Not that I disagree with the point generally, but there is a difference of scale here.
There are around 22k ICE agents. At 150k, that’s 3.3b for the first year, and then 2.2b in following years.
There are around 4m teachers in the US. To raise them all from 55k to the 100k that ICE agents make (ignoring the hiring bonus) would cost 180b/yr. Two orders of magnitude greater.
I’m not saying it’s not worth it. I’m also not saying that ICE agents are good. I’m also not saying this disparity is justified.
I’m simply saying that the analogy, as given, implies that if we had the money to pay ICE agents 100k+bonuses, then we should have just paid the teachers that much instead. But that’s not how the math works. And just because the argument feels good emotionally doesn’t mean it’s accurate. And the truth shouldn’t need a lie to drive it forward. There are plenty of good, factual arguments to make, and this isn’t one of them.
Not that I disagree with the point generally, but there is a difference of scale here.
There are around 22k ICE agents. At 150k, that’s 3.3b for the first year, and then 2.2b in following years.
There are around 4m teachers in the US. To raise them all from 55k to the 100k that ICE agents make (ignoring the hiring bonus) would cost 180b/yr. Two orders of magnitude greater.
I’m not saying it’s not worth it. I’m also not saying that ICE agents are good. I’m also not saying this disparity is justified.
I’m simply saying that the analogy, as given, implies that if we had the money to pay ICE agents 100k+bonuses, then we should have just paid the teachers that much instead. But that’s not how the math works. And just because the argument feels good emotionally doesn’t mean it’s accurate. And the truth shouldn’t need a lie to drive it forward. There are plenty of good, factual arguments to make, and this isn’t one of them.