The efforts to portray next month's Wake County school board election runoff as a battle of neighborhood schools vs. busing for diversity is well under way.
In today's Daily Journal by the conservative Wake Community Network blog, Joey Stansbury focuses on statements made by school board member Kevin Hill and newly elected school board member Susan Evans about the need for a stronger student achievement component in the student assignment plan.
Stansbury cites Hill saying in his campaign profile for WRAL that "To help balance percentages of high- and low-achieving students, and to maintain our current magnet program, students may have to attend their second or third closest school."
"So what Kevin Hill is saying is that if neighborhood schools under the new assignment plan can't accomodate diversity then proximity, rated first by parents, must be sacrificed on the forced busing altar. He 'can't negotiate' on forced busing?" Stansbury writes.
Stansbury also cites a Holly Springs Sun article in which Evans says that "I believe that the efforts that Wake school leaders have made in the past to assure that all students in Wake County be assigned to schools with balanced populations, offering good opportunities for all, was very worthwhile.”
"You'll notice both of them using the catch words 'student achievement,'" Stansbury wrties. "Don't be fooled. Student achievement in the new assignment plan is the new diversity component. 'Student achievement is the new diversity. Once again busing makes a poor child smarter. Here we go again.
You'll also here that no one wants to go back to the old 6200 diversity busing policy. That's correct. They'll just repackage it in the new assignment plan. Of course that all depends on what happens November 8."
Comments
They will have 8 ES choices
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:28 — danofncThey will have 8 ES choices and everyone has the opportunity to grandfather with transportation.
...
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 06:47 — SideburnsBy the way....your 8 ES choices comment is only true for families whose closest school is a group 1 magnet. The rest only get 5 choices. Maybe you should read the plan instead of telling me to read it while also telling half-truths about what is in it.
I know. I read the plan - and that's what I posted.
Students who live near a Group 1 magnet will have 8 ES choices -- hardly "limbo".
Con't narrow columns
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 07:51 — danofncProximity is the driving factor in the priority list, right?
So, before you toot your candidate's horn about how great it is that some kids who live near a magnet school have 8 options, let's wait and see which of those options they are likely to get, OK?
That's exactly why it's "assignment limbo". The school that they'd be most likely to get isn't an option. If you want to consider a magnet school a "regional school choice" (I'm not sure that magnets carry that designation), then these kids would get get their school on Priority 5. How pretty and impressive your list of options is doesn't matter. What matters is which of those options you actually have a good shot of attending.
Also, I don't know the actual location of many magnet schools, but based on the few that I do know there seems to be an interesting correlation between the Group 1, 2, and 3 magnets that I wouldn't have expected from the "no busing for diversity" crowd.
You need to understand that I actually treat the school board as a non-partisan thing. I will call them "the GOP group" or "the democrats" when they are doing something as a block, but each member earns or loses my respect based on the ratio of how what they say matches up with what they do. I don't like that Prickett has basically shown that she was put into office to convert Leesville and nothing more. I'm not a big fan of Tedesco's methods sometimes, but I do believe that he's really trying to do what's best for as many children as possible, and I respect that. In the planning of this new assignment system, I think it's important to take a "big picture" approach, and I respect Kevin Hill for doing that. If every member clung to traditional feeder patterns moving forward with a new plan, what's the point of the new plan? We didn't need a new assignment plan for the sole purpose of keeping kids who live near magnets out of suburban schools.
I don't think I've said I don't care....what I think I said was that it doesn't matter much because we like our current school and there aren't many options to change our feeder pattern in Fuquay so the new plan wasn't likely to affect me. According to the plan, our feeder MS is now going to be the YR MS that we were likely to try to get into in a few years anyway, so I personally don't have any issues. That doesn't mean that I am incapable of recognizing and being concerned about issues, though. I have enough sense to know that a plan isn't necessarily good just because it is OK with me.
You must be awfully tired, because you spend a lot of time moving goalposts.
...
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 09:06 — SideburnsI wasn't tooting anyone's horn. (Who's horn would I be tooting anyway?) I was again correcting you. Your claim that students who live near magnets will be in assignment limbo and have no choice is absolutely incorrect. They will have 8 ES choices and everyone has the opportunity to grandfather with transportation.
By all means, don't read the plan. Just live in F-V and be happy.
Dan suffers from Munchausen
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 18:35 — starsonoursDan suffers from Munchausen Syndrome. He can find anything to complain about in Southern Wake so he has to search the remainder of the county to find "windmills to joust".
This is not a 'Neighborhood
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 14:45 — WhalerCaneThis is not a 'Neighborhood Schools' plan. No one is willing to pay for a real 'Neighborhood Schools' plan. It is Superintendent Tata who has said we need balanced schools because 'it costs more to fix them', than keeping them healthy.
Balance for Student Achievement is in the plan. If you support the Superintendent and the plan, then you support balancing schools for student achievement. If Mr. Stansbury has a problem with the plan, then perhaps he should take that up with Ron.
we know that
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 20:10 — snordoneassignment does not help achievement, nor was it ever intended to help achievement (according to Tom Oxholm and others). The balance is necessary for resources and the perception that all our schools are good. Lets be honest and move forward, not backwards.
Not true. With proximity as
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:37 — woodstockNot true. With proximity as the #1 factor, if you want a neighborhood school you get one. Period. As for balancing schools... I have no idea what plan you are looking at. If they are "balanced" it is by choice and not at the direction of someone other than the parent or guardian.
Kevin Hill and his benefactor, Dean Debnam, desperately want to incorporate busing for "diversity" into the plan and that is why Hill voted "no" on the plan and why Debnam is pumping another $25,000 into the Hill's relection campaign.
Exactly. Diversity through
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 21:02 — jeffrey1Exactly. Diversity through choice. That was the mantra of Assignment By Choice 10 years ago. It's what Richard Kahlenberg has been promoting for the past 15 years (though he never criticized Wake for busing without choice). It is the reason for the existence of our Magnet Program. And it's the only way to achieve diversity without alienating parents.
When you set aside seats, and force others out of their logical choices, the system breaks down. Hill's set asides will break Tata's plan.
Didn't Tata want the
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 10:16 — danofncDidn't Tata want the set-asides? Weren't they removed by Margiotta?
Yes Dan
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 18:36 — valsparTata included 20% set asides, which, if you think about it, is less than the set asides (magnet seats) the children who live near magnet schools give up for their suburban neighbors. Why is it ok for suburban families to choose a Group 1 magnet seat being saved just for them, but it is not ok for the downtown student to have a set aside seat in the 'burbs to ensure their choice is a viable one as well?
...
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 19:08 — SideburnsGive up for their suburban neighbors? They were never offered the seat to begin with.
You're living in the past
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 19:24 — danofncYou're living in the past again. What they were offered doesn't matter.
The magnet program isn't changing, so those kids still won't go to their closest schools. The difference will be that there won't be a place for them at other schools moving forward even if their parents liked their assignment under the old plan.
They will be stuck in assignment limbo.
...
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 20:32 — SideburnsDid you read the plan? What is assignment limbo?
What difference does it make
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 22:21 — danofncWhat difference does it make if I read the plan?
If Margiotta wants set-aside seats taken out of Tata's plan, then don't set-aside seats for certain students at magnet schools, either.
Assignment limbo is my term for where a kid will be if they are not given a chance to go to their closest school because it's a magnet, but also can't go to the suburban "achievement school" out in the 'burbs because it filled up with all the kids who didn't get to go take a magnet seat.
That's what will happen by not including the set-asides.
And don't get me wrong....I don't really care that the set-asides aren't there. I just don't like that people are pretending that Tata didn't include them in his plan. We all know that they were there and they were removed by RM.
Don't put a flashlight in my face and tell me it's sunshine.
...
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 08:58 — SideburnsWhat difference does it make if I read the plan?
LOL. No difference at all, dan. Just keep making stuff up and complaining about something you haven't even taken the time to read.
I'm looking forward to more of your credible insight and terms.
I don't have to read the
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 16:10 — danofncI don't have to read the plan to know that Tata wanted them and Margiotta & Co. took them out of the plan. I don't have to read the plan to know that people here are now saying that set-aside seats would "break" Tata's plan, even though I know that set-asides were in Tata's plan until RM took them out.
I don't have to read the plan to know that as long as kids from the suburbs are being given magnet seats, there are kids close to that school who are being denied seats at that school.
That's the beauty of not representing any particular candidate. I don't have to make stuff up to protect/defend anyone. You can't say that.
...
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 18:45 — SideburnsI have no idea where you're going with this. If you haven't read the plan and have no intention of reading the plan, that's fine. I just find it incredible that people (you) are on here complaining about the plan and haven't even taken the time to read it.
I was merely pointing out that valspar's pie-in-the-sky comment that children who live near magnets are giving up their seats for their suburban neighbors (doesn't that make it sound so amicable) is wrong. Those children were never offered those seats in order to give them up.
BTW, I'm not representing anyone either.
Once again, you're living in
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 20:15 — danofncOnce again, you're living in the past.
What last year's kindergarteners were offered, and what next year's should be offered under the plan should be different since proximity is supposed to be driving the choice plan.
Those children who were bused out to the suburbs were painted as the portrait of everything that was evil about the old assignment policy, and they are still going to be attending schools that aren't as close to home as they could be so that other kids can come in for magnet programs. The difference is that now they won't even have the option to attend those suburban schools.
...
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 16:04 — SideburnsThose children who were bused out to the suburbs were painted as the portrait of everything that was evil about the old assignment policy, and they are still going to be attending schools that aren't as close to home as they could be so that other kids can come in for magnet programs.
No, those children who were bused to the suburbs were not painted as everything evil. Those children deserved as much as every other child in the system. It was the Board at the time that assumed those children didn't deserve a neighborhood school because their families were poor -- and too many of them would make an "unhealthy" school. The mindset that poor children must be bused elsewhere to be successful is what was evil. And it will be back with a vengeance with Hill on the Board.
Magnet parents will still get all the incentives and academic goodies when they attend a magnet school while the downtown kids that are being displaced will get the offer of a seat at a "high-achieving school". Nothing else -- just another bus ride and the guise of "you will be more successful here".
".....while the downtown
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 18:46 — danofnc".....while the downtown kids that are being displaced will get the offer of a seat at a "high-achieving school".
...
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 19:39 — SideburnsI don't know. You'd have to ask Margiotta or Tata.
But, of course, you completely miss my point. The offer of a seat at a "high-achieving" school is a lie at best. The magnet parents have all sorts of electives (and stability) to entice them but the downtown kids get nothing extra. And valspar is already (or still) trying to make it sound like that's a good deal for everyone. Bull.
For someone who doesn't really care, you sure do have a lot to say about it.
When I see BS, I call
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 21:03 — danofncWhen I see BS, I call it.
This isn't better for the kids that live near magnets, it's just screwing them in a different manner while telling them how great they have it since they get to choose.
The offer of a seat at a "high-achieving" school is a lie at best. The magnet parents have all sorts of electives (and stability) to entice them but the downtown kids get nothing extra.
"If we give a student the choice of a school 20 miles away and reserve a high percentage of seats for these students, we're denying these seats for the parents that live in that immediate neighborhood, which is what we've done in the past," Margiotta said. "As I say, the plan needs some tweaking."
That's from RM. He had to tweak Tata's original plan to eliminate set-asides for kids displaced by magnet students. The flip side is that he didn't eliminate any magnet seats to make room for more local kids.
...
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 21:18 — SideburnsI have no doubt that you know what BS is.
Then why not wait until they had a plan that made it not a lie to vote?
In case you don't realize, I didn't get to vote on the plan. Just Board members.
Yeah, I understand. While I
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 21:29 — danofncYeah, I understand.
While I think some parts of the plan are good, some not so good, and others a bit misleading, you have actually changed position on this particular part of the plan in this very thread.
You go from defending certain things to being critical to claiming you have nothing to do with it. Since you worked for RM, you should have a little more insight than most of us.
My biggest problem with all of this is people like you, who defend the new board's actions by pointing out things the old board did. I thought the entire point of having a new board was to avoid the things the old board did (at least that's what the campaign fliers said).
...
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 21:53 — SideburnsI'm not defending anyone's actions. I was correcting your ignorant and admittedly uneducated statement about the assignment plan.
But you didn't correct
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 22:18 — danofncBut you didn't correct anything.
Originally, you asked "Have you read the plan?" as though that proves something. Since I don't lie, I told you I haven't read it. I've read parts of it, but I'm not reading it all anytime soon.
What I said was that since the kids close to magnet schools would not be able to attend the magnets while also not being able to choose the suburban schools they used to be assigned to, they were in what amounts to assignment limbo.
Then, you took issue with that characterization, only to eventually complain (or maybe it wasn't actually a complaint) about that very thing happening.
...
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 06:40 — SideburnsIt proves that you complain just to complain. You don't have the facts so you make things up and then claim "well, I really don't care". At least you admitted you have no intention of reading it all so others on this blog will know that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Since you won't bother, here are some facts from the plan:
There is no such thing as assignment limbo. Students who live near a Group 1 magnet will have 8 ES choices -- hardly "limbo". This plan allows grandfathering for all.
see bottom
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 07:51 — danofncsee bottom
...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:09 — SideburnsSo why didn't Hill support it then?
Rhonda's post below
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:55 — WhalerCaneAnswers that question.
Push comes to shove
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 13:25 — RKCurtrightPeople deserve the facts and we owe them to be complete. They are tired of being lied to.
Mr. Hill is a truthful and sincere person and has the best intentions for wcpss. Though as many have pointed out, he is not perfect. Ms. Losourdo is not perfect either and it is good they both are supportive of Wakes New Choice Assignment Plan.
It is important people fully understand the reason Hill voted NO on Tuesday. It was b/c there were no guaranteed seat set asides for low achieving students at high performing schools. Page 62 of the actual plan under "Planning Assumptions" states "A sufficient percentage of seats at high-performing schools must be allocated for students living in low performing nodes." This detail was not provided in the plan.
Hill is fully aware of the flaws in the previous plan and the need for this new plan. He sses many positives and is very supportive of the plan. Sutton is as well, as are the newly elected Board members. The vote was ‘almost’ a 9-0 vote The dissenting votes were around small details with Sutton asking for a short delay to get past the Dist 3 runoff and Hill wanting to place one word in the plan to guarantee room for displaced magnet students in high performing schools. Both Sutton and Hill said in the meeting and in press reports later that they support the concept.
Hill believes this can be worked into the plan. He was confident the plan would pass, so he felt obligated to make a statement about what was missing from the plan.
When teach children not to fight and we say it does not matter who started it. If you push someone the normal reaction is to push back. It is important to realize pushing from one side creates a need for push from the other.
Untrue statements bring out all kinds of ineffective dialogue. People are tired of being misled and deserve from all of us true statements about where our BOE stands. Diplomacy requires truth and truth requires the complete story.
Wake County needs this plan as much as the plan needs us.
Well...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:03 — Bob_SconceFirst of all, I think you're misstating Hill's opposition to the plan -- he might characterize it as a single word, but in reality, he wanted to change the options available for students based on their test scores.
Secondly, we have to differentiate between what Kevin Hill would do with the school board composed as it currently is and what he would do with the board composed as it will be in two months. Recall that Kushner, Martin and Evans are far more to the left than Margiotta ever was to the right. Does anybody really think that they'd be fine with the assignment plan with just a couple of minor tweaks? Not on your life.
As to Sutton's request to get past the D3 runoff, why does that matter? He only wanted a 30 day delay -- that still puts the vote before the new members take office. His true purpose was to delay the plan so Hill wouldn't make an unpopular vote before the run-off. That sounds like an act of political cowardice to me.
Margiotta was as far to the
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:28 — virginiadareMargiotta was as far to the right as it is possible to be. I can't think of a single issue on which he could have leaned any farther right. He was never willing to compromise at all if it meant agreeing with anything a Democrat or even a moderate had proposed. If he had remained in power with a majority, he was ready to bring up sex ed, evolution, book banning, prayer in school, the war on Christmas, and all the other fringe right wing issues, once he had his neighborhood schools. He didn't even want to allow students to listen to their president on TV! Kushner, Martin, and Evans will merely bring the board back to the center, as it used to be before the '09 take-over. Losurdo is just as far right, and she IS a wacko. She just has the ability to hide it when she needs to. Anyone who would attend a Glen Beck rally and claim to support him and his ideas is definitely wacko! So if she wins, and they finally get the poor out of "their" schools and confined to their own poor neighborhoods (which will happen without set-asides in high-performing schools and the main priority proximity, leaving kids from poor areas with no real choice), get ready for more division in the community, this time on social and cultural issues.
Margiotta
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 09:18 — EBDarcyCheck out the story abc did on Margiotta's request for the video clips that ended up on youtube.
"Martin and Evans will bring the board back to the center"
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 17:48 — FSandYOUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
best darn laugh I had all day there VD!
So...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:49 — Bob_SconceMargiotta was probably harder-line than I would have liked. But, he's gone and, with him, the war on Christmas, the fight to reinstitute primogeniture, his opposition to the Louisiana Purchase and whatever other strange ideas you want to tie to him.
Frankly, it's really hard for me to take you seriously when you assert that Martin, Evans and Kushner are centrist.
Just as it's hard for me to
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 16:24 — virginiadareJust as it's hard for me to consider you reasonable if you think Losurdo (and by inference Glen Beck) is not wacko. This country has been pulled so hard to the right over the last three decades that centrists look further left than they are. Obama is actually center-right, much more moderate than most Democrats would wish. Democrats are much more likely to consider all sides and to compromise than are Republicans, who hunker down and refuse to give an inch. (Not one presidential candidate would take a deal even 10-1 in their favor for spending cuts vs tax increases!)
Just because Margiotta is gone does not mean the majority, if it remains Republican, will not move on that cultural agenda, especially with someone like Losurdo, who is as partisan as they come, on the board.
Oh...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 16:34 — Bob_SconceMy beef with Beck is that he offers simplistic solutions to complicated problems. And, in my view, that makes him a boob. I don't think that rubs off on Losurdo. And, I don't buy that she's as partisan as you make her out to be. If you get a chance, talk with her for a while and you'll see.
I think you've pointed out a problem with the right/left center thing -- where do you start? You're apparantly looking at the late 70's as your starting point. Why there? Why not 1950? Or 1920? We're certainly very far to the left of where we were in 1920. I was born in 1968, I was 12 when Reagan was elected. I don't have any meaningful recollection of the political world in the 1970's -- why should I view that world as 'center'?
That's your only beef with
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 17:00 — virginiadareThat's your only beef with Beck? Have you ever watched him give a history lesson? He borders on psychotic! Losurdo knows you are moderate because you supported Mansfield. Of course she'll be on her best behavior and will hide her true colors from you. I think her past statements, made before she even contemplated running for office, offer a much more honest assessment of how partisan she is, as well as a better window into her true character.
I guess I picked the last three decades because that has been my adult life. Yes, we as a country were more to the right in the '20's, and look what that got us - the Great Depression. I believe that our more recent move to the right resulting in the income redistribution to the top is what led to the great recession we've been going through now. Our country as a whole does better when every strata in society is doing better, not just the rich.
Um...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 17:14 — Bob_SconceI don't really watch Glenn Beck. Once I figured out that he was a boob, I turned him off, so I have never watched him give a history lesson.
I think you could stand to do some more reading on the Great Depression -- Amity Schales has a great book, "The Forgotten Man" that dispels a lot of the popular myths.
As to the "income redistribution" to the top, three points:
(1) A substantial change in income redistribution occurred because of the growth of no-fault divorce in the 60's and 70's. When you take one household and split it into two, not only does average household income fall, but the number of households increases.
(2) Most of the people in the bottom, say, 20%, of the income distribution today were not even in the income distribution 15 years ago -- they're largely poor, recent immigrants. The people who were in the bottom 20% 15 years ago have since moved up the ladder.
(3) Even so, there's still inequality, but the size of the pie has grown enormously to the point that naerly everybody is far better off than they used to be. I know this doesn't agree with the popular view, but see the work of Bruce Meyer at the University of Chicago who looked a bit closer at the data -- see http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/faculty/web-pages/Inequality60s.pdf
I've actually read a lot
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 19:40 — virginiadareI've actually read a lot about the Great Depression. Don't you mean Amity Shlaes? The Forgotten Man was the book that was a must-read for the Republicans in Congress around 2008. Most of the reviews I read said it is revisionist history, and it seems to be popular mostly with the Ayn Rand set. (I remember you said you hadn't read Ayn Rand, which I find unusual for a conservative.) I don't believe your points about income redistribution tell the whole story, either. The middle class has struggled to keep up, first by the huge increase in two-incomes families that took place in the '70's and then by borrowing, especially during the housing bubble. When that burst, there was no other way for middle class families to maintain their standard of living. Examples: Between 2000 and 2007 incomes of working households declined by $2000 while the top 1% income was skyrocketing. In 2010 bankers made 5 1/2 times the average private sector salary, when 30 years earlier it was only twice as much. Just in 2010, CEO pay jumped 27% while workers in private industry only gained 2.1%. It sounds like many of your talking points are coming from Cato and Heritage. Maybe you need to read a little more widely. Paul Krugman calls the economists from Chicago the "freshwater" economists and doesn't put much stock in their work. They were definitely wrong in their predictions for the recession, inflation, etc., while Krugman got it exactly right. Maybe you could start with one of my favorites, The New Republic. Just wondering, do you actually believe in the Laffer curve, too?
Ok..
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 22:03 — Bob_SconceShlaes, not Shales. I take it that you haven't read it? I agree that it offers an alternate view on the economics of the Great Depression -- FDR's reforms don't come out smelling as rosy as Keynsians like to think. But, she does offer a good deal of support for her position. Recall also that historical understanding of the Depression has changed over time -- for a while, the narrative was that the New Deal ended the Depression. Now, the popular narrative is that WWII ended the Depression.
It is definitely true that bankers make a lot more now, on average, than they did 30 years ago -- there are also a lot more of people working in Investment banking now that there were 30 years ago.
Of course I believe in the Laffer curve -- every economist does at some level: you tax people at 100% and they stop working, so tax revenue is $0; you tax people at 0% and they work, but you get no tax revenue. The argument is whether there's one set place in between where tax revenue is maximized. And, on that, I don't know enough economics, but suspect that the reality is more complicated.
I read Krugman occasionally, but will offer you a deal: I will read every Krugman post for the next month if you'll read the Chicago paper I mentioned.
Deal! I still recommend
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 06:16 — virginiadareDeal! I still recommend tnr.com. They often summarize and critique the conservative arguments from Cato and Heritage as well as those from the left.
I should have qualified the statistic on the bankers' income to indicate that it was the average salary (around $350,000), so the relative number of bankers wouldn't really make any difference. And you have to agree that Republicans have taken the Laffer to a ridiculous level, well below the optimum, when they refuse to reinstate the rates in place during the Clinton boom. It makes no sense.
So...
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 09:59 — Bob_SconceOk. I will add tnr.com to my list of websites that I look at, but I won't make the same promise about reading every word like I did for Krugman. I have to warn you though, I think I got the better end of the deal -- Krugman is a much more entertaining writer than the guy who wrote the Chicago paper.
The average salary point was, basically, this: You're right that the average bankers salary has gone up. And, I'll believe that's true whether you mean "mean" or "median." But, I believe this is because the number of highly-paid bankers has increased, not because bankers are doing better across the board. So, why has the number of highly-paid bankers gone up? Largely because there are a lot more people with the title "banker" who are doing investment banking and structured finance -- their jobs just didn't exist 30 years ago.
To me, that's a good thing: there were a lot of highly-paid jobs created for smart people. And, even though people sneer at this idea, those highly-paid people do create wealth for others by helping to make markets more efficient.
The problem with the bankers isn't that they exist; it's that when they screwed up, the government bailed them out. That system of "private gains, public losses" is corrupt -- something I suspect we both agree on.
Is this the same Paul
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 19:54 — starsonoursIs this the same Paul Krugman that was on an advisory board for Enron?
Bob: Because they say they are.
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 16:09 — AgentPierceBob: ALL ultra-extreme left-wing fanatics are "centrists" .... because they say they are. Don't you know nuthin' ? And my buddy Keungy is "registered unaffiliated" ergo he doesn't have a partisan bone in his entire body. .... "Truth" is what they say it is .... because they say it is.
Well...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 16:43 — Bob_SconceWe all think we're normal and that anybody who deviates too far from us is weird. I presume you think you're pretty mainstream?
As to Keung, I know he has his opinions (anybody who's been doing this as long as he has has to have some), but his purpose in blogging here is clearly to generate discussion -- to attract eyeballs -- not to push his personal views. That's why some WakeEd posts have over a hundred comments while Bob Geary's blog posts over at the Independent rarely have any.
...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:33 — SideburnsIf he had remained in power with a majority, he was ready to bring up sex ed, evolution, book banning, prayer in school, the war on Christmas, and all the other fringe right wing issues, once he had his neighborhood schools.
Sticks and STones
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:54 — WhalerCaneI feel your pain. :-)