Pence is hell bent on destroying Indiana

[Bunnykid68]

What benefit? Higher literacy? How does that benefit me?

More importantly, how does it benefit anyone?

 

[Denny347]

Reading is dumb.

 

[2A_Tom]

At post 20 won't read any more. I am glad to see that most here believe that lowering taxes benefit everyone.

Cept fer lazy suckers. (Gummint werkers n gubmint dependendents)

 

[CTS]

What benefit? Higher literacy? How does that benefit me?

You're right, we all live on our own personal islands and don't interact with each other at all. My hat is tipped, you can stick with it.

 

[88GT]

Yes yes...let's throw up hypothetical litmus tests you can't prove without a time machine. Go pre-industrial revolution and history is replete with examples of large swaths of the population who never learned how to read let alone pursue an education until there were publicly provided schools. See Appalachia for reference.

That is exactly what you have been doing. Your entire argument has been premised on the assumption that without government schools, we would be worse off than we are now. An argument you can't prove without that time machine. I do know that there was no shortage of innovation, invention, and advancements in all areas of life well before the advent of government schools. So at least I have a history of achievements made in the absence of government schools to support my position. It happened before government schools, why wouldn't it have continued to happen without them?

So, now that we have government schools, all children learn how to read?

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy says otherwise.

The study, the most comprehensive study of literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government, was released in April 2002 and reapplied in 2003 giving trend data. It involved lengthy interviews of over 90,700 adults statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the U.S. and was designed to represent the U.S. population as a whole. This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."

and

Thus, if this bottom quantile of the study is equated with the functionally illiterate, and these are then removed from those classified as literate, then the resultant literacy rate for the United States would be at most 65-85% depending on where in the basic, minimal competence quantile one sets the cutoff.

It it becomes quite obvious that literacy rates are a dubious benefit of government schools. I will add that in another thread, I discussed the reading/language arts competency of American students. It should sicken even the most devoted advocate of government schools. See America's dazzling literacy rates here

While correlation doesn't equate to causation, I'll take the bait.

What is the definition of illiteracy used in this study? Could you provide the link to the site where you find the chart? I'd be interested to read more. Yes, I could search for it, but I'm guessing you have it close at hand.

Also, with the source the table cites, the years of 1870 to 1979 seem narrow, though not quite cherry-picked.

1870 coincides with the creation of the federal department of education in 1867. My guess is that the newly created cabinet felt it needed to justify its existence by showing the population some results. 1870 is also the year, roughly, in which all states finally offered "free" education. So there are no actual comparisons with literacy rates pre-government school.

 

[mrjarrell]

"I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810. ME 12:393

The ability to read is the first necessary step. It is of benefit to everybody to not have an illiterate populace.

 

[jdwhitak]

You guys do realize that businesses don't pay taxes, right? It's a cost that's passed along to the customer. Pay me now or pay me later! The man is going to get his cut!!!

 

[IndyDave1776]

The ability to read is the first necessary step. It is of benefit to everybody to not have an illiterate populace.

I would not have much of an argument with that if it were being effectively accomplished and the schools could learn to use the 'f' word (frugal, not f**k, that is, which they seem to consider the two equally bad).

 

[level.eleven]

Reading is dumb.

Isn't it amazing the lengths the sovereign citizen crowd will go to justify their delusion?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Isn't it amazing the lengths the sovereign citizen crowd will go to justify their delusion?

I am not aware of anyone involved in this discussion being involved with the SC movement.

 

[88GT]

You're right, we all live on our own personal islands and don't interact with each other at all. My hat is tipped, you can stick with it.

That makes no sense at all. As if my life couldn't be enriched or improved by someone who didn't attend government school.

 

[88GT]

The ability to read is the first necessary step. It is of benefit to everybody to not have an illiterate populace.

I would agree, but we have never had an illiterate populace.

 

[JimboCX]

I would agree, but we have never had an illiterate populace.

The literacy in this country is mediocre at best. Kids refuse to read. They see no reason to read. They think that all teachers or parents need to do is tell them the answer to their questions.

 

[rockhopper46038]

So they cut out this tax, where does the makeup money come from? .

Why does there have to be "makeup money"? Spend less. If that means a cut in "services", so be it.

 

[sadclownwp]

And while we are at the spending cuts, I think it is enough I have to pay for police practice ammo, they should have to buy and service there own guns, they can write it off there taxes at the end of the year. And those take home vehicles, that just sounds like free gas on my dime. And I don't just mean police take home vehicles, like any government paid for take home vehicle. I remember when the county coroner had a take home vehicle, and I remember seeing his wife in it all the time.

 

[JimboCX]

it's funny but I don't know of any business that grows by cutting. They may improve their profitability but generally I have not see a company make cuts while increasing their market share. Companies used to spend in down times while saving during good times. Companies would invest in research and development in a recession. Now it's about cuts and bringing in less experienced employees to help build the business while the experience ones are pushed out.

 

[CTS]

it's funny but I don't know of any business that grows by cutting. They may improve their profitability but generally I have not see a company make cuts while increasing their market share. Companies used to spend in down times while saving during good times. Companies would invest in research and development in a recession. Now it's about cuts and bringing in less experienced employees to help build the business while the experience ones are pushed out.

That's because modern shareholders are more interested in quick dividends than long term "risky" growth. That's why we see large privately held companies doing well then becoming nearly contemptible after the IPO.

 

[Tsigos]

And your argument would be that they are poor because they don't provide state education, I suppose.

Because it could never be that they don't provide state education because they are poor.

There are only 5 countries I could identify as definitively not providing state education for their population. Their rankings in the GDP are 73, 98, 107, 109, and 130. Out of 192 sovereign entities listed. List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. First column.

not the highest, but not the worst. No clear trend. Clearly, state education is not the driving force for economic success.

So you can't even name a country in the top 70 out of 192? Clearly, there is no correlation. Don't get me wrong, there are many other factors that contribute to the strength of an economy, educated workforce being just one. However, your casual dismissal without any support seems highly questionable.

I suppose neither you or your husband nor your respective parents received a public education? Or do you just want to slam the door shut behind you?

 

[Tsigos]

I would agree, but we have never had an illiterate populace.

Percentage of persons 14 years old and over who were illiterate (unable to read or write in any language), by race and nativity: 1870 to 1979:


Year Total
1870 20.0
1880 17.0
1890 13.3
1900 10.7
1910 7.7
1920 6.0
1930 4.3
1940 2.9
1947 2.7
1950 3.2
1952 2.5
1959 2.2
1969 1.0
1979 0.6
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970; and Current Population Reports, Series P-23, Ancestry and Language in the United States: November 1979.

 

[phylodog]

And while we are at the spending cuts, I think it is enough I have to pay for police practice ammo, they should have to buy and service there own guns, they can write it off there taxes at the end of the year. And those take home vehicles, that just sounds like free gas on my dime. And I don't just mean police take home vehicles, like any government paid for take home vehicle. I remember when the county coroner had a take home vehicle, and I remember seeing his wife in it all the time.

Of the weapons I use for work I have over $10,000 in the two rifles and the city paid for the $400 pistol.

I can show you plenty of examples where it costs a city (taxpayers) far more to not properly train their police officers than it does to buy the ammo to train them in the first place. We provide quality firearms training for 1500+ officers every year for far less than it would cost the city to pay one settlement if an officer were to use his firearm inappropriately. If you are thinking its open season on ammo and officers can shoot up as much as they want you are incorrect.

Studies have shown the benefits of officers having take home vehicles. The vehicles last longer which saves money and the presence of those vehicles in the community (even if driven off duty) tends to deter crime. We have to pay to drive our vehicles off duty or to use them for part time employment now so it's not free.