Comments on: Has technology failed education? http://edge.edublogs.org/2007/02/08/has-technology-failed-education/ learning about design ::: from experience Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:04 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Marg http://edge.edublogs.org/2007/02/08/has-technology-failed-education/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Marg Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:02:55 +0000 http://edge.edublogs.org/2007/02/08/has-technology-failed-education/#comment-93 Lynsey - great ideas! So, you're asking our governments to actually INVEST in us?!! That's a new concept isn't it! It sounds too logical for our govts to go for it...shame really, I'd like to see them go with something like this - we are our own worst enemies though - we have such a habit of putting ourselves and others down that we just don't envisage something like this as possible! Pity, it would ease so much strain on an already strained public system - that administrates and conforms rather than invests and supports. BTW - When are YOU running for PM? :o) Lynsey – great ideas! So, you’re asking our governments to actually INVEST in us?!! That’s a new concept isn’t it!

It sounds too logical for our govts to go for it…shame really, I’d like to see them go with something like this – we are our own worst enemies though – we have such a habit of putting ourselves and others down that we just don’t envisage something like this as possible! Pity, it would ease so much strain on an already strained public system – that administrates and conforms rather than invests and supports.

BTW – When are YOU running for PM? :o )

]]> By: Lynsey http://edge.edublogs.org/2007/02/08/has-technology-failed-education/comment-page-1/#comment-86 Lynsey Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:11:07 +0000 http://edge.edublogs.org/2007/02/08/has-technology-failed-education/#comment-86 Hi Marg Good ideas. Here's my 2 cents worth - I'd love to see a government abolish all benefits, and instead (using in part the saved money from the administration of the aforementioned benefits) pay every citizen from the age of 21, $28,000 (net before tax) per year. If a government had saved that amount ($28k for 20 years) for each of its citizens from their birth, and invested it at 5% there would be $560,000 plus the accumulated interest. Taking the $560k, investing at 5% provides the $28k per annum. The basis for a universal salary. If people wanted to work - great - they still get the $28k plus whatever they earn. If they want to set up business - great - they've got the $28k as a security during those first scary year(s) when incomes can be precarious. If someone wants to study - great - it's hard to work full time and study - here's an option. If people opted to save the money and work instead, without adding a whole lot extra they could retire at 40 or so on $50-60k pa, forever. Not a bad start on an annual income. On death, the original ‘seed’ money (the $560k) 'goes back' into the pool, the money saved by the person would be available as part of the estate as usual. NZ has an issue in that we're apparently not good savers. Perhaps that's because you can only save what's left over. If there was 'left over' at the front end there might be more motivation (and ability) to save for retirement. If someone wants to immigrate into this country (as I'm sure people would), great, simply bring along $560k for each member of the family, irrespective of age, in addition to satisfying the usual range of requirements. It's unlikely to happen, instead governments would rather sustain a percentage of the population trapped - based on dependency, benefits, and ill physical and mental health - plus, of course the subsequent bureaucracy required to sustain it. Not everyone has the physical and/or intellectual ability to work a standard job - and so their choices are limited. And then - here - as I believe in Aussie, the on-going 'how will we support the increasing numbers of geriatric boomers? You know they expect the same quality of drugs they took as teens - or better.' I guess there'll be an economist with a compelling argument with why the$28kpa is a bad idea - maybe it'd turn Aussie or NZ into Mugabe's Zimbabwe where a $Z1= Hi Marg
Good ideas. Here’s my 2 cents worth – I’d love to see a government abolish all benefits, and instead (using in part the saved money from the administration of the aforementioned benefits) pay every citizen from the age of 21, $28,000 (net before tax) per year. If a government had saved that amount ($28k for 20 years) for each of its citizens from their birth, and invested it at 5% there would be $560,000 plus the accumulated interest. Taking the $560k, investing at 5% provides the $28k per annum. The basis for a universal salary.

If people wanted to work – great – they still get the $28k plus whatever they earn. If they want to set up business – great – they’ve got the $28k as a security during those first scary year(s) when incomes can be precarious. If someone wants to study – great – it’s hard to work full time and study – here’s an option. If people opted to save the money and work instead, without adding a whole lot extra they could retire at 40 or so on $50-60k pa, forever. Not a bad start on an annual income. On death, the original ‘seed’ money (the $560k) ‘goes back’ into the pool, the money saved by the person would be available as part of the estate as usual. NZ has an issue in that we’re apparently not good savers. Perhaps that’s because you can only save what’s left over. If there was ‘left over’ at the front end there might be more motivation (and ability) to save for retirement.

If someone wants to immigrate into this country (as I’m sure people would), great, simply bring along $560k for each member of the family, irrespective of age, in addition to satisfying the usual range of requirements.

It’s unlikely to happen, instead governments would rather sustain a percentage of the population trapped – based on dependency, benefits, and ill physical and mental health – plus, of course the subsequent bureaucracy required to sustain it. Not everyone has the physical and/or intellectual ability to work a standard job – and so their choices are limited. And then – here – as I believe in Aussie, the on-going ‘how will we support the increasing numbers of geriatric boomers? You know they expect the same quality of drugs they took as teens – or better.’

I guess there’ll be an economist with a compelling argument with why the$28kpa is a bad idea – maybe it’d turn Aussie or NZ into Mugabe’s Zimbabwe where a $Z1=

]]>