Comments on: Oakland to get $7 million in “Edujobs” money

By: TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:42:20 +0000

Mr. Danning is exactly right. What’s missing is that if you kick the can down the road with borrowed money, at some point you must PAY IT BACK and WITH INTEREST. The gamble is that all this FAKE DEMAND created by government spending will generate REAL DEMAND as Mr. Danning illustrates.

However, because the American economy runs on borrowed money, that is not true unless folks are borrowing and banks are lending. Neither of these is happening and doesn’t appear to be on the horizon. Banks are tightening standards and regular folk are paying down debt where possible.

These are both smart moves for the individual and the bank, but they collectively destroy any chance of a recovery based on REAL DEMAND.

Instead, we kick the can down the road and pass the bill to our kids – hope springs eternal and realism is buried in the sand.

Welcome to the new America.

By: Katy Murphy

Katy Murphy — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:38:03 +0000

That’s true. I wonder, though, about schools that drastically increased class size across the board — at the elementary school level, for example. To rehire teachers midway through the semester and restore smaller class sizes would mean a serious reshuffling of kids. Not that reshuffling doesn’t occur anyway — and maybe it’s worth the tradeoff — but I wonder if districts are less likely to use the money for that purpose because of the timing.

By: Gordon Danning

Gordon Danning — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:16:43 +0000

Since I teach Econ, i will take a shot:

If states lay off teachers (or anyone) then those people will sharply reduce spending (eg: on restaurant meals), which will lead to more layoffs (eg: waiters and waitresses); those people will spend less, and the process will start over. Rehiring teachers prevents that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier

Re: Money arriving in Sept, it is hardly unusual for individual schools to lose or gain teachers in Sept, such as when fewer kids than expected show up at Tech and more at Skyline. Also, I am no expert on school finance, but I am sure that if Oakland knows it will get an extra $9 million in December, they can hire teachers now, pay them with money currently budgeted for April’s utilities payments, and then pay the utilities with the money that arrives in December

By: Wondering

Wondering — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 04:08:01 +0000

What formula could they possibly be using to give San Ramon and West Contra Costa nearly even amounts? Obviously not needs based –

By: Katy Murphy

Katy Murphy — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:58:07 +0000

I’ve had the same questions about this type of funding. It seems to be predicated on the (arguably dreamy) notion that regular funding streams will pick right up after a little rough patch. Or maybe it’s supposed to benefit the economy in the short term. Any economists out there?

And then there’s the more obvious problem: How are schools supposed to use this funding to hire teachers when the money won’t come through until mid-September at the earliest?

By: Turanga_teach

Turanga_teach — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:28:31 +0000

How is a one-time handout going to re-secure the jobs of those laid off in the last round of cuts? It just seems like the same systemic issue we see in the “ECE Saved Until December” story: our state, perhaps our nation, doesn’t make education a sustainable priority. Instead, we get cut past the bone on an ongoing basis and then showered with Band-aids at unpredictable times.