|
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 December 02 2016 01:24 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 01:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
I agree that having tracks can cause problems, especially if they become permanent trajectories. I liked that there was a degree of flexibility between the two tracks - I guess pretty much anyone could go into the "advanced" track (as well as leave more or less at any time), though in practice I'd estimate/remember about 20% of the class was in it. The program structure allows teachers to teach to their students capabilities somewhat better, but isn't really leaving anyone behind.
The tracks often turn into permanent trajectories. The upper track can often cover topics at 2 times the pace as the lower track. The disparity between the two tracks then only grows more and more after the tracks split until after a few years, the difference is too big for students to cross. At the same time, students and parents like the tracks because it enables the students to learn at a pace that is closer to their ideal pace.
The base curriculum was the base curriculum, not some dumbed down version and it prepared students for the next year. Like 80% of students stayed in it, and about 20% moved to a different one. Both classes would learn how to convert fractions to decimals, and the latter group might get some extra trick about repeating decimals.
On December 02 2016 01:22 Logo wrote:
Wait, in your experience were the different tracks part of the same class? In my case they were separate classes sometimes on completely different material (the lower science track took an earth science class while the middle & upper tracks started with biology and let you take a 2nd course in biology/chemistry/physics senior year).
IIRC the "fast track" just touched on more topics, but the base ones gave students everything they needed for the next year. There were some cases where students would be "promoted" to taking classes with the next year as well.
On December 02 2016 01:30 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 01:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 02 2016 00:41 Logo wrote:On December 01 2016 23:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
In my elementary school, I think starting from around 5th grade there were a couple different tracks for math and english, where basically some of the kids who were doing really well in the main class were pulled in a slightly more advanced one (parents had the option to put their kids in the alternate track as well). I thought that was a pretty good system. Tieing in with the above, the problem is that the tracks can really set people down dark roads. The lowest level classes in my school were *really* low and that's for a very well respected public school system and if you get put down one of those roads it can really mess you up. The only reason I didn't end up in the lowest level of math was that my mom fought really hard to keep me out of that level. Because she did I graduated having cleared a middle level of the math track with good grades, got into a good college, and got good grades in that college. If I had been stuck down the low math level my college likely would not have even considered me as a candidate. Plus it's hard to jump back up from the lower tracks, it's not that the work is somehow magically easier; you just learn less. So after 1 year in the lowest level track if you actually could have done the middle track it's just flat out too late to change. The kids in the middle track have learned concepts that you haven't and those concepts (in say math at least) will be built on in the next class then you're kind of screwed. Instead of needing to be just good enough for the middle track you'd need to be good enough to do the middle track without the necessary fundamentals. Not that I think you can get by with only one track I suppose, but tracks can have some real serious problems. I agree that having tracks can cause problems, especially if they become permanent trajectories. I liked that there was a degree of flexibility between the two tracks - I guess pretty much anyone could go into the "advanced" track (as well as leave more or less at any time), though in practice I'd estimate/remember about 20% of the class was in it. The program structure allows teachers to teach to their students capabilities somewhat better, but isn't really leaving anyone behind. I went to a private highschool that had 5 of these tracks, the highest of which was taught AP courses as part of the senior corriculum, and the lowest didnt get any AP credit. you had to take a test to get into one of the higher tracks. I throught it was a great system that was better at focusing the direction of students. not everyone is going to be a CEO or go into a STEM field so not everyone needs to be taught to that level of knowledge. I think what they did right was not allow the lower tracks to be remedial courses, but just different in content. so instead of taking Calculus in junior and senior year, you took economics and some other social science class.
My high school had kids taking more or less the same classes the first couple years (a couple choices between AP's and honors of the same topic, ex. AP US gov vs. a civics class), but gave students more leeway junior and senior year to pick whatever they wanted as long as they met the graduation requirements.
|
On December 02 2016 01:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 22:56 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2016 15:39 IgnE wrote:I mean you know multiplication tables are just facts, right? They still have kids memorize them because you have to memorize facts to make use of them. If you are constantly reconstructing basic facts then even simple problems are going to take forever and be error prone. But I take your point. There is more than one way to skin a cat. @ Danglars
I see only the frustration of parents no longer able to teach their elementary school children multiplication and division and percents. Talking about ten-sticks and breaking every 3-digit addition problem into 3 separate processes just confuses them. Language arts was more hearing from the teachers complaining about implementing a strict approach to what is taught when -- to comply with district implementation of the English program. I do some volunteer tutoring for elementary and high school students, and I see teachers that explicitly grade down the "old way" of math (stack & add carrying ones, stack and multiply with zeros/offsets, skip coloring 2x as two green blocks (-1) as a yellow block and (+3) as a red block ((in this nerd dominated forum, just imagine yourself being forced to get out the colored pencils for every prealgebra problem. It's killer)). Context is California's SoCal elementary and high schools.
Yeah I have imagined being asked to do the stupid coloring for every problem. It is a waste of time, you are right. But you are framing the problem improperly. - the old pedagogy works for some and leaves many behind (just look at adult math literacy in this country)
- the new pedagogy in common core teaches a bunch of different ways to build math intuition
- smarter kids are going to be bored and frustrated when asked to use colors to do problems they can do in their head
- but the new method might be more effective for the vast majority of kids who are not above average
You have to ask what the point of compulsory schooling is and implement policies that meet the end. In this country school is not about identifying the smartest kids so that they can be set on a separate track to maximize their talents. It is about bringing up as many people as possible to a common denominator so that America has a functioning citizenry that can perform the basic mental tasks required of service sector employees and consumers. I could, for example, argue that the smart kids who are frustrated should just learn to play the game because that is what school is. If your choice is an ineffective pedagogy that is fine for only the best students, and a pedagogy that can be tedious for those who simply do, but helps a lot more average and below average students understand basic mathematical concepts what is your choice going to be? These are basic policy questions. You are totally able to voice criticism of the system for not identifying talented students, or even criticism of that individual teacher. Knowing multiple ways to do a math problem is not an end in itself, as you are well aware, so teachers that "grade down" for using the "wrong" method are working against themselves. When I spoke to a teacher who specialized in teaching other teachers how to teach common core math, she specifically said, when asked, that teachers are not supposed to do that. The whole point is that the kids are taught a variety of methods of solving problems and can use whatever makes the most sense to them. Obviously this idea can be complicated, especially when basic math concepts are rephrased under a new discourse and parents don't understand why teachers are talking about how "tens" are different than "ones". But that's a parent issue. The point is that your criticism about teachers requiring bright students to color for every prealgebra problem might feel right to you, but it's really divorced from the goals of the public school system itself. It's not as if the old system didn't bore smart kids too. That's not the point. I know it has been sold as a more effective pedagogy over a larger range of students. But the educational outcomes studies I've seen shows a greater achievement gap compared to methods in use before common core was implemented (and if I have time this weekend I could try to pull them up again). I noted the big changes to say what a break it was from previous. The size and scope dictates it should only be implemented (bottom up and district-based) if it proved more effective. I see no gain in stymying gifted kids while also ensuring those from poor backgrounds do worse/minority students do worse: it's lose-lose. gifted kids were always stymied though. show me this data you have on achievement gaps. as has been mentioned many times in the last few months, the best way to get rid of the achievement gap is integration.
I don't have access to the original study right now, but I can get to it. State of California has half a dozen googleable articles of secondary reporting for an increasing achievement gap under common core. If I have time this weekend I'll see if another can get me access.
Less than 50 days until Obama's outa there and four years of Trump begins. Maybe 150 days until we see if he'll fight for Supreme Court justices, the wall, and an end to Obamacare.
|
The Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., is a stately old building with turrets, arches and a clock tower soaring 300 feet into the air. Inside, the lobby is equally impressive with massive chandeliers, a grand staircase and a glass ceiling 10 floors up.
The 263-room hotel is without doubt luxurious. But it could also represent a massive conflict of interest for President-elect Donald Trump once he takes office.
In 2013, Trump signed a 60-year lease for the building, once the headquarters of the U.S. Post Office, and began a $200 million renovation to turn it into an upscale hotel with the help of loans from Deutsche Bank, a large German bank.
Trump's financial disclosure reports, viewed by NPR, show he currently owes Deutsche Bank roughly $365 million in loans for the Washington hotel, another one in Chicago and a Florida golf course.
Deutsche Bank is one of the large global banks investing in and betting on real estate around the world. So it makes some sense it would be exposed to Trump, says Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT's Sloane School of Management. He says Trump has had a relationship with the Frankfurt-based bank spanning nearly two decades, and it is his largest financial backer.
But Johnson says Deutsche Bank is in deep trouble with the Justice Department over a number of allegations.
"The tip of the iceberg is a particular fine by the Department of Justice, a large fine with the opening numbers around $14 billion, with regard to how they created and sold mortgage-backed securities before 2008," he says.
There are private negotiations underway over the amount of that fine, Johnson says, with the bank and the German government pushing back.
He says this sets up a huge conflict of interest for the president-elect: Once Trump takes office, he will be overseeing the Justice Department, which in turn is negotiating a fine with his biggest lender.
"Does it look bad? Does it look like exactly someone might cut Deutsche Bank a deal because they want their boss's boss to be happier? Yeah, absolutely, of course," Johnson says. "And that's why we try to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest."
Richard Painter, a former chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, says it would be best if the case were resolved under the Obama administration.
But Painter, now a law professor at the University of Minnesota, says even if the case against Deutsche Bank can be resolved, there are a host of other potential conflicts surrounding the Trump International Hotel — such as guests staying there as a way to curry favor with Trump.
Source
|
Here's to hoping future deals Trump makes to keep businesses in the US go better than this Carrier thing 
|
I'm still waiting to decide how satisfactory I find this deal; in part as I expect additional info may come out.
If this money is going to the companies, rather than to the workers, it's corporate welfare in a sense. I wonder what the net benefit to workers is from subsidizing the company.
What's an acceptable rate of spending to keep jobs in the country? How good does a deal need to be good?
For a company to stay when it wishes to leave it must be made an offer, which must necessarily involve consideration, be it pecuniary or otherwise. But many forms of non-pecuniary compensation do have some such value as well. So many hard questions to answer.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The 1000 jobs were saved with 7 million in state subsidies over several years. If that's all there is to it, it was a pretty good deal for Indiana. 1000 jobs is tens of millions per year in wages and a lot more in revenue and the such.
So I'm waiting to check if I got the numbers wrong or if there is more to it.
|
It's not a completely terrible deal, but I don't think its a replicable one. A $7m tax break over 10 years doesn't nearly equate to the $650 million in savings that Carrier announced they would have gotten from moving operations to Mexico, so there's something else going on in the background. I would guess that the real terms of the deal were related to the government contracts that Carrier's parent has, which are worth serious cash.
Oh, and a bunch of Carrier jobs still moved to Mexico anyways.
|
In September, as Donald Trump railed against the media and sold himself as the candidate of the forgotten man, Ivanka Trump ventured into the lair of the liberal media and power elite that was laughing at her father.
She jetted off to Aspen with her husband, Jared Kushner, to attend “Weekend with Charlie Rose,” an off-the-record gathering at which 90 percent of invitees were Trump haters.
The annual event is typically filled with Nobel laureates, former government officials, royalty from abroad, business moguls and celebrity chefs who engage in intimate foreign- and economic-policy discussions, coupled with outdoor bonding activities like tennis and fly fishing. Harvey Weinstein, who hosts the Clintons in the Hamptons, added a Hollywood touch this year.
Google’s Eric Schmidt — who helped design the Democratic data systems meant to defeat Trump — typically serves as a co-host.
If there were any question whether Ivanka’s deep involvement in her father’s divisive campaign would ruin her social standing among liberals, here was her answer: Less than two months before Election Day, she was still a member of the club — albeit with a full security detail keeping her at a slight remove.
Ivanka, 35, Trump’s avatar among the moneyed left-wing elite, is now poised to be the first “first daughter” in modern history to play a larger public role than the first lady. And she’s positioning herself exactly as she did that weekend — as a bridge to moderates and liberals disgusted and depressed with the tone and tenor of the new leader of the free world.
And the ambitious daughter, who once plotted her career around international brand domination, is planning to take on an even heavier lift. Ivanka wants to make climate change — which her father has called a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese — one of her signature issues, a source close to her told Politico. The source said Ivanka is in the early stages of exploring how to use her spotlight to speak out on the issue.
If she can pull it off, her advocacy could come as a bit of solace to fearful Americans. Over the past week, New Yorkers concerned about Trump’s election have posted “Dear Ivanka” letters on social media and outside the Puck Building in lower Manhattan, which is owned by her husband. One theme of the letters is a fear that Trump will dismantle the Obama administration’s signature climate change policies.
Advocating opposition to CO2 emissions and fossil fuels will inevitably create another warring sphere of influence in Trump’s orbit: Incoming Chief of staff Reince Priebus has clarified in recent days that Trump’s “default position” on climate change is that “most of it is a bunch of bunk.”
But no one is closer to Trump than his eldest daughter, and it would not be the first traditionally liberal position she has tried preaching to conservatives. At the Republican National Convention in July, Ivanka championed pay equity and parental leave, family issues she intends to continue pushing from what will likely be a unique platform that represents her role as an adviser, a surrogate and functional first lady.
Source
|
On December 02 2016 04:56 ticklishmusic wrote:
It's not a completely terrible deal, but I don't think its a replicable one. A $7m tax break over 10 years doesn't nearly equate to the $650 million in savings that Carrier announced they would have gotten from moving operations to Mexico, so there's something else going on in the background. I would guess that the real terms of the deal were related to the government contracts that Carrier's parent has, which are worth serious cash.
Oh, and a bunch of Carrier jobs still moved to Mexico anyways.
you may have a typo. isn't it 65 mil rather than 650?
I am inclinded to agree there's more going on, perhaps with the other gov't contracts or some other details.
While it is possible to use threats on other gov't contracts as leverage to get better deals, doing so has risks and long-term consequences of its own that can make it harder for the gov't to get good deals in the future. If every gov't contract includes a risk of the gov't demanding you give them a sweeter deal or they randomly pull out of other contracts, then there will be more reluctant to make such contracts, which makes them more expensive.
There's no (or rarely) free lunch.
|
On December 02 2016 05:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 04:56 ticklishmusic wrote:
It's not a completely terrible deal, but I don't think its a replicable one. A $7m tax break over 10 years doesn't nearly equate to the $650 million in savings that Carrier announced they would have gotten from moving operations to Mexico, so there's something else going on in the background. I would guess that the real terms of the deal were related to the government contracts that Carrier's parent has, which are worth serious cash.
Oh, and a bunch of Carrier jobs still moved to Mexico anyways. you may have a typo. isn't it 65 mil rather than 650? I am inclinded to agree there's more going on, perhaps with the other gov't contracts or some other details. While it is possible to use threats on other gov't contracts as leverage to get better deals, doing so has risks and long-term consequences of its own that can make it harder for the gov't to get good deals in the future. If every gov't contract includes a risk of the gov't demanding you give them a sweeter deal or they randomly pull out of other contracts, then there will be more reluctant to make such contracts, which makes them more expensive. There's no (or rarely) free lunch.
65 per year, 650 for 10 years.
pretty much. and not every company considering outsourcing is a us gov contractor. and even if they are, the leverage may not be there.
|
“He has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote in an op-ed on Thursday for The Washington Post.
God damn it Bernie, no shit. Companies aren't bound to the USA by law, this isn't the Soviet Union. Companies are allowed to (and already) relocate manufacturing to elsewhere if it means improving profit. Why is it BAD that America be friendly to businesses, if it means that jobs stay in the USA.
Shit, man. Trump can't catch a break, whatever he does, he does wrong.
|
Bernie is simply saying that you're trading a short term employment benefit for a structural problem. Keeping unproductive jobs and low tax economies alive is actually the worst of both worlds.
|
On December 02 2016 05:30 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +“He has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote in an op-ed on Thursday for The Washington Post. God damn it Bernie, no shit. Companies aren't bound to the USA by law, this isn't the Soviet Union. Companies are allowed to (and already) relocate manufacturing to elsewhere if it means improving profit. Why is it BAD that America be friendly to businesses, if it means that jobs stay in the USA. Shit, man. Trump can't catch a break, whatever he does, he does wrong.
You didn't understand his point. He's saying companies that didn't plan to leave the US now have a reason to threaten to do so to get benefits. You know, the same argument that every single Trump supporter in this thread used in regards to the Iran deal.
|
The details of the deal don't even matter, we have a president fighting for the average blue collar worker instead of lying down and having a default pessimistic stance towards globalization, oh and the 1100 jobs don't hurt either. Not even in office yet and we are seeing the results of what a White House is going to look like when it's not run by someone who talks for a living. Happy to see it
|
On December 02 2016 05:48 biology]major wrote:
The details of the deal don't even matter, we have a president fighting for the average blue collar worker instead of lying down and having a default pessimistic stance towards globalization, oh and the 1100 jobs don't hurt either. Not even in office yet and we are seeing the results of what a White House is going to look like when it's not run by someone who talks for a living. Happy to see it
It's utter nonsense that the details don't matter. That's jsut dumb. If he saved the jobs by spending $40k per worker per year that'd be an obviously terrible deal.
Plenty of politicians have fought for average workers in the past, it's done ALL the time at the state/local level as well as federal.
The problem is that if you push protectionism, in the long run it really does hurt everyone; and as the world changes, some things really do change for the worse in some industries for various reasons, trying to paper over those issues without fixing the underlying problem just leaves a bigger problem down the line.
edit: removed last line as it was incorrect.
|
On December 02 2016 05:33 Nyxisto wrote:
Bernie is simply saying that you're trading a short term employment benefit for a structural problem. Keeping unproductive jobs and low tax economies alive is actually the worst of both worlds.
line workers aren't unproductive though. the company i did my internship at made air conditioning systems (dehumidifiers, etc.) from start to finish. really nice machines
you can be damn sure that the people who were putting the machines together were not unproductive. they were very productive, were skilled and organized. that company has been around since the 80s, making customized HVAC units for years, with huge clients such as air france, ikea, cinemas, etc.
if you're a big enough company, then moving to mexico might scrape you a few % on your margins. for a smaller company like the one i worked at, moving jobs offshore is basically suicide because of the ridiculous amount of organization and other expenses require to make it work. the company i worked at had offices, CEO, design offices, etc. all in the same building. they were productive, as i'm sure that carrier was productive.
the role of the government is to serve its people. if giving a few tax breaks to carrier allows it to scrape the margins it wanted by moving, while also keeping jobs (which is a legitimate economic boon to the USA) in the country, then i'd say it's good move.
i mean it's not like it was the best deal in the world or anything, but i think this is more commendable then not
|
Also those Carrier jobs will likely still leave, just quietly a year or two from now ~_~ its really just optics. UT gets so much cash from government contracts and Carrier has paper thin margins because it is losing market share because the price of its product is higher and that is due a lot to labor. As was said before a lot of jobs from Carrier still left and saving a few (for a little while) while giving the parent company a bunch of benefits while also basically having the public think they saved jobs instead of merely a portion of them.
Its just a small victory working with a company closely tied by government contracts to give Trump something to parade out.
|
On December 02 2016 05:34 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 05:30 Incognoto wrote:“He has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote in an op-ed on Thursday for The Washington Post. God damn it Bernie, no shit. Companies aren't bound to the USA by law, this isn't the Soviet Union. Companies are allowed to (and already) relocate manufacturing to elsewhere if it means improving profit. Why is it BAD that America be friendly to businesses, if it means that jobs stay in the USA. Shit, man. Trump can't catch a break, whatever he does, he does wrong. You didn't understand his point. He's saying companies that didn't plan to leave the US now have a reason to threaten to do so to get benefits. You know, the same argument that every single Trump supporter in this thread used in regards to the Iran deal.
They always had this reason to threaten to leave if they didn't get benefits to stay. Have you looked at our sports stadiums? They make everyone elses in the world look like garbage (outside of the national stadiums or olympics) because the sports teams threaten to leave if they don't get half a billion in public money for them.
I would rather think that trump was threatening some of the governmental contracts carrier gets in order to force them to give him a pr victory.
|
On December 02 2016 05:52 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2016 05:33 Nyxisto wrote:
Bernie is simply saying that you're trading a short term employment benefit for a structural problem. Keeping unproductive jobs and low tax economies alive is actually the worst of both worlds. line workers aren't unproductive though. the company i did my internship at made air conditioning systems (dehumidifiers, etc.) from start to finish. really nice machines you can be damn sure that the people who were putting the machines together were not unproductive. they were very productive, were skilled and organized. that company has been around since the 80s, making customized HVAC units for years, with huge clients such as air france, ikea, cinemas, etc. if you're a big enough company, then moving to mexico might scrape you a few % on your margins. for a smaller company like the one i worked at, moving jobs offshore is basically suicide because of the ridiculous amount of organization and other expenses require to make it work. the company i worked at had offices, CEO, design offices, etc. all in the same building. they were productive, as i'm sure that carrier was productive. the role of the government is to serve its people. if giving a few tax breaks to carrier allows it to scrape the margins it wanted by moving, while also keeping jobs (which is a legitimate economic boon to the USA) in the country, then i'd say it's good move. i mean it's not like it was the best deal in the world or anything, but i think this is more commendable then not
but we can't really talk about it as if it is just one exception. If we're going to discuss if the policy makes sense we should look at what happens if this becomes the rule, and lowering taxes for companies who threaten to move abroad is essentially some kind of hostage situation. "Either you cut our taxes or.." isn't a very healthy direction. Also the US unemployment isn't high and growth is good, there's no real need for measures like this.
|
Eh, this deal is exactly what Trump voters expected from him - he obviously threatened to withdraw "other" contracts from the massive ones the company has with the government if they move. As a defense manufacturer you have to stay on the good side of your largest customer especially when he's steered by a populist who won't flinch an eye if he loses the government money if he wins tons of points with his voter base. The subsidy is nothing compared to the benefits the area gets from the line staying there. So it's great success from trump. On top of that he can argue that Carrier manufacturing should stay within the country too, another big Victory for patriotic voters, tough to spin it otherwisenot sure how anti-trump people can still try to do so.
Here it marks the start of an era of protectionism and pulling power, bullying companies and countries into deals and putting US first. Trump voters will love it, it will probably get him re-elected but it'll be bad for the global economy in the long run (as forcing inefficiencies is) and ultimately for the US as well. But that's what the voters picked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
