Unless you want the kids to grow up to be completely undeniably stupid, education has to happen at some point. Babysitters aren’t trained for or paid enough for that. Teachers aren’t paid enough for that.
Also all the costs you’re adding up are still nothing in comparison to having to pay a babysitter a livable hourly wage for 40+ hours a week, and then still have to feed and clothe the kids etc because the babysitter isn’t covering that for you out of their own pay.
So yes, on the point alone that you don’t have to personally employ someone on a full-time basis and pay them out of your own pocket just to make sure your kid doesn’t burn the house down while you’re gone, it is cheaper.
Don’t want to incur such costs? Don’t have kids that you have to do something with during the day.
Nobody’s denying that teachers keeping an eye on your kid slightly at school will prevent them from burning your house down, only that believing that’s the sole purpose of the teacher is asinine and so stupid it makes my brain hurt.
The people saying that obviously felt that way themselves in school and didn’t take it seriously. And it shows now.
He didn’t say “sole purpose”, he said “main job” in the context of what the typical lowest common denominator parent these days expects first from a school just so they can go to work. “Main job” implies there are other jobs teachers do that those same parents don’t consider as important as just keeping their kids busy so they can work. Perhaps you should read the post more carefully to avoid arguing against something that wasn’t argued in the first place.
It’s ok to be too stupid to understand the point he’s actually making. No one expects you to get past your shortsighted interpretation of the argument.
Oh please, shit like “tutoring costs” or “cost to eat” are entirely disingenuous - ones some trust fund shit, and the other ignores the fact that children not in school still have feeding costs, for the actual few core things transport/supplies/etc. any developed nation will have a means of access for those who need it.
Do they?
School supplies and materials?
Costs of transportation?
Extracurricular activities?
Uniforms or dress codes?
Costs to eat?
Tutoring costs because your kid is in public school?
Technology access requirements for the modern world like tablets or computers with specific often paid software?
Field trips and special projects?
I dunno, it’s all starting to add up to a little more than free.
Unless you want the kids to grow up to be completely undeniably stupid, education has to happen at some point. Babysitters aren’t trained for or paid enough for that. Teachers aren’t paid enough for that.
Also all the costs you’re adding up are still nothing in comparison to having to pay a babysitter a livable hourly wage for 40+ hours a week, and then still have to feed and clothe the kids etc because the babysitter isn’t covering that for you out of their own pay.
So yes, on the point alone that you don’t have to personally employ someone on a full-time basis and pay them out of your own pocket just to make sure your kid doesn’t burn the house down while you’re gone, it is cheaper.
Don’t want to incur such costs? Don’t have kids that you have to do something with during the day.
Nobody’s denying that teachers keeping an eye on your kid slightly at school will prevent them from burning your house down, only that believing that’s the sole purpose of the teacher is asinine and so stupid it makes my brain hurt.
The people saying that obviously felt that way themselves in school and didn’t take it seriously. And it shows now.
He didn’t say “sole purpose”, he said “main job” in the context of what the typical lowest common denominator parent these days expects first from a school just so they can go to work. “Main job” implies there are other jobs teachers do that those same parents don’t consider as important as just keeping their kids busy so they can work. Perhaps you should read the post more carefully to avoid arguing against something that wasn’t argued in the first place.
The very existence of homework disproves this stupid theory.
It’s ok to be too stupid to understand the point he’s actually making. No one expects you to get past your shortsighted interpretation of the argument.
Stupidly pedantic.
Why don’t you just add every single expense incurred in their life to your list?
deleted by creator
Oh please, shit like “tutoring costs” or “cost to eat” are entirely disingenuous - ones some trust fund shit, and the other ignores the fact that children not in school still have feeding costs, for the actual few core things transport/supplies/etc. any developed nation will have a means of access for those who need it.