News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California bans ITT tech from accepting new students by dredmorbius on Wednesday August 31, 2016 @07:20AM (#12397441)
You two are talking past each other.

The response to your "let their salaries increase" pointed out that there are districts (and counties and states) where this simply does not and can not happen given how government policies are structured. Much of that the result of quite deliberate "starve-the-beast" anti-tax policies, but also frequently a simply quite inadequate economic base.

In the deep south of the US, say, the state of Mississippi, you have a de-facto segregated school system. Whites, even poor whites, attend private schools, largely religious, known as "Segregation Academies". Public schools are almost wholly the domain of blacks.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/in-south...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_segregation_in_Sun...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academy

Markets don't exist independent of power constructs, a fact explicitly recognised by Adam Smith: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." Much of Smith's Wealth of Nations is about those dynamics.

This thread reads as if two ideological agendas are being pushed on the other, rather than some seeking of greater truth. I'm finding your line of argument the less pesuasive and less sincere.

Re:California bans ITT tech from accepting new students by SamReidHughes on Wednesday August 31, 2016 @03:40PM (#12400897)
You are basing your theory of ideological agendas on the other guy's histrionics. I don't think the question, "Should we pay teachers more, or should we instead trick more teenagers into taking loans," is one that involves debating whether or not you believe in capitalism, or that needs you posting a bunch of links about segregation all of the sudden.
Re:California bans ITT tech from accepting new students by dredmorbius on Wednesday August 31, 2016 @07:53PM (#12402319)
Perhaps you might care to revisit your comments above then and clarify what it is you're arguing for, rather than simply against others' statements or views. Because I'm not getting that, and I'm apparently not the only one.