|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42689 Posts
On May 20 2015 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 02:02 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
The tax is less than 1%. It's clearly targeted at bot traders. Think about how much bots mess up games like WoW or other mmorpg's, then realize there are people making millions and billions of $$ using "Stock Bots". The tax is basically an anti-exploit measure.
College sports are usually about a break even or profitable endeavor in div 1 schools and many div 2's below that throw and they are generally money sinks. Honestly more would be profitable if they didn't subsidize women's sports. It's all mostly automated these days, with the exclusion of the "I have a good feeling about this stock" amateurs who don't have much money or impact because they lose their money on their good feelings. It's more of a tax on activity. It rewards buy and hold strategies and penalizes hit and run strategies which, as a Bogle fan, I approve of. If you think it's a profitable company making a good product and you believe in it then you pay 0.5% on your investment but reap the dividends of ownership of that company for years to come. If you don't know or care what the company does but plan to resell it tomorrow for higher and then use that money to immediately buy something else then the 0.5% will very quickly erode your capital. It's not about bots, it's about investing vs raiding. Well yes and no, the automation itself isn't the culprit (although it does present dangers) it's the mindless part of the automation. Nothing wrong with letting the computer do some math for you, the problem comes when it's making the decisions with little to no human input.Combined with that it's decisions are specifically short term oriented and based on the stocks ability to move and not the company itself and you get a recipe for disaster. This is definitely targeted at automated algo-traders (or will hurt them the most at least).
It will hurt them due to their investment strategy, not due to the automated nature of it. Bots that rebalance and buy/sell automatically to try and achieve a desired portfolio with the intent of optimizing long term holdings in companies that meet certain criteria will not be hurt by this. And individuals who day trade will be.
|
On May 20 2015 02:17 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 01:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 20 2015 01:32 Wolfstan wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. So throwing more of other people's money at it is the solution? 3 things I'd like to see are: Move education into state jurisdiction up from counties and down from federal. Discourage unmarketable degrees like art history majors and encourage trades.Spending on college sports is a huge misallocation of resources. Implement reforms along those lines and wait for data before proceeding. Unfortunately, this is a generational problem where solutions implemented will not be seen for decades, thus there is little political willpower to implement solutions. The bold part is such an incredibly annoying stereotype that floats around traditional conservative circles. These "useless" majors (art history, gender studies, etc.) are not anywhere near the most popular degrees at most institutions. http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/09/310114739/whats-your-major-four-decades-of-college-degrees-in-1-graphThe most popular degrees continue to be business, science, and healthcare-related. The most popular humanities degrees, English and History, are both incredibly useful in a wide variety of settings. The idea that students are getting too many "useless" degrees is a myth that is used as a lazy excuse to explain away the debt and employment problems that college graduates are facing because people don't want to face the reality of the situation. I am obviously pro-education and agree with you that the vast majority of degrees are a value added investment. Still, reducing the few who do enter the workforce with crippling student debt with very little earnings premium is only a part of the solution. The problem with English, History and similar degrees is a supply and demand one. Upon graduation, they are all chasing the same education jobs putting downward pressure on salaries. It also leads to bad teachers, but that's another issue entirely.
eh people with liberal arts degrees can and most certainly do go into politics and law while STEM people stick to research and engineering.
|
On May 20 2015 02:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 02:02 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
The tax is less than 1%. It's clearly targeted at bot traders. Think about how much bots mess up games like WoW or other mmorpg's, then realize there are people making millions and billions of $$ using "Stock Bots". The tax is basically an anti-exploit measure.
College sports are usually about a break even or profitable endeavor in div 1 schools and many div 2's below that throw and they are generally money sinks. Honestly more would be profitable if they didn't subsidize women's sports. It's all mostly automated these days, with the exclusion of the "I have a good feeling about this stock" amateurs who don't have much money or impact because they lose their money on their good feelings. It's more of a tax on activity. It rewards buy and hold strategies and penalizes hit and run strategies which, as a Bogle fan, I approve of. If you think it's a profitable company making a good product and you believe in it then you pay 0.5% on your investment but reap the dividends of ownership of that company for years to come. If you don't know or care what the company does but plan to resell it tomorrow for higher and then use that money to immediately buy something else then the 0.5% will very quickly erode your capital. It's not about bots, it's about investing vs raiding. Well yes and no, the automation itself isn't the culprit (although it does present dangers) it's the mindless part of the automation. Nothing wrong with letting the computer do some math for you, the problem comes when it's making the decisions with little to no human input.Combined with that it's decisions are specifically short term oriented and based on the stocks ability to move and not the company itself and you get a recipe for disaster. This is definitely targeted at automated algo-traders (or will hurt them the most at least). It will hurt them due to their investment strategy, not due to the automated nature of it. Bots that rebalance and buy/sell automatically to try and achieve a desired portfolio with the intent of optimizing long term holdings in companies that meet certain criteria will not be hurt by this. And individuals who day trade will be.
Well it depends on how frequent their optimization is and how much current and projected values influence that rebalancing.
But I agree it's not the bots themselves that are the problem. Used properly they function more like an overlay. It's the strategy implemented that would only be functional with bots. Which is why I say they are somewhat of the source. The strategy is the core problem but the bot becomes the tool that makes it effective. While getting rid of the bots would also somewhat solve the problem it would have a lot of collateral damage. Using automated systems to balance portfolios can still cause the flash crashes I was talking about, so I'd like to see less automation, but I think attacking the strategy is a good start and should reduce the risk of those flash crashes significantly.
|
On May 20 2015 01:22 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 15:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 19 2015 09:51 oneofthem wrote:
a major part of it is simply the nature of segregation in america, something a canadian would not have expereince with. Canada had plenty of segregation in its history, including segregation of Black people. There's also been a longstanding issue with Natives across the country, and the worst of it was essentially the same kind as in the US, with separate schools, restaurants, facilities, etc. British Columbia in particular has a rather messy history with Asians, Chinese especially considering the slave labour used for the Pacific Railway, and the Head Tax following that. Then there was further efforts to segregate Chinese, Japanese and Indians into their own communities and away from ethnic Europeans. The difference is, somehow, that Canada as a whole has dealt with and gotten over most of its racial issues a lot faster than the US has. It's probably something that has all kinds of social science papers written about it. You also never had a massive slave society. So there's that. And if I asked your average Canadian native if he thought you had "dealt with and gotten over most of Canada's racial issues," would he agree? Would his answer include expletives?
Well, not explicitly slaves, but it's hard to look at something like the treatment of Chinese people during the construction of the Pacific Railway and not consider it slave labour. Still very different, though.
And Natives issues here are still very sore, and still very messy. They're the most impoverished ethnic group in the country, and frequently overlooked when it comes to law enforcement. That said, a lot of it isn't so much a racial issue as it is messy politics involving Native land, self-governance, negotiations for use of resources on their land, etc.
|
On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor.
Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit.
|
“The view of the Bandidos is that Texas is their state,” said Terry Katz, the vice president of the International Association of Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Investigators. “They are the big dogs of Texas, and then this other, smaller club — the Cossacks — comes along in 1969 or so, and they decide that they are not going to bow down.”
“We have been doing this for 18 years, and we never had a problem,” said Gimmi Jimmy, national ambassador for the Bandidos and the state chairman for the Texas Confederation of Clubs and Independents, which oversees the local branches. “We discuss things like biker rights, but no individual club business is talked about.”
The Cossacks — Mr. Jimmy did not want to be quoted using the club’s name, referring to it instead as “the other side” — were not part of the meeting, but the Bandidos were. Eight Cossacks and one Bandido were killed in the gunfight, he said. “The only reason I am not in jail,” he added, “is that I got there late.”
After the shooting, the state-run Texas Joint Crime Information Center issued an advisory that members of the Bandidos and the Cossacks “reportedly have been instructed to arm themselves with weapons and travel to north Texas.” The bulletin said officers throughout Texas “should be aware of the escalating violence between both groups and are to consider all Bandidos and Cossacks members as armed and dangerous.”
The one-page document said the Bandidos were believed to have summoned additional members from Arkansas and New Mexico as “reinforcements.”
Source
“We were in marked cars. They knew we were here, they knew that we’ve been here at their past events. And it mattered not to them,” Swanton said at a news conference, which was posted online by KXXV. “That tells you the kind of level of people we’re dealing with.”
Better watch out for that US military though Texas lol.
Also check your airbag, it might be a mini-frag grenade instead.
Takata, the Japanese supplier, will nearly double the number to vehicles that need to recalled in the United States for potential defects in its airbags to 34 million.
The supplier made the announcement on Tuesday with federal safety regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which had been prodding the company since late last year to say that the cars are defective. Takata had fought these demands, even asserting at one point that the agency could not force it to issue a recall.
Airbag inflaters made by Takata can explode violently when they deploy, spraying metal fragments into the passenger compartment. Six deaths and more than 100 injuries have been linked to the flaw.
“A recall of this scope illustrates the potential for massive automaker expense and consumer inconvenience when a common, mass-produced part is defective,” Karl Brauer, senior analyst at Kelley Blue Book, said in an email. “Ironically, the use of common parts across markets and manufacturers is meant to save money, yet a recall of this size will cost the industry billions.”
Source
|
On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit.
It does not matter how good you mold people to fit as cogs into the capitalist machinery when there is simply not enough work to go around for everyone, and there is no reason to expect it to come back.
|
On May 20 2015 04:22 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit. It does not matter how good you mold people to fit as cogs into the capitalist machinery when there is simply not enough work to go around for everyone, and there is no reason to expect it to come back.
Except that's not the case, the problem is the allocation of people with certain educational backgrounds do not match up with the educational (training) requirements of the jobs that are available.
|
On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit.
Alternatively, America could shift it's spending priorities (and possibly raise taxes such as the 0.5% tax on trades over $100 mentioned above) to bring the total cost of a 4-year degree back to a proportion of household income similar to what it was in the 1950s or 1960s, and maybe shift the country's priorities away from churning out productive worker bees for corporate consumption.
Your specific phrasing "Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit." indicates to me a lack of value placed on anything other than marketable skills, including but not limited to political literacy and awareness of global issues and perspectives. Rather than trying to cram as many young people as possible into trade schools and then straight into generating corporate productivity, the country should be trying to send as many young people as possible to effective multidiscipline courses so that they can effectively participate in politics and achieve personal goals that aren't related to the size of their bank account.
|
I'm going to be honest, one of the reasons the arts/liberal arts parts of a college education have been so devalued is because of the ridiculous partisanship among professors, and how badly that bleeds into their curriculum.
|
On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit.
Because an educated populace is a good thing in a democracy. Because there is more to life than job training and job performance. If the resources existed, I'd be all in favor of free college for everyone who wants it, subsidized by the government for the same reasons we subsidize public education.
There isn't enough money, and so the question is how we get the most people to school that we can, and aim to achieve equality of opportunity.
|
On May 20 2015 04:27 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit. Alternatively, America could shift it's spending priorities (and possibly raise taxes such as the 0.5% tax on trades over $100 mentioned above) to bring the total cost of a 4-year degree back to a proportion of household income similar to what it was in the 1950s or 1960s, and maybe shift the country's priorities away from churning out productive worker bees for corporate consumption. Your specific phrasing "Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit." indicates to me a lack of value placed on anything other than marketable skills, including but not limited to political literacy and awareness of global issues and perspectives. Rather than trying to cram as many young people as possible into trade schools and then straight into generating corporate productivity, the country should be trying to send as many young people as possible to effective multidiscipline courses so that they can effectively participate in politics and achieve personal goals that aren't related to the size of their bank account.
This is assuming that a majority of people graduating high school have a high enough mental capacity to understand these issues to a much greater degree. Which is a far cry from reality. A lot of American high school graduates already have difficulty with basic algebraic concepts, to what extent do you think they'll really develop well informed opinions with higher education when they can barely write a coherent sentence out of high school? As far as base knowledge is concerned, our high school curriculum is also a joke, so there's that as well. Ideally kids would have much better fundamental education before going to trade school.
On May 20 2015 04:32 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit. Because an educated populace is a good thing in a democracy. Because there is more to life than job training and job performance. If the resources existed, I'd be all in favor of free college for everyone who wants it, subsidized by the government for the same reasons we subsidize public education. There isn't enough money, and so the question is how we get the most people to school that we can, and aim to achieve equality of opportunity.
While I don't disagree with educated populace being a good thing, the problem is that to get it in America it requires going to college. When it should already be provided to you by highschool.
|
On May 20 2015 04:25 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:22 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit. It does not matter how good you mold people to fit as cogs into the capitalist machinery when there is simply not enough work to go around for everyone, and there is no reason to expect it to come back. Except that's not the case, the problem is the allocation of people with certain educational backgrounds do not match up with the educational (training) requirements of the jobs that are available.
So we should force people into the work that is available, with little regard for their personal preferences? That sounds like something people complain about in communism to me.
|
On May 20 2015 04:27 Kyadytim wrote:
Your specific phrasing "Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit." indicates to me a lack of value placed on anything other than marketable skills, including but not limited to political literacy and awareness of global issues and perspectives. Rather than trying to cram as many young people as possible into trade schools and then straight into generating corporate productivity, the country should be trying to send as many young people as possible to effective multidiscipline courses so that they can effectively participate in politics and achieve personal goals that aren't related to the size of their bank account.
many people don't want that though, people want to study what they like that can help them get jobs, not "multidiscipline" course that may or may not be interesting to them. For many people their bank account overlaps with their personal goals no?
|
On May 20 2015 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 01:22 Yoav wrote:On May 19 2015 15:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 19 2015 09:51 oneofthem wrote:
a major part of it is simply the nature of segregation in america, something a canadian would not have expereince with. Canada had plenty of segregation in its history, including segregation of Black people. There's also been a longstanding issue with Natives across the country, and the worst of it was essentially the same kind as in the US, with separate schools, restaurants, facilities, etc. British Columbia in particular has a rather messy history with Asians, Chinese especially considering the slave labour used for the Pacific Railway, and the Head Tax following that. Then there was further efforts to segregate Chinese, Japanese and Indians into their own communities and away from ethnic Europeans. The difference is, somehow, that Canada as a whole has dealt with and gotten over most of its racial issues a lot faster than the US has. It's probably something that has all kinds of social science papers written about it. You also never had a massive slave society. So there's that. And if I asked your average Canadian native if he thought you had "dealt with and gotten over most of Canada's racial issues," would he agree? Would his answer include expletives? Well, not explicitly slaves, but it's hard to look at something like the treatment of Chinese people during the construction of the Pacific Railway and not consider it slave labour. Still very different, though. And Natives issues here are still very sore, and still very messy. They're the most impoverished ethnic group in the country, and frequently overlooked when it comes to law enforcement. That said, a lot of it isn't so much a racial issue as it is messy politics involving Native land, self-governance, negotiations for use of resources on their land, etc.
Broadly, neither public nor private solutions can be reasonably applied for constitutional reason. As well I don't think there is even a "First Nations vote " that can be broadly pandered to.
|
On May 20 2015 04:34 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:25 wei2coolman wrote:On May 20 2015 04:22 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit. It does not matter how good you mold people to fit as cogs into the capitalist machinery when there is simply not enough work to go around for everyone, and there is no reason to expect it to come back. Except that's not the case, the problem is the allocation of people with certain educational backgrounds do not match up with the educational (training) requirements of the jobs that are available. So we should force people into the work that is available, with little regard for their personal preferences? That sounds like something people complain about in communism to me.
It's not about forcing, it's about providing options. I mean, how many vocational training was introduced to you while you were in high school? The closest thing I could think about was a livestock and farm training course in another high school in my district.
|
On May 20 2015 04:34 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:27 Kyadytim wrote:On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit. Alternatively, America could shift it's spending priorities (and possibly raise taxes such as the 0.5% tax on trades over $100 mentioned above) to bring the total cost of a 4-year degree back to a proportion of household income similar to what it was in the 1950s or 1960s, and maybe shift the country's priorities away from churning out productive worker bees for corporate consumption. Your specific phrasing "Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit." indicates to me a lack of value placed on anything other than marketable skills, including but not limited to political literacy and awareness of global issues and perspectives. Rather than trying to cram as many young people as possible into trade schools and then straight into generating corporate productivity, the country should be trying to send as many young people as possible to effective multidiscipline courses so that they can effectively participate in politics and achieve personal goals that aren't related to the size of their bank account. This is assuming that a majority of people graduating high school have a high enough mental capacity to understand these issues to a much greater degree. Which is a far cry from reality. A lot of American high school graduates already have difficulty with basic algebraic concepts, to what extent do you think they'll really develop well informed opinions with higher education when they can barely write a coherent sentence out of high school? As far as base knowledge is concerned, our high school curriculum is also a joke, so there's that as well. Ideally kids would have much better fundamental education before going to trade school. Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:32 Yoav wrote:On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit. Because an educated populace is a good thing in a democracy. Because there is more to life than job training and job performance. If the resources existed, I'd be all in favor of free college for everyone who wants it, subsidized by the government for the same reasons we subsidize public education. There isn't enough money, and so the question is how we get the most people to school that we can, and aim to achieve equality of opportunity. While I don't disagree with educated populace being a good thing, the problem is that to get it in America it requires going to college. When it should already be provided to you by highschool.
A lot of high school graduates have trouble with basic algebra because the country's school system sucks. It's underfunded, overburdened, and overtested. Instead of giving up on all future generations of American children, it would be vastly preferable in my opinion to address some of the major failings with America's public education system, such as school funding being highly influenced by wealth of the community where the school is situated and the deleterious effects on cognitive function of living near or below the poverty line.
On May 20 2015 04:38 lightandshadow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:27 Kyadytim wrote:
Your specific phrasing "Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit." indicates to me a lack of value placed on anything other than marketable skills, including but not limited to political literacy and awareness of global issues and perspectives. Rather than trying to cram as many young people as possible into trade schools and then straight into generating corporate productivity, the country should be trying to send as many young people as possible to effective multidiscipline courses so that they can effectively participate in politics and achieve personal goals that aren't related to the size of their bank account. many people don't want that though, people want to study what they like that can help them get jobs, not "multidiscipline" course that may or may not be interesting to them. For many people their bank account overlaps with their personal goals no?
Please note the paragraph above the one you quoted, particularly the part about lowering the cost of degrees at public universities.
|
So, i have a question regarding this:
How does one become a plumber or a carpenter in the US?
In Germany, this is usually handled through apprenticeship programs in a business, usually with some business school on the side.
As far as i understand, this is not how it works in the US, so i am kind of wondering how things are handled there.
|
On May 20 2015 04:39 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 04:34 Kyadytim wrote:On May 20 2015 04:25 wei2coolman wrote:On May 20 2015 04:22 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 04:15 wei2coolman wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. Germany has much stronger vocational and trade school training and education. Which is exactly where America needs to focus it's energy. Vocational and trade schools is where majority of young Americans should do, instead of having an overflow of college applicants majoring in stuff that'll have absolutely no impact on their career. Why waste 4 years and a fuckton of money when they only needed maybe 2 years and a whole lot less money to be able to do the same shit. It does not matter how good you mold people to fit as cogs into the capitalist machinery when there is simply not enough work to go around for everyone, and there is no reason to expect it to come back. Except that's not the case, the problem is the allocation of people with certain educational backgrounds do not match up with the educational (training) requirements of the jobs that are available. So we should force people into the work that is available, with little regard for their personal preferences? That sounds like something people complain about in communism to me. It's not about forcing, it's about providing options. I mean, how many vocational training was introduced to you while you were in high school? The closest thing I could think about was a livestock and farm training course in another high school in my district.
Why would I want to undertake vocational training in high school? My schedule was already full, I would have had to cut core educational classes such as math, science, or English to find room for vocational training. In theory, I don't disagree with you that providing people other options than 4-year college is good, if only because degree inflation is a problem that exists, but I'd rather address the underlying socioeconomic issues that make starting vocational training in high school something that an average teenager can reasonably consider, rather than discarding out of hand as unnecessary.
To give some frame of reference for my thinking on this, you're arguing that children should be deciding on a career path which will heavily shape their future several years before this country allows enlistment in the military, legal drinking, legal driving, and in at least 12 states, before they can legally consent to sex. Out of those, only enlistment is likely to have as large an impact on a person's life in as many cases as making a decision about their career path.
Quick edit: I may have misread what you said as indicating an interest in having high school students start vocational training while still in high school. If that's not what you meant, then my answer is more like what follows: I was aware that there were number of career paths that did not involve college, but I agree 100% that schools should try to present vocational training as a post-graduation option.
|
On May 20 2015 04:53 Simberto wrote:
So, i have a question regarding this:
How does one become a plumber or a carpenter in the US?
In Germany, this is usually handled through apprenticeship programs in a business, usually with some business school on the side.
As far as i understand, this is not how it works in the US, so i am kind of wondering how things are handled there.
Depends on what state and which one specifically. Electricians require some certification for certain tasks, other states anyone can do some tasks with no training at all.
The general process is referred to as apprenticeship and journeyman. Essetially it boils down to 'supervision'. Someone else familiar with the trade will be more familiar but "Apprenticeship" basically means there has to be a journeyman on site (the level of supervision varies, but is usually minimal/nonexistent). After a certain amount of hours you can work on your own as a journeymen. How much actual training goes on is pretty minimal. It's more of a 'start working' after working x hours you become a journeyman.
WikiHow gives some basic details but the educational part is highly exaggerated and the variance from place to place under-emphasized. "Education" usually actually means 'working'. It's also kind of like other professions like dentistry where the low level people do most of the day to day work.
Kind of like if instead of going to school to be a accountant, you just went to work for one and they gave you their shit work for x hours and then you become an accountant.
Plumber and carpenter is similar except there are even less rules, so it's basically just stuff you can do straight out of high school. Not that you would even have to finish school if you have family/friends in the industry. There was a kid at my high school who's dad was in construction and his weekend job was being a site manager, he didn't have a clue what he was doing but he was too lazy to do the actual construction so he was just immediately placed in as a site manager. The typical requirements if I wanted to get hired for something like that would be..
The most common route to getting a job as a site manager is to obtain a degree, or an HNC, HND or BTEC qualification – try and do a course which has been approved by the Chartered Institute of Building. Relevant subjects include building studies and building engineering, surveying and civil engineering, construction engineering management, building management or building technology.
Source
Hard to say how many people earn their positions through education and how many get placed by nepotism. I've personally seen few instances of people with an opportunity for nepotism not use it to their advantage though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
