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.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Microsoft hires a wide range of people - software designers, advertisers, business analysts etc. As an ex-CEO and as chairman of the company, he'd be interested in who he is recruiting. Currently, education is geared towards attaining jobs and if a large technology tech company doesn't feel that they can get the right people for their jobs, then there's an issue.

Everyone who's ever run a company or just worked in the HR department of one is interested in who they recruit. By your definition they're all experts on international education standards.

The US is 17th in the world for their education system. As the country that dominates the world, you should be doing a lot better. Hell, Singapore, a tiny island country, is at no. 5! Australia's is better! And at 18th is Hungary. Isn't that telling? (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html)

Being a very large country doesn't mean it should be number one in everything. I don't know where in the hell you got that idea from. Instead, by the nature of being very large it will tend towards the middle. 17th in the world is - in the middle of the developed countries... which is exactly where I already said the US was.

Microsoft are located in the US. They have an interest in the US. They hire skilled people. If they find that they're recruiting more people from South Korea or Japan and less from the US, they'd probably think that their education is better than the US. I'm not stating they're experts on international education standards at all. But you can look at trends and see patterns. I read an article a while ago that said that in Asia there are few expats in top jobs in MNC. Why? Asian people are good enough for the job.

No, being a very large country doesn't mean you should be number one at everything. I never said that at all. The US is the strongest and most influential country in the world - that's undeniable. With an education system that's only 17th in the world, beaten by South Korea and Hong Kong, they may not be able to hold that position for much longer.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Microsoft are located in the US. They have an interest in the US. They hire skilled people. If they find that they're recruiting more people from South Korea or Japan and less from the US, they'd probably think that their education is better than the US. I'm not stating they're experts on international education standards at all. But you can look at trends and see patterns. I read an article a while ago that said that in Asia there are few expats in top jobs in MNC. Why? Asian people are good enough for the job.

You seriously going to sit there and claim that South Korea has an effective education system? Have you read anything about this at all? feth, have you even read this thread, because I've already been over that with another poster (long story short - a system with massive emphasis on rote learning and hours of study produces pupils that take exams very well, but are very poor at innovative or creative thinking).

And you might want to take a look at the idea of brain drain and the basic realities of relative scales of pay. There are very big reasons that high skilled workers drift from low income countries to high income countries, and it has exactly nothing to do with education being better quality in low income countries.

No, being a very large country doesn't mean you should be number one at everything. I never said that at all.

You said they should be doing better. As if being large somehow translated to delivering better results per capita. Which is nonsense.

The US is the strongest and most influential country in the world - that's undeniable. With an education system that's only 17th in the world, beaten by South Korea and Hong Kong, they may not be able to hold that position for much longer.

It doesn't work that way. fething hell, this is ridiculous.

I mean, go look at Hong Kong on a map. Notice that it is a very small island. Then consider what your claim that Hong Kong having a better education system might somehow cause the US to be toppled from top spot. Consider exactly how a better education system will change the basic reality that Hong Kong is a tiny island with 2 million people, and the US takes up half a continent and has 300 million people.

Then apologise for this nonsense.

What about Finland? They've got the strongest education system in the world. They don't revolve around rote learning and hours of study. Neither does Switzerland, the UK, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Belgium. All these countries have better education systems than the US.

How are countries going to get highly skilled workers without a good education? Why do I see many highly skilled workers from Northern Europe and Asia instead of Africa? There's a lot of highly skilled workers in South Korea, Singapore and Japan. Rote learning and hours of study must produce good candidates!

Hong Kong actually has 7 million people officially living there (the number is probably a lot higher) and Kowloon is one of the many islands of Hong Kong. South Korea and Hong Kong placing in near-top spots for education is symbolic - Asia is on the rise.

I never said that because the US is a large country it should be doing better. Have you read my posts at all? I'll quote them here:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Plus, the US public system isn't exactly renowned for being one of the best in the world, is it?

It is in a lot of ways unfairly attacked. Truth is there system is middle of the pack, with some unique strengths (excellent systems for high achievers to excel, and excellent systems to help struggling students catch up) and some unique weaknesses (the funding model is county based, so wealthy counties are overflowing with money and poor counties are massively underfunded). But you can say that about most any system.

If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
If you have guys like Bill Gates attacking it because it's not producing the right people for the modern world, then I'd say it's pretty bad.

Bill Gates made money in computers, therefore Bill Gates is an expert on the strengths and weaknesses of various educational systems...

Seriously, international comparisons are made between countries constantly, and the results are studied by every country, each looking for a way to improve their own systems and get a leg up in international competition. The US doesn't do that badly.

Microsoft hires a wide range of people - software designers, advertisers, business analysts etc. As an ex-CEO and as chairman of the company, he'd be interested in who he is recruiting. Currently, education is geared towards attaining jobs and if a large technology tech company doesn't feel that they can get the right people for their jobs, then there's an issue.

The US is 17th in the world for their education system. As the country that dominates the world, you should be doing a lot better. Hell, Singapore, a tiny island country, is at no. 5! Australia's is better! And at 18th is Hungary. Isn't that telling? (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html)

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Microsoft are located in the US. They have an interest in the US. They hire skilled people. If they find that they're recruiting more people from South Korea or Japan and less from the US, they'd probably think that their education is better than the US. I'm not stating they're experts on international education standards at all. But you can look at trends and see patterns. I read an article a while ago that said that in Asia there are few expats in top jobs in MNC. Why? Asian people are good enough for the job.

No, being a very large country doesn't mean you should be number one at everything. I never said that at all. The US is the strongest and most influential country in the world - that's undeniable. With an education system that's only 17th in the world, beaten by South Korea and Hong Kong, they may not be able to hold that position for much longer.

Read my posts again. I'm not saying that Hong Kong can beat the US at all - you're misinterpreting my comment. I'm saying that if these two countries are beating the US, then they've got more serious problems ahead of them.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...

The chief exec of the hospital I work at earns more in a day than I do in 3 weeks (plus other sources of income). I as a mid to low level employee have little in the way of a negotiating power to get a "fairer" wage given that I work solidly for 8 hours every day with no breaks (I am entitled to have breaks but there is too much work to do as there has been a hire freeze for quite a long time - even though we just hired a new chief exec... and several more managers...).

I've now completed an MSc and am looking to move into a job where I start on a wage almost twice that of what I make now, and it is still not a particularly high wage. And still nothing like the wage of the top levels of management of most companies.

The work they do isn't markedly harder than anything I do, so why is their time worth so much more than the average worker? Hell, why is it worth so much more than even the most highly skilled, educated and experienced workers?

Do you know that their work is or isn't harder? Who are you to judge what their job is worth? It may require additional experience that you simply don't have, experience they aquired through additional schooling or simply working in the field for 20+ years.

And you arn't the person that determines what your job is worth, the employer is who determines that. You are always free to leave your job if you don't think you are being paid enough to find another one.

I agree with Templar on this how the hell you know you can do their job and should be paid as much, are you responsible for X number of staff, projects, building floor, company wealth etc ? From my experience where I have been at the bottom and the top there are always people complaining about how much more they should earn as they believe their duties are just few tasks away from their manager and I tell you one thing, I wish you to be A Manager and see the coin from the other side and maybe with a good perception on the world it may open your eyes a little bit. Personally I am fed up with people winge about things like that and lets be honest, you want more wealth for your own gain without a care for anyone else, as soon as you get it you will stop complaining about unfairnes in life. it is always easy to winge then move your back and do something in life, I know as I have done it myself in my own life.

All in all you may be right and that manager is doing just a bit more and is getting 10 times more then you but thats life, you get that everywhere in some cases where undeserving morons are doing better in life then you but sitting at home and having a winge is not a solution. No one said it will be easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.

Amen!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:



It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.

Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.

What do you mean by this?

Freedom = Good
America = Freedom
Video was critical of america.
Therefore Video was critical of freedom
Therefore video was critical of good.
Therefore the video was, what good isn't.
What good isn't, is evil.
Hate is evil
Therefore evil is hate.
As already established, video is evil, therefore video is hate.
Video was about america, therefore video hates america.
America is freedom, therefore video hates freedom.

Simple logical really.

Hahaha


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Not really a surprise to me (then again I really like sociology) meritocracy and the American Dream is somewhat of a myth (not to say it doesn't happen, look at Oprah), if you're born into a middle class family chances are you're going to be middle class for the rest of your life same with the

rich and poor.

I always though the American dream was to own a home have children and be able to live comfortably not get on Ophra level wealth and fame. Is become rich and famous rock stars and celebrity the new dream?

Pretty much, As a kid I wanted to be garbage truck driver, wanted to clean the world - wonder how many kids these days have the same dream

 suspiratus wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.

Amen!

So basically all the millions of people doing volunteer work when they could be working to increase their own income are actually all liars deluding themselves?

 Frank&Stein wrote:

 suspiratus wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.

Amen!

So basically all the millions of people doing volunteer work when they could be working to increase their own income are actually all liars deluding themselves?

I would not class ALL people to be the same, I assume you get exception to all rules but I am yet to meet in my life a human being with pure heart. Giving others shelter while he lifes under a bridge. Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are some like that and I wish there would be more people like it but unveiling the whole topic piece by piece is just opening a bottomless can of worms on which we can ponder for years to come )

Looking at the historical trends, the last ten years look an awful lot like the 1920s. Remember what came afterwards? That's what we're looking at if spending doesn't pick up... which it can't, until payroll picks up.

Anyone know offhand what percentage of businesses open in 1929 were still in operation five years later? It's a pretty low number.

And this time, the government is already neck-deep in debt so they can't bail us out. That means it will be worse this time around.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What about Finland? They've got the strongest education system in the world. They don't revolve around rote learning and hours of study. Neither does Switzerland, the UK, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Belgium. All these countries have better education systems than the US.

Yes, and they have better systems. And now think about what I said - the US is a middle of the road system among the developed countries. If you'll think about that for half a second you'll realise that means that, holy crap!, some countries have stronger system. Middle of road means some countries are better than you.

It means some are better, and some are worse. It isn't a decisive national asset, but nor is it a decisive national problem. It's just... middle of the road.

How are countries going to get highly skilled workers without a good education?

And now you're confusing 'middle of the road' with 'incapable of producing skilled workers'. This is ridiculous. The US produces a large number of skilled workers. It'd be nice if they produced more, but it'd also be nice if they had a bullet train from Chicago to New York.

Claiming any of those things as the great problem that will cause the nation to fall from being the dominant nation in the world is just silly.

Why do I see many highly skilled workers from Northern Europe and Asia instead of Africa? There's a lot of highly skilled workers in South Korea, Singapore and Japan. Rote learning and hours of study must produce good candidates!

First up, European education systems are not noted for rote learning, the exact opposite is true.

Second up, producing more skilled workers than Africa isn't evidence of a good education system, it's evidence that your country is not the most impoverished country in the world.

Please just stop posting nonsense. You're making an arse of yourself.

South Korea and Hong Kong placing in near-top spots for education is symbolic - Asia is on the rise.

And people constantly confuse 'on the rise' with 'better systems'. When it actually means 'playing catch up, and steadily building systems that are as effective of those who currently have the best systems - evidenced by the high standard of living and rates of productivity in the developed world.

Read my posts again. I'm not saying that Hong Kong can beat the US at all - you're misinterpreting my comment. I'm saying that if these two countries are beating the US, then they've got more serious problems ahead of them.

I'm not misinterpreting your comment, I'm making fun of it, because it was silly. Not being #1 does not mean doomed to slide from power, because while education and skilled employees is important, it is not the only thing that determines who is #1. Otherwise Hong Kong's better education scores would see them fly to #1. As we all know that's stupid, it should encourage you to think of all the other things that actually determine what a #1 country has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
And this time, the government is already neck-deep in debt so they can't bail us out. That means it will be worse this time around.

First up, the idea that the US government is in lots of debt now, but wasn't at the outbreak of the depression is completely wrong. Remember is history class how there was this thing called WWI? Well that cost a load of money, and people then claimed exactly what's being claimed now - government can't help because it's already got loads of debt. And debt has certainly been much higher than it is right now - like during WWII, and in the early 90s it was almost as high as it is now. Anyway, here's a chart so you can look and see how crazy your claim was;


The idea that the US government can't borrow any more is completely wrong. In fact, the cost of borrowing in the short term is almost zero, because investors are still falling all over themselves to buy up US govt bonds.

Second up, the recovery is in place. As long as nothing feths it up (which is not impossible, even if the US congress doesn't sabotage the recovery there's some chance the idiocy in Europe will be so severe that it costs the US) then the recovery will happen. Note above how I said short term borrowings are close to zero - that's because medium and long term borrowing rates are predicted to rise - because of the economic recovery that is slowly coming in to place.

Long story short - the stimulus wasn't enough to mitigate the GFC entirely, but it was good enough to stop the fall being as bad as it could have been, and now the US (thanks to ongoing deficit stimulus) is moving out of recession.

And I predict you'll ignore all of that, like you ignored my last explanation of your errors, because you want to believe what you want to believe.

Hmm. According to your chart there, we had a 15% (give or take a couple %) of GDP debt at the beginning of the Great Depression vs. over 65% of GDP now.

And while you can just handwave it away as 'believing what I want to believe', that seems like a VERY significant difference to me.

Add in our recent loss of a AAA credit rating, continued vast increases in spending projected into the next thirty years, and a government that simply cannot remember that 'compromise' is not a dirty word (all of which were nowhere near as big a problem in 1930) means that it's only a matter of time before the government can't borror any more, because it cannot pay the INTEREST on what it is borrowing - much less pay off the principle.

All of this means that in the 20-teens there will be no 'New Deal' spending out of the government to shore up a collapsing economy.


(I'd love to be wrong. I really would. If I'm right, America ends in my lifetime, in blood and chaos. It's quite likely that I - and everyone I know - will die horribly in that case. This is not something I want to see, just to be proved right. But the historical trends are pretty clear... if one bothers to look with open eyes. When the average is dirt-poor, social unrest and economic chaos ensues. Simple fact of history. And we're headed there.)

 Vulcan wrote:
(I'd love to be wrong. I really would. If I'm right, America ends in my lifetime, in blood and chaos. It's quite likely that I - and everyone I know - will die horribly in that case. This is not something I want to see, just to be proved right. But the historical trends are pretty clear... if one bothers to look with open eyes. When the average is dirt-poor, social unrest and economic chaos ensues. Simple fact of history. And we're headed there.)

Lol.
All I have to say is that Sebster appears to be the only intelligent one here.

 Vulcan wrote:
Yep, those government death panels sure are terrible...

Oh, wait, that was a CORPORATE death panel. Well, that's okay then.

[/sarcasm]

I'm all for government death panels.

What amuses me is the people who think situations like the one linked would somehow change under the ACA.

 Vulcan wrote:
Hmm. According to your chart there, we had a 15% (give or take a couple %) of GDP debt at the beginning of the Great Depression vs. over 65% of GDP now.

And you're comparing the start of the Great Depression against now, in the wake of the GFC because...

Instead, look at the start of the Great Depression against the start of the GFC - 15% debt against 30% debt. And then look at how high debt got during WWII - in excess of 100% without any sign that that was the total possible limit to debt.

And then please actually do some thinking about your insistence that the US might suddenly hit the limit of how much it can borrow from the money market.

Add in our recent loss of a AAA credit rating,

That was a thing the media liked to pretend meant something, because the story on its face was a simple little narrative - Standard and Poors says US borrowing is out of control. Except to the actual bond markets the rating reduction meant absolutely nothing - the only change seen in the days following was the US government borrowing at even cheaper rates. To the market the US government remains the absolute safest place in the world to invest your money.

and a government that simply cannot remember that 'compromise' is not a dirty word (all of which were nowhere near as big a problem in 1930)

Any claim that the major works projects undertaken to lift the US out of the Great Depression shows a complete ignorance of history. The blue and red lines weren't drawn as sharply, but all that meant was that Dems were more likely to oppose efforts just as Reps were more likely to support them.

means that it's only a matter of time before the government can't borror any more,

That's not even slightly a thing. You see that WWII spike in debt, and you see how much higher it is than current US debt? Yeah...

And then when you realise that the US is borrowing at rates near zero, and you realise that really fething isn't the case for any organisation close to its borrowing limit? Yeah...

And then when you realise the idea of default makes no damn sense when you're talking about a country that prints its own money, which instead just transfers debt into inflation? Yeah...

because it cannot pay the INTEREST on what it is borrowing - much less pay off the principle.

Government bonds don't work like that. Instead they are sold at a (market determined) discount, and are a future promise to pay $100. That is, while the rate of interest can be calculated based on the price the bond is sold for in the market, the interest and principle are all paid in one go, so it becomes a total whackjob nonsense to claim that one could pay interest but not debt, or vice versa.

Seriously, please just learn, come at this from an actual position of knowledge. Stop just guessing at how things maybe work.

All of this means that in the 20-teens there will be no 'New Deal' spending out of the government to shore up a collapsing economy.

All of which relies on an assumption that the economy is still collapsing. Which is a total load of nonsense in direct contradiction to the economic indicators.

Stop making gak up.

(I'd love to be wrong. I really would.

You are wrong. Totally, completely 100% wrong. So be happy about that.

If I'm right, America ends in my lifetime, in blood and chaos. It's quite likely that I - and everyone I know - will die horribly in that case. This is not something I want to see, just to be proved right. But the historical trends are pretty clear... if one bothers to look with open eyes.

But you're not. You're trading on half understood economic knowledge, picking out the little bits that sound scary and making up a fantasy of doom and disaster in your head. That sounds like an exciting, scary world to be part of, I mean, I love apocalypse stories as much as the next nerd, but it has nothing to do with the real world.