Larry Cuban writes on his blog about the most important inventions that have raised our nation’s standard of living. He poses the question that is the title of this post. He supposes that most people would respond “the smartphone,” but they would be wrong. His post is an intriguing review of a book by economic historian Robert Gordon, who contends that the century from 1870-1970 experienced greater growth and innovation than the past half century.
Cuban summarizes Gordon’s central argument:
Thus, an unheralded, stunning century of innovation and economic growth produced the telegraph, phone, television, house lighting, automobile, airplane travel, and, yes, indoor plumbing. These inventions networked the home and workplace in ways that raised living standards and increased workplace productivity considerably. It was in that same century that medical advances reduced infant mortality and lengthened life of Americans dramatically.
The half-century since 1970 has surely seen innovations that have enhanced these earlier inventions but the template for economic growth was laid down for that fruitful hundred-year period. In past decades, new technologies have clearly expanded communication and entertainment, making life far more instantaneous, convenient and pleasurable. But social media, immediate communication, and constant access to photos, video clips, and films have not increased the standard of living as had the decades between 1870-1970.
Cuban then segues to a discussion of the current reform movement in education, which traces its roots to the 1983 report “A Nation at Risk.” That report was “driven by an economic rationale–the human capital argument–for improving U.S. schools” and embraced by policymakers, business leaders, and foundations. If we didn’t improve education dramatically, we would lose our competitive edge in the world economy. And thus was born the “reform movement,” in which governors and “reformers” sought to raise curriculum and performance standards for both students and teachers, increase testing, and create accountability frameworks that included rewards and penalties in subsequent decades….
The current reforms in education and the pressure to raise test scores on international tests have not increased economic growth, stimulated productivity, or reduced inequality, writes Cuban.
In other words, reforms aimed at getting U.S. students to perform better on international tests for the past three decades–think No Child Left Behind, expanded parental choice in schools, more computers in schools, and Common Core state standards–was of little influence on growing a strong economy, raising median income, or lessening inequality, according to Gordon. These reforms, while aiding low-income minorities in many instances, overall, contributed little to improving productivity or raising standards of living
Gordon’s book concludes, writes Cuban, with a list of ten interventions that could raise the standard of living, like raising the minimum wage. Of his ten interventions three have to do with education. They are:
“…investing in preschools, state and federal school financing rather than local taxes, and reducing student indebtedness in higher education. Not a word about the dominant school reforms in 2016–Common Core standards, standardized testing, technologies in schools, charter schools, accountability.
In questioning the dominant beliefs in current school reform as essential to economic growth, Gordon’s argument and evidence are useful to those politically active decision-makers, teachers, parents, and researchers who know that a democracy needs schools that do more than prepare children and youth for the workplace.
The paradox, as Cuban suggests, is that the more we focus on test scores and workplace readiness, the more we sacrifice civic values that may be of greater importance in a democracy.

Technology devices (iPads, smart phones, etc.) when not used judiciously are only there to addict us with mindless web surfing, instant titillation, and the illusion that we are more powerful or empowered as a result of being able to so quickly access information and visual/auditory stimulation with the touch of a button.
Technology, when not used judiciously, is the new nicotine and has, alas, become the opiate of the masses.
I see people crossing the street while glued to their cell phone, and they are not looking both ways for cars or cyclists. Then, when you honk your horn, they get annoyed with you as though you invaded their personal space.
How many car accidents have been caused as a result of texting while driving?
Stupid as as stupid does. On the other hand, when technology is used wisely, it is short of miraculous!
LikeLike
I just read a news piece on how some kindergarten and 1st grade teachers are using Minecraft in the classroom.
The teachers say that the video game helps to promote collaboration and problem-solving (as if those cannot be developed in other ways).
One of the students commented on that the video game was “sort of like real life.”
So, we’re using video games in the earliest grades to “sort of” teach “real life” things rather than using – you know – real life.
This, by the way, is in a school division that has thrown millions and millions of dollars at technology, that has changed all its high schools to STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) academies — despite a national glut of STEM workers – and that has routinely disregarded the ideas, interests, desires, and advice of its teachers.
LikeLike
Here’s the critical sentence in Larry Cuban’s piece:
“That prevalent human capital rationale has ignored for more than a quarter-century other historic aims of schools: civic engagement to keep democracy vital, independent decision-making, and a well-rounded schooling that enlarges children’s and youth’s potential and sensibilities.”
The Common Core is – basically – a reiteration of ‘A Nation at Risk.’ Before it was scrubbed from the Common Core website, it’s rationale was more rigor for schools because it was necessary for “economic competitiveness” as the means to national security. The problem – the same now as it was in the era of ‘A Nation at Risk’ – is that it’s completely untrue. It’s important to note that both the U.S Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are avid supporters of Common Core. They also lobbied intensely for supply-side economic policies that built up huge budget and trade deficits, and ballooned the national debt. and broke the economy.
The Sandia Report took apart the accusations of ‘A Nation at Risk’ and concluded it was inaccurate. But that report was suppressed at the George H.W. Bush’s Department of Education. As Tienken and Orlich (2013) explained, “Bush needed to pin the recession on something other than faulty trickle-down economic policy.”
As David Berliner and Bruce Biddle put it in ‘The Manufactured Crisis’ (1995), “The trouble with suppressing evidence is that it leads to policy errors that can ruin people’s lives…” And anyone who’s been in or observed what’s happened in public schools over the last three decades knows the changes that have been forced into effect by bad policy decisions. These are the same bad policies that get discussed regularly on this site.
Major players in the development of the Common Core included ACT, Inc, and the College Board. Both of these organizations are fully committed to it. They have aligned all of their products to it. No one can be in favor of the ACT, the PSAT, SAT, Advanced Placement – not to mention STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) initiatives – and be opposed to Common Core. They are all part-and-parcel of the same thing.
Sadly, educational organizations –– from the AFT and NEA to the national PTA and ASCD, from the National association of Elementary School Principals to the American Association of School Administrators –– have failed public education miserably. It was the association of school superintendents that named Atlanta’s Beverly Hall as ‘superintendent of the year’ in 2009, crediting her ‘significant gains in student achievement over the past 10 years.’ Those “gains” were “achieved” through a massive cheating scandal based – according to state investigators – on “a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation [that] permeated the APS system from the highest ranks down.”
In a democratic republic, public education has a special and unique place. But we don’t honor that, and we’ve done an incredibly poor job of educating for democratic citizenship.
The late, great University of Chicago social scientist Earl Johnson once said the development of “democratic character” should be “the supreme end of education in a democracy.”
Earl Johnson was right. We have an awful lot of work to do.
LikeLike
“. . . other historic aims of schools: civic engagement to keep democracy vital, independent decision-making, and a well-rounded schooling that enlarges children’s and youth’s potential and sensibilities.”
That statement hints at the fundamental purpose of public education as discerned from the 50 state constitutions. 25 do not state a fundamental purpose, just that it is the state’s responsibility to provide for public education. Of the 25 that do state a purpose 15 focus on “knowledge” being the key for the individual to enjoy his/her rights as delineated in the various Constitutions. 5 give the purpose to be the “preservation of the state” through public education and 5 offer both individual and state purposes/benefits of public education.
As it is 20/25-80% of the rationales (or 40% of the 50) for public education cite the individuals need/want/desire to be able to enjoy their constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges. From those 20 we can discern and develop a common purpose:
“The purpose of public education is to promote the welfare of the individual so that each person may savor the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own industry.”
I contend that if the citizenry is well-educated enough to “savor their rights” that the foundation for the preservation of society will have been laid. Therefore all public k-12 schooling should strive toward that end and anything that contradicts/contravenes the individual’s actualization of those rights should be rightly condemned and discarded.
LikeLike
I have not read enough, Duane, to make a cogent argument, but my gut tells me that focusing solely on the rights of the individual will not necessarily lead to responsible citizenship ( and I am not talking about mindlessly following the law). Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural speech really resonated with me: “…ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Without a balance, we risk ending up with a(nother) “Me” generation.
LikeLike
Well said, democracy and Duane.
LikeLike
Hi Diane–thanks for this….Larry’s Bblog is awesome and I would recommend it to any teacher or parent–he has a great long view and experience with education and ed tech.
One thing I might add to what you say, is that with the coming “robot jobs apocalypse” (see here: https://theconversation.com/are-robots-taking-our-jobs-56537) there has been discussion that rather than us beating ourselves up on STEM areas (which are starting to become glutted) that perhaps the focus of education ought to be in more creative fields–robots can perform many jobs currently held by humans, including many middle management jobs, but they can’t write a novel or perform historical research or devlop new insights in art, philosophy, etc. Which also means that in order to be creative, the individual needs a good chunk of content knowledge in areas like English, history, philosophy and art. Thus, the reformers with their economic justifications may have had us barking up the wrong tree for a long time…
LikeLike
Great piece. I don’t mind using technology in schools. What I mind is romanticizing that industry. “Don’t be evil” is a just a corporate slogan. It doesn’t really mean anything profound or different than other other slogan of any other profit-making entity.
One of my sons works in the sector. It’s a good job and it’s an area of interest for him and his workplace is very groovy and modern but at the end of the day he has really brutal deadlines and they track his every move. It’s not fundamentally different than producing any other product. They’re not intrinsically “better” or more noble giant corporate entities 🙂
I always think of the food industry. The food industry is huge, they sell to kids in schools, and they lobby lawmakers. No one would say “let’s have them direct the school lunch program!” Everyone recognizes they may not always be looking out for kids. That’s just reality. It’s not a moral indictment of that industry. These are products they’re selling. It’s not a philosophy.
LikeLike
“The paradox, as Cuban suggests, is that the more we focus on test scores and workplace readiness, the more we sacrifice civic values that may be of greater importance in a democracy.”
But there’s no paradox here if the reformers are not interested in democracy, just the old FW Taylor drive to standardize workers, a drive, by the way, which included eliminating critical thinking in workers. Now that productivity is harder to come by, standardization must become more intense than every before. Hence the character of the reforms we see.
If one compares reforms of pubic schools with the curriculum, instruction, assessment and culture of the private schools to which reformers send their kids, one quickly sees that critical thinking of a managerial/command sort is what private schools kids are taught. Public schools kids are already disciplined in the new FW Taylorism of Amazon, or will become so if the reformers have their way, by the likes of Eva in NYC.
Civic values? Without public school parents, teachers and communities (and students themselves) insisting that public education meet the real needs of the kids of the 99%, discipline is all they have to look forward to. It’s really not a new story–check out educational policy and the political economy of the US from 1873 to 1950. What’s new is the historical “pause” in this story–the so-called golden era of 1947-1973–which is an anomaly rather than the norm, as too many of us “boomers” assume.
There is no paradox here, just a good old fashioned fight to preserve genuine democracy.
Will the good guys win?
LikeLike
The “good guys” have to win!
LikeLike
The “good guys” and democracy and public education will not win unless we commit ourselves to the values that are allegedly the foundation of our country.
LikeLike
Then “we” need to define our needs without regard to “The Nation at Risk.” “We” need to think of our economy, the world’s economy in fact, as a human arrangement that meets the needs of human beings, in all their varied and perplexing glory. Lefties have been trying to posit an alternative to a market society for generations. “We” are still far, far, far from doing so, primarily because “reality” has meant channelling human intention and willpower in the wrong directions. “There Is No Alternative” (TINA) still rules the political roost.
Isn’t that the rationale to vote for Hilary? (Bernie can’t be a real alternative…just as Barney Frank, and Paul Krugman, and Gov Brown, and Sen Warren (?) keep telling us. For God’s sake, even most of the African-American leadership says so, along with life-long radicals like Tom Hayden.)
How often are we the agents of our own undoing? (Now that’s paradox!!)
LikeLike
Today since there are few differences in the economic policies of the two major parties, it is difficult for many democrats to comprehend the appeal of a more progressive world view. That’s because there is a disconnect between party leadership and many members of their base.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We need to think of our economy, the world’s economy in fact, as a human arrangement that meets the needs of human being”
Don’t be silly, Steve
Everyone knows that people serve the economy and not the other way around.
LikeLike
Steve,
Perhaps in the general election, but in the primary one needs to push against Ms Clinton’s drift to the right.
LikeLike
Cuban and Tyack’s “Tinkering Toward Utopia,” written twenty years ago, reflects on the “failure” of reform after reform unless parents and teachers are part of the process.
We live in a new world, we are “debating” educational policy in cyberspace, anyone can participate, staggering percentages of Americans receive their “news” through twitter. . “Talking heads” no longer have any resonance … the presidential campaign has been devoid of any discussion of education …
The workplace is changing, the 9 to 5 job with benefits, whether we like it or not is morphing into cyber-commuting, we are uncomfortable, change is always uncomfortable.
Schools are changing and will continue to change – unfortunately too many of the “new ideas” are ill-considered.
They haven’t started stapling the computer chips into ear lobes yet (I think), the concept of a classroom will change as the concept of a workplace changes.
Too many of us defend the past, the future is inevitable and we should be part of the designing the new wave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES And, many new ideas last about two seconds these days before some new “reformer” is changing everything up all over again.
LikeLike
We don’t have to sacrifice preparation for life and citizenship for workforce preparation (different from job training). Contrary to the maxim, we can have it all, we can have education for life, work, and citizenship. In addition to free universal pre-school and post-secondary education, and moving away from funding education through inequitable local taxes, we need universal health care and investment in infrastructure to create well-paying jobs. http://www.arthurcamins.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/What%E2%80%99s-the-purpose-of-education-in-the-21st-century_-The-Washington-Post.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
I worked at a tech-focused, tech-driven school for several years. My classroom was equipped with laptops for every student, a wall-mounted, interactive, 60″, plasma touchscreen, surround sound speakers embedded in the ceiling, wireless including handless microphones, a few digital cameras, 35 handheld answer tracking devices, a specially designed tablet, DVD with equalizer, a smartboard, a server, and every website-building and other edu-software product under the sun including access to artificial intelligence based writing sites. I Skyped my lessons to involve the students’ smartphones.
I left that school. (If I had to choose between my iPhone and indoor plumbing…) Today, my classroom has desks and a whiteboard. That’s it. I have access to a library with books in it. I have textbooks and novels. That’s it. And I am a much better teacher today. My students read on paper, write on paper, and discuss face to face. My students do not use smartphones. They do not present on a smartboard. They do not use internet or smartproducts of any kind. They instead use the greatest creation in the universe to date, smartbrains.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“. . . my classroom has desks and a whiteboard.”
At one point an adminimal insisted that a whiteboard was oh so much better than the traditional chalkboard in my classroom and that I should request one. I said don’t bother the chalkboard is fine. Came in one day to my class and they had put a whiteboard up over the chalkboard with the ends of the chalkboard hanging past the whiteboard. About as cheesy and lazy of an installation job as one can imagine. They didn’t count on me knowing how to use a screw driver. I unscrewed the whiteboard, took it down and gave it to a teacher that wanted more whiteboard space. She and I were both happy and the adminimal didn’t even realize what happened.
LikeLike
Another time, an assistant supe adminimal told me I needed a smartboard for my room. I said, no, we need to hire someone so that we can offer more classes of Spanish (they had been telling me since I hired on that getting another FL teacher was a top priority) and have less than 30 in each class. She quoted the statistic at the time, something to the effect that using a smartboard increased student achievement by 17%. I asked her where she got that information. “Well, that’s what the research says”.
Wrong thing to say to me. I asked if she had read that “research” and of course she hadn’t. So I helped her out and gave her this bit of “research/peer review”:
http://edinsanity.com/2009/06/02/marzano_part1/
She kept on reciting the 17% raise in student achievement crap even after being shown how bogus that stat was. Adminimal behavior at its finest, eh!!
LikeLike
Thank you, Duane. If I got a nickel every time I was told without credible citation that a commercial product raised test scores I would be a millionaire living on Easy Street. I miss the blackboard. I was a chalk artist not so long ago. The blackboard and the printing press were the two greatest inventions in educational technology. Ever. They have not lost their importance. They are two horses that drive the cart topfilled with computer technology. No other invention comes close in value, so we cringe when people spend funds on computer tech and then try to force us to put the cart before the horse.
LikeLike
Cash or card? Paper or plastic? Chalk or marker?
Correct answers: paper, cloth, limestone. Better for the environment. Other answers and all computer products are oil based.
LikeLike
“using a smartboard increased student achievement by 17%”
At least that’s what the smart-board salesman says.
LikeLike
if given a choice between a smartphone and a toilet, which one would you choose? I’d have no problem keeping the toilet because I already got rid of my smartphone and I don’t have a tablet or even use a laptop, and it seems that I’m not the only one divorcing the smartphone.
“Dumb is better: Kicking the smart phone addiction”
This piece from Deseret News starts out with “Getting rid of smart phones may be the new cool thing to do.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865577739/Dumb-is-better-Kicking-the-smart-phone-addiction.html?pg=all
And this isn’t the only piece on getting rid of smart phones. A Goolge search of “trend to get rid of smartphones” came back with more than a half million hits.
LikeLike
At this point, technology is a distraction and, unfortunately, envied by some. There are stories of kids in the neighborhood assaulting people for their iPhones, then selling them. This gets captured on the streetlight cameras, and some of them get prosecuted and sent to jail because the assaults can be brutal. It doesn’t pay to own new technology, because there are people who will shoot you to get your iPhone, iPad, iPod. My husband went to BBKings this week; he left his Motorola flip phone there, and it was turned in. He retrieved it this morning. No one wanted to steal it. Imagine that.
Just like drug money is an easy game, so is stealing something that belongs to someone else through thuggery and intimidation. Weekly in Newark NJ someone is shot, killed. Politicians don’t care, and do nothing about it. They do nothing about the crime, the poverty. What they do, however, is further decay neighborhoods by closing public schools, disenfranchising teachers, and opening charters.
I don’t know….I digress.
LikeLike
Well, Bill Gates did try to improve on the toilet — by producing a high tech $1000 version.
LikeLike
Wasn’t that the solar powered outhouse for third world countries? Didn’t the focused solar power burn up the human waste but also a few of the people who lingered too long? I think Bill planned to sell that one to the U.S. once he turned it into a third world country again after his friends have all the money and robots to do all the jobs.
LikeLike
I still want a smart phone, but I don’t want to pay that monthly fee. So, I use a flip phone and pay $100 a year and have time and texting left over every year. My wife gets by on the $10/year plan, but she hates technology.
I keep telling anyone who will listen most ed-tech is useless and any tech purchase needs to be put through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
Schools keep taking their technology advice from the head of IT in the district. Well, he loves technology and is convinced it is all swell.
It is not. Paper and books are swell. Ed-tech solves few educational needs but is a great way to transfer education funding into corporate pockets.
STEM education is part of the scam. There is no shortage of STEM graduates but there does seem to be a shortage of philosophers and poets.
LikeLike
Are you an old curmudgeon? I had to laugh since my experience is similar. I have my good ole cheap flip phone ($10/mo) that I turn on only when I am picking people up at the airport or when I am driving a long distance. My kids like to keep track of me since I am usually driving to see them. No texting and don’t miss it. I got the phone when I was still employed and driving 45+ minutes to and from work. Since I often left school quite late, I could let my husband know that I wasn’t dead on the highway.
LikeLike
I am definitely old but I am not really that ill tempered (so says me). I moved to the teaching craft from Silicon Valley where I did research on magnetic recording. When I first came to high school, I was convinced technology was the cat’s meow. My experience informs me that it is not that important; on the other hand smaller class sizes are more relevant to better teaching and learning. That is why cost-benefit analysis are important for tech purchases.
LikeLike
As I advance into my “twilight years,” curmudgeon seems more like a badge of honor that a condemnation. What’s that about not going quietly into the night? I think the country needs older folks who get a bit testy about trends that are less about the good of the country than the content of someone’s pocket. I am all for smiling benevolently at the antics of those much younger than I when tolerance is the logical reaction. If nothing else, I admire and appreciate their energy.
LikeLike
Any technology is only a tool. How a teacher devises to incorporate the tool for convenience in delivery of lessons or for extension of the lesson is the key. I have seen excellent use of technology in ESL classes by teachers who knew its promise and its limits.
I preferred word processing for writing and accessed the internet for information. The first saved time, but the second proved difficult and time consuming as one needed to teach multiple analytical lessons during its use. Middle school students had difficulty with the logic re-quired in judging the relevance and accuracy of a web site.
Mathematics sites can be an aid, if the teacher gets beyond the game sites,
LikeLike
Best post ever – including all the comments!
I’ll go with Lloyd. I’d rather have a toilet.
I don’t have a cell phone – flip or not. I have a land line. But I hear that soon that will not be a choice.
I have a PC (thank you, my son, for teaching and upgrading).
And oh my goodness! My daughter is corporate IP counsel for Google! Needless to say, she has no time to communicate with a mere mother.
Where did I go wrong?
LikeLike
As many commenters have noted, and as Larry Cuban pointed out, we’ve gone a long way and the wrong way down the public school “reform” road.
“Economic competitiveness” and college and workforce “readiness” are the chief goals. Not democratic citizenship. That’s a mistake.
Early education reformer Horace Mann viewed public education as a way to “equalize the conditions” of society. Public schools were “the balance-wheel of the social machinery” in a democratic society. Mann thought schools should go beyond the inculcation of knowledge and the practice of academic skills; they had to delve into the development of character.
University of Chicago social scientist Earl Johnson subscribed to the idea that purpose of public education in a democratic republic was “the making of the democratic character.”
Gordon Hullfish and Philip Smith considered the development of critical intelligence –– “reflective reconstruction of knowledge, insights and values” –– absolutely essential to the maintenance of a democratic society. This means that citizens can not only think in terms of the scientific method (what Art Camins refers to as “collecting, analyzing and interpreting data” and “constructing explanations and designing solutions and engag[ing] in argument from evidence”), but also they can apply that critical reasoning to a framework based of core democratic values.
In public schooling, this likely means the operationalization of Deweys belief that “the democracy which proclaims equality of opportunity as its ideal requires an education in which learning and social application, ideas and practice…are united from the beginning and for all.” How close are we to this, really?
Finland is often mentioned as a particularly interesting example of education reform. Finland’s reforms are based on the ideas of Dewey, and the citizenship purpose of public schooling is taken seriously. The goal of education reform is equity. Attendant policy programs are aligned to that goal. Education is seen “as an instrument to even out social inequality.” Guess what? It works.
In the the United States, however, the rich have gotten richer – often with steep with public subsidies – , poverty has increased (especially child poverty), the middle class has gotten squeezed, and income stratification leads the developed world.
The result is that “causal sequences of risk that contribute to demographic differences in educational achievement and physical well-being threaten our country’s democratic ideals by undermining the national credo of equal opportunity.”
If it’s not just rhetoric, and if we as a society honestly believe in values like popular sovereignty, equality, justice, freedoms for all citizens, tolerance, and promoting the general welfare –– the values that are at the very heart of the democratic creed and the Constitution –– then we have to stop and make a u-turn from the direction we’re heading.
And that means more than just opting out of some tests. It requires a careful rethinking of the purpose of public schooling in a democratic republic.
LikeLike
An interesting question; to which I have to counter-pose this question: Are we talking about “in the US,” or “in the world”? Smart technology has changed our way of life in the US; but it is only beginning to impact on our economy and our standard of living. The original argument, that the nineteenth century technologies (including indoor plumbing) and the twentieth century technologies (including air-conditioning) were much more influential in raising standards of living is quite relevant to our nation’s economic history – so far. The Information Revolution is snow-balling; but we’re still only beginning to see the effects.
Having said that, in Africa and other parts of the world plagued by much greater levels of poverty, and where indoor plumbing and air-conditioning (and the general technologies discussed in the words of Cuban and Gordon) have not yet permeated into the countryside of numerous poor states, cell phones are exploding in usage, even reaching the poorest villages of Africa, even places with minimal electricity. While Americans (with our unique First-World Problems perspective of convenience) complain about the disinformation and silliness of social media, in places where peasants and villagers struggle day by day to survive, cell phones are giving them affordable means of finding customers and markets, and discovering the best prices for what they need and the optimal prices to sell their wares. These poor farmers and other workers are suddenly able to enter the market with greater advantages than ever before, raising many from poverty into the middle class. A middle-class revolution is taking place throughout some of the poorest corners of the earth, fueled by smart phones, and it has already raised living standards enormously in such areas. 19th- and 20th-century technologies helped put the US on the map; 21st century technologies are looking like they will put much of the poorer (and much more heavily populated) places of the world on the map as well.
LikeLike
Good points, Paul. Some of the arguments you make apply to poorer and/or more isolated regions of the U.S. as well. One of my children lives in an area where there are no land lines for power or communication, in other words off the grid. Even cell phones are at times unreliable because of the terrain and weather. In third world countries where even access to transportation is limited, I doubt they are worried about the dangers of addiction to social media.
LikeLike
I recall a tech conference held in DC around 1965. Almost every piece of equipment died or malfunctioned. The hot new instructional product was an 8mm film loop. Today’s version is almost any YouTube how to do it.
LikeLike
Did Gordon offer any evidence of any kind to support his ideas? We’ve tried the first two in limited ways–no evidence they improved anyone’s standard of living.
“…investing in preschools, state and federal school financing rather than local taxes, and reducing student indebtedness in higher education.
LikeLike