Abolishing tariffs, the minimum wage, and public education would help poor people.

"But Public schools are not immune to competition that's what private schools are," Reply: No, because public schools get their money from the barrel of a gun. If a private school performed as poorly as a public school, it would go out of business. Usually the public school just gets more money. If a public school were not immune to competition, you would have to show how it could go out of business. "you'll see that they cost a lot more per year because they aren't funded by the government" Reply: It is government providing public schools that ups the cost of private schools, since it stifles competition. The more competitors relative to buyers there are in a market, the cheaper the prices. But since the government operates under coercion, it takes up virtually all of the market share. If you got rid of government schools, the demand for education would spur more competition, and hence lower prices. "The parents so even if the kid wanted to be an engineer, if the parent wanted them to be an artist, they now are really screwed because they are paying MORE to be specialized in something they don't want to." Reply: Public schools don't do any better job of doing this. Instead of the parents controlling their child, it is usually bureaucrats who do it. But they have less interest in what happens to the child than the parent does. Suppose I want to learn about economics, but my public high school doesn't have any classes about economics. What public schools do worse is that I am forced to stay in that school, unless I am enormously wealthy. Under a private school system, nearly an infinite number of arrangements could be made to satisfy my needs. I could audit a class at a neighboring school, hire a tutor, buy books I want to read, etc. "just because the public schools went away doesn't mean the teachers union would go away, so the teachers would be able to stay united and prices would stay the same." Reply: No, but teacher the teacher's union contract are with government provided schools, not private. So I could start a school that used non-teacher union labor. "The point of public schools is to allow the poorest of the poor with a chance to get out, if they weren't more likely to resort to crime, maybe it would work." Reply: They are supposed get students out, but instead the trap them in. A poor person can't send their kid to a private school, because the public school they go to will always undercut the price of the private school, putting them out of business. Your philosophy is basically that you can run poor people's lives, but so far history has shown that that philosophy is the best way to ruin poor people's lives. "There is, reading, writing, Math, and Science, the problem is that it takes 13 grades to teach it to an understanding that allows people to do it relatively well, without the use of technology." Reply: It takes 13 years to learn to do it relatively well if you work at the pace of public schools. Also, that assumes that everyone will learn at the same pace. "Not if you want to know multiplication, Division, nouns, verbs, Algebra, more than the 8 planets of the solar system, pronouns, adj. adv. Pressure, buoyancy, do I need to continue?..." Reply: This next paragraph is a little disjointed and grammatically incorrect, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I'm not sure why you think it is just public schools that teach these things. If you compare people from similar socio-economic groups and see who does better, public school students or private school, it is always private schools. Everyone in college that got there from a public school is grossly unprepared while the private school students seem to excel. "There isn't only one choice there are two, public, or private," Reply: Not if you are poor. If you went to a barber that gave you a bad hair cut, would it make sense to force you to keep going to that same barber? "And for the record Alexander Hamilton lived in the 1700's way before the situation was anywhere near what it is today" The only thing that is different is that bureaucrats and professional educators thought it would be a good idea to force people to go to public schools at the barrel of a gun. The reason you can't find an example of someone who only went to school since 3rd grade is that everyone is forced to stay in school until they are much older. "x vs. x+4..." What you are leaving out is the cost of other goods. If the company could lower their pay, they can also lower their prices, and take up more market share, and make more profit. So it isn't x vs. x+4, but x relative to y, the cost of other goods. Furthermore, you assumption is that the CEO would hoard all the profits. But this assumes that people can hoard money. You can do 3 things with money: Invest it, save it, spend it. In all cases, it is being transferred. If you invest it, you are giving it to someone to start up a new business venture, which creates jobs, goods and services. If you save it, the bank doesn't just leave the money alone, they pay it to their employees and loan it out. If you spend it all, you are creating more demand for goods and services, which creates more jobs. The only way you can really hoard money is by taking it out as cash and hiding it under your pillow, which is a bad idea because inflation eats away at it's value. "minimum an employer will want to employ a skilled worker over an unskilled worker weather it's for 8 dollars an hour or 5 that's common knowledge." So my options are, hire a person with no skill for 5 dollars or hire a person with more skill for 8 dollars. Now suppose the government forces me to pay a person at least 8 dollars. Who am I going to hire? "And your part about tariffs was never one of your point's " Reply: You need to read the whole argument before typing. Start with the title. "getting rid of them would lose the U.S. 10,000's of jobs that are normally held by the lower class, abolishing the tariffs would save people a matter of cents on everyday objects, but would cause a lot of people to lose their jobs so in the end it hurts people more than it helps." Reply: What you are ignoring are the indirect effects of abolishing tariffs. Suppose we erect a tariff on sugar. That means the cost of sugar is higher. If I had a company that made candy canes, that would mean my prices would go up, so I might move my factory else where, taking away jobs. See how you protect the initial sugar making jobs, but destroy other jobs and raise prices in the process, all at the expense of everyone else? You might be tempted to say that you would simply erect a tariff on candy canes so I would stay here. But the same thing happens, prices go up, and the shops and business that use or sell the product either have to lay off people, raise prices, or just go out of business all together. The process is a house of cards that can't sustain itself. The arguments for tariffs are analogous to the arguments that come from intelligent design being taught in science class rooms. Virtually all economists know that tariffs don't do anything to protect jobs, just as virtually all biologists know that ID is not science. But interested self groups, be they religious or the steel industry, push these ideas on people who are illiterate on such matters, be they biology or economics. Likewise, evolution is a useful analogy for free markets in showing how complex, bottom-up, unguided arrangements can come about; you don't need god directing the flow of life and you don't need the government to bring about a better life for poor people. So my idea of helping poor people would include getting rid of these wasteful, superstition and board-line paternalistic ideas and let people choose for themselves. Well done, and good luck to you.