Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by magnifier661, Apr 7, 2015.
That's not my link.
You babble. Or confuse easily.
Anyhow, why should a small town in rural Mississippi pay a teacher California wages, or pay California rents?
The cost structure differs based upon place.
The obvious reason why central planning fails miserably everywhere it's tried.
Yes, that link was Magnifier's. Way back when, this was a pretty dumb thread. So I posted this. The first phrase is, of course, sarcasm.
The rest is, of course, serious.
More babbling. Not very funny, witty, or whatever you're trying to be.
Private companies typically have 25% overhead. Overall, education has 50%, and unlike business, they don't have to try to profit.
More babbling. Private companies don't have to maintain capital assets unused for half the year, and half the daylight hours. And their cheap labor force isn't laden down with college degrees.
You can thank me for keeping this lousy thread going.
Corporations don't get eminent domain rights, nor do they collect taxes, nor can they borrow on the strength of the state's guaranteed revenues.
It isn't even close.
And pensions aren't factored in.
Companies can move, if they don't like that expense environment. Schools can't.
Saying that hurts your argument. Pensions aren't overhead. If they were, the 50% would reduce for schools more than the 25% would reduce for private companies. Assuming your guesses of 50 and 25 are accurate. Which all depends upon how one defines overhead. There are gray areas.
They close schools all the time and move the kids to other ones.
No, pensions aren't overhead, but they are real cost that is hidden from the discussion about the cost.
I don't guess when it comes to these numbers.
Average revenue per student is ~$12K, average spent per student on actual education (including teacher salary) is ~$6K.
Average overhead for US companies is 25%. I looked it up. Maybe you can find something to mouse over if you do the same.
Schools close, but don't move out of the expense environment. Companies can move to another city, state, or country.
Pensions are in balance sheets, just not on tax returns. But in current dollars, they reduce to negligible amounts, the further out they are.
Exactly 25%. Well, that round number is a helpful coincidence. Did your source say the 50% number too?
I posted the links in the other thread.
Don't mistake them for Mags'.
~$6400/~$12400 = ~50%
I see where you are coming from now. Its an interesting trend but I would have to look at the number much more closely to determine if there is anything to them or just coincidence and also to see if the numbers hold true on all red vs blue. A few things off the top of my head that are not being accounted for .....
1) the rest of the state budget, where does all their money go and what priorities does each state have with their funds
2) how the education system of each state is funded
3) I know we said per capita but actual numbers of students do make a difference, for instance New York has a lot more people than Alaska and so NY has much more logistics, safety, and other considerations to make that Alaska does not.
4) comparing % of budget is tough also because NY and Alaska (sticking with these examples) have a much different income and expense allocation, also they have different numbers of students needing education.
% of budget makes no sense. Consider:
The US spends 3-6% of its budget on defense and dwarfs nations that spend 50% on theirs.
Following your red arrows, I'm seeing overhead expense of 570 divided by 6424, and profit of 12,410 minus 6424. Your source makes no sense.
You aren't following the red arrows.
$12K in, $6K spent on the actual service for which the taxpayer is footing the bill.
The rest is overhead.
Your red arrow line says that this service industry's equivalent of cost of goods sold was 6424, and overhead was 199 + 570. The same line says that total revenue was 12,410. This yields an enormous profit. Is your mystery source hiding some missing number, or is education an enormously profitable enterprise to the taxpayers?
Good point... Maybe one day when I'm bored I will research this for a project
I think you are ignoring the arrows. They point at 12400 and 6400, not at 199 or 570.
The 199+570 is part of the 50% overhead, not "the" overhead.
Where does the source give that excuse for its giant discrepancy? Or did you conveniently make it up to cover the blooper.
The private sector companies also generate PROFIT. They're even that much more efficient.
Separate names with a comma.