if some douche bag got $400 million as a result of the bailout" but you go into an epileptic frenzied seizure over teachers' benefits. God damn.
Agree, but it is like arguing with a brick wall.
$400 million dollars dude. I do not want the USA to lose its entire financial sector over $400MM.
Did I ever say "yay, Fuld deserved every penny?"
Why is it that when I am talking about the bail out, people talk about individual players in the bail out? I am talking macro, not micro.
People got away with bullshit. Fine. I am discussing the overall economy. Go cut Fuld up into pieces. Fine.
"I agree that the bail out was necessary, but where is the accountability? Nothing happened to the executives at those firms who made the shitty business decisions. That is what people take issue with, not the bail out in general."
The whole country hates bankers. State AG's are looking to crucify people. If bankers are not being put in jail with this atmosphere, I don't know what to tell you.
Fine, you have a legit gripe. I am sure bullshit went on. Fine. Talk about prosecuting being lax, but not the bail out. We cannot be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Listen AWM. EOK and TheKing at least make an attempt to argue intelligently. Don't cling onto their arguments as if you are in the same league.
Yeah, accountability of the executives of the firms who almost collapsed the US economy is such an earth shattering idea.
Fuck you.
Please show me where I said these executives were perfectly inculpable?
Please show me where I said that Fuld deserved his money
Please show me where I supported these pay outs and not the overall saving of the banks.
Please let me know when you find these quotes.
Most of the regulators are in bed with Wall Street, it's a fucking revolving door. That doesn't help things. Not to mention, whenever the government makes a legitimate effort to enact quality reforms, Wall Street spends 10's of millions to lobby the Congress and water down reform. This is how we end up watered down Dodd-Frank, a bill which is something of a start, but doesn't do what needs to be done (namely, breaking up the TBTF banks.)
It also didn't help that members of congress (and people who just entered congress in the last election) position wall street reform as "red tape that kills business and the economy" and will do anything they can to water it down further. The whole fucking system is structured to ensure that the biggest and most powerful banks maintain their power while everyone else argues about teachers being overpaid, abortion, gay marriage, and the imminent threat of sharia law in the United States!!!!! No, really, Steven King (republican congressman from Long Island, I believe) is holding hearings on just such a topic.
OMG
If one bad guy makes money we should scrap everything. Let everyone be ruined to keep one guy from benefiting.
This is just like the gun argument one crazy looney shoots up a place in Arizona and all guns are bad....
I saw that John Stossel video before, it's a simple blueprint for how to solve the big problems in education. But too much common sense in there to actually be implemented, lol.
Do I think lobbying is bullshit? Yes
Do I think wrongdoing occured? Yes
Do I think politicians are criminals? Yes
Do I think we would be better off if the banks failed? No
Oh yeah, government regulation is wonderful. Look at bank fees skyrocketing. Try getting credit or a mortgage going forward now that the government is sticking its nose in everything.
Oh wait, didnt the government pretty much force banks to lower their lending standards to increase the level of minority home ownership?
Hmmmmmm.
Your last point is total horse shit, it isn't even up for debate anymore (unless you are a far right shock jock talk radio personality who disregards facts and clearly has an agenda.)
The frenzy of sub-prime lending was driven by top-down demand. The CDO products created with sub-prime mortgages were marketed as AAA investments, not unlike Treasuries, but with a much greater return on investment. The banks and others saw this and realized that there was an insatiable demand for these securities. The lenders knew they could pawn off the shitty mortgages to the big banks who would then make the CDO products. That's how demand was driven. The myth that the government created the problem is bullshit. And even if it played any bit of a role, the complex CDO products (and related CDS and naked CDS products) spread the disease throughout the economy. The banks and AIG gave the economy AIDS, destroying its immune system systemically. The fact that people couldn't afford their mortgages when it came time to pay up was the sickness that toppled the system, which again, was a creation of the banks and its growth was, again, driven by the banks.
But, you're right. It's government's fault! And we should be THANKFUL that the banks were bailed out, we should shut the fuck up, and accept the fact that there was zero accountability and no one will ever pay for what happened.
Also, Spitzer did a good job prosecuting Wall Street. We seem to be prosecuting a lot of people right now.
It would have been a PR bonanza for any aspiring politician to throw the book at these guys.
Or maybe what they did wasn't criminal, just foolish.
Just because you loose money doesn't mean you broke the law.
Oh that's right though. In the USA we now support revenge law.
If you lose money you must be punished. Behead them all.
We put the Enron guys in jail and they contributed to politicians heavily. Hmmmmm.
So wait, King, the government did not basically force banks to lower their lending standards?
Do you read posts or just skim through them? No matter how you slice it, the demand created by pseudo-AAA securities in the form of mortgage-backed CDOs and CDO^2s coupled with cheap insurance against the pseudo-AAA securities (in the form of CDS and naked-CDS) drove demand to extremes, inflated an unimaginable bubble, and created the complete system destruction.
Furthermore, the community reinvestment act argument is total bunk. See the following from http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/truth-about-financial-crisis-part-…
"Myth 3: The financial crisis was brought about because government (under the Community Reinvestment Act, a law enacted in 1977 to prevent banks from refusing to extend loans to creditworthy borrowers in particular neighborhoods) forced banks loan to poor people.
Reality 3: No. Both the Report and the Thomas Dissent reject this myth, with Wallison the lone proponent of this shaky story.
The Report notes that “The CRA requires banks and savings and loans to lend, invest, and provide services to the communities from which they take deposits, consistent with bank safety and soundness.” Further, it concludes that: The “CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.” (emphasis added). The Thomas Dissent also explicitly states that the Community Reinvestment Act was not a significant cause. The Wallison dissent singles out US government housing policy, including the CRA as the sin qua non of the financial crisis. As a fellow at the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, and a long-time dedicated proponent of deregulation, he came into his position as a Commissioner predisposed to this viewpoint and came out still holding it, notwithstanding all the evidence presented to the contrary."
The government certainly didn't force anyone to lend recklessly and create products to spread shit-disguised-as-AAA throughout the entire financial system, thus crippling it. I've always seen the argument that CRA and "liberal government policies" caused the financial crisis as a dog-whistle for simpleton flyover country folks to feel comfortable in blaming black people and welfare recipients. No, we don't think this way, but lots of uneducated people in this country are truly afraid of anyone who is different than them and will use this sort of thing to justify those beliefs despite the shaky ground they lay on.
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory." Source(s): http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx… http://www.investors.com/editorial/edito…
The only thing Bush has had to do with this is that in 2004 he (along with McCain who cosponsored the bill) and a few other congressmen tried to overhaul and regulate how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run and their financing.
The Democrats Blocked the measure:
Top 3 receivers of Fannie Mae Funds.
Chris Dodd Barack Obama John Kerry
It's not a coincidence
Jennifer, That is a great question. I work for Wachovia as a personal banker. The only reason a lender can decline a loan is credit, debt / income ratio or collateral.
Anything else is a against the law. I mean, you can be 97 years old, and if you meet the above three, can take out a 30 year loan.
The regulations that Clinton put it required that lenders finance homes in high risk markets or face very large fines. So, in order to make those loans, they had to relax the standards.
To tell you how much the market has changed, 3 months ago we were notified that loans were no longer a part of our goals.
The banks hid and disguised these loans you idiot. Credit and money markets froze because structurers made products that deliberately hid these shitty loans in securities that were marketed as AAA. No one forced them to do this. No one knew who had exposure to them, so banks stopped lending.
ANT, it is the incredible hypocrisy of your argument that I have a problem with. Where is your outrage towards the failed executives who still got millions as their firms going bankrupt? You may not agree with it, but you certainly argue against teachers with a hell of allot more intensity than you do when we discuss accountability for the crisis. When was the last time you or any of the fringe right wingers on this forum made a thread about this?
You blaming the failure of a kid who skips school, does drugs, has no desire to learn, and comes from a broken family on the teacher is just as bad as you blaming the government for what happened in 2008.
I AM OUTRAGED.
FUCKING SO FUCKING OUTRAGED.
I AM GOING TO PUT MY FIST THROUGH THE WALL BECAUSE I AM SO OUTRAGED.
Happy now?
Every time I mention the bail out I need to note how outraged I am. Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Legislative_cha…
@King - I never said that what the government did caused everything. What I think is that it started the ball rolling down the hill. Banks used to keep mortgages on the books and it made sense. With this they started looking for a way to get them off the books.
Diversification is also a common theme in finance. Having a portfolio of risky loans, across the country and then insuring them, makes sense to me. Not many people thought the entire country would go into a recession.
On the face of it, it sounds pretty smart.
Not excusing people or saying that no one should pay, but saying that everything is criminal because of what happened is not right.
Also, as mentioned before, not everyone in the banks were at fault. Maybe the top level guys and some of the traders or quants or whatever, but blaming everyone and saying that the bailouts unjustly benefited Wall Street as if everyone is to blame is incorrect.
Listen, I realize you are ultra super left wing and I respect your beliefs. Let's tone down the rhetoric and focus on the facts. I don't want this to get off topic.
I am not ultra super left wing. That is your problem, you have no idea what that means.
I state time and time again that the public has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the vitriol they direct against bankers. It was the structured credit guys, MBS traders, the retail side of the banks that originated and made the loans, the executives who let them do it, and the government. 95% of traders/structurers and most bankers had little or nothing to do with the crisis. I agree with you there.
The executives assume that role with the risk that they are held accountable if their firm fucks up, loses money, or does something shady. This is part of their jobs.
I've said all along that the complex products created by the banks and AIG is the equivalent of AIDS. It ravaged our economic immune system so the big guys at the top could make short-term billions. The shitty loans were the equivalent of pneumonia, which spread through the ravaged immune system of the economy because of the complex products. Thus, everything was wrecked together.
With that said, you cannot ignore the top down demand created by products marketed as being as safe as United States Treasuries. These complex products (and some really big pieces of shit at AIG) enabled a market to grow exponentially. The lenders knew they could give out liar loans (and related products), make a quick buck, pass that shit on to the next sucker (the banks), who would then package them up and pass them on to the next suckers...all the while buying insurance from AIG.
To go and blame "big government" for this is to refuse to see the big picture and understand the root cause for how a big problem turned into an apocalyptic one.
AWM - You figure out what an automatic gun is yet LOL
Banks hid stuff? Or maybe these products were so convoluted and complex that liquidity dried up. Whatever the reason, it dried up and the banks were fucked.
You can split hairs, but if the government didn't step in all the banks would have failed.
Oh, keep calling names kid. Try arguing like an adult. Oh wait, you have spent time overseas which increases your intelligence 100x and makes your cock magically grow.
hahahhhahhahahha
I work in structured products on a fixed income trading floor. I have spoken at length with guys who structured, traded, and sold CDO's. Trust me, they even admit what they were doing was shady as shit. Liquidity tried up because crappy loans were hidden and disguised in subordinate tranches of these structures. The inter-bank market froze and liquidity dried up because no one knew who was exposed to what anymore and firms were dropping like flies every week.
Econ: That's a very good point and something I've overlooked. I should start bringing in all the breaks into consideration.
Edit: Good discussion all, I'm definitely sharpening some of my thoughts on this topic and have gained some perspective I've lacked in the past.
Did you really just call me, the guy who is anti-bailout, ultra left wing?
Wait, what? Ok, you can call me that...but, I get to call you "cafeteria conservative."
Haha, I was being a dick. This shit is too much fun sometimes.
Listen, bailout aside, school in this country sucks. Teachers are not 100% at fault, but if you step into those shoes you have to assume some responsibility. The lowly analyst at Lehman wasn't at fault, but he lost his job.
Yeah, most of my anger is directed at the system because nothing was changed. The system needs to be fixed. I also believe that, had a few of the true bad guys gone to hardcore prison (and become someone's new boyfriend), that it would send a message to future potential trouble makers.
As for trouble in schools, it's also a mixed bag. There are definitely big issues with the teachers' unions (tenure is fucked up, for instance), but it definitely isn't simple. And yes, families need to be taken into account. Just as with the financial crisis, it is not black and white.
Regards, Libby McDemocrat
I was breaking the Kings balls dude. Relax.
I love it when one of my threads causes everyone to shit bricks. I'm so controversial.
See, here is my issue with punishing the top dudes. Not all of them are at fault. Yes, they take the blame and get canned or fined or whatever, but many of these guys had no idea what these products were. Your talking about mail room dudes moving up the line and quants creating NASA level products that even Greenspan can't figure out.
I support increased capital reserves as well as a systemic tax for the larger banks. Maybe going back to the separate IB / CB structure. At least there should be a jettison element so that IB's can go nuts with risk and not take down the conservative CB under them.
With that said, WS is not the only evil lobbist out there. What I think is fucked up is the common guy doesn't have a lobby. This is a big reason why I support smaller government (among many).
We have to allow lobbying as part of a Democracy. We know that lobbying creates this corrupt Frankenstein. The only thing we can do is make Frankenstein smaller so when he goes nuts we can knock him down easily.
Firstly, quants have nothing to do with product development. They make models to price the products the structurers come up with. Secondly, the products are not nearly as complicated as they sound. Seriously, you could learn everything about CDO structuring you need to in about 2 days (the pricing and risk models on the other hand are pretty damn complicated). That is a bit of a fallacy to hide the fact that most of these people knew exactly what they were doing.
I also agree that lobbyists are pretty scummy btw.
I think it's clear that civil liberties trump Democracy. What's less clear is whether and to what extent property rights trump the Democratic system.
Right now, wealth in this country is practically as stratified as it was in the early stages of the Great Depression, when the country was on the verge of going communist. In order for Democracy to peacefully coexist with property rights in the long term, we need to make sure that the top 10% excluding the top 1% of families control more wealth than the top 1%. Doing this accomplishes two things:
1.) The other 90% of voters realize that they have a reasonable shot of enjoying the same life as the top 10% under the capitalist system. 2.) Makes sure that the folks who really have the loudest voices in this country are somewhat representative of it.
The top 10% less top 1% is really the traditional middle-class. You've got a bunch of highly educated people who understand how democracy is supposed to be run, lose sleep at night over deficits, see the bottom 90% on a daily basis, and at least believe that they could wind up down there if push comes to shove. We need these people to be running the country- not the top 1%, not the bottom 90%.
TR realized this and imposed the estate tax and worked towards the progressive income tax schedule suggested by Adam Smith. I think a lot of people look at what's happening today- with the federal government taking on huge debts on everyones' behalf to prop up a system dominated by rich people- and see it as sort of the reverse.
You know how to stir the shit Monkeysama.
I agree, some teachers do put in more than 40 hours per week: the good ones. There are a multitude of tricks I saw my family members (not so good teachers) use to cut their work down to below 40 per week. E.g., having kids exchange papers then grade them in class, or just using workbooks as the "lesson plan".
Education is pretty fucked, starting from the home. Too many parents expect public schools to literally raise their kids. Of course, 7 hours is not enough time to teach Timmy everything he needs to know about life. But the parents don't do it, and the daycares/nannies don't do it. So, you end up with maladjusted kids performing below grade level.
Then, once you get them to school, you have teachers with no performance incentives. Especially at the elementary level, with only 1 teacher for an entire year, a lazy teacher can crush a kid's academic potential. It is too easy to coast once tenured, and it takes a remarkable sort of person to resist the temptation.
Unfortunately, that sort of person probably had bigger ambitions than teaching.
Motivated kids can fix this. I came from one of the shittiest background imaginable. I hate to get all "bootstraps", but, if you want out bad enough, you can do it. I got myself out of the public school system as soon as I was able. I am now at one of the best colleges in the country, looking at some of the best jobs in the country.
But, kids aren't motivated. Look at your average college grad and tell me he wouldn't be better off with a vocational degree versus a BA in Psych from podunk U.
Even for the technically inclined, it is not encouraging to see a lot of the former best jobs going to cheaper labor markets. Not to mention, getting through a hard science curriculum with the preparation found in public schools is tough. Then, after 4+ years of competing for a science degree, you are most likely to land a 55k engineering job. Compared to the schlep at the DMV making 45 k. The difference is less after tax. Oh, and the DMV guy has better benefits.
There are jobs, like those the people on this site are competing for, that are worth it. But, they are not in reach of most people. Look at all the people here who are highly qualified and motivated, yet are still struggling to land even an unpaid internship.
The only reason I am where I am is because I chose to gamble, figuring the worst case scenario was that I return to my ancestral roots in government employment (although I would hope to model myself after Bob Swanson, if anybody watches Parks and Rec). This gamble might still not pay off, but I am much closer to getting out of the "leech" class than I was 10 years ago.
If I sound like somebody who can point out problems, but not solutions, I am sorry. In my opinion, the next generation's future looks so bleak I wouldn't know where to begin.
I went to a public school north of Houston and walked out of class one day because my stats teacher was wearing two different color shoes. I asked her how she thought she could prepare me for college yet could not even manage to match a pair of shoes... Her name was Miss. Large and was about 280 lbs, no joke. This cunt even called my dad out of board meeting to tell him how i corrected her on a formula and constantly talked down to her in front of the class. No point to my post, just thought i'd out her since there is no way in hell anyone who knows/respects her would even know the internet exists, let alone wall street...
^^^Was that a serious post?
Dead serious... scary isn't it?
I'm pretty sure ANT is not a libertarian.
And the reason I blame "big government" for the crisis is they passed the law that allowed people mortgages they couldn't afford. If you pass a piece of legislation in this day and age you damn well better be ready for someone to take advantage of it. People on Wall Street may not be the Einsteins of the world, but they're smart and they know how to make money. The first place your finger should be pointing is at the government for passing such a ridiculous bill allowing people to own something they can't afford and THEN we can all grab our nooses and start stringing people up in Times Square.
As for teachers, I'm friends with a number of teachers and professors. The most obnoxious one of all of them is an English professor who bitches about how she teaches 5 classes (15 hours every weeks) and then has to do another 20 hours of grading papers at home and coming up with lesson plans. The people that work the hardest of all teachers would be high school teachers. My buddy who is teaching history at a high school loves his job. He works from 7am to 230pm every day. He goes home and enjoys his evenings. The last two summers (he's been teaching for 5 years) he went and taught English in Spain for 2 months over the summer, raking in $3k/month in addition to having his living expenses paid for. The other month he was on vacation. He himself says that teachers are some of the whiniest and laziest people he has ever met. The majority of them don't like it and only took the jobs because it was easy to get into or they thought they'd love it and realized after a year that they didn't and just don't give a fuck anymore. I did call him out on the lazy/whiny thing and he backed off a bit, but still believes that at least a large minority of teachers are unfit to clean toilets, much less teach classes. This self-proclaimed hardcore Democrat can't even stand teachers unions because they're not protecting the good teachers, they're protecting the SHITTY teachers.
To be fair, that's only one perspective, but considering his experience (worked at 3 different high schools in 2 states, 1 as an intern or whatever they call it), I trust what he has to say.
Let's just say ANT is just a member of the US Chamber of Commerce. :D
In all seriousness, I don't see why we need to label people. ANT has a lot of different opinions on different stuff and holds them in good faith, even if you may not understand how. I can't understand how a lot of people think the way they do, but I respect the fact that sometimes people genuinely believe stuff even though I find what they believe unbelievable.
I think a lot of people call themselves "sane libertarians". But then they have different views. I am much more in favor of individual civil liberties, but I start to hem and haw a little on limited government when I see doors that big government opened for my parents and me (like college) get slammed shut, or when I see people going hungry. I disagree with ANT in that I don't think the Feds should have intervened as much as they did with TARP and the Stimulus Bill. The Fed's job was to merely ensure there was a mechanism for providing liquidity, not to prevent a bunch of rich bankers from self-destructing in a panic of their own creation. Now we have to deal with the consequences- a greater concentration of wealth among the rich and massive, massive debt.
I agree about the labeling people, thus I would not label ANT as libertarian (I happen to be a borderline libertarian, although I tend to identify myself as a real Republican).
And the most important thing to me as far as politics go is a decentralized government. Let the states decide for themselves what they want their laws to be. Having such a large, central government inevitable means close to half the population is always going to be unhappy. Break that up into 50 different governments working together and you have a lot less pissed off people and a lot more choices.
Why are you guys picking on ANT? Just like liberals and conservatives, libertarians come with a variety of different beliefs. As someone who opposes the bailouts, I still want to stick up for ANT and say that his views are not necessarily anti-libertarian. And, even if he's not a libertarian, who cares? Not everybody's beliefs can neatly fit into one of these umbrella terms. Instead of the engaging in these ad hominem attacks, why don't you guys try arguing against his actual position?
So we are going to pick on ANT for not being a libertarian because YOU don't think he is wonderful...nothing new. Why do YOU call care if he is or isn't? Ridiculous.
I wasn't picking on ANT for not being a libertarian, I was merely noting my take on his political beliefs.
ANT, your point that people who want to be history teachers should get PhDs in history, not major in education, isn't good. This is true for college professors for whom detailed knowledge is the limiting factor in their ability. For high school teachers this isn't the case and the current system is correct - they need to know a substantial amount of history, but the key is the ability to teach. This is the same reason doctors are beginning to be replaced by nurse practitioners and physicians assistants for a lot of functions (the way it is in Europe).
Possibly also because doctors are cheaper, and there is an under-supply of doctors (due to regulations and organizations that purposefully keep the number of doctors low, in order to keep their salaries high).
No, there is not an under-supply of doctors. There is an over-supply of doctors, and we don't need as many physicians as we have - they are over-trained and expensive. Most PAs and NPs can do 95% of the work doctors do. This is why we so strictly limit the number of med school admits each year, and why Europe has fewer physicians per capita than America (and a much better health care system by any normal metric, except for elite health care for the top 10% of income earners who still get no better health results).
There is no forced under-supply of doctors to keep their salaries high...that makes no sense and shows a thorough lack of understand of our health care system. It sounds just like a goofy application a S and D graph from intro econ classes.
My point with this is only that ANT's argument that high school teachers should have post-graduate degrees in their field instead of degrees in education is a bad one.
Nam laudantium nesciunt aut quae eos ducimus. Fuga aut dolorem est qui. Voluptates enim voluptas totam qui quidem. Amet repellat eius pariatur sunt ut totam. Earum neque rerum dolorem est rerum. Illum quis sit nemo incidunt suscipit commodi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et quisquam quaerat neque voluptatem odio veniam sequi. Reprehenderit dolore corporis odio quia praesentium. Quis commodi perspiciatis voluptatem qui. Sed amet repellat architecto. Et quidem eveniet et non ut aut.
Quibusdam unde vero doloremque odio. Officia voluptatem laudantium voluptas ducimus. Nemo cupiditate ea illum dolore voluptatum suscipit labore.
Consectetur molestias tenetur quis aut error ducimus tenetur. Aut est voluptatem perspiciatis ipsum odio aut et. Impedit cupiditate recusandae quasi quos dolorum. At quibusdam tempore dignissimos beatae optio quidem a pariatur. Dignissimos vel ipsam sed a aut temporibus quis odio.
Modi aperiam sit suscipit ut odio tempore. Laboriosam sed qui ducimus laudantium. Adipisci cupiditate sint unde et iure voluptatem in ut. Voluptatem impedit assumenda quia. Ex ea non atque mollitia qui. Eos quia neque numquam sunt repudiandae. Unde corrupti voluptatem rerum officia delectus expedita.
Quis possimus error accusamus illo ut. Tenetur numquam necessitatibus possimus. Fugiat voluptatem numquam vero.
Et aliquid voluptas eum hic ducimus. Soluta doloremque enim non autem nihil ea cumque quia. Culpa molestias quia optio sunt libero voluptas non. Quam illo non est nesciunt voluptates.
Qui nihil aut cumque deleniti et nulla. Et quae inventore labore aspernatur quod et error hic. Eveniet architecto voluptatem repellat cupiditate reiciendis. Rerum assumenda ad adipisci qui sit. Suscipit pariatur quo vero ut voluptatem voluptatum quia.
Praesentium rerum tenetur illo molestiae ipsam amet voluptas recusandae. Est aut praesentium et alias. Unde ut ea id tempora consequatur.
Sunt ut qui sed est. Ut eum voluptatem nisi in. Aut vitae occaecati maiores. Hic placeat id saepe quos et excepturi occaecati.
Modi voluptates et necessitatibus culpa et veritatis. Vero vero voluptatibus corrupti autem nobis rerum et. Aliquam nihil qui ea est libero non omnis. Asperiores optio eaque assumenda. Iste illum est dolore.
Id quas ab dolores numquam similique praesentium facilis. Facere sit est modi id asperiores deserunt vel.
Vel dolor nam maiores consequatur magnam a. Enim eum hic laborum maxime. Ea voluptas qui ratione accusantium aut eos error.