Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh, I know, believe me I've paid those bills (1,500 per c-hour, actually). I don't begrudge anyone for making sound fiscal choices, I'm simply speaking to the reality of student preparation, on average.

American higher education (and lower education) is in a state of shambles.

Why wouldn't you opt for technical training then, or some kind of apprenticeship program?

Sounds like 'I can dump money into this bad program or that worse program'.

When I was in undergrad, most technical programs did not qualify for student loans.

That said, I'm an arrogant ass that has a high opinion of his own academic ability, so I wagered against that and ended up winning; though only because of the incidental athletic experience I was provided.

Also, I'm from a family that is fairly well off, so failure entailed "Working with uncle Howard." as a salesman at a national food conglomerate.

dogma wrote:...so failure entailed "Working with uncle Howard." as a salesman at a national food conglomerate...

That right there seems a good enough reason to kick yourself in the butt and learn or earn a college degree in something useful.

Financially, I would have been better off going that route. He makes far more money than I do.

Does Uncle Howard need a personal Chef?

So long as you can wrap bacon around matzah balls....

I can wrap bacon around anything.

Though I'm not sure if I could violate Kosher law in such a way, ethically. And by "ethically" I mean "Bacon latkes cost extra!"

Monster Rain wrote:I can wrap bacon around anything.

Do you charge extra for this?

Monster Rain wrote:I can wrap bacon around anything.

Though I'm not sure if I could violate Kosher law in such a way, ethically. And by "ethically" I mean "Bacon latkes cost extra!"

And for those things you can't wrap bacon around there is bacon lube.

By no means did I import some from america earlier this week.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I can wrap bacon around anything.

Do you charge extra for this?

It's a sliding scale.

The low end is "Normal Use of Bacon" and it progresses to " Things That Would Make a Kardashian Blush."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I can wrap bacon around anything.

Though I'm not sure if I could violate Kosher law in such a way, ethically. And by "ethically" I mean "Bacon latkes cost extra!"

And for those things you can't wrap bacon around there is bacon lube.

By no means did I import some from america earlier this week.

Most of the gals I hook up with are piggish enough without this product.

Monster Rain wrote:" Things That Would Make a Kardashian Blush."

On which cheeks?

The real solution is redistribution of wealth from the top 5% of US society to enable the funding of an effective public education system and adequate support services for poor families.

Not reallym the solutuion would be to make laws and policy to make the top 5% want to give to an effective education.
By simply "making" them do it you risk running them of to better pastures taking all their money with them.

But then again how would such a sponsored educational system remain non biased towards those who sponsor it?

But you also used nursing as an example of oversaturated professions which is what I'm disagreeing with, because its recognized by people in the industry to be far from oversaturated.

Then again, what is oversaturated, sure as hell not all the math and civil engineer seats.
Most people go the easy route believing just getting an education and all the loans and debt that brings with it will entitle them to cozy jobs.
Hence why you see loads of history, art and social goof classes (simple to pass) that will inevitable lead to at best a burger flipping job and very few science people applying for the really hard educations where jobs with fat paychecks await afterwards.

It´s the whole educational system that is flawed as the US doesnt really produce any internal scientists and engineers but take in those from abroad.
More effort should be made by attracting and helping people pass the "harder" educations so you dont end up with what you have today, a nation full of art majors working in Mcdonalds with foreign IQ immigrants taking the top paid job spots.

State colleges are awful a preparing their students for graduate work. In general, the student has to display exceptional ingenuity in order to proceed (and even then, they tend to be behind).

This is very true for our school system as well, getting into uni for a science themed education was a complete and total shock.
Neither was any real effort given by the educators to help and make sure students would pass. Teachers on those levels have their work and research they want to do and holding classes is more of a must-thing a certain amount of hours a month so as long as they do their tutoring hours the students can go screw themselves.

We were dropped with brick thick books with physics, chemistry and math nobody ever in their life had seen beforehand nor was the slightest prepared for (since pre uni school system basically prepares you to be told by the teacher what lame homework you need to read in order to be prepared for and pass that future art major or social goof course)
and it was all up to us to grind through it or go die.

No wonder a lot of people fluke out and we end up with thousands of goofy art majors who later in life compete in the cue outside Mcdonalds but are still burdened with insane levels of debt.

I see far more nursing, medical, and biology majors than art majors. Might just be the college I go to though (I've only seen one person with a physics major and I'm the only one Iv'e heard of who's a chem major).

Pyriel- wrote:

The real solution is redistribution of wealth from the top 5% of US society to enable the funding of an effective public education system and adequate support services for poor families.

Not reallym the solutuion would be to make laws and policy to make the top 5% want to give to an effective education.
By simply "making" them do it you risk running them of to better pastures taking all their money with them.

But then again how would such a sponsored educational system remain non biased towards those who sponsor it?...

If the political will existed, means could be found to redistribute wealth.

The political will exists, just not amongst politicians whom receive large amounts of money to prevent them from doing it.

sourclams wrote:Lloyd Blankfein is a Jewish minority, was born in Bronx, grew up in tenement housing, and attended public schools. His Dad was a postal worker, his Mom a receptionist.

Food for thought.

Not every ethnic minority suffers the same level of economic marginalisation.

I'm not glossing over the fact that some people lose the genetic lottery and are born into more difficult starting positions, but at some point individuals have to become accountable for their own progress, or lack thereof, in elevating their status.

Sure, but society is capable of levelling out the opportunities, and giving more people more even starting positions. And yet we get stupid, stupid opinion pieces like the one in Forbes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Manufacturing jobs today don't pay minimum wage. The plants at the company I work for (agricultural, hardly the richest positions in the sector) pay $12/hour starting with benefits. If you have experience on the job or are willing to do one of the more demanding positions, $12/hour bumps up to $16/hour pretty quickly. That's between $25k and $30k per year with benefits, and as I said, that's middling for the sector and ignoring overtime (which can increase your top line salary by more than 20%).

We pay 15 year old kids $12 an hour for pushing trolleys around shopping centres. You're the richest country on Earth, you could really, really afford to be little more generous with your lowest levels of pay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:This indicates a glaring and complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts of statistics. This sort of writing is why The Economist is getting more and more disappointing.

Perhaps it's just an idiot blogger.

The point made by the guy writing in The Economist was a perfectly sensible, and entirely succinct point. I have no idea how you missed it.

The writer of the original piece was writing an article in response to a young black kid, who might be denied access to a wealthy, growing economy by his impoverished upbringing. Which is a somewhat reasonable way of addressing poverty in four or five decades ago, when there really was a wealth of opportunities available in a wealthy, growing economy. But today's economy, with wealth increasingly concentrated among the top 1%, that 'buck up young black fella and learn some skills' is a woefully inadequate answer.

The most basic reading of the stats involved will make that clear. I don't know how you missed this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Working hard does not mean you should get paid a lot. If I went to my current job with thumbtacks in my shoes and hopped up and down on one foot blindfolded, I would be exhausted, injured, and incompetent by the end of my first workday. I would have also created less value for my employer, be worth less to my company, and any rational hiring professional would want to replace me with someone better. A minimum wage, part-time job is never going to be a 'career'.

Nor does getting paid a lot automatically equate to the value of one's contribution. We use the market to price things because it's an efficient allocation of resources, but it is by no means perfect, and it sure as hell isn't fair. So making it a little more fair by having a more generous minimum wage is only sensible.


And it is a hell of a lot easier to move past a minimum wage job when it pays enough that a person can survive on one only working 40 hours a week, so they can study or otherwise prepare for another career.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Summed this up in a nutshell. I'm not clear were Melissia is going here; is the argument that being a janitor or garbageman is more physically taxing than, say, a stockbroker and so they should be paid more?

Either Biicat or Sebster or someone made a good point on here about that once. Working hard in and of itself is not useful, compared with working at something someone else wants that requires something less common then two hands and a strong back.

Biccat has made a point much like that one before.

My counter is that getting paid lots is by no means an indicator of value, because value is almost impossible to properly determine. We use 'whatever the market pays' as a starting point for pay because, well, it's about as good as any point, but that doesn't mean the nurse is in fact contributing one tenth as much healthcare as the doctor. Thing is, ultimately both are essential to the system, remove either doctors or nurses and the system would fail.

So it's impossible to say what either one of them is 'worth'. Instead we just go with the entirely pragmatic view of paying enough to make sure we get enough sufficiently capable people in each position. Which works well enough for most jobs, but on the extremes you get problems. For instance, we know we could pay as little as we want for jobs with a greater supply of impoverished people than positions available, and people would work them, because the alternative is starvation. In fact, economies operated on this idea for generations... it's just that we recognised it as a really fethed up way of doing things. On the other end of the scale, we get the issue of people with select skill sets getting paid incredible amounts of money for catching a football.

So instead we recognise that while the market price of labour is a good starting point, we need to adjust that system with things like minimum wages and progressive income tax rates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Not so much. Its one man's qualitative assessment regarding what he views as a paradox; that people who seem insistent on using numeric data to understand one particular type of the world are reticent to do the same regarding another. Of course, this isn't really a paradox as one wouldn't necessarily expect an engineer to look to numeric data in order to form opinions regarding anything not related to engineering, just as a philosopher won't necessarily look to qualitative data to form opinions on matters not related to philosophy (presuming his philosophy is not already based in quantitative data).

However, the statement above provides no evidence which suggests that the author does not understand the nature of statistics, you're merely drawing an inappropriate inference.

I think it is a very strange thing that so many people who apply stringent, academic levels of thought to their own profession are happy to the lurch into any other profession without bothering to read anything on that field. The paradox comes in when people will condemn amateurs for sounding off about their own field, and then do the same in someone else's field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Then the poor black kid better work on getting likeable fast, shouldn't he?

Edit: You know, I would really like to hear some constructive advice from YOUR perspective on how somebody born into a lower income bracket can get into a higher one. I've given several, based on what I've done and what has worked for me.

Do you have any worthwhile ideas, or do you intend to remain stagnantly bitter at 'The Man' while demanding he give you his money via gov't?

Improved state funding for primary and seconday schools in impoverished areas, so the quality of education is closer to that given in wealthier districts.

Higher minimum wage so the parents don't need to each work two jobs to make ends meet, allowing them to spend more time raising and educating their children.

Improved sex education to reduce the teenage pregnancy poverty trap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyriel- wrote:Kind of like the opposite side of the scale where the other end is taken up by brainwashed politically correct people believing anything they are told by the leaders.
And we all know that Institutionalized political correctness is sooo much better.

That's complete gibberish. You don't get to just to shout 'political correctness!' and pretend it means something.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

The real solution is redistribution of wealth from the top 5% of US society to enable the funding of an effective public education system and adequate support services for poor families.

Not reallym the solutuion would be to make laws and policy to make the top 5% want to give to an effective education.
By simply "making" them do it you risk running them of to better pastures taking all their money with them.

But then again how would such a sponsored educational system remain non biased towards those who sponsor it?...

If the political will existed, means could be found to redistribute wealth.

Will is nothing without power. I have the will power to redistribute wealth (to me) but lack the power sufficient to insure that that occurs.

Frazzled wrote:Will is nothing without power. I have the will power to redistribute wealth (to me) but lack the power sufficient to insure that that occurs.

Then you lack sufficient will. If you had more will you'd be out there breaking into the homes of elderly people and not here on Dakka.

Same thing applies on a political level. If the political will was really there to raise taxes on the wealthy really existed in great numbers, and as a firm commitment held to long term and not just as a political pressure valve during the present recession, then the mainstream left wing party in the US would be, well, like mainstream left wing political parties elsewhere in the world, and not like the Democrats.

The democrats were mainstream, but then they bungled around for a year in a pissing contest amongst themselves, and people threw in with the republicans because the republicans promised they'd get something done (they haven't, but they're good at shifting the conversation away from this fact).

Melissia wrote:The democrats were mainstream, but then they bungled around for a year in a pissing contest amongst themselves, and people threw in with the republicans because the republicans promised they'd get something done (they haven't, but they're good at shifting the conversation away from this fact).

They're both mainstream. They are the only two parties that will put forward presidential candidates capable of winning. In the next round of elections those two parties, between them, will include just about every successful candidate at every level of government. The only way to get something done is to join on of those two parties, or make enough noise about that issue that one of the two major parties picks up the issue. You might not like one or the other of the two parties right now, but they are the mainstream of your politics.

Melissia wrote:The democrats were mainstream, but then they bungled around for a year in a pissing contest amongst themselves, and people threw in with the republicans because the republicans promised they'd get something done (they haven't, but they're good at shifting the conversation away from this fact).

How could you think the republicans aren't also mainstream? How?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/a-muscular-empathy/249984/

Here's a wonderful piece that was written in response to the opening story. It starts out rather nicely condemning the basic mistake of the original piece in a far more accurate and far more succinct manner than I tried and failed to do;

"It is comforting to believe that we, through our sheer will, could transcend these bindings... (if we) were we poor and black our sense of Protestant industry would be a mighty power sending gang leaders, gang members, hunger, depression and sickle cell into flight. We flatter ourselves, not out of malice, but out of instinct."

"This basic extension of empathy is one of the great barriers in understanding race in this country. I do not mean a soft, flattering, hand-holding empathy. I mean a muscular empathy rooted in curiosity. If you really want to understand slaves, slave masters, poor black kids, poor white kids, rich people of colors, whoever, it is essential that you first come to grips with the disturbing facts of your own mediocrity. The first rule is this–You are not extraordinary. It’s all fine and good to declare that you would have freed your slaves. But it’s much more interesting to assume that you wouldn’t and then ask “Why?” "


It might be nice to think that people should be able to rise out of poverty, because it is possible for an exceptional few to work two jobs and get an education. But well, the majority don't for the very same reason that most of us middle class haven't risen up to become captains of industry - because we're not extraordinarily smart, incredibly dedicated people gifted with more than a small dose of good luck. Most of us are, in fact, just as modestly capable as everyone else. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's just how it is. But it makes it pretty crazy to pretend that the poor ought to rise up through exceptional personal characteristics, and then being constantly surprised when it doesn't happen.

I think this idea from psychology sums up what happens to a lot of people's thinking around this subject:

All people, beginning in their twenties and continuing until the end of their lives, tell themselves stories about their own journeys to make sense of life. This is one of the biggest ideas in psychology: that identity is story. The psychologists call these stories personal myths, life scripts, or self-narratives. The stories are not logical and linear strings of autobiographical facts. Rather, they’re selective memories with magnified turning points — a trauma, for example — that give shape to a life so that the young adult can view himself as part of the complex, confusing, and demanding adult society around him. An adolescent does not yet know who he is. But a young adult — having to choose a career, sexual partners, political affiliations, and so much more — needs to believe that he knows who he is. So he begins making up a story line, with himself as the hero.

Once the life script is made, it is easy to see yourself as the one who overcame all obstacles to be "successful" and conveniently forget about all the random stuff that happened to help get you there.

Ouze wrote:Summed this up in a nutshell. I'm not clear were Melissia is going here; is the argument that being a janitor or garbageman is more physically taxing than, say, a stockbroker and so they should be paid more?

Either Biicat or Sebster or someone made a good point on here about that once. Working hard in and of itself is not useful, compared with working at something someone else wants that requires something less common then two hands and a strong back.

That's correct.

Value is a subjective thing made by the people consuming the good or service. However, if there's no value in the exchange for the producer, then there's no incentive to produce and sell the good or service. The price of a good is the least the producer will accept and the most the consumer will pay (or thereabouts).

If there were a dearth of janitors and everyone wanted a janitor, the price of janitorial services would increase and working as a janitor would be pretty lucrative. Which might cause more people to become janitors, dropping the price of the services back to what is considered a more reasonable level, probably increasing demand.

While there is a certain amount of momentum in the market (we'll only pay X because that's what we've always paid), Sebster vastly overstates the effects of that momentum. Nurses may not make as much as doctors, but because there's a shortage of nurses it's possible to earn a very nice living as a nurse, much nicer than what would have been possible 20+ years ago when nurses were more available.

LoneLictor wrote:

Melissia wrote:The democrats were mainstream, but then they bungled around for a year in a pissing contest amongst themselves, and people threw in with the republicans because the republicans promised they'd get something done (they haven't, but they're good at shifting the conversation away from this fact).

How could you think the republicans aren't also mainstream? How?

I never said they weren't. Only that they gained the majority thorugh the incompetence of the dems.

biccat wrote:That's correct.

Value is a subjective thing made by the people consuming the good or service. However, if there's no value in the exchange for the producer, then there's no incentive to produce and sell the good or service. The price of a good is the least the producer will accept and the most the consumer will pay (or thereabouts).

If there were a dearth of janitors and everyone wanted a janitor, the price of janitorial services would increase and working as a janitor would be pretty lucrative. Which might cause more people to become janitors, dropping the price of the services back to what is considered a more reasonable level, probably increasing demand.

Well yeah, but that's just Year 8 economics at it's most simple. The point is that when you start looking at actual economic practices in place, and recognise the complexities that exist in the market place, then the above just starts looking hopelessly simplistic.

While there is a certain amount of momentum in the market (we'll only pay X because that's what we've always paid), Sebster vastly overstates the effects of that momentum. Nurses may not make as much as doctors, but because there's a shortage of nurses it's possible to earn a very nice living as a nurse, much nicer than what would have been possible 20+ years ago when nurses were more available.

No, that simply isn't my point at all, and I have honestly got no clue as to how you ever decided that it was.

My point, that I have explained to you many, many times now, is that the doctor isn't an independant unit selling his doctor services. There isn't a guy with a hernia saying "I need three hours of surgeon" and a doctor saying "I will sell you three hours of surgeon for $450" with absolutely no-one else involved. Instead, the doctor delivers his service as part of a complex medical system, in which the doctor is only one small part. His service is not only boosted by, but can only exist with support from nurses and orderlies, to say nothing of admin staff and cleaning services and all the rest. Were the doctor to run his own hospital and handle his own nursing, do his own admin, do his own cleaning, he'd be vastly less efficient, and probably not as good at half those jobs.

So, to price everyone's time in an incredibly complex system such as a hospital, we basically throw it open to the market, and see what demand a supply gets us as prices. It's a good starting point, quite efficient. But it sure as hell isn't fair, and it sure as hell isn't without it's problems.

sebster wrote:My point, that I have explained to you many, many times now

Simply repeating it doesn't make it true. Even if it's a big lie.

sebster wrote:is that the doctor isn't an independant unit selling his doctor services.

Actually they usually are.

sebster wrote:There isn't a guy with a hernia saying "I need three hours of surgeon" and a doctor saying "I will sell you three hours of surgeon for $450" with absolutely no-one else involved.

No, there's a guy who shows up at a hospital and says "I need a hernia operation". The hospital works out the details: hires the doctor and nurses, buys medical supplies, arranges payment, etc. Distorting the relevant actors doesn't mean you're right about this.

You could just as easily have said "there isn't a guy with a factory saying 'I need three hours of mopping.' and a janitor saying 'I will sell you three hours of mopping.'" No one actually does this. But the guy with the factory does say "I need someone to clean my factory" and a janitor does say "I will clean your factory for $X."

sebster wrote:Instead, the doctor delivers his service as part of a complex medical system, in which the doctor is only one small part. His service is not only boosted by, but can only exist with support from nurses and orderlies, to say nothing of admin staff and cleaning services and all the rest. Were the doctor to run his own hospital and handle his own nursing, do his own admin, do his own cleaning, he'd be vastly less efficient, and probably not as good at half those jobs.

You're right, he wouldn't do very good as his own nurse, administrator, cleaning, etc. Which is why doctors hire other people to handle those issues.

You're also ignoring the fact that for quite a long time many doctors did operate independently and not "as part of a complex medical system." If you had an ailment, you called a doctor who might operate out of his house or would make housecalls. He would charge you a flat or hourly fee. Medical care suffered because doctors did do all (or most) of their own nursing, administration and cleaning, meaning that they spent less time honing their skills as a physician.

With the advent of modern hospitals and clinics, doctors have been able to specialize their skills (and that's what makes a market more efficient, specialization) without having to worry about sundry duties. Medical care has improved as a result; I'd much rather have a modern surgeon operate on me than a 19th century sawbones, even given the same tools.

sebster wrote:So, to price everyone's time in an incredibly complex system such as a hospital, we basically throw it open to the market, and see what demand a supply gets us as prices. It's a good starting point, quite efficient. But it sure as hell isn't fair, and it sure as hell isn't without it's problems.

I like how you just throw the word "fair" in there at the end as if it somehow strengthens your argument. In fact, it muddies your whole comment because what is "fair" is an individual and subjective measure.

Stepping away from the medical system for a moment, are you going to argue that there's a hugely complicated janitorial services market?

How many janitors research and manufacture their own cleaning equipment?

Kilkrazy wrote:How many janitors research and manufacture their own cleaning equipment?

Much like physicians, very few practicing janitors manufacture their own cleaning equipment.

However, there are people who research and manufacture new cleaning and janitorial equipment, much like there are people who research and manufacture new medical equipment.