Thursday, August 09, 2007
$25 a Week to Stay in School
Payed for by a non-for profit agency. One question - does this agency receive any government funds? Second question - is this the message we want to send kids? I think I am okay with this plan as long as I am not paying for it. And as long as the kids also have to keep their grades up and stay out of trouble - I think all that outweighs the possible negative message.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't care who pays for it, I think it sets a real bad precedent. It shows kids that rather than doing something that enriches their own life, they should feel entitled to something "more". Now, getting a good education and getting a well paying job isn't enough. Now you need to pay me to do something I should already be doing.
It's akin to saying I should be paid for driving well. Fuck that. I should enjoy the fact that driving well doesn't cause me to have accidents and get injured or die. I shouldn't be paid because I drive well.
That may be the best argument you have had on my blog.
Not saying it is right. But neverless the best I have read.
The problem with that argument is that it's a very idealistic- as opposed to a pragmatic argument (where you care about the results more than the symbolism), which is what I ussually favor.
I can understand the feeling that we "shouldn't" be "teaching" kids to feel "entitled." Certainly when my little sister is snotty and refuses to take out the trash or whatever without getting something in return, it gets me annoyed. And obviously I did the same thing at her age.
But being annoyed by something isn't enough to convince me that it's bad. I don't know whether this program would actually work, but since that wasn't a part of your argument, let's pretend it does. Isn't keeping kids in school more important than setting bad precedents about entitlement? Trust me, when they graduate and have to get a real job, they'll learn how things really work fast enough- but at least they'll have an education to help them make the transition to maturity, instead of having to face being self-dependant as a high-school dropout.
You bring up driving- how much money does our society lose to accidents (both in damages and emdical expenses and whatever)? Would a system where people are paid to be good drivers really be so bad, if the amount paid out was the same as the amount saved by reduced accidents?
I'm not saying either of these plans would work- but I do think that we should be asking whether they would work, and what other consequences they might have, rather than worrying about idealistic concerns.
Do you have your license yet?
Nope- the isureance is too expensive. So, that's keeping me from getting into accidents with an economic incentive right there :)
Post a Comment