Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Public schools

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Author
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 July 2009 at 4:53pm
I still remmember the administrator at Bergan asking me what was the level of disipline I would expect from them, and my respose was, "as long as no blood is drawn" and Troops face dropped.

There is little or no control in the public schools, more of a warehouse/babysitting service for parents too bothered to be involved. Go to a PTA meeting or school sport or band event, and the parental involvment is self evident. Empty seats and expectant faces from the students is the norm, parents are too "busy".
The inmates run the asylem as students are texting, on cell phones or worse while the course matter is being "taught", yet it is the school's inability to enforce rules that creates poor performance. And the parents then blame the school for thier kids poor performance.

Generations survived without the "required" cell phones and other electronic do-dads, and we even had to do our math without a calculator.

Equality in education is a joke. My arguement for my Ed Class was for school uniforms. Instantly eliminates any financial inequality in dress. From the military to street gangs some form of uniform instantly creates a bond to the group, instead of a percieved inequality. Little Mary in her hand me down clothes sitting next to spoiled little Susan in her designer clothing instantly puts Mary on an unequal plane, and has a direct effect on the learning curve due to social pressures.

Ever seen a Japanese or German school? Disipline works, and thier results are proof.
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 July 2009 at 5:23pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Yes, but sadly (based on personal observation) they don't necessarily seem to be doing so anymore.

Meanwhile schools take the blame for not completely preparing kids to be adults.


Which is unfair.  What schools should take the blame for is teaching people to pass tests as opposed to teaching people useful knowledge.  (Not saying that the knowledge isn't useful; just that the orientation towards test-passing renders the real world uses less obvious to students.)

Schools should also take the blame for replacing the distilling of knowledge with (in some cases) social engineering and political correctness.  While we're at it the school system should also be faulted for fostering/continuing a system where teachers jobs are based on tenure instead of competence.

Word.
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 July 2009 at 9:57pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

The preparation for life should include mandatory financial management classes.  (And maybe a lecture explaining that once you live on your own it is unreasonable to expect mommy and daddy to continue cleaning up your messes.)
Here here.

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:


Equality in education is a joke. My arguement for my Ed Class was for school uniforms. Instantly eliminates any financial inequality in dress. From the military to street gangs some form of uniform instantly creates a bond to the group, instead of a percieved inequality. Little Mary in her hand me down clothes sitting next to spoiled little Susan in her designer clothing instantly puts Mary on an unequal plane, and has a direct effect on the learning curve due to social pressures.
Agreed. As long as the dress code also includes footwear. I went to a catholic school for seven years and that was the issue. When my dad got laid off when the copper mill he worked at closed I wore shoes from payless and was teased relentlessly for it (go, go gadget fourth grade). To make matters worse the teacher felt the need to address the issue to the entire class furthering the embarrassment. Ahh, to be young.

This report from the trenches brought to you by nostalgia, for all the crap that seemed cool at the time and MBro, the guy with the big head.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
Enos Shenk View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
~-o@

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: A comfy chair
Status: Offline
Points: 14109
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Enos Shenk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 1:54pm
In my opinion, its two things.

One, the ridiculous impossibility for administrators to get rid of a crappy teacher. And two, no choice in which school you can attend in your district.

The HS I went to had a gigantormous football program. Half the money that school got went into their football program. Except I could care less about sports, I was into computers and shop class, which other schools in the district did better. Except I had no choice, and Im sure some other kid in another HS region had no choice and really wanted to go to the football school. Its pure idiocy.

Whenever someone brings that up to the powers that be, the answer is usually "Well, we couldnt have that because everyone would opt to attend the best HS in the district, and it would be too crowded!" Well freaking DUH, thats the point...

I read an article not too long ago that after Kitrina hit New Orleans, they totally suspended this concept and let parents send their kids to whichever HS they chose, and oddly enough it worked.

But honestly, I dont believe HS matters much at all. The entire point of it is to turn you into a good little no-questions-asked citizen. I can honestly say I didnt learn a single useful thing in HS. In my electives, I already knew more than they taught. Hell, in my computer classes in HS I taught other students more than the teacher did, and fixed all the problems with the machines in the classroom.

And just my 2 cents, if my HS had has a uniform, I would have been suspended every day, because I never would have worn the bloody thing. Nobody forces me to conform.


Edited by Enos Shenk - 29 July 2009 at 1:59pm
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 2:53pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Moreover, they are irrelevant because THEY AREN'T THE ONES GOING TO SCHOOL.  Their children are going to school, not the welfare cases.  It must be cold in your world indeed for you to declare a child unworthy of a good education simply because you disapprove of her mother's behavior.
 
I once spoke with a principal that said by the third grade he could tell you which kids were going to make it and which ones weren't. And before you say it, it saddened him. To watch bright beautiful children full of life and thirst to learn slowly, but surely slide down the wrong path, most of which either didn't graduate or graduated by the skin of their teeth. Perhaps the money would be better spent on parenting classes. I watch these same kids as a coach and see what he is saying. Short of taking these kids away from their parents, they are doomed. It may sound cold, but yeah, I would rather see the money spent on kids that have a chance.

 
I should (and hereby do) apologize for my FE-esque retreat to copypasta.  I must admit that I was a little taken aback by your response here.
 
I understand what leads to this type of sentiment - spending some time with hardcore welfare cases can turn anybody into a cynic.  But at the same time, I object to your conclusion on two bases:
 
1.  Economic Self-Interest.  Purely as a cynical capitalist, I note that poverty is the leading cause of just about every major ill on the planet.  Crime, disease, terrorism, war, economic slowdown - it's all about poverty.  And while poverty, by definition, can never be eradicated, keeping it under control will benefit us all greatly.  Poverty is a major drag on the economy, and it is therefore a good societal investment to combat poverty.  However, it also follows automatically that overcoming poverty requires per-capita investment in the poor and uneducated GREATER than the per-capita investment in the non-poor.  Underperforming assets need more help than overperforming assets.
 
2.  The Fundamental American Principle of Equal Opportunity.  This, of course, is what set off my melt-down.  I acknowledge that not everybody is created equal, and I obviously acknowledge that failure rates are higher in some populations than in others - and sometimes so high that it seems as though we should abandon them entirely.  It is also true that some demographic indicators are powerful predictors of future success - again, sometimes to the point of apparent certainty, to the point where investing in some people seems like a waste of resources.
 
BUT.  BUT - that is not the American way.  That is the totalitarian way.  The true communist way, the Nazi way (apologies to Mr. Godwin), it is the Gattica way.  In 'MERICA, we don't look at the genetic code of any individual and decide that this one will be a scientists and that one a politician.  We do not segregate out portions of the population as unworthy.  That don't do these things - not because they are necessarily illogical or irrational - but because they are WRONG and counter to the central American idea that everybody gets a fair chance to give it a go.  In America we do not promise success, but (at least in spirit and in theory) we promise the opportunity to try, and we promise as level of a playing field as we can promise.
 
Yes, I know that there is a very long way from not dumping vast funds into inner-city schools to forced career selection and eugenics, but the underlying principles are the same, and your statement shocked my conscience.
 
Since we are in an education thread - here is a comparison that illustrates this cultural feature of the US of A:  Here, when you apply to a university program, you submit a variety of information about yourself.  You submit your test scores, your GPA, your extracurricular activities, your family history, your personal story, your hobbies, your recommendations, your personal achievements, etc.  All of those things, and more, will be considered to varying degrees when determining your admission.  There are very few hard requirements, and the final decision is made (at least in theory) on a holistic evaluation.
 
Compare this to some other educational systems around the world, where your admission to a university program is based completely or almost completely on your score on a single standardized test.  No soft factors, no explanations, no nothing.  Your test score tells you which school you can attend and which subjects you can study.  Other systems may introduce some other factors, but still heavily emphasize one or two specific test results.
 
The latter program has much merit - yet it has virtually zero chance of ever being adopted here in the States.  This is true because here in America we have a fundamental societal belief that we are greater than the sum of our numbers.  We believe that we cannot be fully captured by our test scores or our demographics, or even our genetics.  Frankly, usually this belief is wrong - the numbers are actually pretty darned good - but that isn't the point.  This is a moral position, and I believe that having this moral position on a national level is one of our greatest assets.  It makes us stubborn and persistent and determined to win despite the odds.  This somewhat irrational faith in the power of humanity even in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles is what makes us American and not Chinese (no offense to the Chinese intended).
 
And THIS is why we should go out of our way to pump money into inner-city schools.  Despite the disinterested parents, despite the numbers that say very few of these kids will succeed, I believe that we have a moral duty as Americans to make this investment.  If we decline just because they are a low-probability investment, then I believe we have surrended part of sets Americans apart from the other peoples of the Earth.
 
/idealistic nationalistic rant
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

 Butterflies, rainbows and Unicorns  
Ideologically excellent argument=/= real world.
 
If my kid is 5'2" with a gimpy left leg, I could work with him every single day, take him to lessons, send him to Shaq's BBall Jamboree camp, but in the end, he will not ever play professional basketball. Why as a society, must we delude ourselves into thinking that anyone can be whatever they want to be as long as they try GOSH DARN HARD!? I can mentor kids, I can volunteer and coach(which I do) and try to be a positive influence in kids lives, but there is only so much someone can do and at some point, guess what? Reality check. I have several kids that have been on my teams that I know are at risk and have worked hard to try and be a positive influence in their lives, but in reality, I know that I might as well be banging my head against the wall. It's all puppydogs and lollipops, until the kid goes back home where he is surrounded by negative influences. And yes, I do keep trying, but at what cost? When do you say when? This relates directly to the school system. You can have teachers with doctorates and masters degrees out of every orafice, but as soon as the kids walk out that door...... BAM! Reality check please.  Do I study, or go out boozing and hanging out with my friends? And if I don't have that support system from my parents, which a whole freaking lot of kids don't, guess who wins? So unless you are prepared to not only improve their schools, but also their neighborhoods, friends and every aspect of their lives, you might as well be burning the money in your outdoor fire pit. At least you would be able to roast some marshmellows with the kids and spend some quality time.
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 3:56pm
thats a rather flawed example to counteract the arguement that he put forth - obviously people with movement disabilities aren't ever going to be good at sports - just as its obvious people with severe learning disabilities aren't going to be revered scholars. thats not what were talking about here - those people have specific things that completely prevent them from being successful in certian areas - being poor and growing up in a bad nieghborhood should not be viewed as such. alot of very intelligent and successfull people have come from poor areas and families, and there are others who have the abilities to be successfull but because of environment and/or poor education can never fully utilize thier potential, and as direct result many of these people are using thier skills to the detriment of society rather that its benefit. trying to redirect and train the abilities of people to help them aspire to something good is VASTLY different then trying to force someone into a role that they don't have the ability for - no matter how hard they try, or how well they are taught.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 4:08pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

 Butterflies, rainbows and Unicorns  
 
Ideologically excellent argument=/= real world.
 
 
Yes and no.  Obviously, ideology cannot be applied directly.  But ideology shapes our behavior and motivations.  Sometimes, "incorrect" behavior motivated by ideology is still the right thing to do, because simply demonstrating conformance to a favorable ideology is itself valuable.
 
We can't afford to be all fluffy bunnies all the time, but neither can we afford to be grumpy cynics all the time.  Applying Vulcan logic to all decisions will very quickly make us the bad guys, and being bad guys is very detrimental to all.
 
Gattica-like society is no doubt very efficient - yet most would consider it an unacceptably evil way to be.  Sometimes we have to make sacrifices to preserve our morality.
 
Quote If my kid is 5'2" with a gimpy left leg, I could work with him every single day, take him to lessons, send him to Shaq's BBall Jamboree camp, but in the end, he will not ever play professional basketball.
 
Very true - that, however, is not what I am talking about.
 
Quote  Why as a society, must we delude ourselves into thinking that anyone can be whatever they want to be as long as they try GOSH DARN HARD!?
 
Also true - and also not what I am talking about.  In fact, I believe I specifically advocated just a few posts earlier greater segregation and tracking based in part on academic ability.  One of the biggest drags on our educational system is (IMO) people in Shakespeare or Calculus class who have no business being there.  I also strongly oppose the constant pressure for everybody to go to college.
 
Clearly, all men are NOT created equal, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.
 
Quote I have several kids that have been on my teams that I know are at risk and have worked hard to try and be a positive influence in their lives
 
Good for you - I knew you weren't all grump all the time.   :)
 
Quote I know that I might as well be banging my head against the wall. It's all puppydogs and lollipops, until the kid goes back home where he is surrounded by negative influences. And yes, I do keep trying, but at what cost?
 
But yet you do keep trying.  Why is that, exactly?  Shouldn't you just throw them under the bus instead?  What is it that motivates you to not give up, despite the apparent futility of the task?
 
Quote So unless you are prepared to not only improve their schools, but also their neighborhoods, friends and every aspect of their lives, you might as well be burning the money in your outdoor fire pit.
 
And this is a very valid issue.  This goes for criminal recidivism, drug use, poverty, and so forth.  So much of our future is shaped by the people we see every day.  And I agree - we should not simply dump money into schools (or anything else) without measuring results and identifying obstacles to success.
 
So perhaps, for some schools, instead of spending money on teachers with PhDs, we spend the money on after-school programs, or decentralized homework centers.  Maybe we hire neighborhood tutors.  I don't know the answer, but I do know that with some though and effort it is a near-certainty that we could improve the current situation.
 
AND, of course, by improving the worst schools even a little bit we will also improve those neighborhoods a little bit, which in turn will improve the schools further.  Feedback cycles don't have to be negative - we can use them to our advantage.
 
But anyway - my point here is that we cannot and should not simply write off any school as unfixable.  I think that is a foolish decision, and I also think it is an immoral decision.  We MUST keep trying to find a better way.  If we try something and it doesn't work, then ditch the plan and try something else.  But for goodness' sake we can't just give up on our fellow Americans.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 4:18pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

If we try something and it doesn't work, then ditch the plan and try something else. 
 


exactly - and out of a purely logical point of view, poorly performing schools are the best place to try something like that....
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 4:25pm

Ok, so riddle me this. Once we have spent ourselves into oblivian and everyone gets their fair chance, where does that leave us? Now we all have these great educations and bright outlook on life, what next? So the kid in the hood just bumped yours from getting into his school of choice, what now? And where are all these bright young educated folks going to work? Isn't all you're doing is increasing the competition for what jobs are out there? It all sounds great on paper, but in soceties, there are always going to be the haves and have nots. Simply by increasing the pool of potential contenders only lessens each individuals potential earning doesn't it? So now, we are a society with 95% HS graduation rate, increased collegiate output and nowhere to put them. Taking the scenario far enough, you will have to have a bachelors to work at BK Lounge.

Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 4:30pm
more educated workforce = higher productivity = more efficient means of creating things = cheaper products = better exports = better economy = more good jobs and lower cost of living.

Edited by adrenalinejunky - 29 July 2009 at 4:31pm
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 4:40pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

So the kid in the hood just bumped yours from getting into his school of choice, what now?
 
I don't understand the question.
 
 
Quote And where are all these bright young educated folks going to work? Isn't all you're doing is increasing the competition for what jobs are out there?
 
Exactly.  And as a staunch capitalist, I think that this is a good thing.  Not only a good thing, but a required thing for progress.
 
Quote It all sounds great on paper, but in soceties, there are always going to be the haves and have nots.
 
True on a relative scale within any given society, but completely false on a relative scale between different societies.
 
Quote Simply by increasing the pool of potential contenders only lessens each individuals potential earning doesn't it?
 
Only if the fundamental principles of capitalism are completely and utterly false. 
 
Since capitalism is actually fairly well-proven, I think we can safely conclude that increased competition will benefit society.
 
Quote  So now, we are a society with 95% HS graduation rate, increased collegiate output and nowhere to put them. Taking the scenario far enough, you will have to have a bachelors to work at BK Lounge.
 
Well, that goes back to my earlier point that not everybody ought to be going to college.  A college degree is just a piece of paper.
 
But why do you say there will be nowhere to put them?  And why are we putting them anywhere?  A central feature of education is that it leads to innovation.  And a central feature of capitalism is that it takes advantage of innovation.
 
History is replete with education-driven innovation, and innovation-driven economic expansion.
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 6:01pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

more educated workforce = higher productivity = more efficient means of creating things = cheaper products = better exports = better economy = more good jobs and lower cost of living.
  Really? Is that way so many manufacturing jobs have gone overseas? So by your logic China and India must have the highest percentage of educated workers? I think we know better. More educated workforce= demand for higher pay= jobs going overseas where they work for $.05/hour=loss of jobs=bunch of unemployed college graduates.
 
And PP, in one breath you are talking about having a more educated workforce and in the other saying there are too many college graduates. You still lose me every time on that one. Also, the more people you have qualified to do a job, the less pay there is to go around. Isn't simple supply and demand? If I have 5 welders and need 10, I have to pay those 5 better so that they don't leave. If I have 20 welders applying for 10 positions, I don't have to offer top dollar as I just move onto the next one. Saturation of the work force isn't a good thing.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 6:17pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

more educated workforce = higher productivity = more efficient means of creating things = cheaper products = better exports = better economy = more good jobs and lower cost of living.
 
 
Really? Is that way so many manufacturing jobs have gone overseas?
 
In a manner of speaking, yes.
 
Quote So by your logic China and India must have the highest percentage of educated workers?
 
No - the opposite is true.  That's part of the reason why outsourcing has been so successful.
 
Quote More educated workforce= demand for higher pay= jobs going overseas where they work for $.05/hour=loss of jobs=bunch of unemployed college graduates.
 
Kind of, but you are leaving out some elements:
 
More educated elements = ability to create more value, on the average = more value created = more jobs created with higher pay.
 
You will notice, for instance, how the unemployment in the US has stayed fairly steady (and low) over the years, despite the continuing outsourcing of low-level jobs.  Why do you think that is?
 
 
 
Quote And PP, in one breath you are talking about having a more educated workforce and in the other saying there are too many college graduates. You still lose me every time on that one.
 
I don't know why, it is pretty straight forward.  I want to increase the overall efficiency of our workforce - in the sense that as much as possible we should maximize the potential utility of each worker, without wasting resources on education that does not increase their potential utility.
 
Letting a guy remain uneducated when he could be more useful as a welder is inefficient.  Forcing a perfectly good future welder to go to college is wasteful if he isn't smart enough to benefit from college.
 
Most people are pretty good at figuring out more or less where they can of the best use, and given sufficient opportunity will find their way there.  We just need to remove the roadblocks and stop pushing people in the wrong direction.
 
Quote Also, the more people you have qualified to do a job, the less pay there is to go around. Isn't simple supply and demand? If I have 5 welders and need 10, I have to pay those 5 better so that they don't leave. If I have 20 welders applying for 10 positions, I don't have to offer top dollar as I just move onto the next one. Saturation of the work force isn't a good thing.
 
Which is why everybody won't go to welding school.
 
The joy of the free market is that is a very efficient mechanism for the correct allocation of resources.  So the guy who wants to be either a welder or an electrician will choose the one with the better pay, and educate himself accordingly.
 
And THAT really is the point here.  We all have many career options and choices during our lifetimes.  In a perfectly efficient market we would be able to instantly switch careers to the one that would pay us the most at that moment.  Now, we can't get to that point, obviously, but we can certainly do a whole lot better job of making it easier to gain the skills needed for the job you want.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 6:38pm
peter pretty much took the words out of my mouth - i would add that manufacturing jobs are not particularly high paying - there are different levels of productivity. creative productivity tends to be payed better the labor productivity, thus, more people we have in this country doing the creative productivity relative to labor productivity, the better off the average worker in the country will be.

replacing low paying jobs with high paying jobs is always a good thing.
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 6:41pm
It does seem interesting that after the "Greatest Generation" got thier GI-Bill benifits after WW2, the role of college was over emphisized, yet American manufacturing was still asending. Now jump ahead to the late 60's and the beginnings of social engineering programs, and our high school grad rates started to drop, and the ability to provide workers skilled in math, measurement, and deductive reasoning begins to drop. Leading to the exodus of manufacturing to more friendly enviornments (Japanese Auto makers begin to overtake American in quality and price) because the education standards for the critical tasks were kept and not diluted with crap classes. Now it is the over educated? running the bussinesses that are searching for cheap labor, if not more skilled to manufacture products Americans are no longer capable of making. The only high skill manufacturing anymore is in the defense industries, and now with cutbacks looming where are these skilled manufacuring laborers going to turn for employment, for there is little manufacturing left in the private sector.

Another interesting outcome of the late 60's, those who grew up during that period avoiding government service, are now the proponants of more interest in government service programs.

Edited by oldsoldier - 29 July 2009 at 6:43pm
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 6:52pm
high skill manufacturing is slowly becoming an endagered trade - though i would argue that it has less to do with relative education levels and more to do with the the ideas that have stemmed from education in the past. these days it tends to be more efficient to pay 1 moron to watch a machine do something then pay several skilled laborers to do the same job but take longer doing it.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 6:55pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

high skill manufacturing is slowly becoming an endagered trade - though i would argue that it has less to do with relative education levels and more to do with the the ideas that have stemmed from education in the past. these days it tends to be more efficient to pay 1 moron to watch a machine do something then pay several skilled laborers to do the same job but take longer doing it.
 
Yep.  Innovation at work.  That machine was invented by a bunch of educated guys who would have been skilled laborers a generation earlier.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 6:58pm
Who makes the machine that the "moron" watches? A Indian, Chinese, Japanese, German educated laborer skilled in math, measurement and deductive reasoning. Machines do not make themselves....yet....cyberdyne is coming but not yet. WALL-E was an interesting concept into machine labor vs human interaction.

Edited by oldsoldier - 29 July 2009 at 6:59pm
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 7:03pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Who makes the machine that the "moron" watches? A Indian, Chinese, Japanese, German educated laborer skilled in math, measurement and deductive reasoning. Machines do not make themselves....yet....cyberdyne is coming but not yet. WALL-E was an interesting concept into machine labor vs human interaction.


who holds the patent on that machine that the chinese, japanese, or german educated laborer is making, that patent holder can use that money to pay many more people to come up with new innovations.

who's running the factory that the moron is watching the machine is in? who can use the extra efficiency to deliver a better product at a better price and use the rest of the extra money to pay people to come up with new innovations.

Edited by adrenalinejunky - 29 July 2009 at 7:05pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.