|
Telling everyone to into the trades instead of getting a degree doesn't solve the problem. It will just recreate all the problems we got telling everyone to get a degree if they wanted to make a decent wage. Let's say that happens tomorrow. Supply and demand: what happens to the cost of trade school if millions of people start applying? What happens to plumbers' pay if the number of plumbers shoots way up?
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I was charge $600 for 2 hours of plumbing work a few years ago. Nobody wants to do trades. The guy who charged me told me that he knows of another guy running a plumbing business who clears like $800k a year, again, because nobody wants to do those jobs. There are a ton of unskilled jobs that pay well that don't even require any sort of trade schools too. The people who are doing trades are aging and nobody is replacing them. Germany has an educational system that has 50% of people going into vocational schools because they do tracking (instead of pushing everyone towards college). It's not like they're earning mcdonalds wages. The cost of education is low now, so it will always be no matter how high the demand goes. The pay for people with degrees is high so it will always be no matter how high the supply goes. Therefore everyone should get a degree and we'll all be rich. Then when these assumptions didn't hold the people who all tried to get the degrees were blamed. Why would economics work any different if everyone went to trade school tomorrow and became plumbers? Individualized solutions for systemic problems.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:1) You don't go into serious debt doing trades. Trade school is so cheap that anyone can afford it without taking a loan. Edit: And trade school is like 1-2 years of your time. The financial cost and opportunity cost is massively less than college so the downside risk is almost nothing, in comparison. Germany provides free education to everyone and has strong labor protections and 50% worker control of corporate boards. We have none of that. Trade school is cheap now because there's a lack of students and the pay is high now because there's a shortage of tradesmen. There's no reason to assume these costs and pay scales would be unchanged if there were high demand for trade school and a glut of tradesmen. And we know it wouldn't because that's what happened to four year degrees. It used to be true that four year degrees were cheap and rewarded you with a well-paying job. Then everyone started doing it and that changed. Just telling 18 year olds to chase whatever job has a shortage right now is not a solution to the problem of a system that funnels all the wealth to the rich and leaves everyone else fighting over the scraps. If millions of people enter a career because of a shortage...soon there won't be a shortage anymore. Pretty basic economics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 01:16
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I have a hard time seeing trade schools installing DEI bureaucracies, waterparks, football programs and luxury apartments in their schools like colleges do... only because they attract a more working class clientele vs. the middle class/upper middle class demographics of college who demand comfort and an 'experience'. They wouldn't do it the same way as universities did, but lol if you think a for-profit company isn't going to maximize profits when given the opportunity. The costs would go up, that's economics, and the job market would shift too. It's interesting that you picked Germany as a good example of a well-designed education system, because you know what they did, they took the profit out of it
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
I don't know what to tell you, if demand for trade schools goes up, especially by vast amounts if everyone whose parents can't buy them a full ride stops going to four universities like you want, then trade schools are going to raise their prices to capture that extra marginal profit, just like anything else in the market. Why wouldn't they. And if they go up enough because the children of the middle class are bidding up tuition prices, why wouldn't poorer families take out loans to afford it, loans which would need to be guaranteed if trade schools are supposed to be the universal ticket out of poverty. It's all gonna be the same issues. Yeah you'll get more schools opening to take advantage of higher prices (this happened with four year degrees too, a bunch of degree mills opening up as the price points increased), but that isn't going to fix the issue because that's not how capitalism operates. University of Phoenix and its copycats didn't send university tuition back down to what it was in the 90s. And do you really think classes that aren't computer science are a waste of time? The problem isn't that 4-year universities give a well-rounded education to people who want it. The problem is that university is run as a for-profit industry that seeks to extract maximum money out of students. It's a good thing if people who want an education can get it, the bad thing is policies that put a lifetime of debt on everyone who doesn't come from money. Knowledge shouldn't only be for the children of the very rich.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I'l go ahead and straight up say it: giving a well rounded education to people who DON'T want it, they just want a job certificate, at the price they are asking, might not be THE problem but it is, in fact, A problem. Is it. Getting rid of that seems like a stopgap to me. Ok cut a year or two off a STEM degree by getting rid of all the liberal arts stuff. University is just a training center for more office workers with no intellectual development beyond what a company wants a worker to know. Great, the cost gets cut in half, cool, but the cost of a degree has more than doubled since I was in school, it's still going to double again and erase the savings. The for-profit education model means the market incentivizes schools to extract as much of the expected earnings of the degree as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 05:33
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:All true, wouldn't solve anything to make Just That Change Specifically, but that doesn't make 'giving a well rounded education to people who DON'T want it, they just want a job certificate, at the price they are asking' not A Problem. Why not make education free for everyone. University, associates degree, coding certificates, trade school. Then there's no problem. Everyone is free to choose what kind of education they want.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 14:06
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Say you're right, the demand isn't going to go up so much that you get crippling debt like 4 year colleges do. In the public vocational school example i showed you, you can become a plumber or auto mechanic just going that route, it's completely free, it's just kids don't want to go to these vocational schools, so that school has vastly lower enrollment than my high school did. The amount of and complexity of the instruction is vastly lower, than say, doing computer science, i don't think you can turn kids into software engineers via high school like you can trades. There's nothing inherent about trades that would make it expensive unless the government started doing stupid crap like guaranteeing loans again, and even still, you're not going to see it cost anywhere near as much as college. Well then it's not the solution to the problem of expensive education and the hollowing out of good-paying union jobs for people with high school degrees if you don't want too many more people to go to trade school is it. 4-year degrees didn't become expensive and predatory because college administrators are uniquely immoral beings (but only in America for some reason). It's the natural result of market incentives when everyone wants good jobs and a piece of paper is required for them. If that paper is worth millions of dollars over a lifetime, people are going to be willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and go into debt if they have to to get it, of course the people providing the paper are going to try to extract as much of that million-dollar value from students. The complexity of instruction doesn't matter, businesses charge what people are willing to pay, not what the service costs to provide (or there'd be no profit). I got my engineering degree for a fraction of what the school I went to charges now. Electrical engineering instructing didn't triple in complexity in just 15 years, the price skyrocketed for economic reasons. If you send everyone who needs loans for undergrad to trade school instead and tell them the paper is going to be worth $150k/yr, all those same predatory incentives will be there (and of course they'll find that plumbers don't make $150k anymore when schools start minting tons of newly trained plumbers). And if you don't send everyone who needs loans for undergrad to trade school instead then you didn't solve the problem. Mister Fister posted:
Nah what happened is the Democratic Party became economically right-wing to consciously attract that exact wealthy but socially liberal ivy league set. When Bernie Sanders won the early primaries the trust fund kiddos were furious, just absolutely losing their poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Look, we're just not going to agree about this. The obvious solution (and it already exists) is public vocational schooling. It's cheap to implement and doesn't require extensive schooling. Mister Fister posted:lol, come on, go to any DSA meeting, it's mostly white middle/upper middle class PMC's. ANTIFA and other 'revolutionaries' also tend to be wealthy and white. You can watch the town hall where the DNC invited Harvard trust fund kiddies to call Sanders a bolveshik and accuse him of wanting to murder their parents, and to run a Willie Horton on him about criminal justice. The video of that millionaire liberal msnbc host crying that he's going to be beheaded in Central Park if Sanders wins is on YouTube. And wealthy white people are more likely to wring their hands about the Starbucks getting broken windows than they are to put on a mask and fight with cops lmbo. Just some simple logical examination will tell you that ANTIFA can't be the rich: are the wealthy comfortable people at the top of the system getting all the benefit from it likely to be the ones angry enough at the system to violently resist it? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jul 4, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I actually am going to ask that folks cool down on the "It's all calvinball" peanut gallery posting. This thread provokes a lot of seemingly earnest and, at least in my opinion, really engaging questions and I don't think it's interesting for a question like "how does the majority justify their ruling" to get peppered with answers like "lol, doesn't matter." Ah so we are moderating positions
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
I'm sure you can find some rich guys who are anti-cop or who love Cuba or whatever, a few exceptions doesn't prove anything. It's patently obvious whose side the rich are on. It's well-documented that policy in America follows the preferences of the rich, and American policy aint anti-cop lol. I don't really know what you mean when you say education is the new class divide, it sounds like a substitution of politics with some personal cultural grudge. It's not the grad student on a $20,000/yr fellowship or the service industry worker paying off their master's degree on IBR that can afford to buy some face time with senators in wine caves to get another business subsidy slipped into the budget. There's plenty of criticisms one can make of the Sanders campaign, but I don't think they amount to proof that the wealthy want their wealth redistributed (???) or that the educated poor are secretly creating all the pro-rich policies of Democratic and Republican administrators VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jul 4, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:A bit of a distinction: I didn't say all rich people are DSA types, but DSA types has an unusual amount of wealthier folks than you would expect. It's a bit nuancy to talk about this, because it's not merely rich/poor... the GOP is turning more into the working class party while the Democratic party (both centrist and more progressive wings) are more the upper middle class PMC types. And this is an indictment of both liberals AND left that they just don't understand the working class, whether you're talking about the white working class or, increasingly, the POC working class. Anyway, leftists are a) far more educated and b) far more white so they're going to be better off, materially speaking, on average than you would expect. I remember when the stereotype used to be that rich ceo's used to be conservatives while their kids turned into liberals, now a lot of the younger CEO's are liberals while their kids turned into radicals. Maybe when those kids grow older, they'll go back to wanting to protect capital, but this is what i'm seeing. I agree that the Democrats are bleeding working class support but that is evidence for my position, not yours. The Democrats have become more aligned with the economic interests of the rich, ie more right wing, so there's less and less material reasons for the working class to vote for them. What you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. CEOs are economically left-wing because they say progressive stuff (supposedly, according to you, although I don't see many CEOs advocating for Medicare for All or 50% worker control of corporate boards), but those policies don't happen because CEOs oppose redistribution in practice? Well if they don't actually want economically left policies, they aren't economically left wing then are they. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jul 4, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Should we start ripping reading and art out of high school so we can squeeze in more job training time? Yeah that's the thing, you can't really say people "don't want" a well-rounded education when it costs $200,000. If it's free you might find people want it, they just don't want to go into debt for life to get it. My non-engineering humanities classes didn't feel like a waste of time, but if you'd offered to let me skip them and graduate in three years I would've jumped at the chance, not because I think a liberal arts education is worthless, but because the debt clock was going up every semester. In a world with free education I would have declined an offer to skip them and would probably have taken even more electives. I would have loved to minor in philosophy or history but I didn't have any parental money helping me so I had to finish as soon as possible. If school is just supposed to be job training why even have high school, teach kids how to calculate sales tax or swing a hammer or weld a joint and put them to work, right? No need for any of that literature or history or music or art or sports. Except for the children of those wealthy enough to send them to a private school with intellectual pursuits of course. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I didn't say CEO's are economically leftwing, often their children are, due to socialization, in-group/out-group dynamics, institutional control by the left (see: education) etc. How does Democrats bleeding working class support towards the Republicans support your claim? A lot of reasons for the shift is because of social issues, working class folks are quite a bit more socially conservative. Hell, the black working class, basically the centrists of the democratic party, could be described this way. Leftists often make assumptions about working class folks that are just plain wrong. Forget about the democratic party for a second, If working class people wanted economically left policies, you'd see more working class whites/POC's/Immigrants organize on the left, but they don't, it's mostly college educated whitesj, how is that not a failure by the left to recruit them and attack the democratic party from the inside/adjacent? I don't think the children of CEOs are left-wing as a class. You can find a few notable examples of ones that are, but those are notable precisely because they are unusual. Watch the Harvard Town Hall from 2019, that's more representative of the children of the upper class imo, and those trust-fund kiddos haaaaate Bernie lol. As far as why popular left-wing ideas aren't implemented, that's because we don't live in a democracy, we live in a plutocracy. We don't vote for policy, if we did NAFTA would go down in flames and we'd have a federal jobs guarantee and a public healthcare system. We choose which representative of the 1% will lead us and neither of them are going to do any of that. I absolutely agree that there's plenty to criticize on the left, but that doesn't make the wealthy left-wing or mean that class is no longer about money or power anymore, just education. Working class folks are more socially conservative, which is exactly why Democrats started bleeding working class support to the Republicans when Carter and Clinton and the New Democrats abandoned the working class economically and started pandering to socially liberal fiscally conservative richies, while the Republicans at least appeal to more conservative members of the working class. Also note though that Trump flanked his Republican opponents (and Hillary) from the left on Social Security, Medicare, healthcare, and neocon wars. He was lying about that of course, but there's a reason he did that. He also failed to do that in 2020 and let Biden stake out the more economic left position (in rhetoric anyway, of course Biden was lying too), which was a fatal mistake imo. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Or maybe as society advances, more and more people should be given a universal education instead of looking down on manual labor and paternalistically writing them off as unable to understand biology or philosophy or whatever. The person who fixes your pipes is a human being with the same brain as anyone else, what's behind the assumption that art or literature or science is only for those born with a trust fund. A hundred years ago most kids left school after 3rd grade or something, did we say "well that's good enough for most people then, no need to teach the masses any more than that" when the resources became available for everyone to go to high school. A couple hundred years before that most people weren't taught to read, they have priests to read the Bible for them and tell them what's in it don't they. E: at the very least for public health reasons if nothing else. We live in a complex interconnected society where a disease from a Chinese provincial capital can spread to every continent and kill millions of people, and we're having a problem right now of a shocking number of people uneducated enough in science that they can't tell the difference vaccine studies published by medical doctors and claims about magical cures with essential oil or livestock dewormers from guys on YouTube VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I’m not joking, I’m wondering if they could have joined forces with 10 or so republicans and gotten her confirmed and avoided Alito. Confirmation has always been simple majority (50+1) it's in the constitution. Cloture (the vote to have the confirmation vote) took 60 up until Republicans changed the senate rules in 2017 to confirm Trump's pick (Democrats had previously changed it for all judges except the supreme court during Obama's presidency in response to the GOP filibustering all of Obama's nominees.) Some Democrats tried to filibuster Alito's nomination too but a bunch of them crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP. Cloture got 75 votes. If you want to read more about it, there was something called the Gang of 14 which formed due to successful Democratic filibusters of some other judicial appointees and Republican threats to use the nuclear option. 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans struck a deal, the Democrats would vote with Republicans to break Democratic filibusters and in exchange the 7 Republicans agreed to vote against the nuclear option if Bush's pick was 'too extreme'. Alito, who wrote the opinion finally killing abortion rights, was apparently not too extreme because the gang of 14 unanimously voted for cloture. In the end all of Bush's appointees that Democrats had tried to filibuster were confirmed, except for three which had already withdrawn their own candidacies. While it may appear the Democrats were completely routed in this instance, they gained valuable political capital which will no doubt serve them well if an unexpected SCOTUS vacancy happens in Obama's second term. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Jul 14, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2023 00:21
|
|
|
It doesn't matter anyway, Miers didn't go to an Ivy League school and didn't have the proper resume, she was culturally unacceptable even if she is more liberal than Alito in her heart. Democrats on the judiciary committee were very offended that she, unlike smart class brain Barrett whom Feinstein praised for her preparedness and intelligence, didn't know the answers to the oral exam. Reid, who was a little more savvy than most senate Democrats, was the one who suggested her to Bush, and I'm inclined to think that was a smart play since just about anyone likely would have been better purely by accident than any judge from the Federalist society's underground cloning vats, but most other Democrats
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It is possible, though. Of course it is! Why wouldn't it be? The chaos option, she's so stupid that her decisions are sometimes insane, would only matter if there were 5 Mierses on the court. She'd probably be a little better than Alito just by accident like Roberts is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2023 02:58
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:If Miers is acceptable then anyone with a JD is acceptable, which seems like a worse situation than anyone with a JD and actual knowledge of the law being acceptable. Things actually could be worse. Now there's an interesting question. What if you could have a 7-2 liberal majority and get abortion rights etc but the authors don't have Ivy League degrees, is it worth it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2023 06:23
|
|
|
Daring to be feted by the wealthiest 0.1%
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2023 13:50
|
|
|
And probably a reference to a very famous Malcolm X speech (TW: he says the n-word) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kf7fujM4ag
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2023 12:06
|
|
|
There isn't really a thread for state Supreme Courts or judicial cases generally so I'll ask this here I guess: The Arizona Supreme Court just ruled that an 1864 state law banning nearly all abortions and making it a crime can take effect. But Arizona also has a law passed a few years ago banning abortion after 15 weeks...so how can an older law take precedence over a newer one?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:If a law on the books says it’s illegal to, say, possess more than 6oz of weed, and they pass a law making it illegal to possess more than a pound of weed, that doesn’t mean it’s now legal to possess 6oz. In other words, the new law wasn’t saying you had a right to abortion till 15 weeks, it was just banning them after. That would depend on the intent of the law though right, if the legislature passed the law because they wanted to raise the limit, surely the new law would take precedence even if they didn't explicitly repeal the old one, that would be a much more reasonable interpretation than assuming they passed a pointless law just for the fun of making a pound of weed double illegal. But I guess this is a slightly weird case, because it's more like, a law made all weed illegal, then SCOTUS said you have to allow some weed, so they said "okay but only up to a pound then", then SCOTUS said "ok we changed our minds ban it all if you want", so it's a little murkier whether the intent was to set a new limit at 15 weeks, or just set a limit wherever they could while intending to keep it banned if they could. Still though it seems weird to me. The legislature debated and chose 15 weeks, they could have said 14 ot 13, that was the last decision on the matter, does it make sense for the court to disregard that
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 14:29
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:The 15 week ban was written by the Republican legislature while Roe was still in effect and was specifically crafted so that it allowed more draconian abortion bans to take precedent over it Ah okay I see thank you Main Paineframe posted:
Well, that sucks. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 14:32
|
|
|
Cimber posted:No, you would need to explicitly repeal the old law or at least have verbiage in the new law that says "Public law number 14.2.3 is hereby amended to remove the phrase 'six weeks' from subsection B and replace it with the phrase 'fifteen weeks'. All other articles and provisions of public law number 14.2.3 shall remain in force." Eh that's the most bulletproof way to do it but it's not required by anything. Legislation that contradicts previous legislation does get passed sometimes and when that conflict happens the most recent law takes effect. Courts generally rule on the intent of the law when there's some ambiguity in the wording like that. Like in the weed example, if the legislature said they wanted to raise the limit to a pound, and made speeches about how their new law would do that, and celebrated its passage by going out and buying a pound of weed apiece and smoking it at their official "A Pound Of Weed Is Legal Now" party, a judge would probably not make a the-card-says-moops style ruling that the law does nothing because everyone forgot to explicitly say the old limit is repealed so they must have secretly wanted to leave the limit as-is. Well unless that judge's name is Neil Gorsuch. But in this case, since people are pointing out that the legislature obviously intended to leave the total ban in place, it's pretty open and shut yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:the dissenting arizona supreme court justices laid out why its a bad decision. the law in question specifically says that you should be looking at other laws *only* if the law is ambiguous, and the law is not ambiguous. its very clear. the majority pretty much smashed their heads with bats until they were incapable of understanding plain text and used that as justification to outlaw abortion. Interesting, did they show that the legislature didn't intend to leave the ban in effect, or did they say that shouldn't matter. I guess I should read it myself at this point
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 20:22
|
|