Should School Attendance be Compulsory?

[Ethel mermania]

Till 17, yes.

[Ethel mermania]

But why would they do that? A large inspiration for the market to build a school would be to make a profit and employ people.

Well what's more important?
The profit or the education of one's children?

Gonna have to say yes to compulsory school attendance.

You can have compulsory education and private schools, they are not mutually exclusive.

[Kubra]

Oh gee looks like my post was skipped over, I guess it's because this guy does not understand the affect of population on economic activity
I tell ya, what's up with folks praising markets while only having a rough idea how they work?

[Mezonpotania]

On the curriculum, the company should decide also.
You know why? Because the better the curriculum, the more people get it!

Also, on being poor, companies will also lower their own price because they want to beat the other companies.

Also, THEY WOULDNT BE POOR IF WE DIDNT HAVE THE TAXES TO PAY FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION!

if I recall, tax money spent on education is 2.8%. The amount of tax dollars going to education is tiny. So is the tax rate for the poor - most of the burden falls on the richer

Also, income tax is over 30% on even the poor, which the 70% they have is less than they need to support themselves.
They wouldn't need welfare or any of the other crappy government programs if the government wasn't spending 30% of their income!

[Mezonpotania]

And if what they deem important is what parents deem important, then they will go there, if otherwise, they won't.
Also, if nobody has a good curriculum, then parents will choose homeschooling.

So basically companies get to choose the curriculum for their school and is the state providing the homeschool curriculum or is that up to the parent too?

The parent knows what's best.

Plus, companies will compete with each other for better school curriculums because if they don't, then parents won't buy from them.
Also if they don't provide a cheaper service.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well what's more important?
The profit or the education of one's children?

Gonna have to say yes to compulsory school attendance.

You can have compulsory education and private schools, they are not mutually exclusive.

But it is morally questionable.

But why would they do that? A large inspiration for the market to build a school would be to make a profit and employ people.

By necessity, the company that runs the school would have to be a large company with other financial interests in the local area to employ people, otherwise there would be no point. There would be either total monopoly in a region or area by one company - a so-called "company town", or superfluous, useless services due to "competition".

Company towns have never been good for anyone except the company running the company town. It's a thoroughly manipulative institution designed explicitly to control the lives of its workers, and through the lives of their families - future workers.
There is nothing "free" about a company town.

[Imperializt Russia]

So basically companies get to choose the curriculum for their school and is the state providing the homeschool curriculum or is that up to the parent too?

The parent knows what's best.

"Jesus will heal my child" types and anti-vaxxers.

These are people who objectively do not "know best".

[Mezonpotania]

Oh gee looks like my post was skipped over, I guess it's because this guy does not understand the affect of population on economic activity
I tell ya, what's up with folks praising markets while only having a rough idea how they work?

I know how markets work.

I also know that these markets don't exist today only because of banks and governments working for inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have and makes you poor.

[Imperializt Russia]

if I recall, tax money spent on education is 2.8%. The amount of tax dollars going to education is tiny. So is the tax rate for the poor - most of the burden falls on the richer

Also, income tax is over 30% on even the poor, which the 70% they have is less than they need to support themselves.
They wouldn't need welfare or any of the other crappy government programs if the government wasn't spending 30% of their income!

Not how it works.

[Imperializt Russia]

Oh gee looks like my post was skipped over, I guess it's because this guy does not understand the affect of population on economic activity
I tell ya, what's up with folks praising markets while only having a rough idea how they work?

I know how markets work.

I also know that these markets don't exist today only because of banks and governments working for inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have and makes you poor.

Inflation is a measure to reduce the effects of debt on both a personal and national level, for fuck's sake.

[Bressen]

No. Nothing should be compulsory unless it's a compulsory measure to prevent harm from occurring to other people.

If a parent doesn't strongly encourage their child to attend school or child is too idiotic to not attend school, then that's on them. If they then complain that they don't have a job and can't afford anything, then that's on them. Personal responsibility is wonderful.

[Mezonpotania]

The parent knows what's best.

"Jesus will heal my child" types and anti-vaxxers.

These are people who objectively do not "know best".

They are un-informed due to socialist and progressive policies in PUBLIC education.
They would know better if we had used my ways in the first place.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Jesus will heal my child" types and anti-vaxxers.

These are people who objectively do not "know best".

They are un-informed due to socialist and progressive policies in PUBLIC education.
They would know better if we had used my ways in the first place.

No they fucking wouldn't.

Who pushes religion and anti-vax narratives? People with vested financial interests.

Who decries antivaxxing and the supremacy of religion? "progressivism".

Do you seriously hate the political left and social progressivism that much that you're blaming it for the things it explicitly opposes?
Jesus fucking Christ.

[Mezonpotania]

I know how markets work.

I also know that these markets don't exist today only because of banks and governments working for inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have and makes you poor.

Inflation is a measure to reduce the effects of debt on both a personal and national level, for fuck's sake.

By making more of a currency to pay of debts.
Which is terrible by the way, by making more of a currency, you are devaluating it, and thus keeping your debt at the same size while also reducing the wealth of your country.
Governments aren't all knowing, they are humans, just like us. They don't consider every factor.

[Kubra]

Oh gee looks like my post was skipped over, I guess it's because this guy does not understand the affect of population on economic activity
I tell ya, what's up with folks praising markets while only having a rough idea how they work?

I know how markets work.

I also know that these markets don't exist today only because of banks and governments working for inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have and makes you poor.

Evidently not, if your solution to affordable childcare is "just don't have kids if you don't have money lol"
Childcare subsidies, like education funding and subsidies, exist because we recognize both as contributing to our general economic well being, by maintaining a certain level of population growth necessary to fill openings within the future economy, and high education attainment rates keeping our population internationally competitive.
What you're suggesting seems to be to shrink fertility rates and shrink education attainment rates, mostly so you don't have to pay taxes.

[Imperializt Russia]

Inflation is a measure to reduce the effects of debt on both a personal and national level, for fuck's sake.

By making more of a currency to pay of debts.
Which is terrible by the way, by making more of a currency, you are devaluating it, and thus keeping your debt at the same size while also reducing the wealth of your country.
Governments aren't all knowing, they are humans, just like us. They don't consider every factor.

No.

A debt is a fixed figure of cash value money you owe someone, minus the interest.
Inflation functionally devalues the figure of debt.
After 100% inflation, a £3000 debt is "worth" only £1500 of "old money", because it's still valued at £3000.
Meanwhile, your pay packet goes from £20k to £40k.

[Mezonpotania]

They are un-informed due to socialist and progressive policies in PUBLIC education.
They would know better if we had used my ways in the first place.

No they fucking wouldn't.

Who pushes religion and anti-vax narratives? People with vested financial interests.

Who decries antivaxxing and the supremacy of religion? "progressivism".

Do you seriously hate the political left and social progressivism that much that you're blaming it for the things it explicitly opposes?
Jesus fucking Christ.

You know what?
There will always be people that are so stupid as to not consider every factor.

Government owned schools are un competitive, and can thus teach whatever they want to children. That is what the socialist and progressive policies are. Public schools don't have a good curriculum and thus allow people to believe that stuff without better knowledge.

[Mezonpotania]

By making more of a currency to pay of debts.
Which is terrible by the way, by making more of a currency, you are devaluating it, and thus keeping your debt at the same size while also reducing the wealth of your country.
Governments aren't all knowing, they are humans, just like us. They don't consider every factor.

No.

A debt is a fixed figure of cash value money you owe someone, minus the interest.
Inflation functionally devalues the figure of debt.
After 100% inflation, a £3000 debt is "worth" only £1500 of "old money", because it's still valued at £3000.
Meanwhile, your pay packet goes from £20k to £40k.

You still are a person who doesn't consider every factor.

Thus, I will not argue with an idiot.

[Ethel mermania]

You can have compulsory education and private schools, they are not mutually exclusive.

But it is morally questionable.

But why would they do that? A large inspiration for the market to build a school would be to make a profit and employ people.

By necessity, the company that runs the school would have to be a large company with other financial interests in the local area to employ people, otherwise there would be no point. There would be either total monopoly in a region or area by one company - a so-called "company town", or superfluous, useless services due to "competition".

Company towns have never been good for anyone except the company running the company town. It's a thoroughly manipulative institution designed explicitly to control the lives of its workers, and through the lives of their families - future workers.
There is nothing "free" about a company town.

nyc has multiple organizations running private schools without to much issue.

[Calladan]

Usually whenever I try to complain about stuff, I make a fool of myself. Now for a controversial topic that probably won't make me sound stupid. Anyway, so, I am personally against compulsory school due to the fact that people should be responsible for getting their own education. If schooling is left to be a persons decision, it will probably then go back to being left to the free market. This would be good because it could allow schooling to be competitive and create supply and demand for schooling.

Whatd'ya think? I know I'm probably wrong somewhere in there, so feel free to correct me politely

Schooling up to sixteen (or whatever age) should be compulsory. Whether that is state or private or (at a push) home schooling is really up to the parents, as long as they can legitimately demonstrate the child is getting a fully rounded education in maths, science, the language of the country they are in (English for Britain, French for France etc) and literature (not religious indoctrination) and some level of physical exercise. History & Geography should be added later, along with more science and so on. But mostly a well balanced, well rounded education that isn't warped by the religious bias of the people doing the educating.

And if the child is not getting that, the parents should be punished (fined, imprisoned, children removed and put into care, parents tortured, executed, whipped naked through the streets, forced to watch Big Brother, stakes driven through their hearts - whatever works..... ).

[Thermodolia]

Usually whenever I try to complain about stuff, I make a fool of myself. Now for a controversial topic that probably won't make me sound stupid. Anyway, so, I am personally against compulsory school due to the fact that people should be responsible for getting their own education. If schooling is left to be a persons decision, it will probably then go back to being left to the free market. This would be good because it could allow schooling to be competitive and create supply and demand for schooling.

Whatd'ya think? I know I'm probably wrong somewhere in there, so feel free to correct me politely

Isn't school already compulsory is most of the world?

[Novsvacro]

No they fucking wouldn't.

Who pushes religion and anti-vax narratives? People with vested financial interests.

Who decries antivaxxing and the supremacy of religion? "progressivism".

Do you seriously hate the political left and social progressivism that much that you're blaming it for the things it explicitly opposes?
Jesus fucking Christ.

You know what?
There will always be people that are so stupid as to not consider every factor.

Government owned schools are un competitive, and can thus teach whatever they want to children. That is what the socialist and progressive policies are. Public schools don't have a good curriculum and thus allow people to believe that stuff without better knowledge.

Then reform the curricula. The answer isn't to exclude literally millions of children from an education.

[Thermodolia]

Well what's more important?
The profit or the education of one's children?

Gonna have to say yes to compulsory school attendance.

They won't make a profit unless they teach the children which will be overlooked by the parents.

No it won't be profitable to teach kids when you could just make them mindless workers drones

[Mezonpotania]

By making more of a currency to pay of debts.
Which is terrible by the way, by making more of a currency, you are devaluating it, and thus keeping your debt at the same size while also reducing the wealth of your country.
Governments aren't all knowing, they are humans, just like us. They don't consider every factor.

No.

A debt is a fixed figure of cash value money you owe someone, minus the interest.
Inflation functionally devalues the figure of debt.
After 100% inflation, a £3000 debt is "worth" only £1500 of "old money", because it's still valued at £3000.
Meanwhile, your pay packet goes from £20k to £40k.

Also, I meant government debts.
When a government owes money, they make more of it and devaluate it.
But, if the amount they owe is to an outside of country person/company then the amount they owe will not devaluate, as it will have to own up to an un-inflated currency!

[San Lumen]

No they fucking wouldn't.

Who pushes religion and anti-vax narratives? People with vested financial interests.

Who decries antivaxxing and the supremacy of religion? "progressivism".

Do you seriously hate the political left and social progressivism that much that you're blaming it for the things it explicitly opposes?
Jesus fucking Christ.

You know what?
There will always be people that are so stupid as to not consider every factor.

Government owned schools are un competitive, and can thus teach whatever they want to children. That is what the socialist and progressive policies are. Public schools don't have a good curriculum and thus allow people to believe that stuff without better knowledge.

Why should everything be about making a damm profit?!!!And what aren't public schools teaching or not teaching that they shouldn't or should be?