Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

There was no "Republican" party, but there was a party whose members were called "Republicans"? I see.

Good. This country is called "the United States of America" and people call citizens "Americans" although Chileans and Canadians are "Americans" as well.

... Yes, historians know this, so Cohen did not speak in ignorance; he lied.

As the other historical work I linked to showed you, historians who write about the Democratic-Republican party of 1812 call them just "Republicans" (or, sometimes, Jeffersonian Republicans), the same way Cohen did.
If there are lies being told here, they're not being told by Cohen.

Okay. What would you call it if someone used data on British public schools to support or criticize public schools in the US, if they did not make clear that the terms have diametrically opposite meanings in Britain and the US? What would you call it if someone praises or condemns "liberal" politicians in the US by associating them with liberals in Europe or Japan, where the term is used in the classic (i.e., to mean "libertarian") sense? Cohen's audience was not academic historians but high school students. To use a private definition without making that definition explicit is to lie. Cohen lied.

 

[A'isha]

To use a private definition without making that definition explicit is to lie. Cohen lied.

Cohen was not using a "private definition", but a standard definition used by historians to describe the Jeffersonian Republicans during the period of the War of 1812.

You are wrong about the use of the term "Republican" by Cohen, and you were wrong about how the old Democratic-Republican party became both the modern Democratic and Republican parties. Cohen isn't guilty of telling lies, he's only guilty of not adhering to the ideologically-driven historical revisionism of the libertarian right.

 

[A'isha]

They represent smaller government than Democrats (as a general rule).

Really?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Cohen was not using a "private definition", but a standard definition used by historians to describe the Jeffersonian Republicans during the period of the War of 1812.

Again, Cohen's book was not addressed to "historians". It was a high school textbook. When Cohen claims that "western state Republicans" supported the war of 1812, how would high school students interpret the term "republican"?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...A State-mandated minimum wage of $X (where $X is greater than zero) means people whose labor is worth less than $X to every employer will not find employment. Consider black teenage unemployment since the 2007 increase in the Federal minimum wage.

Where is your evidence Malcolm? Why is it that I can find evidence counter to your claims? Please to support your claims with something more than explanations and philosophical argument. Anything can be "explained" and argued. Got evidence?

Here.

Yes, there are some empirical studies that find that legislated minimum wages do not reduce the employment prospects of low-skilled workers. Yet there are many more empirical studies that find quite the opposite effect – the effect that is consistent with standard economics and that does not require the imagination-stretching assumption that meaningful monopsony power in the market for low-skilled workers somehow characterizes labor markets with millions of actual, and countless other potential, employers of low-skilled workers.

Links within the article.
And here.

Drs. Even and Macpherson focus on 16-to-24 year-old males without a high school diploma, a group that previous studies suggest are particularly susceptible to wage mandates. Among white males in this group, the authors find that each 10 percent increase in a federal or state minimum wage decreased employment by 2.5 percent; for Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2 percent.

But among black males in this group, each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased employment by 6.5 percent. The effect is similar for hours worked: each 10 percent increase reduced hours worked by 3 percent among white males, 1.7 percent for Hispanic males, and by 6.6 percent for black males.

 

[RandFan]

Here.Links within the article.
And here.

I'm sure you spent a lot of time looking for anything. So I appreciate that.

1. Doesn't obviate the facts of Australia. America obviously lags behind Australia so our problems are more than "minimum wage". This does not demonstrate that minimum wage laws per se result in increased unemployment.
2. From YOUR quote (your link).

Drs. Even and Macpherson focus on 16-to-24 year-old males without a high school diploma, a group that previous studies suggest are particularly susceptible to wage mandates. Among white males in this group, the authors find that each 10 percent
increase in a federal or state minimum wage decreased employment by 2.5 percent; for Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2 percent.

You've yet to explain how poor people would get a high school diploma without state run compulsory education.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm sure you spent a lot of time looking for anything. So I appreciate that.

Thanks, but it was no trouble at all. Just google "minimum wage effects". Many Economics texts mention the dispute over minimum wage laws, but few give plausible reasons to expect wage markets to differ from markets in other goods and services, where the quantity that buyers demand falls as prices increase. The assumptions required to make labor markets respond otherwise are unusual. Even advocates for minimum wage legislation expect businesses to reduce an activity as the cost of that activity rises (or, what's the point of fines?). Why expect businesses to respond to increased costs due to fines and NOT expect them to respond to increased costs due to increased wages?I went to a chamber music concert a while ago. I paid $20 to 5 people to introduce the music and play for two hours. Let's see...$20/5x2=$2.00/hr. I must be evil, right? Of course, 100 other people also paid the $20, so clearly the problem with an employer who paid less than the minimum wage is that the other 7 billion people on the planet paid his employees $0.00. Come to think of it, yesterday I paid 7 billion people $0.00/hr. I really must be evil.

You've yet to explain how poor people would get a high school diploma without state run compulsory education.

I have, repeatedly. The same way they get fed without State-run cafeteria. Competitive markets generally improve quality and lower costs as businesses compete for customers.

A diploma certifies attendance at school, not education. Schools, as they currently operate, can be expensive, while education is potentially cheap. School, as it currently operates, imposes huge costs on students, parents, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers. One large cost of school that appears on no balance sheet is the opportunity cost to students of the time that they spend in school.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Really?

Yes, really (as a general rule).Spending is only one measure of the government's footprint. Consider regulation.

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11_zps834b1921.jpg[/qimg]

Cute, how the '09 "stimulus" spending was pushed back onto Bush II. I'll grant the increase of Bush II over Clinton. That's one good reason to fault Bush; he never used the veto against bloated DOT spending by the R-congress. I'll give you Medicare part D. All the other big-ticket items are D-programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Ag price supports, Food Stamps, Pell grants, etc.).

 

[RandFan]

Many Economics texts mention the dispute over minimum wage laws, but few give plausible reasons to expect wage markets to differ from markets in other goods and services, where the quantity that buyers demand falls as prices increase.

Again, this is just an argument that is easily falsified with Australia. As wages increase so does demand which is why Australia has a $16.88 minimum wage and a 5.8% unemployment rate. If the dynamic were as simple as your argument suggests then Australia would have a higher unemployment rate than America, which has a much lower minimum wage and a much higher unemployment rate. BTW: If you are going to appeal to texts then please cite and quote them.

I have, repeatedly. The same way they get fed without State-run cafeteria. Competitive markets generally improve quality and lower costs as businesses compete for customers.

No, you've only provided an ad hoc rationalization while ignoring the facts that I have provided over and over. Poor people are often screwed by business. I've given you multiple examples.

• Dollar and discount stores that sell cheap junk that in the long run costs poor people more.
• Rent-to-own businesses that result in usurious interest rates.
• Pay-day loan businesses that charge usurious interest rates.

Those facts are not going away. Until you address them your ad hoc explanation does not equate to addressing how the poor would get an education.

Other facts that need to be addressed.

• Canada's public option is cheaper than the private option.
• My father often couldn't pay rent much less an education.

You can assert that getting rid of state run compulsory education will result in cheap education for all, but you've not provided any figures for costs of teachers, administration and buildings and thus provided a cost per student.

A diploma certifies attendance at school...

Still much more valuable than no diploma, which you have already acknowledged. And the better the grades the more an individual can make.

• Other than menial labor, businesses won't hire interns or apprentices without some high school or college experience.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Again, this is just an argument that is easily falsified with Australia. As wages increase so does demand...

Really? How so? Why expect employers to want more labor services as the wage rate rises?

...which is why Australia has a $16.88 minimum wage and a 5.8% unemployment rate. If the dynamic were as simple as your argument suggests then Australia would have a higher unemployment rate than America, which has a much lower minimum wage and a much higher unemployment rate. BTW: If you are going to appeal to texts then please cite and quote them.

There's "cherry-picking" for you. How 'bout comparisons of labor force participation before and after passage or elevation of minimum wage rates in one locality? How 'bout a regression (min wage, labor force participation) across a broad class of nations or across US States? Australia does not have the relaxed border policy of the US.

You've yet to explain how poor people would get a high school diploma without state run compulsory education.

I have, repeatedly. The same way they get fed without State-run cafeteria. Competitive markets generally improve quality and lower costs as businesses compete for customers.

No, you've only provided an ad hoc rationalization while ignoring the facts that I have provided over and over. Poor people are often screwed by business. I've given you multiple examples.

So I have explained, it's just that Randfan doesn't like the explanation.

• Dollar and discount stores that sell cheap junk that in the long run costs poor people more.
• Rent-to-own businesses that result in usurious interest rates.
• Pay-day loan businesses that charge usurious interest rates.

Those facts are not going away. Until you address them your ad hoc explanation does not equate to addressing how the poor would get an education.

Poor people are often screwed by governments (Jim Crow, Tuskegee Experiment, Trail of Tears, Kolyma labor camps, the entire population of North Korea). Again, I have addressed Randfan's argument: the government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more intelligent, more altruistic, better-informed, or more capable (except to the extent that their access to the tools of organized violence enhances their capabilities). The most effective accountability mechanisms humans have yet devised are policies that give to unhappy customers the power to take their business elsewhere. Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State actors.

Instapundit linked this. The argument applies with little alteration to pre-college schooling.

 

[RandFan]

Really? How so? Why expect employers to want more labor services as the wage rate rises?

Already explained, more money among the lower tiers the more demand. Rich people can only purchase so many things. There are not very many of them. There are lots of people who are poor with lots of demand. More money to the poor, more purchasing, more need for products and services, more people needed to make the products or provide the services. See the Ted Talk Video by Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs". If you provide a decent wage then people will spend that money on goods and services increasing GDP. Most importantly, per capita GDP.

There's "cherry-picking" for you. How 'bout comparisons of labor force participation before and after passage or elevation of minimum wage rates in one locality? How 'bout a regression (min wage, labor force participation) across a broad class of nations or across US States? Australia does not have the relaxed border policy of the US.

A.) It's not cherry picking if it falsifies your claim. B.) You are now moving your goal posts.

Randfan doesn't like....

And Malcolm doesn't like civility.

Poor people are often screwed by governments...

This is A.) a red herring and B.) Tu Quoque. We know that through government run schools the poor, like me, do get an education and do get jobs. Under your plan we can expect the poor to get dollar store education. Rent-to-own education, Pay-day-loan education, if any education at all. What business gives away its services?

One more time,

1. My father had zero money to put 5 kids through school. How on earth would privatizing education solve that problem?
2. My father wanted me to stay home and work the farm.

Because of state run compulsory education I was assured that my education expenses would be met and my father's neglect would be countered.

You still have not explained how poor people would be educated by getting the state out of the education business. You still have not explained how poor people would afford an education. You still have not explained why Canada's public option is cheaper than the private option.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Vouchers don’t do much for students

Rebuttal here.

In Milwaukee, just 13 percent of voucher students scored proficient in math and 11 percent made the bar in reading this spring. That’s worse on both counts than students in the city’s public schools. In Cleveland, voucher students in most grades performed worse than their peers in public schools in math, though they did better in reading.

It is not accurate to compare disadvantaged students participating in a school choice program to the general population, which includes children from wealthy families, just as it would be inaccurate to compare all private school students against all public school students (which would show a clear advantage to the former over the latter). That’s comparing apples and orangoutangs. The most accurate comparison is a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the gold standard of social science. As James Pethokoukis and Michael McShane pointed out over at the AEIdeas blog, Politico fails to mention that 11 of 12 RCTs found that choice improves student outcomes. The last study found no statistically significant difference while no study found any harm.
...school choice programs raise student achievement, save money, and are supported by the public. But you wouldn’t know that if you only read Politico.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Many Economics texts mention the dispute over minimum wage laws, but few give plausible reasons to expect wage markets to differ from markets in other goods and services, where the quantity that buyers demand falls as prices increase.

Again, this is just an argument that is easily falsified with Australia. As wages increase so does demand which is why Australia has a $16.88 minimum wage and a 5.8% unemployment rate.

Really? How so? Why expect employers to want more labor services as the wage rate rises?

Already explained, more money among the lower tiers the more demand. Rich people can only purchase so many things. There are not very many of them. There are lots of people who are poor with lots of demand. More money to the poor, more purchasing, more need for products and services, more people needed to make the products or provide the services.

That doesn't work. The same argument would work for any commodity or service, and it doesn't. Quantity demanded at price $X falls as $X rises. Doesn't matter if you're talking brass, bannans, haircuts or hookers.

Why suppose that employees (on average) are poorer than shareholders (e.g., retiree on pensions), on average? The argument that income of wealthy people circulates more slowly than does income of poor people doesn't make sense; if wealthy people bank it, banks lend to business who spend it. Real per capita income is total productivity divided by population. Laws which reduce total productivity (e.g., laws which punish employers who hire unskilled workers whose labor is worth less than the legislated minimum wage) reduce total productivity. Unless accompanied by population reductions, minimum wage laws will reduce average real per capita income, seems to me.

 

[RandFan]

That doesn't work. The same argument would work for any commodity or service, and it doesn't. Quantity demanded at price $X falls as $X rises. Doesn't matter if you're talking brass, bannans, haircuts or hookers.

Supply and demand 101. Demand already exists. The only barrier to meeting that demand is wages. As wages increase then that demand can be made real and the price for labor is justified as increased sales means increased gross profits. The margins might be smaller but more widgets are sold. See economies of scale.

Why suppose that employees (on average) are poorer than shareholders (e.g., retiree on pensions), on average? The argument that income of wealthy people circulates more slowly than does income of poor people doesn't make sense; if wealthy people bank it, banks lend to business who spend it. Real per capita income is total productivity divided by population. Laws which reduce total productivity (e.g., laws which punish employers who hire unskilled workers whose labor is worth less than the legislated minimum wage) reduce total productivity. Unless accompanied by population reductions, minimum wage laws will reduce average real per capita income, seems to me.

We are talking about minimum wage. Why not suppose those on minimum wage are poorer than shareholders. In any event it is irrelevant. If the dynamic were as cut and dried as you assert then Australia would have a lower minimum wage or higher unemployment.

It does work. Australia proves it. Putting money in a bank does not increase GDP. It does not increase goods and services. Only an increase in the purchasing of goods and services can increase GDP. Business cannot purchase more than they are now without new customers. The cycle always begins with demand. You can have a supply of X and all the money in the world but if there is no demand for X then you won't sell X and GDP won't rise.

Watch the video.

"Rich people don't create jobs"

 

[A'isha]

Again, Cohen's book was not addressed to "historians". It was a high school textbook.

So? Why does it have to be addressed to historians to use the standard, accepted terminology?

Remember, your entire argument here is that Cohen's book is an example of how US schools are "State-worshipful indoctrination centers", apparently under the assumption that Republican politicians are not part of "the State" (the same reason your Jay Bennish example is so laughable). Except it's no such thing, and is just a text using the standard terminology for describing the Jeffersonian Republicans of the period.

When Cohen claims that "western state Republicans" supported the war of 1812, how would high school students interpret the term "republican"?

That there was a party in 1812 that called themselves and their members "Republicans", and whose members from the Western part of the Union supported the War of 1812.

Which is, of course, absolutely true. To complain about that, or to complain that any mention of the Republicans of 1812 isn't accompanied by the (false) disclaimer "but they're called Democrats now and don't have anything to do with the modern Republican party!') is just sheer partisan ideological nonsense.

 

[bruto]

So hold on here. A book serves as an authority until it's questioned, and then it's excused because it was never meant to be an authority?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(RandFan): "Demand already exists."
No. An axiom of economic theory asserts "human wants are infinite" but that doesn't mean a business owner will buy unlimited labor services. Demand is a function of, among other things, the price. In the case of labor, an employer's demand for labor services is a function of the wage s/he must pay.
(RandFan): "The only barrier to meeting that demand is wages. As wages increase then that demand can be made real and the price for labor is justified as increased sales means increased gross profits. The margins might be smaller but more widgets are sold. See economies of scale."
No, again. The same argument applies to any donation of revenue to any people in the neighborhood. One might as well argue that businesses would gain if they donated X% of their profits to the local homeless shelter. By the reasoning above (the poor spend a larger fraction of their income), that would work better than raising wages.

Anyway, this isn't the Economics forum. The point is, high school Social Studies routinely take the socialist (D) side of policy disputes without suggesting that the issue is controversial. The sociologist Daniel Reisman (The Lonely Crowd) argued (Commentary? I don't recall) that the pre-college curriculum not include Social Studies because, he suggested, many teachers would not resist the temptation to indoctrinate students.

I suggest the better option is some restricted definition of "school" that includes topics on which a large majority can agree (Math, basic language fluency, classical mechanics (i.e., 19th century physics), chemistry, vocational prep), and subsidize any school that provides at least that curriculum. Let parents append whatever (benign) additional curriculum they want.

 

[A'isha]

Why only physics that is more than a century out of date?

 

[RandFan]

(RandFan): "Demand already exists."
No. An axiom of economic theory asserts "human wants are infinite" but that doesn't mean a business owner will buy unlimited labor services. Demand is a function of, among other things, the price. In the case of labor, an employer's demand for labor services is a function of the wage s/he must pay.

Your axiom is irrelevant and demonstrably false. Billionaires do not live from paycheck to paycheck. They do no spend all of their money (it is unlikely that their wants could ever meet their income). Poor people spend most if not all of the money they recieve. If they had more money they would spend more money increasing GDP. There is of course a point of diminishing returns. Minimum wage can only rise so high. There is only so much efficiency in any system. Currently the demand from the poor is very underutilized (see the Ted Talk Video I posted above).

(RandFan): "The only barrier to meeting that demand is wages. As wages increase then that demand can be made real and the price for labor is justified as increased sales means increased gross profits. The margins might be smaller but more widgets are sold. See economies of scale."
No, again. The same argument applies to any donation of revenue to any people in the neighborhood. One might as well argue that businesses would gain if they donated X% of their profits to the local homeless shelter. By the reasoning above (the poor spend a larger fraction of their income), that would work better than raising wages.

A.) False dichotomy. B.) Of course they gain by donating x% of their profits to the local homeless shelter. Both improve society. Again, there is a limit to which private business can improve society either by raising wages or donating but both obviously, empirically increase GDP. That is an objective fact (see below). The only problem we have is the free rider problem and the nature of corporations (game theory, I'd suggest you talk to Nova Land on this one it's his area of expertise). In any event, we no longer live in groups of about 200 so social stigma is limited so corporations are more likely to generate free riders than society is to produce philanthropists. The next best thing is govt. Redistributing some percentage of wealth (and/or enforcing a minimum wage) is something the govt can do and do well. Obviously since every nation high in both economic health and well being are modern liberal democracies. The proof of the pudding is in the eating (the proof is in the pudding).

The Economic Case for Food Stamps

The Business Case for Increasing SNAP Participation

Anyway, this isn't the Economics forum. The point is, high school Social Studies routinely take the socialist (D) side of policy disputes without suggesting that the issue is controversial. The sociologist Daniel Reisman (The Lonely Crowd) argued (Commentary? I don't recall) that the pre-college curriculum not include Social Studies because, he suggested, many teachers would not resist the temptation to indoctrinate students.

I suggest the better option is some restricted definition of "school" that includes topics on which a large majority can agree (Math, basic language fluency, classical mechanics (i.e., 19th century physics), chemistry, vocational prep), and subsidize any school that provides at least that curriculum. Let parents append whatever (benign) additional curriculum they want.

I'm not opposed to changes in options for parents. Given the Canadian model I suspect the same thing would happen here and the public option would be cheaper. So long as there is an option for people like my situation and the state ensures that each child gets an education regardless.

 

[Border Reiver]

(
I suggest the better option is some restricted definition of "school" that includes topics on which a large majority can agree (Math, basic language fluency, classical mechanics (i.e., 19th century physics), chemistry, vocational prep), and subsidize any school that provides at least that curriculum. Let parents append whatever (benign) additional curriculum they want.

So you've realized that the "parental performance" curriculum you originally is inadequate and that a broader knowledge base is necessary.


Now, please answer why an employer is going to educate people for anything but what is strictly necessary for the job for which they were hired? Of pay them enough so that they educate themselves when not on the job?