It seems these days everyone is overeducated. It takes a degree to become manager of a McDonalds.

People obviously aren't getting smarter. So why do so many people get into colleges that it is taken as the norm and a neccessity? It's not as if they're actually learning anything during those few years.

That is america, america has always been stupid.

Homer

Still waiting for meaningful replies.

Universities are a billion dollar a year business, good marketing has made everyone think that they have no choice but to go to college, that it, is basically required. Which it is becoming, but people are going to college and end up taking the same jobs for the same salary they could of got coming out of highschool a few years ago.

And people are spending more time in college, since attendance is rising, class space is declining, and the universities like it that way (more years in school=more tuition paid)

What do we do to combat this disturbing circumstance?

Circumlocate? There must be a decent solution.

Many parents put an extreme amount of pressure on their children to go to college. These parents don't seem to realize that college is not for everybody. I know several people of below average intelligence who are planning to go to college because of this pressure. It won't help them; they will not succeed in life due to their inability to think and make decisions.
I will go to college, but I would never pay for it. An education at a decent university costs close to $100,000 USD. However, to do what I want to do with my life I need to learn how do do it and much of that can be done at a university. Basically, I guess what I am trying to say is that a college education isn't needed for everything, there are certain "intangibles" that one needs to have to be successful. One will still be incompetent and dangerously unqualified to do their job with or without a college education if they do not have these "intangibles". That is my two cents.

People don't need the degrees, but they do to become employed, because of the rise of expectations.

Mass K-12 schooling is worthless for real education. It's there for indoctrination purposes.

It's all well and fine to complain about the problem, but what we need is a plan to correct it. What reforms need to be implemented?

Personally, I think need-based aid for colleges should be eliminated, they should be turned into non-profit organizations, and the government should provide them with a constant amount of funds.

As for K-12, it should eliminate all the worthless classes (Art, etc.) or at least make them elective. It should then divide the students into two groups. Those bound for manual labor, who would begin vocational training at about age 12, and those destined to become engineers, bueracrats, and other intellectual laborers.

Only one way to fix the school system. Privatize it and make it non-compulsory.

Good idea. Vouchers?

On closer thought, the education people want for their childeren is often not the right education for their childeren.

This college stuff is all about money, that's it. I have been told numerous times that I have to make good grades in-order to be accepted to a college. I know, and I think you all know, that's bullshit. If you had a lot of green you could be accepted to any college, even if you had an F average in school. And as mentioned earlier, it is pressured on young people to attend college. Actually when I think about it, it is more like scare tactics. I'm told that if I don't have a college degree, I could only hope to be a garbage man, and one day I'll probably need a college degree for that. There must be a someway to combat this, unfortuantely, all I can do is piss and moan about it. I've been told I have no voice in this country because I have no college degree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Good idea. Vouchers?

---

No, no tax money involved. Just separation of School and State.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
On closer thought, the education people want for their childeren is often not the right education for their childeren.

---

Do you trust the government to give the "right" education to children more than the family?

I agree with Mouse. As long as government is tied to education, there will always be the temptation on the governments part to regulate what the schools teach. By this I mean indoctrination.

The parents may not always make the best choices, but they are in an infinitely better position to make those choices than the state.

Vouchers are a step in the right direction as a slow transition is needed for people to accept it.

No, I don't think the government does better. But I can see the government changing, wheras families I cannot.

I support indoctrination, as long as the right things are being indoctrinated.

And if you don't like what is being indoctrinated?

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
No, I don't think the government does better. But I can see the government changing, wheras families I cannot.

I support indoctrination, as long as the right things are being indoctrinated.

---

Government has been in control of education for decades, and ever change has been for the worse. They failed. I say give the choice back to the families.

Who decides what are the "right" things to be indoctrinated? If the government is in control, you won't.

One could argue that since the government is comprised of elected officials that the people do in fact control the indoctriantion. This is crap anyways as it is a tyranny of the majority. The response time is also horrible and getting government to change is like watching molasses drip.

You counter-indoctrinate and fight for a good government that indoctrinates the right things.

What are the right things to indoctrinate?

edit:
woops, The Mouse beat me.

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 12-02-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
You counter-indoctrinate and fight for a good government that indoctrinates the right things.

---

Wouldn't an easier solution be to just make the school system non-compulsory and privatized? Instead of fighting for "a good government" (which might take decades, and by then your kids are grown up), why not flat out end their monopoly on education by letting parents and the free market decide?

Amen and God bless!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogey Man:
What are the right things to indoctrinate?

edit:
woops, The Mouse beat me.

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 12-02-2002).]

---

It depends on the culture and who the people are, but generally loyalty to country (not neccessarily the government, though) and diligence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Wouldn't an easier solution be to just make the school system non-compulsory and privatized? Instead of fighting for "a good government" (which might take decades, and by then your kids are grown up), why not flat out end their monopoly on education by letting parents and the free market decide?

---

Because there are screwed up parents who would screw up their kids.

If the culture can be made healthy, though, then it's based to let the parents take care of things.

The major point to be made is that one has to be a cultural and moral puritan in order to decided what is good and what is bad and what makes a healthy culture. The best way is therefore to enable each person to make their own decisions and allow them to butt heads with each other. I am not saying that ultimate right and wrong should not or can not be taught, but there are so many grey areas that it becomes impossible to navigate them safely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Because there are screwed up parents who would screw up their kids.

---

There are also screwed up governments that screw up their kids.

When compulsory mass public education is screwing up kids because of a screwed up government, just about all of the kids end up screwed up.

When one family screws up their kid because they don't know how to teach, a small number of kids are screwed up.

So, we have a choice between risking a small number of screwed up kids vs practically the entire bunch.

Which do you choose?

I'm for autonomy, especially right now.

But now that I think about it, the people and the government (local government, which is the one that should be regulating education) should be one and the same. So if the majority of families are good, as you say, then they will cause the education system to be good for all the childeren.

But since the government controls the funding, they can attach as many strings as they want mandating "essentials" that must be taught. Schools either conform, or they loose that which sustains them.

Which should be changed. The funding should go directly from the taxpayer to the local government, or, possibly, to the board of education.

I think I'm the only one on this topic who's actually in high school right now (literally, in fact. I'm in study hall at the moment.) I think that the idea of privatizing eduction is absolutely insane. Non-compulsory education is a good idea, but privatization wouldn't work for two main reasons:

1. Most importantly, a significant number of families would not be able to afford it. I've heard various libertarians tell me that education prices would go down if public schools were privatized. Not so. You cannot do the same thing as the public schools AND make a profit while charging less for it.

2. What makes you think the private schools wouldn't indoctrinate?

Addendum to post: (did I spell that right?)

Thirdly, our school system is not indoctrinating us with what the governmnet wants us to believe. It is indoctrinating us with what Corporate America wants us to believe. They teach us to consume and to do dull mindless tasks.

Advertising is increasingly more ubiquitous in public schools. Representatives of Prozac will come in to "teach" students about depression. Exxon has an ecology curriculum that tells students how clean Alaska is. 8 million students every day are forced to watch Channel One, a daily "news" broadcast. It's twelve minutes of news and one minute of advertising.

Do you think that this is what the government wants kids to learn? Of course it isn't! If schools were teaching what the governmnet wants them to teach, we would be listening to some mindless prattle about how wonderful our two-party system is, and how important it is to back the President on nuking Iraq, etc. (Actually, that's exactly what I got when I went to private school last year.)

The reason everyone is pushed to go to college because it is the old way of thinking. It is thought that you had to go to college and know what you had to do/wanted to be otherwise you worked in the mines. Things changed rapidly over the past few decades. My uncle got a meteorology degree and now is a CIO for Sprint. No direct connection there whatsoever. I really think if they are that focused on collegiate schooling, then everything we learn in grades 6 and up is pretty pointless. All of the real basics I needed to know for the career I am choosing I knew after grade 5, with the exception of some algebra. Biology, chemistry, calculus, while interesting, have no bearing on the job I will enter. I don't need to read Hemingway, Chaucer, or Faulkner to get a good job. The government seems to think so...

quote:

---

There are also screwed up governments that screw up their kids.

When compulsory mass public education is screwing up kids because of a screwed up government, just about all of the kids end up screwed up.

When one family screws up their kid because they don't know how to teach, a small number of kids are screwed up.

So, we have a choice between risking a small number of screwed up kids vs practically the entire bunch.

Which do you choose?

---

Kids get the full benefit of their parents' views when they get home (assuming the parents actually care enough about the child to communicate with him/her). They get the benefit of a government funded education when they go to school. That way kids get two perspectives on life, and get to make their own decisions about who is right. If the kids swallow everything the school teaches and don't believe a word their parents say then it reflects more on a problem with the parents than the education system.

1) Anathema -

quote:

---

1. Most importantly, a significant number of families would not be able to afford it. I've heard various libertarians tell me that education prices would go down if public schools were privatized. Not so. You cannot do the same thing as the public schools AND make a profit while charging less for it.

---

First off, we all pay for education now, whether we like it or not. Yup, we pay for public education. Nothing is free.

Second, it doesn't cost much to teach a child to read, write, and do math. That can all be done at home, for free. In my opinion, the only thing schools are good for is specialization. So, if we aren't paying taxes to keep up the failing public schools, we can save some cash and teach them the basics at home, then send them to a private school of choice to learn a trade.

quote:

---

2. What makes you think the private schools wouldn't indoctrinate?

---

It doesn't matter if they indoctrinate, because you have the choice and the freedom to take them out of the school whenever you like! If a school is known for brainwashing kids with a bunch of harmful bullshit, they won't get many customers and they'll go out of business.

quote:

---

Thirdly, our school system is not indoctrinating us with what the governmnet wants us to believe. It is indoctrinating us with what Corporate America wants us to believe. They teach us to consume and to do dull mindless tasks.

---

Why do you think the government doesn't want you to believe this? They also like apathetic children who cannot do any critical thinking, or think for himself without an "expert" giving an opinion for him.

quote:

---

Advertising is increasingly more ubiquitous in public schools. Representatives of Prozac will come in to "teach" students about depression. Exxon has an ecology curriculum that tells students how clean Alaska is. 8 million students every day are forced to watch Channel One, a daily "news" broadcast. It's twelve minutes of news and one minute of advertising.

---

What makes you think the government doesn't like this?

quote:

---

Do you think that this is what the government wants kids to learn? Of course it isn't!

---

Yes, it is, most definately! Apathy, subservience, stupidity except for dull, repetitive work. Do you think the government likes people all thinking for themselves?

quote:

---

If schools were teaching what the governmnet wants them to teach, we would be listening to some mindless prattle about how wonderful our two-party system is, and how important it is to back the President on nuking Iraq, etc. (Actually, that's exactly what I got when I went to private school last year.)

---

Wrong. The schools are teaching what the government wants them to teach, in crucial matters, not petty bullshit like current affairs. They mold you from around age 4. Do you think that high school is the only schooling that has an effect on you?

FOAD -

quote:

---

Kids get the full benefit of their parents' views when they get home (assuming the parents actually care enough about the child to communicate with him/her). They get the benefit of a government funded education when they go to school. That way kids get two perspectives on life, and get to make their own decisions about who is right. If the kids swallow everything the school teaches and don't believe a word their parents say then it reflects more on a problem with the parents than the education system.

---

Come on, man. Do some math. The kid is in public school for the vast majority of the day. When he gets home, he spends a couple hours on homework, mommy is busy cooking, and it's evening, so the parents want to relax. The kid wants to relax too, or play with some friends. He doesn't want to do "extra schooling" for mommy and daddy to teach him what the schools fail to do. He wants time for himself, which is healthy. Children need time for themselves to grow, develop, and explore the world. Public schools take up most of that time, then demand more time, in the form of homework. It's like a vampire.

The kid gets no benefit from public education. They don't teach you anything of value that you can't learn at home. A kid can learn how to read, write, and do math with minimal guidance in about 100 hours at home, for free. In all those extra hours, the kid has time to explore topics of interest, naturally. Kids are very curious, but they aren't curious when forced to learn things they don't care about at the moment. As a result, most public school info goes in one ear and out the other, or memorized for a short while to pass a test, then forgotten.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 12-03-2002).]

Mouse, did you think I meant the federal government?

A school ran by a local government wouldn't be nearly as bad as federal run, but it still needs to be non-compulsory.

There's some fucked-up shit in here.

Free and compulsory basic education is needed to maintain a high literacy rate, which in turn produces a strong and healthy society. Those that show ability beyond the basics, should receive free higher education, for the same reasons. You can send the G.W. Bush's to the best colleges money can buy, but it won't make a dumbshit smart.

Higher education has a history of succesfully resisting undue government influence. Not so with basic ed.

Mouse, do you really advocate herding humans?

Public school is not needed to learn how to read. Public school hinders education by sucking up most of a child's time which could be spent exploring and learning what interests him.

Public school is what herds children. The facts are that a great deal of children are entering high school and graduating with the reading skills of a child. There goes your theory of public schools being needed to teach children how to read. Parents could home school their kid and teach him more than he'll ever learn in public school with a fraction of the time.

Charlotte Thompson wrote a huge book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, that tears apart the America's public education system if you're interested in the subject.

Ponder the facts - before public education was introduced, the American literacy rate was higher than it is decades after mass compulsory public education.

Parents often don't know everything their childeren should be learning.

They don't have to "know everything". My parents know a fraction of the stuff I know. I learned by reading on my own. I also learned how to read before going to public school. As long as the kid knows how to read, you can give him textbooks and he can learn stuff on his own. Just give a few tests here and there, talk to him about things, take him to the library and have him read educational material - and most important, make sure the TV is turned off most of the time, if not all of the time.

If he knows how to read and knows some basic subjects, he's already ahead of most high schoolers out in the US!

How is an illiterate, impoverished set of parents going to teach their kids the literacy and numeracy skills they themselves lack? Some subjects may be easy to learn from textbooks - math isn't one of them. And most kids frankly don't have the motivation to teach themsleves most things.

How is a kid going to get a job or university place without qualifications? No matter how arbitrary and meaningless examinations may be, employers need them to assess the worth of potential employees. Obtaining qualifications is one of the most important parts of a high-school education. The information may go in one ear and out the other; the improved job prospects stay/

quote:

---

Ponder the facts - before public education was introduced, the American literacy rate was higher than it is decades after mass compulsory public education.

---

I imagine the methods of establishing the literacy rate have changed somewhat since then.

quote:

---

Come on, man. Do some math. The kid is in public school for the vast majority of the day. When he gets home, he spends a couple hours on homework, mommy is busy cooking, and it's evening, so the parents want to relax. The kid wants to relax too, or play with some friends. He doesn't want to do "extra schooling" for mommy and daddy to teach him what the schools fail to do. He wants time for himself, which is healthy. Children need time for themselves to grow, develop, and explore the world. Public schools take up most of that time, then demand more time, in the form of homework. It's like a vampire

---

The hours of time the kid has left over are enough to allow him to explore his interests, which tend to be predominantly leisure-related (television, video games, pop music, sport and friends - but you can't blame the school for that). They're also enough for parents to counteract the indoctrination of the school by making their own points.

-

Besides, public high-school education isn't compulsory, is it, provided the parents are willing and able to home-school their kids or pay for private education?

quote:

---

How is an illiterate, impoverished set of parents going to teach their kids the literacy and numeracy skills they themselves lack? Some subjects may be easy to learn from textbooks - math isn't one of them. And most kids frankly don't have the motivation to teach themsleves most things.

---

1) Children of illiterate and impovershed parents rarely learn how to read even in public school.

2) Nothing would stop the local library or Church (sunday school) from setting up free literacy classes for young, poor children. It does not take that long to learn how to read. It amazes me how much people nowadays think it's some huge feat to get kids reading (likely a result of public education which has dropped the literacy rates) when four year olds can pick it up very fast.

2) Math can be learned from textbooks and computer programs. If a parent does not know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, they had no business having kids in the first place.

3) Kids have a lot of self-motivation to teach themselves things they are interested. Children are naturally curious, unless they are unnaturally dumbed down by television or dull public education, which promote apathy and rebellion.

quote:

---

How is a kid going to get a job or university place without qualifications? No matter how arbitrary and meaningless examinations may be, employers need them to assess the worth of potential employees. Obtaining qualifications is one of the most important parts of a high-school education. The information may go in one ear and out the other; the improved job prospects stay

---

For jobs that require specialization, there would be many trade schools, and the employers can give a simple test to applicants. Universities also give tests, even now. They don't look at your elementary school grades, they look at SATs. Young adults will get jobs and into college the same way that home-schooled children get it now.

quote:

---

I imagine the methods of establishing the literacy rate have changed somewhat since then.

---

Methods of teaching children how to read are what changed drastically. Instead of teaching with the phonetical method (just using the McGuffey Reader taught over half the children how to read in the 1800's), public schools began teaching with a "See Spot Run" method, which has been an utter and complete failure.

quote:

---

The hours of time the kid has left over are enough to allow him to explore his interests, which tend to be predominantly leisure-related (television, video games, pop music, sport and friends - but you can't blame the school for that). They're also enough for parents to counteract the indoctrination of the school by making their own points.

---

Not if the parents turn off the TV and don't give him video games. Sports are good for children, but they aren't going to be playing sports for 12 hours a day, every day. A few hours a day is sufficient to teach him the basics, and beyond that, children will keep looking up things that they are curious about, especially if they have the spare time to do so. Children are naturally curious, but, again, so many of them are dumbed down with unnatural things like forced schooling, television, and video games, that we now think it's natural for children to be dull and stupid, capable of learning only if forced.

quote:

---

Besides, public high-school education isn't compulsory, is it, provided the parents are willing and able to home-school their kids or pay for private education?

---

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Some states don't allow home-schooling, some require a bunch of red-tape and bureaucratic nonsense, and some states are cracking down on homeschooling. I don't even know the Canadian laws for homeschooling, but I expect the worse. The state should not be forcing children into their schools at all in America. The idea of it is extremely anti-liberty. Children did better with homeschooling and private one-room schools in the 1700-1800's.

Unbelievable, that's pre-industrial revolution.
___

Vene, regarding your original point; you condemn a society that values higher education, and thats wrong. Overall, the higher ed experience is a good thing.

It's a good thing, but not for all the professions people think it's needed for. Even Clerks and such need only a High School Diploma.

Mouse, you're assumptions are wrong. I know some people who are homeschooled. They're very far behind in most subjects, esp. math. Addition and Subtraction can be taught from books. Algebra, Geometry, and even higher-end arithmetic are a different matter.

Vene,

Your point is true. Now let's take the next step. When you view the entire scope of professions, how many of those professions need someone who is grounded in Geometry, Algebra, Trig, or Calculus? Or from a different angle, how many require a grounding in English/American literature? As far a syntax and grammar, yes, literature, no.

The point is, not every academic subject you take has a direct correlation to a future occupation. And not every occupation requires all the academics offered.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Mouse, you're assumptions are wrong. I know some people who are homeschooled. They're very far behind in most subjects, esp. math. Addition and Subtraction can be taught from books. Algebra, Geometry, and even higher-end arithmetic are a different matter.

---

Anamolies. On the average, homeschooled children are about four grades ahead of their public schooled counterparts (shown through tests). This difference is even more apparent when the child was already intelligent through genetic reasons, because public school has a strong tendency to drag children down to the lowest common denominator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
because public school has a strong tendency to drag children down to the lowest common denominator.

---

tendency? You are too kind.

Nox

Many students who are homeschooled today are homeschooled because they're above average. Average students don't tend to do as well.

Also, most good professions require training and such that is not available in the home. And a large number of parents couldn't even teach their childeren proper grammer.

Most parents don't have the time to homeschool their children. They're busy working to provide dinner for them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Also, most good professions require training and such that is not available in the home. And a large number of parents couldn't even teach their childeren proper grammer.

---

This is where private trade schools come into play. Instead of wasting 12 years of your life on irrelevent crap, one can learn the basics by the time you're a teen, then enroll in a private trade school to get training for a particular profession. This way, one should be ready to start their lives in their chosen profession by the time they're heading out of their teenage years instead of extending their childhood another 10 years, which leads to a very immature society, I might add.

Isn't this a bit more time efficient than spending age 4-18 at a public school which wastes the vast majority of your youth on things that will never be relevent to your life or career?

quote:

---

Most parents don't have the time to homeschool their children. They're busy working to provide dinner for them.

---

Ideally, the father should be paid enough to provide for the family while the mother stays at home to raise kids. All third-world immigration of cheap labor must be immediately closed, with possible repatriation of some already here, so that wages will rise again as employers have to actually compete for native work instead of importing Indians, Chinese, and Mexicans for half price.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 12-05-2002).]

quote:

---

All third-world immigration of cheap labor must be immediately closed, with possible repatriation of some already here, so that wages will rise again as employers have to actually compete for native work instead of importing Indians, Chinese, and Mexicans for half price.

---

Bullshit.

This is a Union mentality of trying to monopolize the supply of labor and therefore artificially inflate their wages. Since productivity is not increasing, the only way that inflation can be avoided is if someone else takes a pay cut.

The people that they are "importing" for the most part are foreigners that are highly skilled in technical fields. For some odd reason, the third world produces more Engineers than it needs. There is a great demand in America for degrees like these and currently, that demand is not being met. If these workers were kicked out there would still be a lack of supply in America and business would be hamstrung as foreign intellectual labor helps to fuel American business and success. The only exception to this are the Mexicans as they tend to be poor and work in the fields. This will always be a low paying job.

The greatness of America was built on being able to attract and steal talent from all parts of the world. Closing the borders to raise prices is an artifical fix that is doubtful will be good for America in the long run. I am not advocating open borders, I am not advocating this by a long shot, but there does need to be the free movement of labor to fuel our technology and pick our produce. It is also worthwhile to ask if their re enough foreigners in America to raise the wages enough to effect your social plan.

If you're coming at this from a modern Libertarian dogma, read this article and tell me what you think.

Edit: Just recently, the Bank of America fired a few hundred workers, and some were told that they need to help train the new Indian workers to recieve their serverance pay. Mass immigration is nothing more than the insidious displacement of the native population couched in pretty rhetoric.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 12-05-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
It seems these days everyone is overeducated. It takes a degree to become manager of a McDonalds.

---

If I owned a million dollar investment, like a McDonalds, I would want the most educated person I could find to run it. The additional salary investment would return greater efficiency and sales revenue.

quote:

---

People obviously aren't getting smarter.

---

Lol, I know it seems that way, but this is not true.

quote:

---

It's not as if they're actually learning anything during those few years.

---

I don't agree with this either. I've never had to compete for work, and only have about 6 hours of college, so I don't have first-hand knowledge, but my impression has always been that higher ed benefits society and industry.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
This is a Union mentality of trying to monopolize the supply of labor and therefore artificially inflate their wages.

---

No shit? what business do you know of, that welcomes competition? ORGANIZE NOW!, lol.

quote:

---

Since productivity is not increasing, the only way that inflation can be avoided is if someone else takes a pay cut.

---

No, productivity is increasing. And "taking a pay cut" to avoid inflation? that's just stupid. Inflation is caused by business competing for labor

And he did say "cheap third-world labor" anyway. There has always been a different set of standards for educated immigrants - for the reasons that you mention. He's talking about cab drivers and C-store operators, not scientists.

First to Mouse, I read the article, it was interesting. I found the comments agasint the governemtns "over-production" of roads to be questionable at best. The government does not need roads to be able to tax you and although an avenue of travel is now created does not mean that you are forciably integrated.

In part II he claim that wealth is subjective, it is not. Capitalism is about maximizing the productive powers of the country and therefore about creating the most material wealth. Happiness, as always, is left to the individual to find.

I'm not sure what to make of your posting it as I am arguing about letting some workers in, not free immigration, and you are arguing that all borders should be sealed shut. I am not 100% certain that you are a nationalist, but to keep a nation strong, it is wise to let the intelligent people in. You will probably cite that like the argument said, the government just wants the stupid bums who want bread and circuses for their votes. Democrats are for this, Republicans are not. I never claimed that any of the imported workers should be given the right to vote.

I don't believe in the wellfare state and acknowledge that as long as it exists, there is the temptation to only allow the huddled masses in.

quote:

---

No, productivity is increasing. And "taking a pay cut" to avoid inflation? that's just stupid. Inflation is caused by business competing for labor

---

I phrased this badly and should apologize. Productivity is increasing, yes, but in this situation I meant that the increase in wages due to Mouses proposal would not be an increase due to productivity rising.

The taking a pay cut to avoid inflation is not stupid, it is the definition of a zero sum game. Wages are determined by what you produce. If you are paid more than what you produce, the price of the good will rise accordingly. This means if that the increase in your wage is greater than the increase in productivity, someone elses wage will have to fall to prevent prices from rising. I cite Unions as an example, in their niche, they raise their wages by restricting workers access to those jobs, this in turn floods other areas of the economy and the extra workers competing for jobs lowers their wages. The point of this is that wages can only rise at the same rate of productivity or prices will also rise meaning that you are no better, and often, worse off.

A simple definition of inflation is the rise in the cost of a good without a change in the quality of the good. When business compete for workers, they will not pay more than what the worker can produce. This therefore does not cause inflation. They cannot pass on the added cost to the consumers as if their competitors can "eat the cost" and keep their prices low, then they will have an advntage and purchasing will be redirected to them.

quote:

---

And he did say "cheap third-world labor" anyway. There has always been a different set of standards for educated immigrants - for the reasons that you mention. He's talking about cab drivers and C-store operators, not scientists.

---

I understand what you mean, although i don't remeber the explicit cheap third world phrase. Mouse advocated a complete sealing of the borders. I am arguing that would be bad for the country.

Private Trade Schools? And how are the less affluent among us to afford such things? The government could set up trade schools on it's own with better results.

If we cut the working population in half, productivity is halved.

Inflation is caused by attempting to produce more than is possible.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what to make of your posting it as I am arguing about letting some workers in, not free immigration, and you are arguing that all borders should be sealed shut.

---

No, just seal it off to third world immigration.

quote:

---

Private Trade Schools? And how are the less affluent among us to afford such things? The government could set up trade schools on it's own with better results.

---

Who said they'd be very expensive? In the situation now, people need to spend a great deal of money to go to big colleges and maybe end up getting a job to pay back the college debt. Smaller, specialized trade schools should be even less expensive. People could also still give donations, scholarships, and special deals to help people who really need it take a class. The main idea is that it must be non-compulsory. I'm also against the government having it's hands in it, since the government usually ruins anything it tries to control.

quote:

---

If we cut the working population in half, productivity is halved.

---

Who said "cutting the working population in half"? I said getting rid of the cheap migrants that are brought in to purposely lower wages. You might not know this, but native workers are laid off and made to train their cheap migrant replacements. It's an artificial wage reduction. This is not only in the working class. This happens all the way up to the white collar workers, and it's sickening.

Mass third world immigration = displacement of native citizens. Since it's been going on for a long time, I think it's time for a rollback.

quote:

---

Private Trade Schools? And how are the less affluent among us to afford such things? The government could set up trade schools on it's own with better results.

---

If there is demand, there is a profit incentive for someone to supply. Scholarships will always exist to help shoulder the burden of education and by the competative nature of the schools education will be maximized and cost minimized.

If the government is failing at public education, why would Trade Schools be any different?

quote:

---

Inflation is caused by attempting to produce more than is possible.

---

How does this make sense. You are probably mistaking this for the marginal cost of producing an additional unit. If you are, the cost of producing the good will rise, but by nature of the market being saturated, the price itself will fall.

It's the system that's failing, not the fact that the government is regulating it.

The Privitizaion of the training schools means they would be dependent on income. Thus wealthy people could easily end up in careers unsuited to them.

Inflation is caused that way. Businesses compete over the finite resources and thus drive prices steadily up.

The female half of the working force is what I'm referring to.

quote:

---

It's the system that's failing, not the fact that the government is regulating it.

---

The government and the system are intimately linked. The government decides who gets money and on how they can use. They also decided the curriculam that must be taught.

quote:

---

The Privitizaion of the training schools means they would be dependent on income. Thus wealthy people could easily end up in careers unsuited to them.

---

What? Somehow if the schools were government funded the state would be able to figure out what job you were ideally suited for?

quote:

---

Inflation is caused that way. Businesses compete over the finite resources and thus drive prices steadily up.

---

High prices are not inflation. Here is the technical definition that is illustrated using the Quantity Theory of Money.
MV=Py
MV= Supply of Money
Py= Demand of Money
M=The Money Supply (M2)
V=Velocity (Dollar Turnover)
P=Nominal GDP (Real GDP*Prices or Real GDP with inflation)
y=Real GDP

V for all intents and purposes, is constant. What this means is that if M increases faster than the potential growth of y, then P, prices, have to increase inorder for the equation to balance out. Among others, inflation is caused by the money supply being too large. Inflation is the situation in which everything costs more except money. The goods are not of any better quality, and yet they cost more. That is inflation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
The female half of the working force is what I'm referring to.

---

All females wouldn't be out of the workforce. Just mothers of young children wouldn't be working out of the home for long periods of time. That's the way it should be in the first place.

And you are also assuming that everyone will homeschool. Private schools will also exist as they take the combined purchasing power of many parents and are able to achieve relative economies of scale. Simply put, when more money, capital, is concentrated in a location, generally, the better things are. The work force won't even be halfed. Even if everyone did homeschool, what is to stop one parent from teaching the neighboring children or from multiple parents specializing in different subjects?

Good point about one parent teaching multiple children in a neighborhood.

In the olden days, teachers set up private one-room schoolhouses.

There are sooo many varied possibilities for teaching children when you break out of the "must have forced public schooling from K-12" mold.

By chance do you know the reason for public schooling? Back in the day, before the government got involved, people were naturally fending for themselves and organizing their own ways to educate children. Literacy rates where increasing and so too was the printed word. At that time, many pamphlets were produced that were critical of the establishment and in general preached many things. The government, however, was shocked by the fact that while the common man could read, he did not have the "moral sense" to be able to discern what was true and what was crap. In an effort to end this dilema, the government decided to insitute schools so as to teach this difference. Summation: Indoctrination was the reason why schools were created. It is not so much as to teach facts, but as to teach how to think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
The government and the system are intimately linked. The government decides who gets money and on how they can use. They also decided the curriculam that must be taught.

---

And they can change those things...

quote:

---

What? Somehow if the schools were government funded the state would be able to figure out what job you were ideally suited for?

---

On a parallel to college admission. Ability can be measured, but the measurement would be disregarded in order to secure funds.

quote:

---

High prices are not inflation. Here is the technical definition that is illustrated using the Quantity Theory of Money.
MV=Py
MV= Supply of Money
Py= Demand of Money
M=The Money Supply (M2)
V=Velocity (Dollar Turnover)
P=Nominal GDP (Real GDP*Prices or Real GDP with inflation)
y=Real GDP

V for all intents and purposes, is constant. What this means is that if M increases faster than the potential growth of y, then P, prices, have to increase inorder for the equation to balance out. Among others, inflation is caused by the money supply being too large. Inflation is the situation in which everything costs more except money. The goods are not of any better quality, and yet they cost more. That is inflation.

---

Higher prices for the same goods sure sounds like "The goods are not of any better quality, and yet they cost more." Therefore, "that is inflation." Think about what you're saying instead of just misapplying and quoting things you heard in economics.

There exists more than one cause of inflation. PQ`=MV` only shows the relationship between money markets and real markets. When equilibrium production exceeds full production, prices of goods and services rise. Since you're so bent on economic terms, I'm talking of an overemployment equilibrium.

If you take females out of the work force in the years in which they'll be raising young childeren, they will miss the most productive years of their life, and not have any experience with which to work.

Currently, at many private schools, education is of lesser quality because teachers aren't required to be certified. We'll always need the government to do that.

I'd also like to clarify what I was saying about securing funds above. I'm talking of selling diplomas.

I don't advocate the K-12 system, but the government has the resources to do things most efficiently. Mouse, you say public schools drag better students down. Do you not realize one-room schoolhouses and small private schools would too? The government controls a large enough area it can set up GNT schools.

Jesus you people can post. Don't any of you have jobs? or school? How can you provide worthy commentary if you haven't experienced higher ed and then lived it's consequences?

First, your ALL wrong about inflation. It's when consumer income falls behind the price of goods. So when you take "a pay cut", it just makes it worse. Normally though, business will increase wages (and the cost of goods) thereby making it worse as well - except that eventually it's creators are killed, and the economy returns to normal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
I cite Unions as an example, in their niche, they raise their wages by restricting workers access to those jobs, this in turn floods other areas of the economy and the extra workers competing for jobs lowers their wages. The point of this is that wages can only rise at the same rate of productivity or prices will also rise meaning that you are no better, and often, worse off.

---

What you're saying here is: Unionized workers have better standards of living.

Also, the opposing force to wages, is cost of goods. Productivity is driven by efficiency. More efficiency allows higher wages.

quote:

---

Indoctrination was the reason why schools were created. It is not so much as to teach facts, but as to teach how to think.

---

Being taught "how" to think isn't the same as what to think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
If you take females out of the work force in the years in which they'll be raising young childeren, they will miss the most productive years of their life, and not have any experience with which to work.

---

You do remember that the crucial role of the female gender in society is to bear and raise children, right? "Working" is the crucial role of the male gender, to support his wife and children. There can be some flexibility in this arrangement, but if a society doesn't allow for both genders to fulfill their crucial roles, it will die.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NukeChild:
The government and the system are intimately linked. The government decides who gets money and on how they can use. They also decided the curriculam that must be taught.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they can change those things...

---

But the ammount of time it takes to effect those changes is problematic as the full weight of the bureacracy has to be moved.

quote:

---

On a parallel to college admission. Ability can be measured, but the measurement would be disregarded in order to secure funds.

---

Maybe, but the university would get a reputation for selling worthless degrees and no one would want to go there as their education would be rendered worthless by the bad reputation.

quote:

---

Higher prices for the same goods sure sounds like "The goods are not of any better quality, and yet they cost more." Therefore, "that is inflation." Think about what you're saying instead of just misapplying and quoting things you heard in economics.

There exists more than one cause of inflation. PQ`=MV` only shows the relationship between money markets and real markets. When equilibrium production exceeds full production, prices of goods and services rise. Since you're so bent on economic terms, I'm talking of an overemployment equilibrium.

---

At first you merely stated that: "Inflation is caused by attempting to produce more than is possible." I went on to explain what inflation was and how it effected the entirety of the market, not just a single sector of it. You also seem to be implying that it is possible to produce more than what falls along the production possibility curve. I do not understand your concept of overemployment as it would seem to me that what you are saying is that a business has hired to many workers and have maxed out their production capacities. This would mean that not every worker is earning his wage and that therefore in order keep the worker employed, management has decided to raise prices. This, however, does not make sense as the increase in price would divert consumption to their competitors who would theoretically have less workers. I find it hard to believe that every corporation is employing too many people.

quote:

---

Currently, at many private schools, education is of lesser quality because teachers aren't required to be certified. We'll always need the government to do that.

---

And yet, private schools continue to test better than most public schools.

quote:

---

I don't advocate the K-12 system, but the government has the resources to do things most efficiently. Mouse, you say public schools drag better students down. Do you not realize one-room schoolhouses and small private schools would too? The government controls a large enough area it can set up GNT schools.

---

The government has resources, but their efficiancy is doubtful. Privitization demands higher quality as it is "real money" being spent and political pork, waste, is kept to a minimum.

I would be interested to here how private schools drag you down. I am also unfamiliar with what GNT schools mean and would appreciate a definition.

To Mouse:

quote:

---

No, just seal it off to third world immigration.

---

Can I at least convince you to allow some sort of screaning process so that potentially well educated technicians and workers are not automatically locked out. I ask this because they should be able to attempt and prove their productive worth rather than just being discounted because their native country is poor. The blanket closing of borders allows nothing through, but if we allow selective gaps to exist, then we can still have access to valuable foreign knowledge and skills.

Mouse, raising isn't the same as educating and training.

quote:

---

But the ammount of time it takes to effect those changes is problematic as the full weight of the bureacracy has to be moved.

---

And you think it will take less time if we merely privatize? Unless you're talking about a decree that just immediatly abolishes public education. Then everyone is screwd as private organizations couldn't be set up soon enough.

quote:

---

Maybe, but the university would get a reputation for selling worthless degrees and no one would want to go there as their education would be rendered worthless by the bad reputation.

---

Ah, but if a bunch of wealthy and thus successful people attend, such as with schools like Harvard, they could easily get away with it. And they wouldn't be like diploma mills. They'd take a certain percentage of people on the basis of wealth.

quote:

---

At first you merely stated that: "Inflation is caused by attempting to produce more than is possible." I went on to explain what inflation was and how it effected the entirety of the market, not just a single sector of it.

---

You gave MV`=PQ, which is used to show the relationship between money markets and real markets.

quote:

---

You also seem to be implying that it is possible to produce more than what falls along the production possibility curve.

---

No, it is possible that equilibrium production may lye outside the production possibility curve.

quote:

---

I do not understand your concept of overemployment as it would seem to me that what you are saying is that a business has hired to many workers and have maxed out their production capacities. This would mean that not every worker is earning his wage and that therefore in order keep the worker employed, management has decided to raise prices. This, however, does not make sense as the increase in price would divert consumption to their competitors who would theoretically have less workers. I find it hard to believe that every corporation is employing too many people.[quote]

You're not understanding a word I'm saying.

No, the firms can't hire enough workers. (Proverbially. A firm could hire enough workers, but it means they're constantly hiring because they need more.) A shortage follows, thus prices rise.

[quote]And yet, private schools continue to test better than most public schools.

---

For the same reason charter schools do poorly, the students sent to them.

quote:

---

The government has resources, but their efficiancy is doubtful. Privitization demands higher quality as it is "real money" being spent and political pork, waste, is kept to a minimum.
I would be interested to here how private schools drag you down. I am also unfamiliar with what GNT schools mean and would appreciate a definition.

---

Gifted and Talented Schools. Where they send the smarter people. Only possible on a larger scale system.

The teachers at private schools are generally worse.

For some reason I just thought of charter schools. Where the curriculum is controlled by the parents. They're a good idea for lower education.

The current mix of public/private education works good for this culture. Instead of making major structural changes to it, why not just fix the little shit?

Name one problem - that isn't trivial - with our education systems.

How about the kids getting High School Diplomas (not the attendance certificate variety) who can't read them.

Nox