Election: November 24

[joshuamorgan]

Hmmm? Bigger and better? Do elaborate.

[enwiabe]

If, as individuals, we don't feel we need it, then there shouldn't be an artificial injection of funds into the infrastructure. However, I would agree that we want it, and it is necessary. The goal should be achieved via the invisible hand of the markets though, not by the iron fist of the government. The problem is that there is a monopoly around the broadband sector (with Telstra and all) and this sector needs deregulation in order to thrive and give us competitive internet and rates.

You misunderstand me, Collin-my-boy. It's not that consumer INTEREST isn't high enough, it's the funds GENERATED by consumer interest that aren't enough. We, as the massive country of Australia with such a tiny population cannot make it wortwhile for a private entity to set up the infrastructure and charge a cheap-enough price for high-speed fibre optic broadband. It's just the cold truth of the matter - we need the government to step in.

[Odette]

Hmmm? Bigger and better? Do elaborate.

 Ahh well ill still be in the education industry, but i'll be opening up my own business hehe hopefully (thats where my business knowledge ties into this, as well as my business plan that ive written)

[Odette]

hmm.. wonder who'll win the election..

Same here, i have no interest in politics but yeah i'd like to know who wins

[rustic_metal]

that sounds like interest to me.

[Collin Li]

You misunderstand me, Collin-my-boy. It's not that consumer INTEREST isn't high enough, it's the funds GENERATED by consumer interest that aren't enough. We, as the massive country of Australia with such a tiny population cannot make it wortwhile for a private entity to set up the infrastructure and charge a cheap-enough price for high-speed fibre optic broadband. It's just the cold truth of the matter - we need the government to step in.

Here's what I said to enwiabe on MSN (with fixed grammar/punctuation):

Don't be so patronising when you clearly don't understand the economy. If consumer demand does not generate enough incentive to upgrade broadband, then there is no benefit to upgrade broadband, simple. However, I looked beyond that and agreed with you (that broadband does need an upgrade), while also implying that consumer demand provides the incentive for it.

The reason why there has been no free-market forces that have led to this is due to regulated telephony sector. Australia needs deregulation. That is what will help the economy. Less laws that restrict economic freedoms (and social freedoms, but that is irrelevant to this particular issue).

EDIT:
If you continue to believe consumer demand does not generate the incentive for a broadband upgrade, then the decision to upgrade is not beneficial for society. It may help businesses and firms, but at the cost of taxpayers. Overall, the benefits and losses sum to an overall loss.

[melanie.dee]

agreed if broadband were deregulated and competition encouraged, its likely the companies would invest in higher speed broadband in response to demand and to advance themselves above competitors to provide the best service. HOWEVER. its unlikely they would expand that service to regional and rural areas because its not worth it for them. the demand there doesnt match up to the cost and inconvenience of setting it up out in isolated areas. hence why it leans toward being something the government should look at.. having said that. i dont think they personally should set it up funded by tax payers. i suggest they deregulate a little bit, encourage equal playing ground for competitors and increase competition, but implement restrictions which require providers to provide equal access to rural areas if they wish to access urban markets. and possibly subsidise providers for their costs in servicing rural areas. i duno i havnt thought it out entirely, but thats my standing

[Collin Li]

agreed if broadband were deregulated and competition encouraged, its likely the companies would invest in higher speed broadband in response to demand and to advance themselves above competitors to provide the best service. HOWEVER. its unlikely they would expand that service to regional and rural areas because its not worth it for them. the demand there doesnt match up to the cost and inconvenience of setting it up out in isolated areas. hence why it leans toward being something the government should look at.. having said that. i dont think they personally should set it up funded by tax payers. i suggest they deregulate a little bit, encourage equal playing ground for competitors and increase competition, but implement restrictions which require providers to provide equal access to rural areas if they wish to access urban markets. and possibly subsidise providers for their costs in servicing rural areas. i duno i havnt thought it out entirely, but thats my standing

I like your stance on the issue. It's not a strong stance, but I like the idea of moderation in this. Ultimately, the end plan is for as much deregulation as possible, while ensuring equal opportunities (but with no aim towards equal outcomes).

EDIT: I take that back, I was feeling a bit socialist then. I still believe that if there is no sufficient rural demand, then there should be no rural broadband upgrade. It means the costs outweigh the benefits.

[Odette]

that sounds like interest to me.

Lol, well i don't really get involved in the discussion, and i dont really care who wins (i have no stance when it comes to politics), but i like to keep upto date with whats going on, if you get what i mean

[Toothpaste]

Someone argue against/ find faults/ reply to/ completely attack/ scrutinise/ praise my previous long post which was slightly irrelevant please? Hahaha, I don't want it being a wallflower.  

[rustic_metal]

A performance-pay scheme for teachers would just spur unnecessary tension between the individuals concerned.

How would you measure teaching performances? There is hardly a justifiable way to determine the merits of a teacher. If it were to be suggested that the teacher's wages be purely based on their students' achievements, it would drive these professional educators to seek out the institutions with the 'high achieving' students; and subsequently we would see the elite inner-city schools employing the 'high performing' teachers. Hence a cycle of disadvantages for under performing schools left with the cruddy classroom practitioners.

Discrimination would escalate! For example; if a teacher from what would be deemed a 'lower classed' school were to apply for a job at a more 'prestigious' establishment, we would have curriculum vitaes intently scanned for past employment places. These teachers would be rejected, because a history with a 'lower class' school meant that he or she is, to some extent, an under performing teacher. What if the teacher had improved in some way? Well those few words of 'shit high school' would have left a permanent scar on their records.

No one would want to work for the inferior schools. No student would want to even go to these schools, but then we have those who have no choice. These people would be indecorously atoned to poor educational standards; and thus their chances of doing something with their lives would be unduly compressed and quite limited.

It's a foolish ranking of our teachers. The competition that should be motivating them would become unbearable.
"How far into kinematics have you dived into? Oh, and Mr.X said that you managed to lay your hands onto some practice papers, would it be possible if I would borrow them to photocopy for my students?"
"Get the f*ck out of my classroom b*tch! My teaching is confidential!"

The performance based pay is ultimately flawed. It should not be a substitute for an increase in wages. If they want 'better' teachers, then why not further improve the quality of the way teachers are trained? Commit to a radical overhaul of the teaching education instead of toying around with illogical rewards.

Okay, so what about determining a good teacher in terms of their qualifications then? Huh? Huh? We can base their wages on that!

Oh hey, wait, guess what! The ones with higher qualifications already get paid more! Lawl, but anyway...
Well you see, the glorified tags of 'PhD' and master's may seem honorable, but what gives? Being in the classroom is all about connecting with students. A doctorate is barely going to help one control a group of rebellious teenagers, let alone even feed them any knowledge. How good is a teacher that teaches without being able to change their teaching styles to suit their students' needs? Hardly any good at all. There is no correlation between additional higher qualifications and their impacts on better results. A successful teacher is definitely not someone who is academically overly qualified.

Don't you remember that teacher who always tried their best to help you? The one that understood and went out of their way just to assist you with your problems. The memorable teacher that "made a difference" with your schooling. Or do you remember that teacher with the ?ber cool research degree in god knows what, who spoke in a monotone that made you sleep all throughout the lessons? Who would you deem the 'better teacher'?

But indeed, every scheme derived has consequences attached to it.

(I'm too tired.)

Edit: Okay shit, lol,  I just realised that this is irrelevant. .......................................... I misread something. Tralalalala.

Edit 2: Wait a minute, is it? Ah, I don't know any more.

i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.

[Collin Li]

Someone argue against/ find faults/ reply to/ completely attack/ scrutinise/ praise my previous long post which was slightly irrelevant please? Hahaha, I don't want it being a wallflower.  

I originally responded, but then deleted it, because I rushed it (and basically I had no idea what the Liberal party is proposing with this PBP thing).

Basically, my whole opinion on the matter is that the education sector needs to be deregulated to provide for competition and incentives to improve quality of teaching (like almost everything). To help this, the government must abolish zoning laws (schools preferring local students) and help bridge information asymmetry by making it a legal requirement to publish education data and performance.

Why will this work?
Schools will be accountable for their own quality of teaching. This means that parents will want to send their kids to the better schools. This means that schools must lift their standards in order to keep their customers (zoning discourages this)!

Obviously, a large factor of teaching standard is based on the teacher, and the principal (or whoever is in charge) will want to pick the best teachers. Some sort of "performance based pay" is necessary, but it should not be based on any government criterion, but at the discretion of the employer. The employer (the principal) can make his own judgement on which teachers deserve what pay. He or she can improve his pricing estimate by using "quality of teaching feedback" surveys on classes to get feedback and improve teaching quality.

If principals unfairly pay (undervalue) the teacher, the teacher will simply get a better job where his or her skills will be recognised.

This was a very step-by-step explanation of how the free-market works, and it doesn't skip the economic arguments and details like most of my other posts.

[Toothpaste]

Yay!

Well our federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to impose performance-based pay for teachers on the states from 2009.

i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.

Thank you.

(Note that I don't really stand firm for what I said before, I'm sure you can tell.)

[Odette]

Yay!

Well our federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to impose performance-based pay for teachers on the states from 2009.

i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.

Thank you.

(Note that I don't really stand firm for what I said before, I'm sure you can tell.)

Oh great lol... lets hope i perform well as a teacher.. well i wont graduate for another 4 years .. but still i need to worry about these things, how will they be able to accurately assess the performance of a teacher, it'll get a little messy, i think... but thats just what i think

[rustic_metal]

Yay!

Well our federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to impose performance-based pay for teachers on the states from 2009.

i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.

Thank you.

(Note that I don't really stand firm for what I said before, I'm sure you can tell.)

well i did do what you asked for