|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 16, 2021 14:38:56 GMT -5
That's some sicko sh!t right there. For-profit k-12 education? Schools- for children, mind you- that will have their first responsibility to shareholders instead of students? I think this is massive hyperbole. I get the concerns about a for-profit school. And it could even be right. I’m not sure if support them. But the way for a for-profit business to actually turn a profit is to have satisfied customers. So their responsibility to shareholders IS to provide a quality education and experience to their students. Just like a grocery store’s job is to provide quality food and service. If that doesn’t happen, the business fails and they’ve failed their shareholders. No, their responsibility to shareholders is to protect the share price. If that means providing a quality education so people want to use their services, fine. If that means slashing expenses to the bone, crushing labor, and doing a bust out on schools where (according to blue) people don't have any other options, they'll do that instead. The entire history (and present) of private equity indicates they'll do the latter.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 16, 2021 14:52:58 GMT -5
I think this is massive hyperbole. I get the concerns about a for-profit school. And it could even be right. I’m not sure if support them. But the way for a for-profit business to actually turn a profit is to have satisfied customers. So their responsibility to shareholders IS to provide a quality education and experience to their students. Just like a grocery store’s job is to provide quality food and service. If that doesn’t happen, the business fails and they’ve failed their shareholders. No, their responsibility to shareholders is to protect the share price. If that means providing a quality education so people want to use their services, fine. If that means slashing expenses to the bone, crushing labor, and doing a bust out on schools where (according to blue) people don't have any other options, they'll do that instead. The entire history (and present) of private equity indicates they'll do the latter. The idea that a company is run to prioritize the share price is a relatively recent perversion of the whole idea behind forming a company. Ultimately, the real reason why companies were created is because people working together can create better (and more profitable) accomplishments than they can if everybody goes it alone. Older ideas about serving "stakeholders" are still around, even though "shareholder value" swept the corporate world in the 1980s. Many people have learned that such a narrow focus is not really the best way to run a company, especially if you are interested in long longer-term success rather than short-term profits. Consider private universities that are hundreds of years old. They are not usually run like that. (On the other hand, some "for profit" universities have indeed been set up to generate as much money as possible for their owners/shareholders. It's an interesting question to libertarians to ask why Harvard remains so respected compared to University of Phoenix, which by their philosophy should be more efficient and effective.)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 16, 2021 14:57:08 GMT -5
Forest management provides something of a metaphor here. You can buy some forestland and simply harvest everything possible, leaving it completely wiped out, and then walk away with your profits.
Or you can manage it for long-term sustainability, taking a lower amount of short-term profit in exchange for a steady stream of income that is essentially perpetual.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 16, 2021 15:07:03 GMT -5
No, their responsibility to shareholders is to protect the share price. If that means providing a quality education so people want to use their services, fine. If that means slashing expenses to the bone, crushing labor, and doing a bust out on schools where (according to blue) people don't have any other options, they'll do that instead. The entire history (and present) of private equity indicates they'll do the latter. The idea that a company is run to prioritize the share price is a relatively recent perversion of the whole idea behind forming a company. A perversion, but a logical endpoint.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 16, 2021 15:23:04 GMT -5
The idea that a company is run to prioritize the share price is a relatively recent perversion of the whole idea behind forming a company. A perversion, but a logical endpoint. Arguable. An endpoint in the aspect of our social culture that favors money in hand over all else, yes. But that's not the only cultural paradigm in our society.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 16, 2021 15:23:15 GMT -5
Consider private universities that are hundreds of years old. They are not usually run like that. (On the other hand, some "for profit" universities have indeed been set up to generate as much money as possible for their owners/shareholders. It's an interesting question to libertarians to ask why Harvard remains so respected compared to University of Phoenix, which by their philosophy should be more efficient and effective.) The mission of Harvard is vastly different than the University of Phoenix. One is extremely selective with a huge price tag. The other is not selective at all and cheap. There are plenty of people (libertarian or not) that don’t think the price tag of elite schools is worth it. Is Phoenix even a good school? Maybe Grand Canyon is a better comparison. Not to Harvard, but to your typical 4-year college. Do they provide an inferior product?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 16, 2021 15:36:10 GMT -5
Consider private universities that are hundreds of years old. They are not usually run like that. (On the other hand, some "for profit" universities have indeed been set up to generate as much money as possible for their owners/shareholders. It's an interesting question to libertarians to ask why Harvard remains so respected compared to University of Phoenix, which by their philosophy should be more efficient and effective.) Do they provide an inferior product? Yes. Also, hasn't GCU been actively trying to revert back to non-profit status?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 16, 2021 15:39:34 GMT -5
Consider private universities that are hundreds of years old. They are not usually run like that. (On the other hand, some "for profit" universities have indeed been set up to generate as much money as possible for their owners/shareholders. It's an interesting question to libertarians to ask why Harvard remains so respected compared to University of Phoenix, which by their philosophy should be more efficient and effective.) The mission of Harvard is vastly different than the University of Phoenix. One is extremely selective with a huge price tag. The other is not selective at all and cheap. There are plenty of people (libertarian or not) that don’t think the price tag of elite schools is worth it. Is Phoenix even a good school? Maybe Grand Canyon is a better comparison. Not to Harvard, but to your typical 4-year college. Do they provide an inferior product? What is the "product" of a university? Cranking out people with diplomas? Or extending the collective knowledge of humanity? Some of both, probably. My guess is that Grand Canyon U doesn't do sh*t in terms of basic science research or the theory of art or understanding history. Maybe I'm wrong, though. I have to say, I sure thought my MIT degree was worth the investment I (and my family too) put into it. 30 years later, I still think so.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 16, 2021 15:41:51 GMT -5
The university question addresses profit vs. non-profit institutions. There are people here who would not only like to encourage *for profit* K-12 education, but subsidize it with tax dollars!
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 17, 2021 8:46:03 GMT -5
Yes - if they can provide a quality school that people want to attend. That's some sicko sh!t right there. For-profit k-12 education? Schools- for children, mind you- that will have their first responsibility to shareholders instead of students? Yes - I support improving our school system and for-profit is the best and easiest way to get there. A company that puts shareholders before customers will end up with less customers and profit. And after what we are currently going through - let us not pretend that schools have prioritized students over teacher unions.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Feb 17, 2021 9:21:17 GMT -5
That's some sicko sh!t right there. For-profit k-12 education? Schools- for children, mind you- that will have their first responsibility to shareholders instead of students? Yes - I support improving our school system and for-profit is the best and easiest way to get there. A company that puts shareholders before customers will end up with less customers and profit. And after what we are currently going through - let us not pretend that schools have prioritized students over teacher unions. How's that for profit energy grid going for Texas?
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Feb 17, 2021 9:28:48 GMT -5
Yes - I support improving our school system and for-profit is the best and easiest way to get there. A company that puts shareholders before customers will end up with less customers and profit. And after what we are currently going through - let us not pretend that schools have prioritized students over teacher unions. How's that for profit energy grid going for Texas? can you tell us which countries use a private school model?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 17, 2021 10:36:11 GMT -5
That's some sicko sh!t right there. For-profit k-12 education? Schools- for children, mind you- that will have their first responsibility to shareholders instead of students? Yes - I support improving our school system and for-profit is the best and easiest way to get there. Continuously asserting this doesn't make it true. Or maybe they are prioritizing teachers (not teachers unions) as individuals with real health concerns? And maybe they are doing their best to prioritize both? It's not as black and white as you paint it, although I know that doesn't fit your political narrative.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 17, 2021 12:15:11 GMT -5
Yes - I support improving our school system and for-profit is the best and easiest way to get there. A company that puts shareholders before customers will end up with less customers and profit. And after what we are currently going through - let us not pretend that schools have prioritized students over teacher unions. How's that for profit energy grid going for Texas? Texas Energy: Gas - 40% Wind - 23% Coal - 18% Nuclear - 11% The question to ask is why does Coal/Nuclear only represent 29% of their energy source? I suspect the answer is Government Regulation? Texas has most of their energy source coming from the 2 things that don't work in this kind of cold.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 17, 2021 13:01:18 GMT -5
How's that for profit energy grid going for Texas? Texas Energy: Gas - 40% Wind - 23% Coal - 18% Nuclear - 11% The question to ask is why does Coal/Nuclear only represent 29% of their energy source? I suspect the answer is Government Regulation? Texas has most of their energy source coming from the 2 things that don't work in this kind of cold. Someone better let places like Iowa and Denmark know that wind "doesn't work in this kind of cold." Source
|
|