California Approves a Targeted State-Funded Guaranteed Income Program (cnbc.com) 130
Thursday's California's lawmakers approved America's first state-funded guaranteed income program for both qualifying young adults who have recently left foster care and for pregnant women, reports CNBC.
The votes — 36-0 in the Senate and 64-0 in the Assembly — showed bipartisan support for an idea that is gaining momentum across the country. Dozens of local programs have sprung up in recent years, including some that have been privately funded, making it easier for elected officials to sell the public on the idea. California's plan is taxpayer-funded, and could spur other states to follow its lead.
"If you look at the stats for our foster youth, they are devastating," Senate Republican Leader Scott Wilk said. "We should be doing all we can to lift these young people up."
Local governments and organizations will apply for the money and run their programs. The state Department of Social Services will decide who gets funding. California lawmakers left it up to local officials to determine the size of the monthly payments, which generally range from $500 to $1,000 in existing programs around the country. The vote came on the same day millions of parents began receiving their first monthly payments under a temporary expansion of the federal child tax credit many view as a form of guaranteed income. "Now there is momentum, things are moving quickly," said Michael Tubbs, an advisor to California governor Gavin Newsom, who was a trailblazer when he instituted a guaranteed income program as mayor of Stockton. "The next stop is the federal government."
"If you look at the stats for our foster youth, they are devastating," Senate Republican Leader Scott Wilk said. "We should be doing all we can to lift these young people up."
Local governments and organizations will apply for the money and run their programs. The state Department of Social Services will decide who gets funding. California lawmakers left it up to local officials to determine the size of the monthly payments, which generally range from $500 to $1,000 in existing programs around the country. The vote came on the same day millions of parents began receiving their first monthly payments under a temporary expansion of the federal child tax credit many view as a form of guaranteed income. "Now there is momentum, things are moving quickly," said Michael Tubbs, an advisor to California governor Gavin Newsom, who was a trailblazer when he instituted a guaranteed income program as mayor of Stockton. "The next stop is the federal government."
free money benefits all (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The thing is, unlike the wealthy, these people will not hoard this money.
Wealthy people don't "hoard" money. They invest it.
This program trades investment for consumption.
America has a $680B trade deficit, which is the excess we consume over what we produce.
Re: free money benefits all (Score:4, Insightful)
They invest it ...in shit that just sits there gathering entropy, and if they can afford the "asset", rent. They are leeches.
And who are you to invoke "we" and "us" Americans? Some worldy authority on everything.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. They invest in things that allow others to utilize those resources to make/build/grow. Then, when the making, building, growing happens, they return the money at an agreed upon rate of interest/profit.
Even your no-interest checking account is utilized for monetary capital. By the bank.
Unless you're hiding money in your mattress, money is seldom idle.
Re: (Score:3)
America has a $680B trade deficit, which is the excess we consume over what we produce.
Luckily for the US, in macroeconomics trade is not the primary metrics to measure a successful policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Luckily for the US, in macroeconomics trade is not the primary metrics to measure a successful policy.
Unlucky for us, is while microeconomics is wrong about specific things, macroeconomics is wrong about things in general.
Anything beyond supply/demand/competition, and you've jumped the shark.
Re: free money benefits all (Score:4, Interesting)
So, we're getting $680B in goods from other countries each year, and in return we give them nearly worthless printed bills.
That's a steal.
Re: (Score:3)
We also encourage, and in some cases require, those nations to park money in our banking system. The less the world depends on the US for its currency and banking, the sharper our decline will be. There is a tremendous economic and political advantage to being in the center of it all.
Re:free money benefits all (Score:5, Interesting)
This program trades investment for consumption.
Yeah, that's what this economy was built on. I mean, I get it. I don't like it any more than the other person, but the US economy isn't well known for it's established investment and saving ethic. Telling the people who this program targets to "just save money" or "invest it" is asking the wrong group to solve a problem they didn't create. And telling the people who did make this an issue to change the economy will just get them voted out of office for being "out of touch".
I'm not a giant supporter of this bill but shy of "hey let's change every aspect of our economy overnight!" There's basically not a whole lot they can do that's going to be in the favor of the public.
America has a $680B trade deficit, which is the excess we consume over what we produce.
And? I mean there was a point to talk about that, and that was like back in the 90s. That ship already left port, hit an iceberg, and sank. The selling of goods as opposed to the making of goods is the primary mover and we're not leaving that unless some group decides to start making inroads on that for the next three decades. Good luck on that, we've got political parties that couldn't agree to have lunch together, much less embark on some retooling of our country that'll take a political forever to do.
Thick or thin, the US is "consume, consume, consume" and I'd bet a shiny quarter that there's not a solution to that anywhere within my lifetime, nor most of the people on Slashdot's lifetime for that matter. This bill that you're calling out, what would you have rather CA done? Toss a monkey wrench into the gears of the US economy? You think that would win the hearts and minds of the people? You think that would get them reelected so that they can make that policy long term?
People like consuming, politicians like drawing lines in sand, and corporations love money. You got three really big things all working to keep the keeping on, keeping on. So you're like, "we shouldn't be this way!!" And that's living in a dream world that doesn't exist and it's that fairy tale crap that most people are done with. The political and lobbying is such, we're not even ready to have a talk on the what we should and shouldn't be doing. When the different party members can sit down with each other and have a discussion for longer than five minutes, then, then we'll have a bit of progress. When lobbying rules get reformed, when money gets out of elections, then we'll have a bit of progress. But until we get those parts and a slew more, all this that you're talking about is just unicorns and fairy dust.
Re: (Score:3)
America has a $680B trade deficit, which is the excess we consume over what we produce.
That means we get stuff in exchange for paper. It's not a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that there is at least some correlation between the trade deficit and the federal deficit, and that the federal deficit is clearly and primarily monetized by printing now. It doesnt even matter that China hold what is probably $2 trillion of our federal debt now, since the biggest player in our debt from now on will forever be the federal reserve.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all true, and yet I would rather have "things" than "paper."
Re: (Score:1)
China holds about $1T of the fed debt, and they don't want it anymore. Which has the potential to push up rates. With the US-China relations the way they are right now, the question is whether China in the future will basically "eat" the US inflation, but buying US debt, and devalue their currency. That's what they have been doing for the past 20 years, and why the US has experienced almost no inflation. Even after printing trillions of dollars after the GFC, there still wasn't much inflation, that's be
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing can push up rates if the Fed doesn't want them to get pushed up.
The Fed has infinite dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, technically, yes, but you have to be careful in this game with just creating money. It's a delicate balance, even if you're the leading world currency. As the world leader, you can push your printing a bit more than, say, Eritrea, because countries will not immediately stop accepting your currency and demand that you pay in something more stable, but if you overdo it, even your army will not keep everyone in line to continue selling you stuff for your funny green paper.
Re:free money benefits all (Score:4, Insightful)
Investment does not necessarily equate to production of value.
I can "invest" in real estate, e.g. buy a bunch of apartments in a major city and rent them out. Am I creating anything of value? No. If anything I'm just hoarding value by jacking up the price of living space.
I can also "invest" in businesses by buying stocks, but that does not necessarily produce anything of value either. Unless I'm buying those stocks from the business, that money is only going to other investors (and middlemen). I might be invested in the company, but I am not actually investing in the company. That's a huge difference.
Or I can "invest" in any number of economically useless financial instruments, none of which result in anything but money being shuffled around with middlemen taking their cut every step of the way because that's all most of it was ever designed to do.
That's not investing, that's just buying more money.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
That's not investing, that's just buying more money.
Wish I could upvote this forever. That's the most succinct description I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, they don't.
Investing only makes sense in an econmy that is growing. Why should I invest in an economy like this, though?
What I do is that I buy real estate to park my money in something tangible. That's it. My money is not getting more that way, other than by simple fiat of market because if everyone wants to buy real estates, prices for real estates go up. This is basically why our economy still looks kinda stable when in fact it is stalling.
We have plenty of money on the supply side looking and eve
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Giving people a guaranteed income will make some of those people lazy.
Given the numbers, I guess there are a lot of "lazy" people on Social Security then. When do we stop sending checks again, or was this analysis perhaps a bit too oversimplified?
People become millionaires because they don't think like poor people.
People become millionaires often because of opportunity that is not afforded to anyone else. Many beautiful women could become millionaires abusing the world's oldest profession. Doesn't mean they would take that opportunity, even if it means staying poor.
People remain poor because they don't think like millionaires.
When the world has been reduced to billionaires and the poor, you'll finall
Re: (Score:2)
If I "hoard" $1000 into the bank, inflation of 4% will eat $40 of its purchasing power within a year.
Absolutely true. However, for a rich person who "invests" that same $1000 into stocks or other assets that generate interest, there is either a minimal loss in purchasing power (which is offset by other forms of wealth not generally available to you and me), or a gain in purchasing power as those investments generate more than 4% of interest. That absolutely encourages the wealthy to hoard money. Why wouldn't they? They get more benefit from letting the money accumulate than by spending it. Both the money m
Re: (Score:2)
However, for a rich person who "invests" that same $1000 into stocks or other assets that generate interest, there is either a minimal loss in purchasing power ..., or a gain in purchasing power as those investments generate more than 4% of interest. That absolutely encourages the wealthy to hoard money. Why wouldn't they?
Investing in interest-bearing assets is not hoarding money. That should be self-evident: They obtained the assets in exchange for the money, ergo they don't have the money any more, so they can't be hoarding it.
Anyway it's a bit pointless to complain about hoarding of money or stocks or similar goods which cost essentially nothing to make and can neither be usefully consumed or utilized as a means of production. Even if they were being hoarded no harm would result to anyone. If one were hoarding land or com
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "hoarding money". It economically makes no sense whatsoever because of inflation. If I "hoard" $1000 into the bank, inflation of 4% will eat $40 of its purchasing power within a year. And the next year. And the next. Money needs to be invested in order multiply. Rich people invest the money into the new projects like "Blue Origin" or "SpaceX", thereby creating new jobs. That is how Google, Uber, Tesla, SpaceX, Amazon, Ebay, Facebook and others came to be.
Google, and others "came to be" by spending years selling a product (often that product was you), amassing massive amounts of corrupt tax-free revenue that's parked in offshore tax havens, and then using some of their obscene billions to "create jobs" while having the financial freedom to not give a shit one way or another if the project ultimately succeeds or fails.
UBI means taking money from the people who were capable of earning it and giving it to the people who were not able to earn it. Essentially, any form of redistribution, including of course UBI, punishes success.
First off, with a statement like that, I wonder how you feel about Social Security, the largest "redistribution" in America that sustains lives
Re: (Score:3)
If I put 1000 bucks in the bank, I lose 40 bucks due to inflation. If I "invest" it in a business in this economy I lose 1000 bucks becasue the business will fail. It's more sensible to lose 40 bucks.
Do you see the problem? I would love to invest my money in something sensible. I would love to invest it in something that will at least break even. All I can do, though, is to either push the real estate prices up or keep blue chips at an artificial high because NOTHING else comes close to having a chance of a
Re: (Score:2)
1) You are incorrect. There is no hoarding of money IF YOU ARE POOR. But once you hit a certain amount, everyone starts trying to make sure they do not LOSE money rather than concentrate on making money.
This is particularly true of the corrupt and criminal. Drug dealers are reknown for burying cash. People like Mike Tyson are known to withdraw millions of dollars in cash.
2) Venezuela never gave out money. They are not now and never were socialists. They were a Tyranny.
3) Because you never lived under
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. Marginal propensity to consume (MPC). It doesn't necessarily require spending incoming on discretionary items because the money that often goes to unmet, inelastic, basic needs like food, transportation, and shelter.
Re: (Score:1)
"Require" is the wrong wording; "lead to wasting." There's always waste but people who are on the brink are less likely to buy a Ferrari than make a Tracfone payment, get themselves out of near eviction, pay the power bill, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Stimulus for the consumer class during a demand gap is almost certainly economically beneficial, but given the inflation in lots of basic goods I'm not sure there's any demand gap left.
In the long term I'm also not sure this won't result in more single mothers and the associated non politically correct results, everything can have unintended consequences. Nature is not some ethical machine which provides progress for universally ethical decisions, it's just some bullshit which happens working towards heat d
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever entertained the idea that the lower demand, and hence the need to increase the price to stay profitable with lower sales, is due to the disability of more and more people to buy these basic goods?
Re: (Score:1)
What does Nature have to do with politics or markets? .NOTHING, it is all man-made.
.
Re: free money benefits all (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I've read the same article from three different sources and all refer to the same woman who is going to buy electronic toys for her brother and save for a down payment on her new "dream" car. Hardly seems like the proper sort of poster girl, but there it is. This is clearly a press release from Newsom and friends. One more reason to dump him.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
There is no bad thing imaginable that you don't deserve to have happen to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so $35 million for this program? What a joke, won't and can't scale just like any other UBI won't work.
I wish other headlines pointed this out too. $35 million is an experiment, not a program. Sacramento spends more than that on coffee and doughnuts.
Try a soul sucking job for 10-12 hours a day with no overtime. Get a job!
I am not an employment lawyer but in California, you must get overtime if you work more than 8 hours in a shift. It's not even an option to voluntarily work 4x10.
Re: (Score:2)
so $35 million for this program? What a joke, won't and can't scale just like any other UBI won't work. Best thing for former foster kids that are now adults is to get a job, like everyone else.
from article
"She became ineligible for that program when she turned 24 last year, which normally would have ended her government assistance as a foster child. Instead, the taxpayers of Santa Clara County have been paying her $1,000 per month with no restrictions on how she can spend it, part of a guaranteed income program targeting former foster care children.
De Jesus is also caring for her 9-year-old brother as his temporary guardian while battling anxiety and depression. She said her condition made it hard for her to keep a job because some days she wouldnâ(TM)t have enough energy to get out of bed and wouldnâ(TM)t go to work."
Really? 24? Get a job! you think you have anxiety and depression, woman. Try a soul sucking job for 10-12 hours a day with no overtime. Get a job!
You have literally absolutely no clue whatsoever.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
What nonsense, this woman is lazy and whines she doesn't feel like going to work. At 24 years old.
Skin color has nothing to do with it. In these United States a black or hispanic person can be president or senator or CEO... or IT professional or union contractor. They can get free money to study to do that.
You're the racist one, you think non-whites are pitiful subhumans who aren't capable of being educated or holding a job. I say they can do both of those, plenty of such have done both of those.
Re: bad math (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If she's too emotionally/mentally disabled to hold a job then how is she allowed to be guardian for a 9yo?
Re: bad math (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: bad math (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly how we treat mentally ill men.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong and backwards. She is in depression because she's laying about doing nothing but whining how she doesn't feel like doing anything, of course she has self-loathing being willfully useless. She needs to be an adult, get a job, and thus have feeling of accomplishment and also will meet new friends.
Get out of your mom's basement and get a job.
Re: (Score:1)
hahaha, people that hate guns and are scared of guns won't be putting anyone to the wall. guess again who is armed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You have it backwards. A lazy person who "doesn't feel like working" will of course fall into depression and self-loathing. She's the cause of her own downward spiral. She needs to be a responsible adult and get a job, instead of being a whining baby in an adult's skin.
You are bad, wanting to empower laziness and uselessness in people on the dime of others. Shame on you.
Maybe will cover parking fees (Score:3, Insightful)
$1k per month in California is next to "nothing".
$1k per month where I live is 50% of my mortgage, power, natural gas, internet, phone and food every month.
Re: (Score:1)
So mean, Imagine telling that 24 year old girl the subject of article she should get a job, should have gotten a job years ago, but she wakes up and doesn't feel like going to work. She's still a "foster kid"!
Re: (Score:1)
You too, get out of your mom's basement and get a job. Being an adult baby sponging off others is bad.
Re:Maybe will cover parking fees (Score:5, Insightful)
For someone on a low income it's hugely significant. I doubt they expect it to provide a high quality of life for people but it will certainly help many get out of a hole and start working they way back up.
Often when people are struggling the lack of a few bucks for basic things they need, even stuff like money to get the bus to a job a bit further from home or to buy a textbook for their kid, or the pay this month's cellular bill so they can find work and stay in touch with their support network all makes a massive difference.
Yet another welfare program (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet another welfare program (Score:4, Insightful)
None of the people involved are funding this, but they are involved in this, because its another pile of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does yet another program need to exist?
Because the federal programs are garbage, designed to create a permanent underclass.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does yet another program need to exist?
Because the federal programs are garbage, designed to create a permanent underclass.
Greed N. Corruption will ensure that UBI is nothing more than Welfare 2.0 for the unemployable masses, fighting to hold back every penny they own that might be threatened with fiscal responsibility in order to hoard obscene amounts of money they'll never be able to actually spend.
Programs turn into garbage programs because of Greed. Future programs will be no different no matter who manages them. There will be a permanent class of humans alright; the unemployable. As more and more of the human population
Re: (Score:1)
That's when the death panels from the Medical Industrial Complex, come marching in.
The death panels are already there. They are operated by the insurance companies, just like they were before Romneycare. Since the insurance companies are written into the law, and not forbidden from denying care, the death panels are effectively written into the law as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't UBI, or anything close to it. It's yet another welfare program,
Spot on. Note TFA didn't call it UBI because it's clearly not. What would a "targeted UBI" be? If it's targeted, it's not universal.
So yes, this is just going back to welfare as we knew it and got rid of in the '90s.
Re: (Score:2)
Because everyone gets to vote.
70% of middle class jobs that have been lost (Score:5, Interesting)
It's high time that some of the fruits of all that progress and automation you spread around. Remember that if you have more money than you can spend it becomes savings. If you have more money than you can save it becomes power. Redistributing wealth isn't about quality or Justice or any of that nonsense. It's about power. If you're on the left you can justify redistribution with morals and morality and that's fine and whatever. But if you're on the right you'd better figure out how you're going to redistribute wealth if you care about freedom. Because money is power and people with all the money have all the power and they're the only ones who have any real freedom. And I know what you're thinking, I'll just get me some money and as long as I have enough I'll have enough freedom. But those people who have more money and more freedom than you are always going to be trying to take your money and your freedom. And eventually they'll succeed.
Re: 70% of middle class jobs that have been lost (Score:2)
Not just automation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
70% of jobs lost to automation? Sure. Of course, more than 90% of the population used to work in agriculture. Then we invented tractors. Times change. Not many people want to go back to farming by hand, working 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week. In a few decades, the idea of working on an assembly line will sound equally horrible.
Times do change. Often faster than you assume. Seems not many younger people working shitty jobs today want to go back to working at all, when they're sitting on their ass at home receiving a healthy government check. This is why many businesses are struggling to find humans who want to work.
In a few decades, the idea of forcing a human to work for a living, will sound horrible.
That's actually not true (Score:2)
It turns out the actual reason isn't that people in America won't take a job unless it pays acceptably. We already knew that because those people already had those jobs pre-pandemic. There's three reasons why restaurants have a worker shortage. Child care is the f
Re: (Score:2)
Americans are stupidly hard-working. We at work longer hours than the freaking Japanese.
While I can agree with some of the reasons you've stated that affect employment (or the desire), it's stupid to even try and compare Americans to the Japanese. They work insanely hard because that discipline was driven into them through centuries of respecting that mentality.
Americans are forced to work insanely hard in order to simply survive. There is no greater evidence of this, than the gig economy. Ask any part-time Uber/Lyft driver. Or most anyone forced to take on more than one job, or an additio
Re: (Score:2)
The single biggest problem in America are public schools which suck. People who finish high school can hardly get a decent job because they have no skills. Over 50% of our high school graduates fail basic English and math proficiency test.
Speaking of failed experiments, welcome to the end result of No Idiot Left Behind.
Technological advance requires more and newer skills. We desperately need better schools and we need to abolish public sector unions. Haven't we learned from the failure of the socialist experiment that redistribution doesn't work? The reaction in CA will be the exodus to Texas. You will probably get some money until the public debt doesn't catch up with CA. And then, CA will look like Cuba. It's already starting to look like Cuba, if you come to think of it.
You have too much faith in that mass exodus. California is already a shithole, and yet you can't go a week without someone bragging about their "GDP the size of a country" bullshit, the amazing weather, and almonds. If people haven't left by now, they're not going to leave over this.
And UBI will become a necessary component of government whether you like it or not, due to humans not merely becoming unemployed, but permanentl
Robbing Peter to pay Paul [sigh] (Score:1)
There's NOTHING new in the idea of having government pick the pockets of some people and put the money into the pockets of others, based on political policy prefs and political alliances. There's nothing unique about taking money from middle, or upper-middle, income people who work hard for it and giving it to favored groups of poor people (often buying their votes and fealty) while claiming all along that the intent is to "soak the rich" but of course never actually soaking the rich at all. It's just Marxi
Helping the situation, or perpetuating it? (Score:3)
"If you look at the stats for our foster youth, they are devastating," Senate Republican Leader Scott Wilk said. "We should be doing all we can to lift these young people up."
I agree. So when exactly are leaders going to start promoting the benefits of a sound family unit, especially a father figure, so that you can possibly start addressing the causes of children in foster care, along with many other issues plaguing our youth today?
No matter your thoughts on traditional families, single-parenthood has obvious downsides regardless of what "independent" beliefs are being championed. Perhaps the most dangerous is the decline for younger people to have children or even get married. Our future will not be a kind a loving one when a country is divided into two distinct age groups; those who are too old to work or care for themselves, and the young and vibrant who have zero desire to tend after the old and dying. The continued extinction of the middle class, is represented in more ways than most assume.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not UBI, it's just more welfare (Score:3, Interesting)
This is good at very short term... (Score:2)
But at long term, they should be aiming at helping the small business, at expense of the megacorporations if needed.
Should we let useless people starve? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The key problem here is that people who are starving are not just sitting down and dying peacefully. Operating firearms takes way, way less IQ than 100.
I've been in the army, trust me, I have proof for that.
You will pay for them. One way or another.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a question that nature answered millions of years ago, and the answer is, "yes, absolutely, useless creatures should starve to death."
Those who cannot pull their own weight are quickly dispatched by starvation, predation, or other natural processes, leaving more resources for those who use them more effectively for survival.
History repeats itself (Score:2)
"Targeted" guaranteed income... so welfare... (Score:4, Interesting)
Welfare is supposed to be guaranteed income that is "targeted."
What this program really is, is handouts for political desirables. The only qualification will be low income and registered democrat.
And suddenly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least the religious nuts will finally shut up when people stop having abortions.
Gov Newsom Bribing recall Voters (Score:1)
Gov Newsom continues to throw lots of money to the public in an effort to make recall vote fail. Not all of the public, just those that may be easily swayed to vote for him.
This is not free money even if coming from private parties and passed thru the government.
California (and all other states) should not be in a continuing series of 'emergencies' that are used as an excuse to government to spend money we don't have. We are being trained for constant continuing 'emergencies' that allow Government extra p
Every day and every way. (Score:2)
With every new story coming out of California, I feel renewed relief and gratitude for escaping from there a few years ago. With luck, I will never have to visit this snake pit again.
Re: (Score:1)
Pay women to have children and you will have more children. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing was policies that paid women more to be unmarried and with children than to marry the biological father. Children need fathers in the home, or at least a positive adult male influence. Children lacking this, especially young males, end up being violent, under-educated, and all too often criminals.
Take a look at what's been going on in the UK for the past 40 years, or so. Paying women to have children is definitely a bad thing. It results in a host of young females living in low- income housing projects with their brood of "benefit generators" (A.K.A. children) living off of government subsidies: all paid for by you and me. And many of these women do have a man in the house, if you consider an 18 year old career criminal- in - training to be a "man".
Re: (Score:2)
Parents should use this money to put their kids into private schools or home school them like wealthy kids. Public schooling is child abuse
Paying women while pregnant will encourage women to stay home, have more children.
What is your evidence for this, as that has not been the case in any nation in Europe where this has happened?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask someone from England how well this is working.
I'm in the UK. A few people grumble, but most of the people I know with kids in state schools seem broadly happy.
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't going to population shrink our way out of emissions unless we technologically go straight back to the levels necessary for malthusian population control.
We need all the high attainment race children we can get to advance technology, technology and barbarism are the only way forward ... I prefer technology.
Re: (Score:2)
But no... union job, tenure, a contract signed by a long gone government representative,
The majority of the money in the school system is spent on administration, and that administrations job is to protect the school system from the parents. Full. Fucking. Stop.
Re: (Score:2)
tenure
Er.. tenure's university not school.
The majority of the money in the school system is spent on administration
Citation required.
Re: (Score:2)
Parents should use this money to put their kids into private schools or home school them like wealthy kids. Public schooling is child abuse
Why not improve public schooling?