|
Please, please look at history when saying such things. I'm begging you. You know where that road leads, American educational system be damned, I don't think any of us can plead ignorance where this is concerned.Not at all, we need to seize the chance to become great again instead of collapsing in on ourselves.Clearly, they and all opposition must be wiped out.For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
On the contrary, knowledge that all empires collapse gives us the chance to understand how they can also be reborn. China was once a great empire and will be again soon at this rate. We just have to understand how the world has always worked and work at our rebirth before total collapse
|
|
Dude! Wake up! That ship has sailed. Nothing happened bro.Until the world realizes that our money is worthless, our value based on a promise and our banks functioning through liesMeh, as long as the world trades in dollars then we will be the place with all the money. Even if the world currency standard changes, we will still have most of the money.For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
It is beginning to happen, and what consequences are to come we WILL see soon enough
I should've replied to these long ago...
I'm just gonna leave this here...
...of course, who wants to be a plumber/welder/garbage truck driver nowadays, huh?
The biggest problem with what Mike Rowe talks about is that it's 90% fantasy. They claim there's a massive skills shortage and nobody willing to work these jobs, it's untrue with only a few exceptions, ones that are for highly skilled tradesmen only, 10+ yrs experience welders in North Dakota for example. Now I'm not going to knock trades, we need people to do that, but you can see there's very little actual shortage by looking at the wages of most skilled labor, flat or receding. What's happening is you have companies who have openings, but they're not willing to pay people what those jobs are worth, so the people with skills aren't taking them, and they're also not willing to pay to train people for those jobs.
There is also the ever present threat of automation, some of the more dire predictions are that 47% of jobs are at risk of automation within 20 years, not just low skill crap jobs either; look at the advances in 3d printing, houses and air plane manufacturing are just two ares they're showing interest in.
But this all aside from the basic fact that there are more people who want jobs than there are jobs. The most common estimate I've seen is that there is 1 job for every 4 job seekers. So that means that if every single skill shortage and location mismatch were magically fixed and those jobs were filled, 3/4 of job seekers would still be out of work.
Well that's sad to see, Mike Rowe was my main hope too. What articles is your claim based on?
He is also David Wong a man who is never ever right. There are many points about college that are unfair, however for the most part they were far far less of an issue than for people without college degrees. Additionally most degrees are very broad in what jobs they qualify you for. The idea that you need a specific degree for a specific job is completely wrong. In fact most of the time just having any degree is enough.
That's god to see, Wong's a total downer. What articles is your claim based on?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem with what Mike Rowe talks about is that it's 90% fantasy. They claim there's a massive skills shortage and nobody willing to work these jobs, it's untrue with only a few exceptions, ...But this all aside from the basic fact that there are more people who want jobs than there are jobs. The most common estimate I've seen is that there is 1 job for every 4 job seekers. So that means that if every single skill shortage and location mismatch were magically fixed and those jobs were filled, 3/4 of job seekers would still be out of work.
Well that's sad to see, Mike Rowe was my main hope too. What articles is your claim based on?
Well, the numbers on the number of job openings (about 4 million) and the number of job seekers (about 11 million) are published on a regular basis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at bls.gov. As to dividing 11 by 4 and getting 4,.... I can't justify that directly, but the BLS doesn't do a good job of tracking the discouraged and disenfranchised. However, even if every job in the US could be filled tomorrow, that would still leave more than 7 million unemployed.
As to Mr. Rowe, the problem with his fantasy is that it's contradicted by the empirical evidence. If there were a massive skills shortage and no one willing to work those jobs, wages for those jobs would rise. (That's what happens when demand exceeds supply.) That's also not what we're seeing. Dr. Krugman points out with some degree of sarcasm that the only actual example of a skills shortage that produces a wage rise that anyone's been able to document is in industrial sewing.
As he put it, "Show us the money. If certain skills are in short supply, show us the workers possessing these skills who are being offered premium wages; show us the employers laying out real dollars to train the workers they need."
On the contrary, knowledge that all empires collapse gives us the chance to understand how they can also be reborn. China was once a great empire and will be again soon at this rate. We just have to understand how the world has always worked and work at our rebirth before total collapsePlease, please look at history when saying such things. I'm begging you. You know where that road leads, American educational system be damned, I don't think any of us can plead ignorance where this is concerned.Not at all, we need to seize the chance to become great again instead of collapsing in on ourselves.Clearly, they and all opposition must be wiped out.For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Andrew, no insult, but how does any of that relate to a stable economic policy for the US? It kind of sounds like you're just spouting off sound-bytes.
Not at all, we need to seize the chance to become great again instead of collapsing in on ourselves.
And what makes america great?
Some inherent, god given right? Are we better than other nations? Somehow more deserving to run the planet? I mean as world ruling empires go we're not bad, but if moral fortitude got you the job it wouldn't have been us.
The American century was/is the result of world war 2. Most of the rest of the world was developing from essentially a pre industrial age or had had its industry bombed into oblivion during ww2. Those have both changed now. What in the world would make you think that greatness can/is supposed to/should continue, and that any failure to do so is due to some moral failing of not working hard enough?
|
|
Not at all, we need to seize the chance to become great again instead of collapsing in on ourselves.And what makes america great?
Some inherent, god given right? Are we better than other nations? Somehow more deserving to run the planet? I mean as world ruling empires go we're not bad, but if moral fortitude got you the job it wouldn't have been us.
The American century was/is the result of world war 2. Most of the rest of the world was developing from essentially a pre industrial age or had had its industry bombed into oblivion during ww2. Those have both changed now. What in the world would make you think that greatness can/is supposed to/should continue, and that any failure to do so is due to some moral failing of not working hard enough?
We had a solid but not overly wasteful military, we had decent paying jobs and led the world in innovation and production, we had the largest stable economy. now our economy is shaky as hell, our defense spending flushing cash, jobs and production sent over seas. it is going backward
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We had a solid but not overly wasteful military
Oh come on. In what year was this allegedly? The military ALWAYS wastes money.
we had decent paying jobs
WHY though? The answer is easy, I already told you. most of the world was in a pre industrial age and the rest of it had just been bombed back there. There wasn't any competition. There's no mechanism for that situation lasting.
This situation did not just happen. the country did not collectively perform bootstrap levitation. It happened for a reason, and that reason is gone so yes, things will change. We are not going to continue to be THE world ruling empire.
and led the world in innovation and production
Our space program was the best because we snagged the most V2 german scientists.
All of this is why i begged you to look at history, andrew. You are quietly clamouring for war.
and led the world in innovation and productionOur space program was the best because we snagged the most V2 german scientists.
I'm not even sure that was true. Remind me again of who put the first satellite into space? Remind me again of who the first human in space was? The first soft landing on the moon? The first space station? The first interplanetary probe?
Your larger point is correct, and this ties into a point that Andrew is missing. The American space program was very good, because we could afford to throw money at it. We could afford to throw money at it because the government was willing to invest in infrastructure building both in the United States and world-wide, and because after WW2, we were one of the few countries with an industrial base, an industrial base that existed largely as the result of government spending in the 1940s.
The secret truth .... well it shouldn't be a secret, but evidently is.... is that infrastructure and industry both cost money. If you're not willing to spend money on infrastructure and industry, then the people who are will beat you at both.
and led the world in innovation and productionOur space program was the best because we snagged the most V2 german scientists.
I'm not even sure that was true. Remind me again of who put the first satellite into space? Remind me again of who the first human in space was? The first soft landing on the moon? The first space station? The first interplanetary probe?
Your larger point is correct, and this ties into a point that Andrew is missing. The American space program was very good, because we could afford to throw money at it. We could afford to throw money at it because the government was willing to invest in infrastructure building both in the United States and world-wide, and because after WW2, we were one of the few countries with an industrial base, an industrial base that existed largely as the result of government spending in the 1940s.
The secret truth .... well it shouldn't be a secret, but evidently is.... is that infrastructure and industry both cost money. If you're not willing to spend money on infrastructure and industry, then the people who are will beat you at both.
Tis quite true, Orf. Lots of names were changed, and those who wouldn't change their names ended up teaching at universities.
|
|
Tis quite true, Orf. Lots of names were changed, and those who wouldn't change their names ended up teaching at universities.
and led the world in innovation and productionOur space program was the best because we snagged the most V2 german scientists.
I'm not even sure that was true. Remind me again of who put the first satellite into space? Remind me again of who the first human in space was? The first soft landing on the moon? The first space station? The first interplanetary probe?
Your larger point is correct, and this ties into a point that Andrew is missing. The American space program was very good, because we could afford to throw money at it. We could afford to throw money at it because the government was willing to invest in infrastructure building both in the United States and world-wide, and because after WW2, we were one of the few countries with an industrial base, an industrial base that existed largely as the result of government spending in the 1940s.
The secret truth .... well it shouldn't be a secret, but evidently is.... is that infrastructure and industry both cost money. If you're not willing to spend money on infrastructure and industry, then the people who are will beat you at both.
Yup, we had no space program until we stole...I mean, offered shelter to German scientists to get them over here. Not only were we grabbing them up for that but for many of our sciences. German scientist led the way due to Hitler tossing freakish amount of resources into funding every project that could enhance German superiority and give his armies some sort of edge.
Tis quite true, Orf.
and led the world in innovation and productionOur space program was the best because we snagged the most V2 german scientists.
I'm not even sure that was true. Remind me again of who put the first satellite into space? Remind me again of who the first human in space was? The first soft landing on the moon? The first space station? The first interplanetary probe?
It's true that we got the bulk of the German scientists. I question whether our space program was "the best," and whether it was purely the Germans that even made it as good as it was. Bear in mind that Germany had an even larger percentage of the German scientists and didn't manage to do nearly as well with them, so presumably the support structure surrounding Dr. Braun had something to do with his success.....
And also.... remind me again who created the first space station?
Tis quite true, Orf.
and led the world in innovation and productionOur space program was the best because we snagged the most V2 german scientists.
I'm not even sure that was true. Remind me again of who put the first satellite into space? Remind me again of who the first human in space was? The first soft landing on the moon? The first space station? The first interplanetary probe?
It's true that we got the bulk of the German scientists. I question whether our space program was "the best," and whether it was purely the Germans that even made it as good as it was. Bear in mind that Germany had an even larger percentage of the German scientists and didn't manage to do nearly as well with them, so presumably the support structure surrounding Dr. Braun had something to do with his success.....
And also.... remind me again who created the first space station?
deny it as you will, orf, but without the brains, the support system would have lain fallow.
deny it as you will, orf, but without the brains, the support system would have lain fallow.
It's true that we got the bulk of the German scientists. I question whether our space program was "the best," and whether it was purely the Germans that even made it as good as it was. Bear in mind that Germany had an even larger percentage of the German scientists and didn't manage to do nearly as well with them, so presumably the support structure surrounding Dr. Braun had something to do with his success.....
And also.... remind me again who created the first space station?
Yes, but without the support system, the brains would have been teaching calculus.
You can see this in the development of computer technology over the same period. Computers were largely an English invention (thank you, Dr. Turing) and most of the fundamental work on computing was done in the 1940s by the UK military-industrial complex. By the mid 1950s, the center of the world of computation had moved to the United States because the Americans could afford to fund research into this new toy.
Antibiotics show a similar history -- first discovered by a British scientist (Alexander Fleming, later a Nobel Laureate for his discovery), the American drug companies were the only groups able to manufacture them in the quantities need and to fund the research to uncover most of the newer drugs such as tetracycline, aureomycin, nystatin, and so forth.
Basically, American technology flourished because Americans were willing to pay for flourishing technology.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And also.... remind me again who created the first space station?
Never mind first, let's just talk about who created the one that didn't fall out of the sky; seriously, Skylab would have been a much better space station than Mir, if it had been a functional space station.
And look Doodles, Von Braun totally cared where the rockets came down; he was an engineer figuring that out totally was his department. On whom they come down is an entirely different question, though. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
things are indeed significantly different on the coasts.the time period where that was true to the level you insinuate has long passed. Most four year colleges do not recognize credits from community colleges. Even if they are in the same system.As much as I think his point is privileged and kind of dumb, this is flatly not true. Maybe things are significantly different on the coasts, but in the Midwest and Southwest US 4 year colleges will accept virtually all credits from community colleges in their same state and the majority for credits from other states.
Went to a community college in Washington State, and I had the option of transferring to at least four state colleges with full credit. And those are just the ones I bothered to check. What hellhole are you living in?
Here in Wisconsin, and I know this because I did it last year, transferring from a community/technical college to a 4-year isn't always 100%.
My CC has specific and individual agreements with many of the state satellite colleges, but by no means all of them and they are by no means comprehensive. Some classes transfer to some universities, or maybe they'll transfer but as gen ed credits, or maybe they'll transfer but not as upper level credits.
I had taken english composition years ago, and while the curriculum was compatible with that of the UW, I took the class before any transfer agreement was signed between the two institutions, and it transferred as English gen ed credits but didn't fulfill Comm A requirement, even though I have about 12 Comm B credits. This issue is still dogging me because of clerical errors and bureaucratic issues.
UW wouldn't take any of my credits from a private vocational school, even though it is accredited and some of the same courses are in the UW course catalog.
Went to a community college in Washington State, and I had the option of transferring to at least four state colleges with full credit. And those are just the ones I bothered to check. What hellhole are you living in?things are indeed significantly different on the coasts.the time period where that was true to the level you insinuate has long passed. Most four year colleges do not recognize credits from community colleges. Even if they are in the same system.As much as I think his point is privileged and kind of dumb, this is flatly not true. Maybe things are significantly different on the coasts, but in the Midwest and Southwest US 4 year colleges will accept virtually all credits from community colleges in their same state and the majority for credits from other states.
I think there may be some talking at cross purposes going on here. I would be very surprised if your community college classes transferred routinely with no questions asked, and I would further commend you on your rigorous and carefully chosen course of study if they did.
Just as an example, there's a program in Colorado called gtPathways that "is a set of general education courses taken at Colorado public college or university that are guaranteed to transfer among all two- and four-year Colorado public institutions." Basically, if you take a course off the approved list, it is guaranteed to transfer.
... but not all classes are on that list. For example, Red Rocks Community College offers about 20 mathematics classes, of which only half transfer. In particular, no class numbered below 120 makes the cut, so if you come in with a particularly poor math background and take Quantitative Literacy, Algebraic Literacy, Career Math, and Technical Math, you will still get no credit for them if you transfer to CU Boulder, because they're not university-level math classes.
(Indeed, Quantitative Literacy isn't even high school math. Most CU-B students were doing that stuff in middle school. Percentages? Seriously?)
Furthermore, just because the credits transfer doesn't mean that the classes do. If you roll in from Red Rocks with Integrated Math I (math for elementary school teachers) and expect to apply it for departmental credit in the engineering school, you'd probably be disappointed. It will probably apply as a general elective if anything, and you'll still need to take the full set of math requirements.
So, from the point of view of CU-Boulder, "of course" they accept credits from Red Rocks. Any course at Red Rocks that covers the appropriate material at an appropriate level will be accepted. From the point of view of a Red Rocks student, a lot of them will be disappointed to learn that Basic Anatomy doesn't count towards their science requirements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no loop holes, only the law as written. There is no fine print only the law as written. I kind of get tired of people saying a business or person is taking advantage of a loop hole like they are dishonest. Now there are unintended consequences of laws, that does happen. And sometimes the unintended law was not unintended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no loop holes, only the law as written. There is no fine print only the law as written. I kind of get tired of people saying a business or person is taking advantage of a loop hole like they are dishonest. Now there are unintended consequences of laws, that does happen. And sometimes the unintended law was not unintended.
...what you're describing is what the rest of us refer to as a loophole.
Went to a community college in Washington State, and I had the option of transferring to at least four state colleges with full credit. And those are just the ones I bothered to check. What hellhole are you living in?things are indeed significantly different on the coasts.the time period where that was true to the level you insinuate has long passed. Most four year colleges do not recognize credits from community colleges. Even if they are in the same system.As much as I think his point is privileged and kind of dumb, this is flatly not true. Maybe things are significantly different on the coasts, but in the Midwest and Southwest US 4 year colleges will accept virtually all credits from community colleges in their same state and the majority for credits from other states.
New York City. Greatest hellhole in the world!!!!!!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the poor are ignorant and should work hard, make money, buy property, then vote. It is far better than poor people voting themselves breads and circuses from the state coffer, which eventually destroys all democracies.Feudalism was a perfectly functional system for centuries.
it was perfectly functional for:
1-fending off vikings/magyars/Kings
2-keeping poor people poor and marginalized
3-keeping rich people rich w/o them having to work hard or change anythingother than that... not so great.
So...pretty much like America today?
I think the modern problem is three-fold. First, colleges and universities have increased their tuition rates at a much higher percentage than inflation over the same time, with little increase (and, if the applications I've seen are any indication, a loss) in quality of the education. In other words, kids are paying about four times what Gen X did for the exact same sheepskin.
Second, everywhere except in the minds of some idiots in Washington D.C., the job market is still VERY soft. There aren't a ton of jobs for these kids.
Third, there's a weird sense of entitlement today. It seems people want to skip the whole "entry level" thing (and, seeing what these kids are carrying in loan debt, I can't blame them on a few levels), but you don't get to skip steps. No job is "beneath" anyone, you're not necessarily going to do better than your parents (and, with the way the global economy is heading, you'll probably do worse. Much worse), and no one "owes" anyone with a degree jack. Especially if you studied something that you really liked that doesn't translate into the modern job market. There are only so many dance companies, archaeological digs, and "womens' studies" think tanks out there.
There are, however, just looking at local job listings, a ton of jobs for nurses (in Houston, they can get PAID), mechanics, electricians, plumbers, construction workers, oil field/offshore work, longshoremen (and more than a few are even union jobs). All pay well, but all require physical labor, something else the college kids today seem to think is "beneath" them.
So, a serious problem with artificial tuition inflation, a soft job market, limited jobs in niche majors, and a weird sense of entitlement have created a perfect storm. The only thing that an individual can change in that is a willingness to stop thinking the sheepskin means much and a less condescending attitude toward blue collar work. The rest? We need to get on the pols asses about it so kids don't keep racking up stupidly large loan tabs for degrees that aren't the ticket they once were.
|
|
There are no loop holes, only the law as written. There is no fine print only the law as written. I kind of get tired of people saying a business or person is taking advantage of a loop hole like they are dishonest. Now there are unintended consequences of laws, that does happen. And sometimes the unintended law was not unintended.
...what you're describing is what the rest of us refer to as a loophole.
...and the rest of us tend to say 'loophole' with disdain and disgust, until we need one ourselves, until we find one that works for us, then it's different.
It's a loophole for the lower classes, but when I know how to do it, that's just smart thinking. Evidence of my Noble Station in life, in fact.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no loop holes, only the law as written. There is no fine print only the law as written. I kind of get tired of people saying a business or person is taking advantage of a loop hole like they are dishonest. Now there are unintended consequences of laws, that does happen. And sometimes the unintended law was not unintended.
Thank you for the first-rate explanation of Lawful Evil.
Honestly, it's true. There IS only the law as written. If that weren't the case, lawyer would not be a thing. Nobody can write a law that does what was intended 100% of the time, unless it's something along the lines of "the president can do anything to anyone at any time". This is what makes monarchy easy. If you have higher aspirations than that, laws must remain a work in progress. There WILL be loopholes. After enough have used them, the laws change again, closing a number of those loopholes... and opening others. People adapt, and that isn't a bad thing in itself. And no, it's only lawful evil if the laws are not evil to begin with - a loophole in an evil law is not exactly evil, is it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it's true. There IS only the law as written. If that weren't the case, lawyer would not be a thing. Nobody can write a law that does what was intended 100% of the time, unless it's something along the lines of "the president can do anything to anyone at any time". This is what makes monarchy easy. If you have higher aspirations than that, laws must remain a work in progress. There WILL be loopholes. After enough have used them, the laws change again, closing a number of those loopholes... and opening others. People adapt, and that isn't a bad thing in itself. And no, it's only lawful evil if the laws are not evil to begin with - a loophole in an evil law is not exactly evil, is it?
Yeah, they actually can write laws in plain language that laymen can understand. That so many of our law makers are lawyers is where the problem lies. They write laws in jargon that the layman cannot understand, necessitating an "interpreter" (called a "lawyer). Basically, laws that could be three sentences are stretched into hundreds of pages of obfuscating lingo full of multiple interpretations, written by lawyers, in order to preserve job security for their fellow ambulance chasers.
Like Bugleyman said, nice definition of "lawful evil".
Laws are by necessity complicated issues, it's not just to be obscure, a law that's three sentences long isn't going to accomplish a whole hell of a lot. The shorter the law, the easier to get around it.