-
Should England ban private schools
It may be the best way to have students continue drinking government propaganda
Labour will pledge to abolish private schools if it wins the next election, after the party’s annual conference voted for a proposal to “integrate” them into the state sector.
In a major policy shift, a motion approved by delegates at the gathering in Brighton said a government led by Jeremy Corbyn would “challenge the elite privilege of private schools” and claimed that “the ongoing existence of private schools is incompatible with Labour’s pledge to promote social justice”.
It said the party would include in its next manifesto “a commitment to integrate all private schools into the state sector”.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...766.html%3famp
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
It is a good idea in theory and aiming for an egalitarian society but it will not happen. Labour say they will do it but never get round to it if they get into government.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
It would be an excellent thing but yes definitely unlikely to happen.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?
I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.
An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.
I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?
I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.
An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.
I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.
If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?
I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.
An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.
I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.
If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern
I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.
In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Private schools are the preserve of the super elite look at the Tory party and people in power. It is a demonstration that there is a massive class divide and further perpetuates it.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?
I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.
An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.
I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.
If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern
I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.
In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.
It's not the quality of the teaching. It's the network they develop at private schools that gives them a leg up throughout life. The old school tie thing. It means a tiny class of people get all the top jobs and run the country and hand those jobs onto their kids. There's almost no way for equally bright or brighter non wealthy kids to break into the elite and I know this to be true as I'm a non wealthy kid who broke into the elite. Britain and America rank dead last and second last in terms of social mobility, that is people being able to move up in the world because they're bright and hard working. Countries like the Scandanavian countries with excellent free education through postgraduate level rank at the top of the social mobility list.
Rich kids would still have private tutors outside of school and still have lots of advantages but not as many. Anything that can help reduce the massive inherent advantages in life that they have and help much brighter more deserving kids to get the top jobs should be done as it's actually damaging to the country's economy not to do it.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
You admit that you did it though. I am not sure that being elite is really the goal, but to just be self sufficient and able to get ahead in a field of choice you enjoy. Very few people are what you would call elite and I just argue to tax them more and invest in better state sector education. The private sector is a personal choice like healthcare. Up to the consumer.
Connections do play a role but there was a Guardian piece, or at least I think it was The Guardian, that conceded that private school students end up being two years ahead of state school students in terms of academic development. That is significant. In the state sector conditions are so bad 40% of teachers drop out within 5 years and I am not sure eradicating private education is fair on those students or those teachers who appear more content. Out here there is a lot of private education and parents know what raising a child is before getting into it whence few 6 children households. It is smarter and people are willing to invest themselves. Otherwise, why have a child if you don't want to nurture or invest in outcomes?
I certainly wouldn't want to send a child to a modern inner city state school back home. I would honestly consider alternatives and just try to provide the things that I lacked. It would mean a lot of the things I see here and have learned along the way. I would want my child to be trilingual, to understand that there are many wonderful skilled responsible jobs out there etc. It has little to do with trying to be George Soros or Doctor Evil.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
It makes sense, however, the hypocrites proposing it is an insult.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?
I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.
An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.
I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.
If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern
I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.
In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.
It's not the quality of the teaching. It's the network they develop at private schools that gives them a leg up throughout life. The old school tie thing. It means a tiny class of people get all the top jobs and run the country and hand those jobs onto their kids. There's almost no way for equally bright or brighter non wealthy kids to break into the elite and I know this to be true as I'm a non wealthy kid who broke into the elite. Britain and America rank dead last and second last in terms of social mobility, that is people being able to move up in the world because they're bright and hard working. Countries like the Scandanavian countries with excellent free education through postgraduate level rank at the top of the social mobility list.
Rich kids would still have private tutors outside of school and still have lots of advantages but not as many. Anything that can help reduce the massive inherent advantages in life that they have and help much brighter more deserving kids to get the top jobs should be done as it's actually damaging to the country's economy not to do it.
Excuse Kirk he tends to skip over a few things
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/511925/
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
You admit that you did it though. I am not sure that being elite is really the goal, but to just be self sufficient and able to get ahead in a field of choice you enjoy. Very few people are what you would call elite and I just argue to tax them more and invest in better state sector education. The private sector is a personal choice like healthcare. Up to the consumer.
Connections do play a role but there was a Guardian piece, or at least I think it was The Guardian, that conceded that private school students end up being two years ahead of state school students in terms of academic development. That is significant. In the state sector conditions are so bad 40% of teachers drop out within 5 years and I am not sure eradicating private education is fair on those students or those teachers who appear more content. Out here there is a lot of private education and parents know what raising a child is before getting into it whence few 6 children households. It is smarter and people are willing to invest themselves. Otherwise, why have a child if you don't want to nurture or invest in outcomes?
I certainly wouldn't want to send a child to a modern inner city state school back home. I would honestly consider alternatives and just try to provide the things that I lacked. It would mean a lot of the things I see here and have learned along the way. I would want my child to be trilingual, to understand that there are many wonderful skilled responsible jobs out there etc. It has little to do with trying to be George Soros or Doctor Evil.
I did it but I'm one of a vanishingly small number who did. The financial industry has always had to employ a few people smart enough to handle all the money rather than hand it to so and so from the top floor's son or nephew who bankrupts the bank and puts them all out of a job.
Most of the professions and the people around them though are uniformly generations of the same families. My money and connections leveraged my very bright sister's ascent from TV journalist to owning a chunk of one of the world's biggest PR firms. Without the money and the threats and the steamrollering people she could never have made the jump from journalist to where she is now, somebody with money/connections/ability would have beaten her to it.
I don't go to any elite events/gatherings but my sister does as part of her work and she tells me "in Britain I'm a fucking unicorn". Everybody else is from the same class, same posh accents, they all know each other and so on. The only people she meets with provincial accents are showbiz people whose talent got them there. She actually makes a point now of trying to hire people who have some kind of accent as they're far harder workers/smarter than the equivalent posh person just to have made it to the level she hires at.
We're the second from bottom major industrial economy when it comes to social mobility, just ahead of America. Anything that can be done to break up this monopoly, especially as it would greatly boost the economy in the long run, should be done.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?
I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.
An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.
I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.
If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern
I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.
In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.
It's not the quality of the teaching. It's the network they develop at private schools that gives them a leg up throughout life. The old school tie thing. It means a tiny class of people get all the top jobs and run the country and hand those jobs onto their kids. There's almost no way for equally bright or brighter non wealthy kids to break into the elite and I know this to be true as I'm a non wealthy kid who broke into the elite. Britain and America rank dead last and second last in terms of social mobility, that is people being able to move up in the world because they're bright and hard working. Countries like the Scandanavian countries with excellent free education through postgraduate level rank at the top of the social mobility list.
Rich kids would still have private tutors outside of school and still have lots of advantages but not as many. Anything that can help reduce the massive inherent advantages in life that they have and help much brighter more deserving kids to get the top jobs should be done as it's actually damaging to the country's economy not to do it.
Excuse Kirk he tends to skip over a few things
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/511925/
I'm not skipping over anything. You live in a country which is dead last in terms of people being able to move out of their social class due to intelligence/aptitude/hard work/initiative etc.
And increasingly it isn't a good deal even for the people at the very top who are on a treadmill from preschool age. This is unfortunately more than you read in a month but you should try and get through it. The absolute hell of being one of the top few percent and condemning your kids to the same life you have:
How Life Became an Endless, Terrible Competition
Meritocracy prizes achievement above all else, making everyone—even the rich—miserable. Maybe there’s a way out.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...inners/594760/
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?
I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.
An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.
I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.
If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern
I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.
In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.
It's not the quality of the teaching. It's the network they develop at private schools that gives them a leg up throughout life. The old school tie thing. It means a tiny class of people get all the top jobs and run the country and hand those jobs onto their kids. There's almost no way for equally bright or brighter non wealthy kids to break into the elite and I know this to be true as I'm a non wealthy kid who broke into the elite. Britain and America rank dead last and second last in terms of social mobility, that is people being able to move up in the world because they're bright and hard working. Countries like the Scandanavian countries with excellent free education through postgraduate level rank at the top of the social mobility list.
Rich kids would still have private tutors outside of school and still have lots of advantages but not as many. Anything that can help reduce the massive inherent advantages in life that they have and help much brighter more deserving kids to get the top jobs should be done as it's actually damaging to the country's economy not to do it.
Excuse Kirk he tends to skip over a few things
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/511925/
I'm not skipping over anything. You live in a country which is dead last in terms of people being able to move out of their social class due to intelligence/aptitude/hard work/initiative etc.
And increasingly it isn't a good deal even for the people at the very top who are on a treadmill from preschool age. This is unfortunately more than you read in a month but you should try and get through it. The absolute hell of being one of the top few percent and condemning your kids to the same life you have:
How Life Became an Endless, Terrible Competition Meritocracy prizes achievement above all else, making everyone—even the rich—miserable. Maybe there’s a way out.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...inners/594760/
Ya Kirk I’m sure u read much more than me. I mean your never wrong despite making inaccurate statements about US history and politics that you are so convinced you are right.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
IF England bans private schools THEN what is the public school curriculum and who makes the final decisions on it?
I figure there are at least some similarities between the US education system and UK system and everything taught isn't always cut and dry and sometimes (as you've seen in certain areas) specific topics are kind of a third rail....so how does that work in a one size fits all education system?
Then there's the whole class size issue and teacher to student ratio as well as taxation which pays for the operation of these centers of education...and those are all things mass immigration legal, illegal or otherwise make far worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Is it though? He seems to greatly lament nepotism. Also it's just taken for granted that anyone and everyone can be at the tippy top of the money making mountain rather than a more pragmatic "the world needs ditch diggers too" and that is very true. Also this lawyer and law professor seems to not even have manual labor and the money to be made in those fields on his radar. The value of a college education has peaked and is beginning to become more of an economic hindrance rather than a benefit. Now he IS quite correct on the "billable hour" and whew boy that's a fucking grinder that young high paid lawyers go through and it weeds out the pretenders from the contenders, there's plenty of other kinds of law and plenty of people make money practicing and they aren't all in mergers and acquisitions, they aren't all high rollin' wheelin' dealin' kiss stealin' limousine ridin' jet flyin' son of a guns....some do rather mundane things and they pay their bills, they do better than their parents before them. What that lawyer is saying is tantamount to "Well if you don't play football in the Premier League it isn't even worth your while to play the game"...meanwhile there's leagues all around the world all at varying levels of skill and some better or equal to the Premier League.
That lawyer/law professor is in a bubble and he doesn't even recognize it. Most lawyers like THAT yeah they aren't what I'd call observant of people on different paths than themselves.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
It’s good for parents to have an option to get their kids out of government run schools. Skip the whole gender thing and have a little input. This isn’t unique to you guys NY is working on this slowly but surely.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
IF England bans private schools THEN what is the public school curriculum and who makes the final decisions on it?
I figure there are at least some similarities between the US education system and UK system and everything taught isn't always cut and dry and sometimes (as you've seen in certain areas) specific topics are kind of a third rail....so how does that work in a one size fits all education system?
Then there's the whole class size issue and teacher to student ratio as well as taxation which pays for the operation of these centers of education...and those are all things mass immigration legal, illegal or otherwise make far worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Is it though? He seems to greatly lament nepotism. Also it's just taken for granted that anyone and everyone can be at the tippy top of the money making mountain rather than a more pragmatic "the world needs ditch diggers too" and that is very true. Also this lawyer and law professor seems to not even have manual labor and the money to be made in those fields on his radar. The value of a college education has peaked and is beginning to become more of an economic hindrance rather than a benefit. Now he IS quite correct on the "billable hour" and whew boy that's a fucking grinder that young high paid lawyers go through and it weeds out the pretenders from the contenders, there's plenty of other kinds of law and plenty of people make money practicing and they aren't all in mergers and acquisitions, they aren't all high rollin' wheelin' dealin' kiss stealin' limousine ridin' jet flyin' son of a guns....some do rather mundane things and they pay their bills, they do better than their parents before them. What that lawyer is saying is tantamount to "Well if you don't play football in the Premier League it isn't even worth your while to play the game"...meanwhile there's leagues all around the world all at varying levels of skill and some better or equal to the Premier League.
That lawyer/law professor is in a bubble and he doesn't even recognize it. Most lawyers like THAT yeah they aren't what I'd call observant of people on different paths than themselves.
The government in conjunction with various examining boards around the country set the curriculum. That wouldn't change if private schools were abolished. Did you actually read the article? If you did you didn't comprehend it. It's not all about lawyers and billable hours, it's about every single job the elite do. It's also about the huge and widening inequality gap between the elite and everybody else. People are not doing better than their parents, they're doing much worse. On another subject you'd be parroting the fact that wages are stagnant for decades now and the elite are capturing all the economic gains, that the system is rigged. You know, what you were saying back in 2016 when Trump was saying it. It's an article lamenting the fact that the whole system now is just horrific for the elite on down for the vast majority of people.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Yeah you're right rampant illegal immigration wouldn't have anything to do with wage stagnation.
I do so love the contempt that you respond to me with. Every time. It's lovely, I must really irk you...and that just warms my heart
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Yeah you're right rampant illegal immigration wouldn't have anything to do with wage stagnation.
I do so love the contempt that you respond to me with. Every time. It's lovely, I must really irk you...and that just warms my heart
Massive illegal immigration doesn't have anything to do with wage stagnation. If mass immigration over the southern border was bad for the American economy there'd be a double hundred foot wall between the Atlantic and the Pacific with a patrolled road in between the two walls. The highest level of immigration relative to population America has ever seen in the two hundred years of mass immigration over the southern border came after WW2 due to the booming economy, a time when America weas growing at five percent a year.
The reason wages weren't stagnating then was the way the economy was set up -- strong unions meant that American labour got a much bigger piece of the national income pie than they do now and the ninety one percent top rate of tax helped keep a lid on inequality and the damaging economic effects of too big a percentage of national income being pumped into assets held by a handful of people. Prosperity was broadly shared and despite the huge numbers of wetbacks coming ober the border everybody did well in those decades. Wages only started to stagnate with the advent of Reagan and supply side economic policies which have slowed economic growth for everybody, created massive inequality of wealth and stagnated wages for forty years now, Trump's tax cut being the latest example of supply side failure.
Mass immigration boosts economic growth and there are hundreds of years of evidence to prove this. Stagnant wages are not caused by mass immigration, they're caused by the economic policies of the political party who use immigration as an excuse for the ongoing unrelenting unbroken forty year failure* of their economic policies. This has been explained to you before in much greater detail but facts and evidence just bounce off you which is one of the reasons I have so much contempt for you.
*But not failure for the people behind those policies! For those people these policies are an incredible success!
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/m...7756%20(1).png
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Yeah you're right rampant illegal immigration wouldn't have anything to do with wage stagnation.
I do so love the contempt that you respond to me with. Every time. It's lovely, I must really irk you...and that just warms my heart
Massive illegal immigration doesn't have anything to do with wage stagnation. If mass immigration over the southern border was bad for the American economy there'd be a double hundred foot wall between the Atlantic and the Pacific with a patrolled road in between the two walls. The highest level of immigration relative to population America has ever seen in the two hundred years of mass immigration over the southern border came after WW2 due to the booming economy, a time when America weas growing at five percent a year.
The reason wages weren't stagnating then was the way the economy was set up -- strong unions meant that American labour got a much bigger piece of the national income pie than they do now and the ninety one percent top rate of tax helped keep a lid on inequality and the damaging economic effects of too big a percentage of national income being pumped into assets held by a handful of people. Prosperity was broadly shared and despite the huge numbers of wetbacks coming ober the border everybody did well in those decades. Wages only started to stagnate with the advent of Reagan and supply side economic policies which have slowed economic growth for everybody, created massive inequality of wealth and stagnated wages for forty years now, Trump's tax cut being the latest example of supply side failure.
Mass immigration boosts economic growth and there are hundreds of years of evidence to prove this. Stagnant wages are not caused by mass immigration, they're caused by the economic policies of the political party who use immigration as an excuse for the ongoing unrelenting unbroken forty year failure* of their economic policies. This has been explained to you before in much greater detail but facts and evidence just bounce off you which is one of the reasons I have so much contempt for you.
*But not failure for the people behind those policies! For those people these policies are an incredible success!
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/m...7756%20(1).png
It’s not about money it’s about votes. Why would people argue not to protect our border?
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Yeah you're right rampant illegal immigration wouldn't have anything to do with wage stagnation.
I do so love the contempt that you respond to me with. Every time. It's lovely, I must really irk you...and that just warms my heart
Massive illegal immigration doesn't have anything to do with wage stagnation. If mass immigration over the southern border was bad for the American economy there'd be a double hundred foot wall between the Atlantic and the Pacific with a patrolled road in between the two walls. The highest level of immigration relative to population America has ever seen in the two hundred years of mass immigration over the southern border came after WW2 due to the booming economy, a time when America weas growing at five percent a year.
The reason wages weren't stagnating then was the way the economy was set up -- strong unions meant that American labour got a much bigger piece of the national income pie than they do now and the ninety one percent top rate of tax helped keep a lid on inequality and the damaging economic effects of too big a percentage of national income being pumped into assets held by a handful of people. Prosperity was broadly shared and despite the huge numbers of wetbacks coming ober the border everybody did well in those decades. Wages only started to stagnate with the advent of Reagan and supply side economic policies which have slowed economic growth for everybody, created massive inequality of wealth and stagnated wages for forty years now, Trump's tax cut being the latest example of supply side failure.
Mass immigration boosts economic growth and there are hundreds of years of evidence to prove this. Stagnant wages are not caused by mass immigration, they're caused by the economic policies of the political party who use immigration as an excuse for the ongoing unrelenting unbroken forty year failure* of their economic policies. This has been explained to you before in much greater detail but facts and evidence just bounce off you which is one of the reasons I have so much contempt for you.
*But not failure for the people behind those policies! For those people these policies are an incredible success!
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/m...7756%20(1).png
It’s not about money it’s about votes. Why would people argue not to protect our border?
Running a popular right wing movement on behalf of a bunch of plutocrats is no easy thing. You've got to use everything you've got whether it's furriners, abortion, god gays and guns and whatever else in order to get enough votes so you can then rob and loot the country while tossing enough red meat at these idiots to keep them distracted while you get on with the looting.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
A couple things...
Illegals aren't helping unions either comrade
TAXATION is the issue with illegals. Less owners, less property taxes, more people, more people who don't even speak English, more gangs, those things mean worse schools.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Yeah you're right rampant illegal immigration wouldn't have anything to do with wage stagnation.
I do so love the contempt that you respond to me with. Every time. It's lovely, I must really irk you...and that just warms my heart
Massive illegal immigration doesn't have anything to do with wage stagnation. If mass immigration over the southern border was bad for the American economy there'd be a double hundred foot wall between the Atlantic and the Pacific with a patrolled road in between the two walls. The highest level of immigration relative to population America has ever seen in the two hundred years of mass immigration over the southern border came after WW2 due to the booming economy, a time when America weas growing at five percent a year.
The reason wages weren't stagnating then was the way the economy was set up -- strong unions meant that American labour got a much bigger piece of the national income pie than they do now and the ninety one percent top rate of tax helped keep a lid on inequality and the damaging economic effects of too big a percentage of national income being pumped into assets held by a handful of people. Prosperity was broadly shared and despite the huge numbers of wetbacks coming ober the border everybody did well in those decades. Wages only started to stagnate with the advent of Reagan and supply side economic policies which have slowed economic growth for everybody, created massive inequality of wealth and stagnated wages for forty years now, Trump's tax cut being the latest example of supply side failure.
Mass immigration boosts economic growth and there are hundreds of years of evidence to prove this. Stagnant wages are not caused by mass immigration, they're caused by the economic policies of the political party who use immigration as an excuse for the ongoing unrelenting unbroken forty year failure* of their economic policies. This has been explained to you before in much greater detail but facts and evidence just bounce off you which is one of the reasons I have so much contempt for you.
*But not failure for the people behind those policies! For those people these policies are an incredible success!
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/m...7756%20(1).png
It’s not about money it’s about votes. Why would people argue not to protect our border?
Running a popular right wing movement on behalf of a bunch of plutocrats is no easy thing. You've got to use everything you've got whether it's furriners, abortion, god gays and guns and whatever else in order to get enough votes so you can then rob and loot the country while tossing enough red meat at these idiots to keep them distracted while you get on with the looting.
In the US we call it bread and circus
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
OUT: Banning Private Schools
IN: Banning Packed Lunches!
Should pupils be banned from bringing a packed lunch and be forced to have school dinners
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...nches-18844589
Quote:
University lecturer Amy, mum to Rosie, 15, and 11-year-old Tommy says: “I confess – I have struggled to get my kids to eat a range of foods.
“They do eat fruit and veg every day but it’s nearly always the same round of carrots, frozen peas and apple slices.
"The day I found out baked beans counted as one of your five-a-day was one of the happiest of my parenting life.
“I really have tried but it is dispiriting to spend an hour cooking vegetable rissoles only to have your customers fall off their chairs and weep on the floor.
“I’m a busy working mum: I don’t have time to waste and I don’t want to throw away food.
"The result is the tiny number of meals that fit into the Venn diagram of healthy, quick, cheap and which both kids will eat.
"Lunchboxes end up being a sandwich, or crackers and soft cheese, raisins or apple slices again, plus a biscuit or treat.
"There’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s not teaching a love of variety either.
"Children learn to try new things when they see their friends eating them. If they don’t like it, they can pick at the fruit and no-one has to get upset.
“But there’s one important catch: in Italy a teacher sits on every table and eats the same food as the kids.
"That’s the guarantee of quality. If it’s not good enough for the staff, it’s not good enough for the pupils.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5diMImYIIA
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
A couple things...
Illegals aren't helping unions either comrade
TAXATION is the issue with illegals. Less owners, less property taxes, more people, more people who don't even speak English, more gangs, those things mean worse schools.
Illegal immigrants weren't hurting unions in the fifties either when five percent growth and the lowest unemployment rate in history encouraged huge numbers of them over the southern border. Illegal immigration has zero effect on unions Lyle. What does have an effect on unions is decades of Republican anti-union legislation backed up by anti-union conservative judges. The GOP even appoint union busting lawyers who've spent their career working for big business against unions as Secretary of Labor! As usual you're fed a load of bullshit about immigration and you swallow the whole thing. Meanwhile the judges Trump appoints and the people like Scalia he appoints further damage the ability of labour to command a decent share of the rapidly growing national income. And you vote for this.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/27/trump-...or-department/
Illegal immigrants all pay payroll taxes and a lot of them pay property taxes and other taxes. There's an easy way to make sure they all pay the taxes they're supposed to pay and that's have a system that allows enough immigration to allow the economy to grow correctly. But every attempt at immigration reform is blocked by the right who want an issue that can't be solved any other way left unsolved so they can have something to win votes with so they can keep electing judges and nominating cabinet members who make the top one percent richer.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Illegal immigrants weren't hurting unions in the fifties either when five percent growth and the lowest unemployment rate in history encouraged huge numbers of them over the southern border. Illegal immigration has zero effect on unions Lyle. What does have an effect on unions is decades of Republican anti-union legislation backed up by anti-union conservative judges. The GOP even appoint union busting lawyers who've spent their career working for big business against unions as Secretary of Labor! As usual you're fed a load of bullshit about immigration and you swallow the whole thing. Meanwhile the judges Trump appoints and the people like Scalia he appoints further damage the ability of labour to command a decent share of the rapidly growing national income. And you vote for this.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/27/trump-...or-department/
Illegal immigrants all pay payroll taxes and a lot of them pay property taxes and other taxes. There's an easy way to make sure they all pay the taxes they're supposed to pay and that's have a system that allows enough immigration to allow the economy to grow correctly. But every attempt at immigration reform is blocked by the right who want an issue that can't be solved any other way left unsolved so they can have something to win votes with so they can keep electing judges and nominating cabinet members who make the top one percent richer.
American immigration prior to 1965's Hart-Celler Act was basically nil. Prior to that the United States had a quota system that limited legal entrance and allowed for full assimilation and things went along swimmingly.
As for your "Illegal immigration not having any anti-Union impact" claim one Cesar Chavez would disagree...he and his United Farm Worker brethren would go to the border and beat the shit out of illegal immigrants to keep them from coming in a depreciating the wages of farm hands.
I'm not a fan of Unions, Unions have deep ties to Communist/Socialist organizations and so naturally I don't trust them.
Yeah sure Illegals pay payroll taxes :rolleyes: .."a lot of them pay property taxes" oh do they now? "A lot" so then not all of them. We've got way too much immigration as it is. What we desperately need is cohesion, assimilation, and education all of which are undermined by massive immigration legal or otherwise.
Regardless of what Trump does the 1% will be fine, the 1% will be fine even if there's a Communist in charge (well SOME of the 1% will be fine, if their politics are deemed acceptable). There's this thing called the Pareto Principle, perhaps you should take a gander at it. There's another thing called Supply and Demand....if the Supply of something is far greater than the demand, let's say something like oh I don't know unskilled labor, then the value of that thing....the unskilled labor in this case.....is not worth very much and that's minimum wage or no minimum wage.
Workers should be paid a fair wage, this whole "there are jobs Americans won't do" is fucking horseshit! Americans I know are proud people and there's pride to be had in an honest day's work for honest wages.....hard to find honest wages when someone will do the work, get paid under the table and the AMERICAN citizen gets cut out of the deal. And yeah too many from BOTH parties look the other way on that in my opinion.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Illegal immigrants weren't hurting unions in the fifties either when five percent growth and the lowest unemployment rate in history encouraged huge numbers of them over the southern border. Illegal immigration has zero effect on unions Lyle. What does have an effect on unions is decades of Republican anti-union legislation backed up by anti-union conservative judges. The GOP even appoint union busting lawyers who've spent their career working for big business against unions as Secretary of Labor! As usual you're fed a load of bullshit about immigration and you swallow the whole thing. Meanwhile the judges Trump appoints and the people like Scalia he appoints further damage the ability of labour to command a decent share of the rapidly growing national income. And you vote for this.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/27/trump-...or-department/
Illegal immigrants all pay payroll taxes and a lot of them pay property taxes and other taxes. There's an easy way to make sure they all pay the taxes they're supposed to pay and that's have a system that allows enough immigration to allow the economy to grow correctly. But every attempt at immigration reform is blocked by the right who want an issue that can't be solved any other way left unsolved so they can have something to win votes with so they can keep electing judges and nominating cabinet members who make the top one percent richer.
American immigration prior to 1965's Hart-Celler Act was basically nil. Prior to that the United States had a quota system that limited legal entrance and allowed for full assimilation and things went along swimmingly.
As for your "Illegal immigration not having any anti-Union impact" claim one Cesar Chavez would disagree...he and his United Farm Worker brethren would go to the border and beat the shit out of illegal immigrants to keep them from coming in a depreciating the wages of farm hands.
I'm not a fan of Unions, Unions have deep ties to Communist/Socialist organizations and so naturally I don't trust them.
Yeah sure Illegals pay payroll taxes :rolleyes: .."a lot of them pay property taxes" oh do they now? "A lot" so then not all of them. We've got way too much immigration as it is. What we desperately need is cohesion, assimilation, and education all of which are undermined by massive immigration legal or otherwise.
Regardless of what Trump does the 1% will be fine, the 1% will be fine even if there's a Communist in charge (well
SOME of the 1% will be fine, if their politics are deemed acceptable). There's this thing called the Pareto Principle, perhaps you should take a gander at it. There's another thing called Supply and Demand....if the Supply of something is far greater than the demand, let's say something like oh I don't know unskilled labor, then the value of that thing....the unskilled labor in this case.....is not worth very much and that's minimum wage or no minimum wage.
Workers should be paid a fair wage, this whole "there are jobs Americans won't do" is fucking horseshit! Americans I know are proud people and there's pride to be had in an honest day's work for honest wages.....hard to find honest wages when someone will do the work, get paid under the table and the AMERICAN citizen gets cut out of the deal. And yeah too many from BOTH parties look the other way on that in my opinion.
Legal immigration up to 1965 was basically nil. Mass immigration over the southern border has been going on for over two centuries. Whether illegal immigrants or native born Americans were used as strike breakers back when the big agriculture firms were trying to stop Caesar Chavez getting decent pay and working conditions for agricultural workers doesn't make any difference.
The rest of your post is just rambling nonsense. Unsurprisingly you have no idea what you're on about. Some facts for your little shelf Lyle. It's not like there are a finite number of jobs and somebody coming over the border taking a job means one job less for a native born American. One extra body in the country means increased demand for accomodation, food, clothes, entertainment and all the other things people buy. Every working person adds more to economic growth than they subtract.
There are five million jobs destroyed every month in America. Five million people lose their job every month. There are 100 000 new entrants to the job market evey month, that's the balance bewtween people leaving school/college and retiring. The only way to create enough economic growth to produce five point one plus million jobs a month is to constantly increase the demand in the economy and the most effective way to do this in our modern economy is to let extra bodies in. Nothing anybody in Washington tries to do is ever going to alter that either. Mass immigration is a fact of life now.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Legal immigration up to 1965 was basically nil. Mass immigration over the southern border has been going on for over two centuries. Whether illegal immigrants or native born Americans were used as strike breakers back when the big agriculture firms were trying to stop Caesar Chavez getting decent pay and working conditions for agricultural workers doesn't make any difference.
The rest of your post is just rambling nonsense. Unsurprisingly you have no idea what you're on about. Some facts for your little shelf Lyle. It's not like there are a finite number of jobs and somebody coming over the border taking a job means one job less for a native born American. One extra body in the country means increased demand for accomodation, food, clothes, entertainment and all the other things people buy. Every working person adds more to economic growth than they subtract.
There are five million jobs destroyed every month in America. Five million people lose their job every month. There are 100 000 new entrants to the job market evey month, that's the balance bewtween people leaving school/college and retiring. The only way to create enough economic growth to produce five point one plus million jobs a month is to constantly increase the demand in the economy and the most effective way to do this in our modern economy is to let extra bodies in. Nothing anybody in Washington tries to do is ever going to alter that either. Mass immigration is a fact of life now.
Native born Americans pay taxes, they have skin in the game, they care about America...Illegal Immigrants don't pay taxes (unless they're also practicing identity fraud with bogus SSN's).
Finite or infinite the rules of supply and demand still apply as does the Pareto principle.
An illegal taking a job, might not mean 1 less job for an American but it DOES mean lower pay for those workers. Illegals aren't due a minimum wage, most often they are paid cash which is then wired right back to Mexico....some boon to OUR American economy that is :rolleyes:
Mass immigration is globalist bullshit
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Legal immigration up to 1965 was basically nil. Mass immigration over the southern border has been going on for over two centuries. Whether illegal immigrants or native born Americans were used as strike breakers back when the big agriculture firms were trying to stop Caesar Chavez getting decent pay and working conditions for agricultural workers doesn't make any difference.
The rest of your post is just rambling nonsense. Unsurprisingly you have no idea what you're on about. Some facts for your little shelf Lyle. It's not like there are a finite number of jobs and somebody coming over the border taking a job means one job less for a native born American. One extra body in the country means increased demand for accomodation, food, clothes, entertainment and all the other things people buy. Every working person adds more to economic growth than they subtract.
There are five million jobs destroyed every month in America. Five million people lose their job every month. There are 100 000 new entrants to the job market evey month, that's the balance bewtween people leaving school/college and retiring. The only way to create enough economic growth to produce five point one plus million jobs a month is to constantly increase the demand in the economy and the most effective way to do this in our modern economy is to let extra bodies in. Nothing anybody in Washington tries to do is ever going to alter that either. Mass immigration is a fact of life now.
Native born Americans pay taxes, they have skin in the game, they care about America...Illegal Immigrants don't pay taxes (unless they're also practicing identity fraud with bogus SSN's).
Finite or infinite the rules of supply and demand still apply as does the Pareto principle.
An illegal taking a job, might not mean 1 less job for an American but it DOES mean lower pay for those workers. Illegals aren't due a minimum wage, most often they are paid cash which is then wired right back to Mexico....some boon to OUR American economy that is :rolleyes:
Mass immigration is globalist bullshit
Trump is a Globalist you prune. He has always been a Globalist. Personal gain for him comes way before serving his country and he has you defending him for doing so ;D He has always raised money from investors all over the world, used illegal immigrants as workers, and like all good Globalists avoided paying taxes within his own country when possible. He thinks nothing of ignoring American borders, or the best interests of America and calling on foreign interests to come to his aid.He is part of a Global group of corrupt anti-patriotic populists who are each keeping each other where they are. Look at him helping out corrupt fuckers like Netty In Israel and boasting of wanting to build Trump hotels in North Korea. How easy it is to fool people in plain sight.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Trump is a Globalist you prune. He has always been a Globalist. Personal gain for him comes way before serving his country and he has you defending him for doing so ;D He has always raised money from investors all over the world, used illegal immigrants as workers, and like all good Globalists avoided paying taxes within his own country when possible. He thinks nothing of ignoring American borders, or the best interests of America and calling on foreign interests to come to his aid.He is part of a Global group of corrupt anti-patriotic populists who are each keeping each other where they are. Look at him helping out corrupt fuckers like Netty In Israel and boasting of wanting to build Trump hotels in North Korea. How easy it is to fool people in plain sight.
You sure do call me a lot of names... unprovoked now as well.
If you don't avoid paying taxes you're not a smart person. Avoiding taxes is LEGAL it's EVASION that's trouble.
How exactly am I "anti-patriotic"?
Also notice... I've called you 0 names in response.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
A couple things...
Illegals aren't helping unions either comrade
TAXATION is the issue with illegals. Less owners, less property taxes, more people, more people who don't even speak English, more gangs, those things mean worse schools.
Illegal immigrants weren't hurting unions in the fifties either when five percent growth and the lowest unemployment rate in history encouraged huge numbers of them over the southern border. Illegal immigration has zero effect on unions Lyle. What does have an effect on unions is decades of Republican anti-union legislation backed up by anti-union conservative judges. The GOP even appoint union busting lawyers who've spent their career working for big business against unions as Secretary of Labor! As usual you're fed a load of bullshit about immigration and you swallow the whole thing. Meanwhile the judges Trump appoints and the people like Scalia he appoints further damage the ability of labour to command a decent share of the rapidly growing national income. And you vote for this.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/27/trump-...or-department/
Illegal immigrants all pay payroll taxes and a lot of them pay property taxes and other taxes. There's an easy way to make sure they all pay the taxes they're supposed to pay and that's have a system that allows enough immigration to allow the economy to grow correctly. But every attempt at immigration reform is blocked by the right who want an issue that can't be solved any other way left unsolved so they can have something to win votes with so they can keep electing judges and nominating cabinet members who make the top one percent richer.
That is a ridiculous statement.
You appear to be disconnected from the real world, Kirkland. There are many illegal immigrants out here and they stay under the radar by working for cash and it does indeed bring wages down. In fact even a lot of legal immigrants do just that to stay under the radar as they should not be doing extra jobs as it violates their visa. As do locals too as they are naughty. I can order chicken and pay a couple of quid less if I just pay cash.....why is that? If somebody illegal and unqualified is willing to work for half, you don't think some corrupt business owner will sometimes be tempted to take that bait?
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Mass migration might well be a 'fact of life', but it is something people dislike and they know it hurts them. I also disagree with the notion that it is needed. There are jobs local people can and should be doing and I think national cohesiveness is more important than money. Also, at the end of the day MANY jobs are going to be vanishing in the next decade or so and few are going to be safe. Out here the government is begging banks to hire, but the reality is the banks don't need people and it will be the same in many industries, especially in factory work and work not involving genuine human interaction.
Work is being digitalized and thus people aren't needed. Just a few years ago everyone was filling up the car for you, now few do. All those people gone, somewhere else, but for how long? Those are not high skilled workers. They fill a car and process a card. They gave you the service economy, but the service then gets given to robots or you do it yourself. Immigration at the rate it is will be a problem rather than any kind of advantage. And lest we forget much of the immigration comes from beyond the EU and that actually costs the taxpayer a lot of money which is then money not provided to the local people who actually do deserve the investment as the jobs that are created will be technical ones. More welfare is good for nobody.
I think for instance what we see in the Brexit debate too is that the economic arguments all seem to come from the left who do not seem to understand that it is hard for ordinary people to compete against people who can come in and live 5 to a room and earn several times the minimum wage in their own countries. It would be like me going somewhere and just being able to earn 100 grand a year. It might be pennies to you Kirk, but to an ordinary person, it's significant. But then many of those jobs will go and many will naturalize, have children and let's not forget that with every industrial revolution comes the massive unemployment and when you have that plus a fractured society you have invited in something very unhealthy.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Trump is a Globalist you prune. He has always been a Globalist. Personal gain for him comes way before serving his country and he has you defending him for doing so ;D He has always raised money from investors all over the world, used illegal immigrants as workers, and like all good Globalists avoided paying taxes within his own country when possible. He thinks nothing of ignoring American borders, or the best interests of America and calling on foreign interests to come to his aid.He is part of a Global group of corrupt anti-patriotic populists who are each keeping each other where they are. Look at him helping out corrupt fuckers like Netty In Israel and boasting of wanting to build Trump hotels in North Korea. How easy it is to fool people in plain sight.
You sure do call me a lot of names... unprovoked now as well.
If you don't avoid paying taxes you're not a smart person. Avoiding taxes is LEGAL it's EVASION that's trouble.
How exactly am I "anti-patriotic"?
Also notice... I've called you 0 names in response.
Fuck me you a bed wetting baby.
Prune
That is now calling you names? (:
Trump
Trump
Trump is an anti-patriotic populist. Not you, although you support him just like Gandalf suuports the same anti-British populists here.
They are all Globalists. Look at you here in this thread trying to ensure that Britain becomes a model of America.
God it has become like Sesame Street here with you and Gandalf.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Gandalf you are an economic migrant. You moved out of your country because you can do less hours for more money in another.Or maybe you could no longer hack it here. Yet you want to reserve that right for you. Like Boris you think you are a special case.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Not much of an argument, Ducky.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Fuck me you a bed wetting baby.
Prune
That is now calling you names? (:
Trump
Trump
Trump is an anti-patriotic populist. Not you, although you support him just like Gandalf suuports the same anti-British populists here.
They are all Globalists. Look at you here in this thread trying to ensure that Britain becomes a model of America.
God it has become like Sesame Street here with you and Gandalf.
Well I guess just keep at it then :shrug03:
Yes, that's a name which you called me and it's constant asperity from you towards me. I simply disagree with you, that's all, I disagree and you label me all the very worst things (none of which I actually am) you lie constantly about my insulting your family and wishing ill on them.....what do I do wrong? I ask you questions and I don't agree with you and that's enough for you to be constantly enraged at me which you then play coy about "Who me? Oh I'm not angry, I'm never angry. You couldn't possibly make me angry." ....I can't make you angry but I can with an astonishing amount of ease get you to call me a Nazi and a Fascist and anti-patriotic and anything else you want to baselessly accuse me of. Yeah, I've got to admit I'm growing short of patience with you and how you choose to respond to me, but I suppose if/when I choose to retaliate we'll be seeing those precious "Can't we have a truce? What about the new blood to the forum?" posts from you again.
Yes Trump is his name. How exactly is he anti-patriotic, it's a simple enough question which you've not bothered to answer, you've only taken the time to repeat the claim and add in Gandalf this time as well. To which I'd just add, how are THEY anti-patriotic? Will this see you respond accusing Walrus of being anti-Patriotic too or will you actually bother to answer the question.
So it's "Globalist" to back Brexit? It's "Globalist" to have a trade war with China? It's "Globalist" to want people of other nations to respect your borders? It's "Globalist" to back the 2nd Amendment? Those things TO ME don't seem very "Globalist" at all.
Britain is never going to be a "model of America" Britain has it's own history, it's own culture(s), and it's own destiny...all of that you'd rather see swallowed up whole by the European Union. You never discussed various leaders calling for an EU Armed Forces, you were asked about it for certain. But you are happy with crumbs the EU throws, "they're saving languages!" ....is English one of them?
Seasame Street eh? I'm just trying to have civil conversations...yes in the past I've been a firebrand of my own, I'm guilty of that, but it has been a while since I've gone out of my way to attempt to offend people. Prove them wrong? Yes. Be sarcastic? Yes. Press for answers to questions? Yes. But, I've stopped short recently especially with you of outright name calling, and provocations of that nature, because it doesn't do any good for anyone. It doesn't help make my point, it doesn't help you understand where I'm coming from, it doesn't make my posts more fun to read....so I've stopped or at the very least toned it way down. You certainly are under no obligation to respond in kind, but yes I will take note of when instead of attempting to actually make a point you just resort to name calling or threatening physical violence to me (yes, if we ever do meet in person, please "lamp me one" and we'll see how well that works out as well)...doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that someone who "isn't angry" would keep doing.
I'm sorry that your feelings have been hurt in the past and that you're still holding onto that. I still disagree with you on damn near everything and will continue to do so, but I don't wish ill on you or your family just because I disagree with you.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Legal immigration up to 1965 was basically nil. Mass immigration over the southern border has been going on for over two centuries. Whether illegal immigrants or native born Americans were used as strike breakers back when the big agriculture firms were trying to stop Caesar Chavez getting decent pay and working conditions for agricultural workers doesn't make any difference.
The rest of your post is just rambling nonsense. Unsurprisingly you have no idea what you're on about. Some facts for your little shelf Lyle. It's not like there are a finite number of jobs and somebody coming over the border taking a job means one job less for a native born American. One extra body in the country means increased demand for accomodation, food, clothes, entertainment and all the other things people buy. Every working person adds more to economic growth than they subtract.
There are five million jobs destroyed every month in America. Five million people lose their job every month. There are 100 000 new entrants to the job market evey month, that's the balance bewtween people leaving school/college and retiring. The only way to create enough economic growth to produce five point one plus million jobs a month is to constantly increase the demand in the economy and the most effective way to do this in our modern economy is to let extra bodies in. Nothing anybody in Washington tries to do is ever going to alter that either. Mass immigration is a fact of life now.
Native born Americans pay taxes, they have skin in the game, they care about America...Illegal Immigrants don't pay taxes (unless they're also practicing identity fraud with bogus SSN's).
Finite or infinite the rules of supply and demand still apply as does the Pareto principle.
An illegal taking a job, might not mean 1 less job for an American but it DOES mean lower pay for those workers. Illegals aren't due a minimum wage, most often they are paid cash which is then wired right back to Mexico....some boon to OUR American economy that is :rolleyes:
Mass immigration is globalist bullshit
Two days again. Jobs are not finite. Increased numbers mean increased demand which means increased income for everybody. It's just how that income is distributed. Right now all the money goes to the top. That's why wages are stagnant, not because of immigration.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Hadn't posted here yet, as the topic is none of my concern, but simply taken at face value...... why and for what reason should private schools be "banned"?? Shouldn't types of schooling be strictly a choice?
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Hadn't posted here yet, as the topic is none of my concern, but simply taken at face value...... why and for what reason should private schools be "banned"?? Shouldn't types of schooling be strictly a choice?
That is the crux of the debate parental choice to send their children to schools of their choice versus all schools should have the same high standards and thus allow equal social mobility for the most deprived of children.
-
Re: Should England ban private schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Hadn't posted here yet, as the topic is none of my concern, but simply taken at face value...... why and for what reason should private schools be "banned"?? Shouldn't types of schooling be strictly a choice?
That is the crux of the debate parental choice to send their children to schools of their choice versus all schools should have the same high standards and thus allow equal social mobility for the most deprived of children.
Well put. I guess it depends on the state of public schooling in England. If the public school system is up to snuff and has the high standards necessary to properly educate the youth.... then I guess private schools would seem kind of superfluous and elitist. But BAN them?? Sounds like a far reach for a government. It's not like they're doing anything unlawful. But I get the argument. Again, it depends on the state of public education.