There’s far more than enough money to go around, it is that most spending is inefficient. Lunches should be free and healthy, books should be free unless it’s intentionally damaged, teachers should be paid well (60k minimum) and management should take a pay cut.
60k was pre 2020 rate, they should be paid 100k+ for how much training and bullshit they have to go through.
150k in like NY, SD, LA, SF. Maybe closer to 60k in Beckley WV. Cost of living and taxes aren’t the same everywhere.
NYC teachers max out at about $124,000 after 15+ years and if they have a master’s. That’s not some huge amount in NYC. At least they get a pension so they can move to Costa Rica after they retire and live somewhat comfortably.
That’s livable in that area for the most part. I imagine engineers range 80k to 180k in the same area unless they work their way into management or are in a particular in demand field.
As a Costarican, I can tell you that inflation will bite them hard when they arrive. Anything below $25K USD a year will have them scrounging, and that’s not even counting the apartment rates or a cleaner service.
Teachers should be paid more than, say, marketing people at a blockchain AI startup. Teachers add value to the world.
Agreed. It’s a vital aspect of society like firemen, social workers, and healthcare workers. I think one aspect is the inability to fire workers who are not healthy for the goal. Once a teacher is tenured it’s difficult to remove them even if they’re detrimental to the goal of teaching the youth.
NYC teachers already start at $68,902 per year. That’s not really “paid well” though considering it’s NYC.
Yeah when I said 60K minimum I was thinking 60k West Virginia not 60K NYC.
Funding schools framed as corruption.
Welcome to neoliberalism.
What do you think neoliberalism is?
You don’t get it! Everything Mandamni does is bad because the uhmmmm, the uhhhhh
Scary commie muslim
“If he was a good person God would have made him white”
They won’t say that out loud, but this is what they really think, deep inside of the shriveled cockles of their black hearts
I wouldn’t say everything Mamdani does is bad. I would support his opposition to Israel, & I would be happy if he could somehow arrest Netanyahu.
That said, I think his rent freeze policy is a bad idea. A rent freeze is just the government forcing landlords not to be able to raise rents when a tenant leaves, even if the cost of providing the good has gone up.
I don’t think the government should make it harder for private businesses to provide goods & services. Rent freezes hurt smaller landlords, leaving only the biggest companies able to afford staying in the market. They also lead to rundown buildings, which the government could then use as an excuse to step in and take over those properties. That is probably Mamdani’s intent & goal, since undermining the effectiveness of capitalism could popularize socialism.
good thing “providing” housing costs nothing. it only makes money. you get the equity of owning the building and the rent. the cost of upkeep is always FAR behind rent. the idea that providing housing costs a huge amount of money is absurd. It’s parasitic. If the people paying the rent, which is the upkeep and additional profit, owned the equity, they would also eventually break even and make money. Talking to people like they aren’t smart enough to understand how badly they are getting robbed, isn’t an argument. it’s assholery.
Honestly, I’m under the impression that building a building requires scarce resources and labor, which have opportunity costs reflected in market prices, and maintaining a building likewise requires ongoing expenditures. I would agree that, when someone becomes a landlord, the goal is generally to earn a return on the capital they risk, while facing uncertainties such as tenants not paying rent, changes in government policy, and other market risks. Whether any particular landlord is a good or bad person is something I can’t really speak to.
a building is an asset, not a liability, it always increases in value, and even if it is burned to the ground on a higher than average rate, the land it’s on remains incredibly valuable and an asset. the people living there are losing money. the people who own it are gaining money WITHOUT TENANTS. the equity goes up. period. that’s why people go into debt to own the land. because it’s an asset.
Just because the cost to produce something goes up doesn’t mean the product price needs to go up.
If Trump goes to war with Iran, the price of oil goes up. Since you’re restricting supply, things like airfare also go up because they rely on jet fuel to provide their service. It’s the same with housing. It’s all supply & demand.
Yes and a price limit could be applied to oil there just isn’t. This technically causes a “shortage” (which means something specific not just whatever you think) but housing and oil are complex markets and there’s a lot of nuance. Also housing doesn’t get consumed or ever move. It’s not like the landlord can ship a building somewhere that rents are higher.
public school budgets can’t be bloated, only misappropriated.
Which usually happens under dipshit republican school boards.
“this man is investing in making kids smarter rather than making my stock portfolio increase by an additional 0.0001% and this makes him an existential threat to society”
-NY Post, translated from news editese
Those greedy teachers wanting to eat three meals a day! The gall of these people!
Jesus Christ on a crutch, NYC teachers start at $68,902 per year. That sounds kind of OK until you factor in the cost of … fucking everything there.
Ah you want a roof over your head? I’ll just take 75 percent of your income for this here glorified broomcloset please and thank you.
If we privatize the schools, train the lower class for work and motherhood, this will.be a Fair Society! The weak stay in their place.
[this is what Conservatives actually believe]
this is what Conservatives actually believe
It kind of is! They believe in hierarchy, and that people need to be in their correct place for the world to work. It’s a reason they oppose things like social programs- things that try to bring people up contradict the natural order and lead to bad times!
They’re kind of bad people, fundamentally.
Hierarchy is simply a reality. Believing in hierarchy is like believing in reality itself (i.e. someone is going to be better than me at weaving baskets voilà you have a hierarchy: simple as). But “conservative” is too broad a label, because neoconservatives & paleoconservatives disagree dramatically. More right-liberal or libertarian-leaning conservatives generally do not oppose voluntary associations. That is their thing. They love open-source, volunteering, agorism, & so on. I do not know enough about neoconservatives to comment extensively, but they seem probably so obsessively pro-Israel & would likely change their views to anything if it helped Israel.
There is no obvious limit to what can be considered “charity.” So, if the government takes responsibility for providing charity instead of leaving it to individuals and communities, it can use that as a reason to keep expanding its power and responsibilities.
Thomas Jefferson in 1817. He penned, “Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.
In 1794, James Madison stood on the House floor and objected, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
Hierarchy is simply a reality. Believing in hierarchy is like believing in reality itself (i.e. someone is going to be better than me at weaving baskets voilà you have a hierarchy: simple as).
That’s not exactly what was meant by hierarchy. It’s more like having some people rule over others is good and natural. And that people don’t really change their station in life. You’re a peasant so course the royal family rules over you. They’re good at ruling. Perhaps innately.
There is no obvious limit to what can be considered “charity.” So, if the government takes responsibility for providing charity instead of leaving it to individuals and communities, it can use that as a reason to keep expanding its power and responsibilities.
I don’t find this a compelling argument. “Something bad might happen so we shouldn’t do anything”. I’m sure many of the people suffering from lack of food, shelter, and health care also do not find it compelling. You shouldn’t go outside because bad things can happen there. You shouldn’t lend your phone to your friend because there’s no obvious limit what they can do with it. You can use this argument to avoid anything.
The appeal to the “founding fathers” is not very effective. They lived a very long time ago in a very different world, and were not saints.
We both (probably) view ourselves as good people (or at least as people who strive for that). However, I believe your policies cause people to suffer from a lack of food, shelter, & healthcare (e.g., whether you are a Republican, Democratic Socialist, MAGA, Democrat, etc.). Your politics drive up the cost of supplying these necessities by creating barriers to entry for those who provide them, dictating how and to what extent they can operate. While I think many of the founders were excellent architects of a governance system, I do not view them as saints or possess any sort of hagiomania toward them.
The conservative goal would be for schooling to be as affordable as possible, without artificial barriers restricting supply for the benefit of unions rather than students. I can’t really speak for all conservatives because, first, I’m not one, & second, there’s a huge diversity of thought within conservatism. For example, some conservatives support Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza, while others oppose them, so there are obvious huge differences of opinion within the tent that is ‘conservatism’.
What monetary evidence have you seen that makes you think unions are the most expensive barrier to education?
All the evidence I’ve seen has shown education costs have outpaced even CEO/administrative pay (one of the highest rising costs in society, dwarfing even housing inflation.)
Chalking it up to unions and union workers (whose pay is often rising at inflation rates or below) seems a bit absurd.
To use a metaphor its like saying we should address a sinking ship by opening an umbrella on the roof to deflect rain instead of finding and sealing the actual holes. Maybe the rain adds to the water but shouldn’t we be discussing the hole first: rising cost of living and administrative costs.
I shouldn’t have only mentioned unions. A better way to put it is that I take issue with education when it isn’t oriented to serve the consumer (i.e., the parent or student). I would oppose eliminating unions, as I actually like many of them; I just don’t like closed-shop unions. I also like worker cooperatives, but I don’t support mandating them.
Realistically though, lets set aside unions as they are at best irrelevant to any real discussion of education and at worst simply the subject of cold war hyperfixation and irrational fear.
What is a real cost saving measure that could be brought to education?
Technology fees, subscriptions and infrastruction are, for instance, a major cost burden that has arisen in the last 40 years during the course of time where educational costs have skyrocketed. Why don’t I ever see conservatives talking about reducing educational technology costs?
There is a similar problem with legal and administrative costs as well.
I tell people to try to take the GED & graduate high school early (since it’s a waste of time & full of propaganda), then save money on their first year of college by taking CLEP exams using vouchers provided through completing Modern States courses.
There’s a lot to be said for community college transfers, testing out of credits etc from a purchaser perspective. While that can help individual students I don’t think it addresses larger problems about rising costs in the academic sector and the fact that high costs make planning and attending colleges a high cost, moderate risk proposition.
For instance, an ideal college system would reduce need for corporations to request h1b visas
The level of bureacracy (both for students and institutions) required to maintain so many grant and voucher systems including secondary bureacratic patchworks like H1b visas could all be drastically reduced by subsidizing college tuiton prices across the board to the point where college costs were less of a financial burden.
One might argue that eliminating tuition costs entirely would pay for itself in reduced bureacratic burden across the government and would make it easier for corporations to retrain employees rather than importing them.
“fucking communists and their education fetish” -
NYTNYPThis one is New York Post.
The Post is only fulfilling its original purpose since it was founded by Alexander Hamilton; it is a political mouthpiece for the moneyed interests in New York City.
One of their earliest political hit pieces absolutely decimated John Adams’ already tenuous political career in the public eye and ultimately paved the way for Jeffersonian politics to calcify around the heart of our nation’s politics.
Huh I would have thought the NYP was founded in like 1980 or something
It’s a tabloid. Nothing more.
Unfortunately, modern Americans are too stupid to know the difference between tabloids and actual news.
News? Like, from Facebook?
there’s a reason Wikipedia only trusts NYP for stuff like pop culture and not politics
Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of center-left viewpoints. It doesn’t allow similar right-wing sources to be cited in the same way that it allows similar left-wing ones. My solution to Wikipedia’s bias problem would be to add bias labels to edits & users instead of banning sources along partisan lines. Users could voluntarily identify their own biases, and other users could dispute those labels if they believed they were inaccurate. P.S. Wikipedia and Reddit are major contributors to why LLMs tend to have that left-of-center bias.
“[Reality] is heavily biased in favor of
centerleft view points.”I wouldn’t say that; sometimes statistics, like crime statistics, are distorted at the point of collection. The misclassification of non-white offenders as “white” in crime statistics leads to an overrepresentation of white crime in the USA, which racist people could probably use as fuel for their perceived persecution.
In the UK, you’ll see Pakistanis being labeled as Asian, which would lead people to joke that Japanese people are doing X or Y crimes. In the USA, you’ll see Arabic or other non-stereotypical white names, and pictures of people obviously not white, being labeled as white.
P.S. I don’t support any racist whatnot; it’s just a notable example of data collection skewing a statistic and causing an overrepresentation of crimes committed by so-called white people.
The FBI’s White Crime Numbers Count More Than White Americans
That source is some guy’s blog masquerading as a newspaper. Also, even if it’s accurate, I don’t see how “whites” (which has always been a malleable term) being marginally overrepresented in some subset of crime statistics is worth anyone’s attention at this point. How is this of value to anyone except white supremacists trying to pretend their ideology is supported by facts?
It’s probably the wrong example to bring up, even if it is true, since it’s likely to elicit an emotional response that undermines the delivery of the original intent of my point: that data collection is a point where the statistics people rely on are often skewed.
Can you provide non-blog sources?
Complaining about bias and then throwing out a random guys blog post is kinda embarrassing mate. Maybe you should delete your account.
The main point is that flawed data collection is skewing the results. I don’t remember where to find the one with the mugshots to be honest.
“In response to a directive by the U.S. Government’s Office of Management and Budget, the national UCR Program has expanded its data collection categories for race from four (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Other Pacific Islander) to five (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Also, the ethnicity categories have changed from “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or Latino Origin” and from “Non-Hispanic” to “Not of Hispanic or Latino Origin.” These changes will be reflected in data presented for 2013.”
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2011/resources/about-the-uniform-crime-reporting-ucr-program
I’m gonna be honest, most parts in history are center-left. You’re not gonna have this utopia of right wing facts because most of them are oversimplification. Tremendously.
‘Right wing sources’ are just lies at this point: white genocide, taxing rich people is communism, climate change isn’t real, women don’t deserve rights because god doesn’t recognize them as human, more cops make society safer, more prisons make society more free, more gun sales make society safer, trans people commit every crime and are the cause of every economic failed policy, the global elites (billionaires) are going to help us fight the real global elites (college kids, moms).
Like idk man I just don’t see a way anyone honest can make the claim that factuality is not politically aligned. If you want facts you have to bias towards facts, if that creates a political bias, that’s a problem for politicians not people interested reality.
Once you start trying to pander to all political groups you’ve abadoned factuality.
To fairly debate this, one would need to address your sweeping generalizations point by point. More importantly, right-wing sources aren’t a monolith. For example, Fox News largely supports Israel, while the Mises Institute opposes foreign intervention & Israel. Reducing such a broad spectrum of thought into a single monolith is inaccurate. It might evince how left-wing people, when tendentious (like right-wing people can be too, since we’re all flawed humans, including myself), can distort their political opposition’s perspective out of convenience or rational ignorance, i.e., they don’t have time to investigate what their opposition thinks.
I mean the problem with your critique is its dishonest: prominent right wingers like elon musk promote white genocide conspiricies. Every one of those fake ass conspiricies I mentioned has been stated by a prominent republican.
In order to “balance the scales” you have to embark on campaign of finding like online commenters or drunk kids on the street to get the same level of insanity of belief on the left. Then you have to pretend like actual prominent people are saying these things on the left. Which they aren’t.
All you’re doing is saying that you are willing to argue against reality in order to pander to liars and comfort them.
Honestly, white populations are being replaced through open-border policies. I’m not really a tribal person, so I don’t particularly care about maintaining a population with any specific demographic makeup. I also wouldn’t say that ideas about population replacement are necessarily fake or something like that. I do currently support controlled borders for a nation-state, but not because I want to control the ethnic composition of the population. In my opinion, that kind of thinking is strange and overly tribal.
Excuse me but could you explain what an “open border policy” even is? Are you talking about visas for skilled labor? Is this something to do with migrant seasonal labor? Refugee programs?
What the fuck are you even talking about? There’s not a single goddamn country in the world that meets the criteria for some definitions of “open borders” and other defitions are met by every single country on earth.
Supporting or not supporting “open borders” is not a political stance because there’s no meaning to the words, its nonsense.
It’s one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term “democratic socialism.” The literal definition of “open borders” would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn’t understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population’s norms, culture, etc.
Perhaps because right wing sources have a higher tendency to create disinformation and fabricate facts than left. As an example today most far right wing politics in Western countries seem to be based on dangers of a non-existing enemy. Similarly Russian troll farms generally disseminate right wing ideologies in the form of distorted facts. Staying center for a knowledge source is the ideal but if I had to pick a side would definitely go center left.
Honestly, this comment of yours is probably more a reflection of your own values than of reality.
It is possible that right-wing sources, or particular types of right-wing sources, have a greater tendency to create disinformation or fabricate facts than left-wing sources. However, the opposite could also be true in some cases; left-wing sources may sometimes be more likely to label their opposition’s claims as misinformation rather than recognizing them as competing interpretations or arguments.
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus, including claims that it could provide stronger protection than boosters in some circumstances, as misinformation. However, certainty in any broad generalization, such as the idea that natural immunity is always better, hybrid immunity is always better, or mRNA vaccines are always better, would be inaccurate. The reality is that the effectiveness of different forms of immunity depends on many factors, & people continue to study how these factors interact. Outcomes can vary depending on individual circumstances, such as age, comorbidities, immune status, prior exposure, and other whatnot.
more a reflection of your own values than of reality
Hard to say how much one’s comments are affected by values but anyone who says they are completely unaffected is discussing in bad faith. So I won’t claim it does not.
It is possible that right-wing sources,
Yes but one is ideological agression (left-wing) the other one is fact fabrication (right-wing). If I had to choose one I would still go for the first despite it being far from ideal. I do believe that both sides have a tendency to leave out facts that don’t support their priors (consciously or unconsciously) but fact fabrication comes from the “ends justifies the means” perspective which I think leans more heavily to the right wing as of now (might not always been as such though).
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus
Imagine the following case: Assume we have the following as facts (I am not claiming it is):
1- Infection confers more broad immunity than vaccines.
2- People at risk (elderly, newborn, low immunity) have a much higher risk of dying from a newly encountered virus (COVID) when they get infected without a vaccination.
3- In general people have a higher probability of hospitalization if they encounter a virus for the first time and without having been vaccinated.
If now a certain source of information takes this and only presents part 1 because in their ideology vaccination is wrong and they want to prove it, then this source of information is still wrong despite showing something correct. Not only they are wrong but they may bias people’s perspective so as to actually cause harm against others. In this case you may remove this source for its purpose and not because what it presents is wrong. It only uses a piece of the information to distort perspective. Without seeing the original discussion as to why that source was removed I can not really justify or condemn the action that was performed there. Do you have a link to the discussion?
Reality sometimes has a left-wing bias…
Wikipedia has its bias shaped by the sources it allows users to cite. It could be correlated with reality, but I do not believe that to be the case.
chud
🤤
Is wikipedia biased or are the facts just generally not in favor of the right wing side of politics? Is wikipedia rejecting right wing sources or does right wing media just have a higher than average tendancy to cater to public opinion with “editorial liberties”?
This is not the first time I hear people essentially brand wikipedia as left wing, but it would be the first time somebody actually proved that sentiment with some examples that proves factual right wing sources are actively rejected.
I have no problem with the idea that reality and therefore wikipedia could be left leaning, but that’s only a problem if it’s forced to look that way. I don’t think it is.
Here’s a direct source for Wikipedia’s own position on source reliability. I could send you someone’s interpretation of it, but those interpretations would introduce another layer of bias, so it’s better to look at the source itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have both criticized Wikipedia in ways similar to my own criticisms, but they share some of my biases, which might cause you to dismiss their views as well if you already have a strong opinion on the matter.
Larry Sanger bias drama discussed from a perspective likely closer to your own bias. - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/media/wikipedia-larry-sanger-barred.html
https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity
Larry Sanger - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger Jimmy Wales - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
P.S. It’s possible to dislike right-wingers and still acknowledge that Wikipedia has a bias problem.
How will we pay for all the bombs we need if all those stupid schools use up all the money?!
Fuck the NYP, but sadly both can be true.
Look at the University of California. Paying slave’s wages to faculty in spite of ever-increasing tuitions that only feed a giant tumor called “admin.”
Look at the University of California.
There was a lot of money that UC funneled to construction companies and banks during the LIBOR rigging scandal. It affected a lot of universities around the country, and became big news when Harvard sued to get their money back. The UC Regents said “nothin to see here” and elected not to pursue getting the stolen money back. Shortly after, one of those regents got a VP gig at Wells Fargo (with no prior banking experience).
So yeah… fuck the NYP for sure, but education budgets are badly bloated and the crookedness is rampant.
Yes but what’s this anime?
apparently: Kaju Nukumizu from the anime series Too Many Losing Heroines!
Won’t someone unthink of the kids!?
