|
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. |
On May 09 2013 09:47 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On May 09 2013 09:01 SnipedSoul wrote:
I'm interested to hear how people will argue against her idea. Pretty ridiculous to let students crumple under crippling debt while giving banks great loans. This is America where people are more interested in scripted "Reality Television" than say people dying for lack of health care, we're the ultimate case of out of sight out of mind. It's a little disingenuous to take an extremely complicated issue and boil it down to "they don't care about people dying." In every system in the world people will die for lack of health care. That is an inevitability, since technology always outpaces our ability to pay for it for all citizens. So the question necessarily becomes: "How much death is ideal?" It sounds heartless and cruel, but for people who put reason before knee-jerk emotion, that is the necessary reality which must be faced. Refusing to accept that reality results in the kind of system where society slowly bankrupts itself trying to keep granny alive another month. Besides, its human nature to desire entertainment over of thinking about death, not just America
Uh, the problem is that in America, we feel that more death than necessary is ideal in order to punish the poor for their wickedness, because a system that would be better and cheaper for most people would also help the poor despite the fact they deserve to die. Personally I think it's pretty fair to say that a system that prioritizes negative justice over health regardless of deserts is not as pro-life as reasonably possible.
|
On May 09 2013 10:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:53 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient. A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward. All I am saying is that the mounting cost of state higher ed, the reduction in graduate employment/income, and the increasing necessity for a college education in the labor marketplace relative to living wages are going to come to a head in a big way unless something dramatic is done to alleviate the situation. And there is the crux of the issue. If I'm not mistaken, education costs haven't increased much outside of inflation. However, wages aren't keeping pace. Workers have lost income since the recovery "began," while median income has risen less than 1% since 1990. The debt is an issue because people can't pay it down, and jobs don't make enough money to pay off school during the process. There is a REAL issue with wages, and it's compounding on everything else. Getting those up would probably solve 50-90% of our fiscal issues.
A lot of that falls on minimum wage no? I've never worked in the States but I heard, in the more Northern parts, it's like $7.00? I know we're more heavily taxed in Canada but we have minimum at around $10.00 everywhere in Canada, it fluxs across the board however but it's relatively the same, it helps at a lot... I couldn't imagine living in the southern parts of the States where I hear some people work for $4.00 an hour, maybe that's just a myth however, but I agree wages should rise to match inflation.
|
On May 09 2013 10:32 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 10:24 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 09:53 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient. A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward. All I am saying is that the mounting cost of state higher ed, the reduction in graduate employment/income, and the increasing necessity for a college education in the labor marketplace relative to living wages are going to come to a head in a big way unless something dramatic is done to alleviate the situation. And there is the crux of the issue. If I'm not mistaken, education costs haven't increased much outside of inflation. However, wages aren't keeping pace. Workers have lost income since the recovery "began," while median income has risen less than 1% since 1990. The debt is an issue because people can't pay it down, and jobs don't make enough money to pay off school during the process. There is a REAL issue with wages, and it's compounding on everything else. Getting those up would probably solve 50-90% of our fiscal issues. A lot of that falls on minimum wage no? I've never worked in the States but I heard, in the more Northern parts, it's like $7.00? I know we're more heavily taxed in Canada but we have minimum at around $10.00 everywhere in Canada, it fluxs across the board however but it's relatively the same, it helps at a lot... I couldn't imagine living in the southern parts of the States where I hear some people work for $4.00 an hour, maybe that's just a myth however, but I agree wages should rise to match inflation.
Well, you can probably construct a rather convincing argument that stagnating minimum wage is reflected in all wages. The worker with an associates degree is more likely to demand a pay raise if the high school drop out is only making $1.00 less. However, the lower end isn't directly affecting income for the middle, which is the primary concern. If we had an adjustment that left minimum wage where it is now, but if median income rose 20-30% in real dollars over the next 5 years, that would provide much needed financial security and flexibility for the educated and/or skilled.
|
WASHINGTON -- Making history, America's blacks voted at higher rates than whites in 2012, lifting Democrat Barack Obama to victory amid voter apathy, particularly among young people, new census data show. Despite increasing population, the number of white voters declined for the first time since 1996.
Blacks were the only race or ethnic group to show an increase in voter turnout in November, most notably in the Midwest and Southeastern U.S., the Census Bureau said Wednesday. The analysis, based on a sample survey of voters last year, is viewed as the best source of government data on turnout by race and ethnicity.
The Associated Press reported last week that black voter turnout surpassed whites for the first time, based on an analysis by experts of earlier data.
In all, about 66.2 percent of eligible black voters cast ballots in 2012, up from 64.7 percent in 2008, according to census data. That compares with non-Hispanic white turnout of 64.1 percent, which fell from 66.1 percent four years earlier. As recently as 1996, blacks had turnout rates 8 percentage points lower than non-Hispanic whites.
Latino turnout dipped slightly, from 49.9 percent in 2008 to 48 percent, while Asian-American turnout was basically unchanged at 47 percent.
Voter turnout across all race and ethnic groups fell for a second consecutive presidential election, from 64 percent in 2004 to 62 percent in November, according to the census figures.
"Obama's win in 2012, despite the important Democratic constituency of young voters not participating at a high level, is good news," said Michael McDonald, a George Mason University professor who specializes in voter turnout. "The bad news is that voting is a habit – and the fact that we saw turnout declines among younger African-Americans suggests Democrats will have to work even harder to excite these voters in future elections."
The data underscore how turnout plays an important role in elections for both whites and blacks, who will remain the two largest racial groups of eligible voters for the next decade. While Hispanics are now the fast-growing demographic group, they currently make up a smaller share of eligible voters because many are children and non-citizens, limiting their electoral impact for the immediate future.
In 2012, the number of blacks who voted rose by 1.7 million. Hispanics added 1.4 million and Asian voters increased by 550,000.
Source
|
On May 09 2013 10:32 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 10:24 aksfjh wrote:On May 09 2013 09:53 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 09:24 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 09 2013 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled her first bill Wednesday, designed to set student loan interest rates at the same level the Federal Reserve offers to big banks.
With some student loan rates set to double on July 1 -- from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent -- Warren's bill would reduce student loan interest rates to 0.75 percent, opening the Fed's discount window to students.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Warren told The Huffington Post. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The freshman senator said she plans to mobilize students -- those most affected by student loans -- to help get the bill through the Senate. "This is about their lives and if they are active in this fight, we can make this change," Warren said.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But Warren noted that student loan debt also affects the economy. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported by Washington Post's Wonkblog, found that the amount of student loan debt of Americans under the age of 25 has doubled in less than a decade, from $10,649 in 2003 to $20,326 in 2012. Along with this increase in student debt comes a decrease in the likelihood someone will take out an auto loan or a home mortgage. That burden is a drag on the economy.
Warren pointed to the GI Bill and National Defense Education Act loans, which funded her education. "It wasn't just soldiers that got the education, it was the whole economy that benefitted from that investment," Warren said. "Why not give students a break? Why not let them in on the same great deal that the big banks get?" Source Will these student loans typically be fully secured and paid back within 24hrs too? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the comparison, other than rabble rousing to drum up support for student subsidies. Ok, forget lower interest rates, let's bailout a certain amount of student debt from each past recipient. A blanket bailout? I'm not sure that would be effective at relieving student debt overhang issues unless you let the program get really costly. You'd also be dredging up moral hazard issues going forward. All I am saying is that the mounting cost of state higher ed, the reduction in graduate employment/income, and the increasing necessity for a college education in the labor marketplace relative to living wages are going to come to a head in a big way unless something dramatic is done to alleviate the situation. And there is the crux of the issue. If I'm not mistaken, education costs haven't increased much outside of inflation. However, wages aren't keeping pace. Workers have lost income since the recovery "began," while median income has risen less than 1% since 1990. The debt is an issue because people can't pay it down, and jobs don't make enough money to pay off school during the process. There is a REAL issue with wages, and it's compounding on everything else. Getting those up would probably solve 50-90% of our fiscal issues. A lot of that falls on minimum wage no? I've never worked in the States but I heard, in the more Northern parts, it's like $7.00? I know we're more heavily taxed in Canada but we have minimum at around $10.00 everywhere in Canada, it fluxs across the board however but it's relatively the same, it helps at a lot... I couldn't imagine living in the southern parts of the States where I hear some people work for $4.00 an hour, maybe that's just a myth however, but I agree wages should rise to match inflation.
Federal minimum wage is $7.25, less than 5% of workers earn it (generally teenagers or close to it) and various subsidies exist for those deemed worthy by their governments.
|
On May 09 2013 08:14 renoB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 07:45 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration. Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country. Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me  This same argument can be used to exclude any group, then. Like I said before, it's plainly discrimination. You're telling someone they're not good enough, or they're not in the right group, and so they can't fit in our country. Currently we do something similar for allowing immigrants in our country. If you're not skilled in any sort, there's virtually no way of attaining access to citizenship or even a green card. So what do we get? A lot of unskilled laborers saying "fuck the process" (except they usually say it in spanish) and coming here anyway. But they're not able to be hired by many companies because they don't have the necessary credentials to work. I don't understand why people are suggesting skilled labor is the only good form of labor for America. There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial.
To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits.
Also, the unskilled labor demand?
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture.
|
But if we focus on putting our children to work instead of educating them, they say things like "intensive purposes" when they mean "intents and purposes."
Seriously though, that's an awful idea, and will do nothing at all to solve the problem. Who is going to let their children work to fill these jobs? Will the children collect they pay and spend it as they see fit, or will their parents/guardians, who literally do none of the work? How will children be able to compete with illegal immigrants both in terms of pay and productivity?
Education is key for economic growth. Not everyone has to go to college, but those who do typically have better opportunities, careers, and standards of living than those who do not. Suggesting we should cut down on that is foolhardy.
|
On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:14 renoB wrote:On May 09 2013 07:45 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration. Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country. Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me This same argument can be used to exclude any group, then. Like I said before, it's plainly discrimination. You're telling someone they're not good enough, or they're not in the right group, and so they can't fit in our country. Currently we do something similar for allowing immigrants in our country. If you're not skilled in any sort, there's virtually no way of attaining access to citizenship or even a green card. So what do we get? A lot of unskilled laborers saying "fuck the process" (except they usually say it in spanish) and coming here anyway. But they're not able to be hired by many companies because they don't have the necessary credentials to work. I don't understand why people are suggesting skilled labor is the only good form of labor for America. There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial. To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits. Also, the unskilled labor demand? 1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes. 2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions. 3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth. We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture.
Agree completely with the points in this post. It's important to keep in mind that simply defining something as discrimination is not an argument in itself against it. American citizens should of course enjoy equality under the law, but we cannot extend this to everyone outside of the nation, for obvious reasons. Also agree that we should have more specialization/vocational programs in education. And of course, complete economic equality should not be expected when human usefulness to society is not equal.
|
That is an extremely dangerous path you walk there.
The rich can now send their kids to school, the rest probably need to put their kids to work to keep up with their reduced wages.
Only thing I would even somewhat agree with you on is #3. But I'm pretty sure we envision different things for #3. Right now you need to go to college or some technical/trade school with good internships or job connections. It's just a sad fact that many jobs/careers need college degrees that probably shouldn't. I've said it 2-3 times on this thread, but I'm a firm believer in further education after HS being for those pursuing an education, not for those pursuing a career. In a perfect world, I would love for things to be more like, instead of taking on ridiculous debts to go to school, your employer is the one who trains you/pays for your education. My grandfather and mom both had their masters paid for by employers since they excelled at what they did so their employers wanted to advance their skills, we have moved away from things like that since so many people are paying for their school on their own now, and their is a large pool of people with degrees nowadays, why would a company pay for it?
|
On May 09 2013 13:56 BlueBird. wrote:
That is an extremely dangerous path you walk there.
The rich can now send their kids to school, the rest probably need to put their kids to work to keep up with their reduced wages.
Only thing I would even somewhat agree with you on is #3. But I'm pretty sure we envision different things for #3. Right now you need to go to college or some technical/trade school with good internships or job connections. It's just a sad fact that many jobs/careers need college degrees that probably shouldn't. I've said it 2-3 times on this thread, but I'm a firm believer in further education after HS being for those pursuing an education, not for those pursuing a career. In a perfect world, I would love for things to be more like, instead of taking on ridiculous debts to go to school, your employer is the one who trains you/pays for your education. My grandfather and mom both had their masters paid for by employers since they excelled at what they did so their employers wanted to advance their skills, we have moved away from things like that since so many people are paying for their school on their own now, and their is a large pool of people with degrees nowadays, why would a company pay for it?
Why do you disagree with #2? I guess that depends on your definition of middle-class, but generally I think of middle class as having much more than what you actually need to live comfortably without being rich. Do unskilled workers deserve that, even though they don't have the skills to pay the bills?
|
On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:14 renoB wrote:On May 09 2013 07:45 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration. Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country. Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me This same argument can be used to exclude any group, then. Like I said before, it's plainly discrimination. You're telling someone they're not good enough, or they're not in the right group, and so they can't fit in our country. Currently we do something similar for allowing immigrants in our country. If you're not skilled in any sort, there's virtually no way of attaining access to citizenship or even a green card. So what do we get? A lot of unskilled laborers saying "fuck the process" (except they usually say it in spanish) and coming here anyway. But they're not able to be hired by many companies because they don't have the necessary credentials to work. I don't understand why people are suggesting skilled labor is the only good form of labor for America. There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial. To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits. Also, the unskilled labor demand? 1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes. 2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions. 3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth. We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture.
Cause Corporations now abide by rules and labor standards.... That and those "unskilled" workers should really just agree to accept living below normal standards of living unlike those "skilled" classes. Serfdom and a Caste System all around!
|
On May 09 2013 14:10 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 13:56 BlueBird. wrote:
That is an extremely dangerous path you walk there.
The rich can now send their kids to school, the rest probably need to put their kids to work to keep up with their reduced wages.
Only thing I would even somewhat agree with you on is #3. But I'm pretty sure we envision different things for #3. Right now you need to go to college or some technical/trade school with good internships or job connections. It's just a sad fact that many jobs/careers need college degrees that probably shouldn't. I've said it 2-3 times on this thread, but I'm a firm believer in further education after HS being for those pursuing an education, not for those pursuing a career. In a perfect world, I would love for things to be more like, instead of taking on ridiculous debts to go to school, your employer is the one who trains you/pays for your education. My grandfather and mom both had their masters paid for by employers since they excelled at what they did so their employers wanted to advance their skills, we have moved away from things like that since so many people are paying for their school on their own now, and their is a large pool of people with degrees nowadays, why would a company pay for it? Why do you disagree with #2? I guess that depends on your definition of middle-class, but generally I think of middle class as having much more than what you actually need to live comfortably without being rich. Do unskilled workers deserve that, even though they don't have the skills to pay the bills?
Yeah it depends on definition of middle class, I probably would agree with #2 somewhat(depending on where you define middle class) had it not been for #1, It just sounds like an awful direction to want our country to go. Those of you familiar with my posts know what I think about the american dream/way, everyone for themselves, leave everyone else behind already  .
|
On May 09 2013 14:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 08:14 renoB wrote:On May 09 2013 07:45 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration. Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country. Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me This same argument can be used to exclude any group, then. Like I said before, it's plainly discrimination. You're telling someone they're not good enough, or they're not in the right group, and so they can't fit in our country. Currently we do something similar for allowing immigrants in our country. If you're not skilled in any sort, there's virtually no way of attaining access to citizenship or even a green card. So what do we get? A lot of unskilled laborers saying "fuck the process" (except they usually say it in spanish) and coming here anyway. But they're not able to be hired by many companies because they don't have the necessary credentials to work. I don't understand why people are suggesting skilled labor is the only good form of labor for America. There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial. To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits. Also, the unskilled labor demand? 1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes. 2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions. 3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth. We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. Cause Corporations now abide by rules and labor standards.... That and those "unskilled" workers should really just agree to accept living below normal standards of living unlike those "skilled" classes. Serfdom and a Caste System all around!
Thank you Stealth, I was going to say essentially the same thing. The only thing I have to add is:
On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
The bolded was what offended me the most. Which is pretty impressive, since you're advocating child labor in the same sentence.
|
On May 09 2013 14:28 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 14:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 08:14 renoB wrote:On May 09 2013 07:45 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration. Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country. Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me This same argument can be used to exclude any group, then. Like I said before, it's plainly discrimination. You're telling someone they're not good enough, or they're not in the right group, and so they can't fit in our country. Currently we do something similar for allowing immigrants in our country. If you're not skilled in any sort, there's virtually no way of attaining access to citizenship or even a green card. So what do we get? A lot of unskilled laborers saying "fuck the process" (except they usually say it in spanish) and coming here anyway. But they're not able to be hired by many companies because they don't have the necessary credentials to work. I don't understand why people are suggesting skilled labor is the only good form of labor for America. There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial. To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits. Also, the unskilled labor demand? 1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes. 2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions. 3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth. We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. Cause Corporations now abide by rules and labor standards.... That and those "unskilled" workers should really just agree to accept living below normal standards of living unlike those "skilled" classes. Serfdom and a Caste System all around! Thank you Stealth, I was going to say essentially the same thing. The only thing I have to add is: Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes. The bolded was what offended me the most. Which is pretty impressive, since you're advocating child labor in the same sentence.
I guess the moral of the story is that a mine somewhere is missing a very productive worker........
|
On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:14 renoB wrote:On May 09 2013 07:45 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration. Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country. Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me This same argument can be used to exclude any group, then. Like I said before, it's plainly discrimination. You're telling someone they're not good enough, or they're not in the right group, and so they can't fit in our country. Currently we do something similar for allowing immigrants in our country. If you're not skilled in any sort, there's virtually no way of attaining access to citizenship or even a green card. So what do we get? A lot of unskilled laborers saying "fuck the process" (except they usually say it in spanish) and coming here anyway. But they're not able to be hired by many companies because they don't have the necessary credentials to work. I don't understand why people are suggesting skilled labor is the only good form of labor for America. There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial. To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits. Also, the unskilled labor demand? 1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes. 2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions. 3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth. We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture.
If there's 1 thing we've learned from the financial crisis, it's that people may learn lessons, but societies don't. Without those laws in place, there's no way abuse won't find it's way back in the system.
The standard of living of the middle class is the problem. There's nothing wrong with a poor person having an iPhone or cable television. Everybody needs some modern entertainment to keep sane. Since the middle class is so low down, so close to the lower class and poor, they can't distinguish themselves enough with earnings. You bring up the middle class, and suddenly there is greater incentive to not be "poor."
"Degree inflation" only happens because of how many fucking people are unemployed/underemployed right now. I look down on liberal arts majors as much as anybody else, but I respect their degree much more than I do a high school education.
|
The condescension and hyperbole is strong in this thread. Surprising, given the strict demands set in the OP. Not surprising, given standard liberal smugness.
|
|
|
On May 09 2013 14:49 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:
The condescension and hyperbole is strong in this thread. Surprising, given the strict demands set in the OP. Not surprising, given standard liberal smugness.
Is this some sort of meta joke of which I am unaware, for you've just lambasted hyperbole and condescension with.......hyperbole and condescension.
If someone enters a political forum with a perspective that wholly indicts the utility of widespread and equal opportunity in education, only to then make a hilarious error in speech, it is not out of line to then point at such a thing and laugh at the incredulity of it. Furthermore, he provided no substantiation for his declaration that child labor laws are useless, other than that....well....that they are useless in his opinion. It's worth noting here that Kimaker's views on education and opportunity are not new to me nor to those familiar with his posting, and in regards to the post in question, his justification for the dismissal of equal opportunity in education alongside some sort of indictment of the "middle class" standard of living revolve around a hackneyed appeal to "reality" and "how life works". If we are to get down to brass tacks and truly adhere to the rules of the thread, appeals to such meaningless generalizations are clear violations, so your previous adulation in combination with current butthurtedness leads to me to believe that you aren't interested in the rules of the thread so much as you are in the appearance of your side "winning".
As aksfjh points out above, arbitrary lines in the sand insofar as "quality of life" are concerned serve as nothing more than a means of supporting a cultural "might is right" perspective that seeks to absolve the wealthier and better off folk from any sort of relation to the lower crusts of society. This is not to say that such a perspective is fundamentally untenable, only that one must do far more legwork than has been done in this thread to sufficiently support such a view.
In terms of the necessity of college education and the changing requirements relative to the workforce, I do not think there is a great deal to disagree on. More vocational programs and an increased acceptance of the utility of "lesser" occupations are definitely things to consider, though I've no doubt that we have very different ideas as to what counts as "acceptable" compensation for such careers/lifestyles.
I can but apologize for my curt and dismissive post, and hope that discussions rely on things more "meaty" moving forward.
|
On May 09 2013 15:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 14:49 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:
The condescension and hyperbole is strong in this thread. Surprising, given the strict demands set in the OP. Not surprising, given standard liberal smugness. Is this some sort of meta joke of which I am unaware, for you've just lambasted hyperbole and condescension with.......hyperbole and condescension. If someone enters a political forum with a perspective that wholly indicts the utility of widespread and equal opportunity in education, only to then make a hilarious error in speech, it is not out of line to then point at such a thing and laugh at the incredulity of it. Furthermore, he provided no substantiation for his declaration that child labor laws are useless, other than that....well....that they are useless in his opinion. It's worth noting here that Kimaker's views on education and opportunity are not new to me nor to those familiar with his posting, and in regards to the post in question, his justification for the dismissal of equal opportunity in education alongside some sort of indictment of the "middle class" standard of living revolve around a hackneyed appeal to "reality" and "how life works". If we are to get down to brass tacks and truly adhere to the rules of the thread, appeals to such meaningless generalizations are clear violations, so your previous adulation in combination with current butthurtedness leads to me to believe that you aren't interested in the rules of the thread so much as you are in the appearance of your side "winning". As aksfjh points out above, arbitrary lines in the sand insofar as "quality of life" are concerned serve as nothing more than a means of supporting a cultural "might is right" perspective that seeks to absolve the wealthier and better off folk from any sort of relation to the lower crusts of society. This is not to say that such a perspective is fundamentally untenable, only that one must do far more legwork than has been done in this thread to sufficiently support such a view. I can but apologize for my curt and dismissive post, and hope that discussions rely on things more "meaty" moving forward.
I would say Amorphous seems more outraged and offended than being condescending...maybe a little irony in the hyperbole part, but I suppose that depends on how much one reads into other peoples comments. As far as the child labor laws I won't even voice my opinion because I am uninformed on the subject and don't fully understanding why he thinks that they need to be removed. I would be interested in hearing why he thinks that, but I doubt I'll agree with it. Everything else in Kimaker's post made sense to me though.
|
On May 09 2013 15:21 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 15:14 farvacola wrote:On May 09 2013 14:49 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:
The condescension and hyperbole is strong in this thread. Surprising, given the strict demands set in the OP. Not surprising, given standard liberal smugness. Is this some sort of meta joke of which I am unaware, for you've just lambasted hyperbole and condescension with.......hyperbole and condescension. If someone enters a political forum with a perspective that wholly indicts the utility of widespread and equal opportunity in education, only to then make a hilarious error in speech, it is not out of line to then point at such a thing and laugh at the incredulity of it. Furthermore, he provided no substantiation for his declaration that child labor laws are useless, other than that....well....that they are useless in his opinion. It's worth noting here that Kimaker's views on education and opportunity are not new to me nor to those familiar with his posting, and in regards to the post in question, his justification for the dismissal of equal opportunity in education alongside some sort of indictment of the "middle class" standard of living revolve around a hackneyed appeal to "reality" and "how life works". If we are to get down to brass tacks and truly adhere to the rules of the thread, appeals to such meaningless generalizations are clear violations, so your previous adulation in combination with current butthurtedness leads to me to believe that you aren't interested in the rules of the thread so much as you are in the appearance of your side "winning". As aksfjh points out above, arbitrary lines in the sand insofar as "quality of life" are concerned serve as nothing more than a means of supporting a cultural "might is right" perspective that seeks to absolve the wealthier and better off folk from any sort of relation to the lower crusts of society. This is not to say that such a perspective is fundamentally untenable, only that one must do far more legwork than has been done in this thread to sufficiently support such a view. I can but apologize for my curt and dismissive post, and hope that discussions rely on things more "meaty" moving forward. I would say Amorphous seems more outraged and offended than being condescending...maybe a little irony in the hyperbole part, but I suppose that depends on how much one reads into other peoples comments. As far as the child labor laws I won't even voice my opinion because I am uninformed on the subject and don't fully understanding why he thinks that they need to be removed. I would be interested in hearing why he thinks that, but I doubt I'll agree with it. Everything else in his post made sense to me though.
To suggest that there exists some sort of "standard liberal smugness" as though it applies to all modes of liberal thought is condescending, no matter how outraged one may be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
