|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Isn't the whole "Well maybe those rabble should just do trades while the aristocracy and those who we deem to be gifted get traditional university educations" argument the real classist one? Also assuming people made this argument got there way and 90% of people going to higher education did trades instead, wouldn't this kind of massively increase the labor supply of said trades and depress wages? That said: Yes, it would greatly increase the supply of skilled labor, and probably thereby lower wages and costs for the aristocracy.
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Please tell me you didn't actually sent it off with "College's" in there. Thankfully no, It's a process whenever I write anything... First drafts and all that...  Editing it nowAs you can see I also have problems with capitalization because my finger loves to loving hover over the shift key  Edit: Ho man I made a mess apparently... Fixing this now. Spiffster fucked around with this message at 19:19 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:I've been surprised before. My father has actually hosted state representatives before, but considering that was years before the Tea Party and the death of compromise, You are most likely right. You should in some way say what you think should be done instead of that something should be done. No one in the country things that tuition increases and the debt of graduates is not a problem. Stultus Maximus posted:Someone who has taken science, math, history, and art is better equipped to make decisions in a democracy than someone who has never poked their head out of a laboratory so I'd say less. Specialization is the enemy of education. Again, we have to define what makes someone a more successful citizen than another. It's arguable that a country will work best if everyone votes for people who will represent their own interests and needs. Don't need a lot of education to know that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Because mis/lack of info is not the problem. Universities aren't going to cut costs because they're trying to make money. You're not going to guide people to the "right" majors because there isn't a right major. There's just ones that that happen to be hiring 4-5 years after you went to school, which is never going to be the answer for millions of people and is notoroiously hard to predict. That is why I said you got lucky. But (and I know I'm trying to apply simplified economic theory to an issue that is way more complex), in theory if your guidance counselors understand that whichever university you go to is largely irrelevant in the job market with a small set of exceptions, they can steer you to cheaper options (or, rather, options more suited to your financial situation), thus driving up demand to the cheaper schools and reducing demand to the more expensive schools. The more expensive schools then, in theory, either reduce costs or offer more scholarships to lure more students in. The cheaper schools can, with their new influx of students, start increasing prices but then your guidance counselors are keeping up with this and can redirect future students to the other cheap schools. In effect you would be trying to highlight price as a discriminating factor to both students and parents. You could also couple this with advice on majors, such as "here's the unemployment rate for these job markets in the local area/area around the targeted college, here's what majors seem to be in the most demand, here is some information about up-and-coming jobs in the area." I think that applying personal solutions to future generations will help reverse/curb the societal problem... what societal solutions would you suggest instead?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Isn't the whole "Well maybe those rabble should just do trades while the aristocracy and those who we deem to be gifted get traditional university educations" argument the real classist one? Also assuming people made this argument got their way and 90% of people going to higher education did trades instead, wouldn't this kind of massively increase the labor supply of said trades and depress wages? Yeah, pretty much. I hear a lot about how it's too easy for people who don't really want to be there to get into college and how we should be promoting the trades as an option more. In practice, however, this would just lead back to the era rich white people getting college degrees and everyone else being shuffled into "trades" which have suffered from offshoring, union-busting, and the massive slump in construction over the last decade.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
zoux posted:You should in some way say what you think should be done instead of that something should be done. No one in the country things that tuition increases and the debt of graduates is not a problem. Some do... they think they deserve it for studying on a credit card and loans. Keep in mind I'm talking to a Tea Partier here. Her primary goals are Tax cuts, Repealing Obamacare, and DEBT! But you are right, I'll see if I can add a bit more on what can be done.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Some do... they think they deserve it for studying on a credit card and loans. Keep in mind I'm talking to a Tea Partier here. Her primary goals are Tax cuts, Repealing Obamacare, and DEBT! Does she not have a position plank on college tuition?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But (and I know I'm trying to apply simplified economic theory to an issue that is way more complex), in theory if your guidance counselors understand that whichever university you go to is largely irrelevant in the job market with a small set of exceptions, they can steer you to cheaper options (or, rather, options more suited to your financial situation), thus driving up demand to the cheaper schools and reducing demand to the more expensive schools. My alma mater--an affordable state school--raised its tuition $2500 in four years. That's loving insane, completely unjustifiable, and completely unsustainable.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
News alert: SCOTUS Justices are biased!  EDIT: Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Education is a systemic problem, not a personal one. When 18 year old kids are told again and again that the only way to get a decent career is to go to college and take out loans to do it, the problem isn't that the kids are failing to be responsible adults, it's that everyone around them is selling them a lie. People are getting rich off selling that lie; look at the extraordinary growth of administrators and their inflated wages, and the construction companies that are always building something new on campus. Blaming them for believing it when an entire industry wants them to believe it and tying them down with undischargeable debt that will sooner or later come crashing down on the US economy is foolish. It's completely unsustainable, and literally the best thing anyone can do to stop it is massive debt forgiveness, or to make them dischageable in bankruptcy. Telling the next generation to go into trades or to not go to college isn't going to change the impending disaster. The problem isn't bad advice, it's that the whole loving thing is broken. There's basically no advice that can be given that doesn't, in the end, boil down to luck. There's no way the US education system can continue the way it has if it wants to survive. Again, if you change the system so kids aren't being fed the lie, you're changing the system. If a kid says "I want to go to school X in state Y for an art degree even though art-related unemployment is 70% there" and your counselor tells you "You're a loving moron, go to school A which is a helluva lot cheaper and in state B where the unemployment isn't nearly so high" then you're curbing that kid's debt and improving his chances of paying any debt back before the kid makes his/her decision. I keep hearing "The problem is we're being fed a lie so the system is broken" and I'm saying "So let's get kids better info and stop lying" and the response seems to be "But that's a personal solution to a systemic problem." I'm sorry, I must be missing something here because that isn't telling me anything. Amergin fucked around with this message at 19:35 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
I'm curious to what extent "learn to code" will supplant trade school as the panacea of choice, what with the prominence of the Boy Kings of Silicon Valley. I mean, to some extent it has, but I mean in the David Brooks Yale School of Humility "too many [of other people's] kids are going to college" sense.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:Does she not have a position plank on college tuition? She did vote to keep intrest rates down but that's all I can see. I'm assuming that because she's strongly in the Tea Party camp (or was until they shifted even further right  ) that she's strongly against any government "handouts". I'm trying to recommend a GPA tied to federal funds system to see if babysteps will work. It won't but still...Edit: Some tinkering and updated letter. letter posted:Thanks in advance for your time Congresswoman. Spiffster fucked around with this message at 19:38 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But (and I know I'm trying to apply simplified economic theory to an issue that is way more complex), in theory if your guidance counselors understand that whichever university you go to is largely irrelevant in the job market with a small set of exceptions, they can steer you to cheaper options (or, rather, options more suited to your financial situation), thus driving up demand to the cheaper schools and reducing demand to the more expensive schools. Even the cheaper schools will put you massively into debt. But many jobs require you have a degree. Nobody knows what degree, because if you could predict the economy with any degree of certainty 4 years into the future you'd be a millionaire and not a guidance councilor. We live in a country where it's hard to find a decent job in fast food, let alone white collar jobs. Even relatively small amounts of debt are burdensome. quote:I think that applying personal solutions to future generations will help reverse/curb the societal problem... what societal solutions would you suggest instead? Have the government pay for college. Increase funding for education below college level. Provide jobs for people with majors that aren't directly applicable to private enterprise(research, teaching, etc). Have an economy where jobs aren't so incredibly scarce that you have millions of people chasing the same few majors. None of these things are going to happen, why do you think people in this thread drink? The solutions are known, they're just not politically viable. Harping on personal responsibility is simply telling people they should feel bad about getting hosed over in a rigged game. Sure, some folks are lazy or listless, but claiming they're a societal issue is naive.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Amergin posted:News alert: SCOTUS Justices are biased! Leaving aside the persuasiveness of the data based on stuff like samples, etc., I think it's much more that legal politics and ideology have influenced partisan politics, not the other way around. That said, judges have always been biased as hell, it's just that until the last seventy years or so their biases have been the same on the issues that intuitively touch upon facets of people's lives.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
A solution to the problem it would seem, is better paying service sector jobs, coupled with a mincome for the unemployed. Let's face it that not everyone is cut out for college, or even trade work. But there's no reason those people (including myself for a good portion of my life) should be destitute or unable to live a fulfilling and independant life. We put far too much social capital into our occupations.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Have the government pay for college. Increase funding for education below college level. Provide jobs for people with majors that aren't directly applicable to private enterprise(research, teaching, etc). Have an economy where jobs aren't so incredibly scarce that you have millions of people chasing the same few majors. How do we pay for government-paid college? How do we pay for increased funding for education pre-college? And how do we create paid jobs out of thin air for people whose skills aren't applicable to the private market? And how do we magically create an economy where there is a jobs surplus, or at the very least a job for every person? I'm not arguing with you because I disagree with your ideas - I would love more focus on pre-college education and to live in an economy with jobs galore, and free university education would be wonderful assuming taxes don't skyrocket - the problem is I see goals but no way to get there. To me, a solution that isn't politically viable isn't a solution unless you somehow change the politics. I would love to absolve all student loan debt and make it a non-issue, but how we pay for that and how we get it through our political system is a mystery. Thus I proposed easier solutions to swallow to curb future student loan debt growth.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Amergin posted:How do we pay for government-paid college? How do we pay for increased funding for education pre-college? And how do we create paid jobs out of thin air for people whose skills aren't applicable to the private market? And how do we magically create an economy where there is a jobs surplus, or at the very least a job for every person? It's a very good question and a difficult one to be sure but it starts with an equitable and effective progressive tax code and the gutting of the military industrial complex.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:A solution to the problem it would seem, is better paying service sector jobs, coupled with a mincome for the unemployed. Let's face it that not everyone is cut out for college, or even trade work. But there's no reason those people (including myself for a good portion of my life) should be destitute or unable to live a fulfilling and independant life. Sadly a GMI or Mincome will never, ever happen. Maybe in the next incarnation of the United States government or whatever her successor state is, but not this one. Going back to previous tax rates is considered forbidden and "not serious" and if that highly conservative stance is out of the question then more radical things are as well. The elite would sooner invest in nerve gas dispensing murder drones than a GMI. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:A solution to the problem it would seem, is better paying service sector jobs, coupled with a mincome for the unemployed. Let's face it that not everyone is cut out for college, or even trade work. But there's no reason those people (including myself for a good portion of my life) should be destitute or unable to live a fulfilling and independant life. I think the reason that people resist the not-everyone-is-cut-out-for-college line is because our structures are really bad at figuring out who is and isn't cut out for college and makes those determinations on grounds we at least superficially claim are unacceptable (or, worse, they're really bad about actively shaping students to conform to the roles they prescribe).
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Amergin posted:How do we pay for government-paid college? How do we pay for increased funding for education pre-college? And how do we create paid jobs out of thin air for people whose skills aren't applicable to the private market? And how do we magically create an economy where there is a jobs surplus, or at the very least a job for every person? You've had this answered before when you were complaining about government spending and people told you, then you disappeared for a week(If I'm remembering you right). We have the money. It's simply not being spent on these things. The government can create jobs, we did that in the 30's and 50's and much of our national infrastructure that we're letting rot comes from there. There's not a lack of things to be done, just a lack of money paying for them to be done. Do you seriously think we don't need more teachers, more researchers, etc? quote:I'm not arguing with you because I disagree with your ideas - I would love more focus on pre-college education and to live in an economy with jobs galore - the problem is I see goals but no way to get there. I think you're coming at this with preconceived biases(concern trolling). I think you don't want to see ways to get there. Listen to the other people in this thread instead of arguing with them, if you want to see how to get there. Then realize that it doesn't matter what you think the changes won't get maid. Then ask for drink advice. quote:To me, a solution that isn't politically viable isn't a solution unless you somehow change the politics. I would love to absolve all student loan debt and make it a non-issue, but how we pay for that and how we get it through our political system is a mystery. Thus I proposed easier solutions to swallow to curb future student loan debt growth. Your solutions can't fix the problem, because you don't understand the problem. And you can't change the politics without money. If you can, I wish you luck, but I try to be somewhat realistic.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Sadly a GMI or Mincome will never, ever happen. Maybe in the next incarnation of the United States government or whatever her successor state is, but not this one. Going back to previous tax rates is considered forbidden and "not serious" and if that highly conservative stance is out of the question then more radical things are as well. The elite would sooner invest in nerve gas dispensing murder drones than a GMI. I'm not so sure to be honest. We're already getting a tiny glimpse of the scale of unemployment we could get in the near future. The elite should be very, very afraid of millions of young Americans with nothing to lose. Which explains the prison-industrial complex neatly... My drink of choice is a Bloody Mary, dialed up to 11 on the spice.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm not so sure to be honest. We're already getting a tiny glimpse of the scale of unemployment we could get in the near future. The elite should be very, very afraid of millions of young Americans with nothing to lose. Bloody Maria supremacy all day every day. (Actually the 4/14 rule is good for drinking and will contribute to losing weight!)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Maybe he realizes that systemic fixes aren't in the offing, so it's better to hustle than it is to lie there like a beached whale with a Doctor Who shirt stretched over its helpless form. You should really log out when you finish with a public computer, or a College Republican could use your account to make posts like this.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm not so sure to be honest. We're already getting a tiny glimpse of the scale of unemployment we could get in the near future. The elite should be very, very afraid of millions of young Americans with nothing to lose.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I imagine that the unemployment will be caused by continuing economic stagnation, and the student loan bubble? I don't know what you think will cause it and I'm genuinely curious since I'm not too up on what'll cause the next great American crisis (hopefully met with a new New Deal and not more austerity). Barring some black swan thing it's going to be healthcare spending as a portion of the budget.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm not so sure to be honest. We're already getting a tiny glimpse of the scale of unemployment we could get in the near future. The elite should be very, very afraid of millions of young Americans with nothing to lose. They likely should be but I don't think they are. The USSR was defeated, China roughly came around to their way of thinking, leftist organization has been totally crushed, and they are getting extremely rich. Who is going to stop them? As far as they are concerned it is total, complete, and decisive victory. That they can effectively make more money via the prison-industrial complex is just icing on the cake. I man, by a measure of "Who can stop me?" what really stands in the way? Edit: Now that I think about it they probably shouldn't be scared. Unorganized mobs of people are more dangerous to each other than elites. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 20:07 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I'm curious to what extent "learn to code" will supplant trade school as the panacea of choice, what with the prominence of the Boy Kings of Silicon Valley. I mean, to some extent it has, but I mean in the David Brooks Yale School of Humility "too many [of other people's] kids are going to college" sense. In 10 years 'learn to code' will be on par with 'learn how to use excel'. It'll be a secondary skill that gets selected as part of a double major along with what you actually want to do
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:They likely should be but I don't think they are. The USSR was defeated, China roughly came around to their way of thinking, leftist organization has been totally crushed, and they are getting extremely rich. Who is going to stop them? As far as they are concerned it is total, complete, and decisive victory. That they can effectively make more money via the prison-industrial complex is just icing on the cake. Well there was this little dust up called the French Revolution. And the Russian Revolution. And the Chinese Revolution. And so on.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:In 10 years 'learn to code' will be on par with 'learn how to use excel'. It'll be a secondary skill that gets selected as part of a double major along with what you actually want to do After trying my hand at coding and achieving mediocre results with lots of frustration I think you just described a dystopia. zoux posted:Well there was this little dust up called the French Revolution. And the Russian Revolution. And the Chinese Revolution. And so on. All preceded by large levels of organization and if you haven't noticed all three were reversed. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 20:19 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:In 10 years 'learn to code' will be on par with 'learn how to use excel'. It'll be a secondary skill that gets selected as part of a double major along with what you actually want to do What everyone in silicon valley believes.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You should really log out when you finish with a public computer, or a College Republican could use your account to make posts like this. The College Republican argument is that there are no issues with the system to be fixed, SedanChair seems to be arguing that the system isn't getting fixed any time soon and thus it is better to have hustled and fallen short than to sink into despair and ennui.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
That Bundy Ranch ally who was begging for welfare took down his Gofundme page. 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:In 10 years 'learn to code' will be on par with 'learn how to use excel'. It'll be a secondary skill that gets selected as part of a double major along with what you actually want to do You mean all the mid-twenties workers will be doing it for the bosses who told them to learn it and never did themselves?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The College Republican argument is that there are no issues with the system to be fixed, SedanChair seems to be arguing that the system isn't getting fixed any time soon and thus it is better to have hustled and fallen short than to sink into despair and ennui. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bOKsOveYD0
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:Well there was this little dust up called the French Revolution. And the Russian Revolution. And the Chinese Revolution. And so on. I don't think something like that would ever happen here. Too many Americans like to blame the poor, minorities and the 'takers' for their problems instead of the real parasites: the wealthy and ultra wealthy. Only a sustained, Great-Depression era disaster for everyone but the rich might affect something like that. And maybe not even then. As to what will spur the change, I don't know. I thought '08 might do it and it clearly didn't. Nor did the non-prosecution of people who stole from the entire country. Most Americans don't even give a poo poo for the current status quo: Do $500 in damage, get sent to jail and raped for eight years. Do trillions of dollars in damage, get a government bailout and praised as a job creator. This country is a loving joke. I'm going to get a drink.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Only a sustained, Great-Depression era disaster for everyone but the rich might affect something like that. *gestures George Costanza-like to the America that surrounds you today*
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:They likely should be but I don't think they are. The USSR was defeated, China roughly came around to their way of thinking, leftist organization has been totally crushed, and they are getting extremely rich. Who is going to stop them? As far as they are concerned it is total, complete, and decisive victory. That they can effectively make more money via the prison-industrial complex is just icing on the cake. They really should be though. This country is very heavily armed, and has easy access to a variety of volitile chemicals. The homegrown terror that kind of mass unemployment would cause could make the entirety of middle eastern terrorism look like disneyland by comparison. At present, the elite don't hide in fortified bunkers to escape the masses. That would have to change, if they expect to get away with it. Seriously though, why would you want to turn the country into the kind of stratified hellscape of the third world? It seems like it'd be much more comfortable to just be rich somewhere the people don't want to kill you if they get a chance. zoux posted:*gestures George Costanza-like to the America that surrounds you today* It's not that bad yet, because we still have those few remaining safety nets that the right hasn't been able to destroy. When we hit "lard sandwich with sugar for dinner" levels on a mass scale, we'll know it's Great Depression time. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 20:31 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:In 10 years 'learn to code' will be on par with 'learn how to use excel'. It'll be a secondary skill that gets selected as part of a double major along with what you actually want to do Developer tools have to get a looooooot better for that to be true. Like I know from personal experience you can do a lot of arcane stuff with Excel but just as a basic spreadsheet software most people can do it fine. Most people can't write "Hello World" in a given language unless you specifically lead them.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Finished proof reading and editing it for flow and sent it in. I probably wasted a good hour or so that will amount to nothing but it's better than  right?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Leaving aside the persuasiveness of the data based on stuff like samples, etc., I think it's much more that legal politics and ideology have influenced partisan politics, not the other way around. Also, as I said earlier in the thread, politics have become more ossified into a strict left/right divide and judges have done the same. It's not like past courts didn't have their own blocs, but the party-predictive value was less useful because you had the judicial equivalents of Rockefeller Republicans and Dixiecrats on the bench still. That said, there is no such thing as unbiased judging and anyone who thinks there is (not you, I respect your crit credentials) is wrong. There is only ever politics and policy; adjudication is nothing but bias.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:They really should be though. This country is very heavily armed, and has easy access to a variety of volitile chemicals. The homegrown terror that kind of mass unemployment would cause could make the entirety of middle eastern terrorism look like disneyland by comparison. At present, the elite don't hide in fortified bunkers to escape the masses. That would have to change, if they expect to get away with it. It's slightly more profitable in the short term to destroy America, and the PMCs you hire to guard your compound will have more practice time in with their M4s than Jobless Joe Sixpack. Revolt ain't happening, and outbursts of murder and spree killing won't affect the wealthy. Or: AstheWorldWorlds posted:Now that I think about it they probably shouldn't be scared. Unorganized mobs of people are more dangerous to each other than elites.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:30
|
|