This is 100% bullshit and anyone with even a high school level of understanding of physics knows this.
And they'd be wrong, since you need college level biochemistry to actually understand what's happening. I follow a "proper" regimen of diet and exercise and it works, however there are plenty of others who follow the same kind of workout and diet routine whose BMR is MUCH MUCH higher than mine. Some of them it's so high they complain about the opposite problem, inability to gain weight.
I disagree. With more and more tasks going to be handled by computers and machines in the future, I would argue we have hit and passed peak education.
That would reduce the DCF value of future salary improvement but not the social value of having more educated citizens. It would change the break-even point so there would need to be some discussion about the tradeoffs at that time but I think you're way too early in this assessment.
You are doing it right now. You admit that the value of any education is not infinite, but thats so damaging to your method of argument that you accuse the other side that they believe the value of any education is zero as if your accusations are a logical argument, and yet you have continued to not actually discuss what the value of any specific education actually is.
Society cannot feel its way to prosperity.
If you have to generalize to make your argument because specifics always seem to hurt it, its because its full of feels rather than thinks.
Well you're not going to get a full position paper in a Slashdot posting, sorry to burst your bubble on that one.
Yes as conservatives say, degrees have a definable monetary value which can be calculated using the discounted cash flows of the individual's projected salary. No, I don't agree with liberals that education has unlimited value and is worth any cost. However, I do agree with them that the social value of an educated person is greater than the DCF of their salary improvement. How much greater? Well that's an interesting question and one worth debating.
My personal position is that having members of the populace who both desire a college education and are capable of handling the material but not educating them due to their personal life circumstances is a waste of potential human capital and that currently the break even point is likely the bachelor's degree or it's equivalent. As a society I think it would be in our best interest to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to achieve at least that level of education. During the Agricultural period grade school was sufficient, during the Industrial period high school was sufficient, during the Information Age we now need a post-high school educated populace. This doesn't have to mean college, but it should mean significant education past the 12th year.
The free market is great at optimizing resource allocation given the correct constraints but like any optimizer if the constraints aren't set properly you get strange answers. Our current funding model for post-secondary education creates significant labor market inefficiencies that won't self-correct.
From an income perspective none. From a society and functional perspective huge. For one thing the bureaucracy required for guaranteed employment would be gigantic. Additionally the amount of negative self worth you'd get from being forced to do make work would far outweigh any usefulness that would come from the program. A basic income increases individual liberty while guaranteed employment actually reduces it.
Arguing the crossover point is a reasonable thing to do. My argument would be that the useful level of education tends to rise over time. Any level of education that is required for a significant portion of the population is going to be more effective if we pay for it as a group, right now that would be a bachelor's degree. The number of masters degree and Phd holders isn't high enough yet to warrant free access for everyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if we get there sometime this century.
The scenario you describe is unlikely at the funding level they're proposing. This has actually been tried in reality before, though obviously not on this scale, and the results were quite positive. A guaranteed basic income is one of the few socialist ideas that can actually work because it doesn't require massive bureaucratic intervention & oversight. Canceling more complicated social assistance programs and removing the minimum wage when this is implemented would actually result in a system that is MORE free market rather than LESS. Additionally removing the threat of starvation and homelessness moves some negotiating power from capital to labor and will result in more equitable bargaining that will solve a variety of social issues without government involvement.
Says you. Funny, I've never seen externalities addressed by libertarianism.
The theory I've heard is some hand waving about it all being resolved in court. Frankly that just means the group with the most money will do whatever the heck they want. Externalities and social goods are two major flaws in Libertarian philosophy.
The fundamental problem is that few US citizens are motivated to attain high levels of education, and to earn their wages / wealth by contributing to society, rather than living off subsidies doled out by the guvment.
And record high college graduation rates are evidence of that lack of motivation?
That is not the purpose of the H1-B program. If you would like to hire those from another country, fine, but they dont get to jump to the front of the immigration line jsut because you want cheaper labor.
If they're so awesome that hiring them is better than hiring a local then we want them to be citizens. Every H1-B should get fast track immigration, solves the whole problem of foreign labor.
No. Though they have certainly been "militarized" over the last forty years or so, they're no where near to being a military force. I guarantee you that if the Marine Corps replaced the Policed Department in your area you'd know the difference right away, both in methods and objectives. Separation of those two functions is vital for any society that believes in individual liberty and representative government.
What you're leaving out is that in those times much of what we describe as police work was actually performed by the military. There is a good reason we separated those functions.
It's no secret the police are a bunch of idiots that are barely able to write a sentence by themselves.
I think that's overly harsh. Sure, they're not rocket scientists, but honestly that's not what the job requires. Mostly they're a group of blue & white collar guys with good intentions that get put in some pretty terrible situations. Yes, there are a couple of groups within the force that cause issues to be worse (corrupt cops, racists, power mongers, etc.) but that's going to be true of any large organization. The police became over-militarized in response to the chaos of the 1990s and now the needle probably needs to move back the other direction.
I'm pretty free market, but I'm not sure policing is an area I really wanted to see taken over by competing corporations. Sure, the current problems are bad but imagine what they'd be like with a profit this quarter short sighted-ness and a focus on cost-cutting. Yes, in theory you could write a contract to give them the correct incentives, but in practice I think the process would be so corrupt that it would not work well.
What Clinton did became illegal about a year after she left State.
Prior to it being illegal, I believe it was against the policy on the transmission and storage of classified information due to the fact that she wasn't using State Department equipment. She may have felt that as Secretary of State she was above the rules, but I would argue that is not the case. This is a much smaller issue that than title 18 one and if true would only merit a written censure or something of that nature.
be mad at Obama instead. He likely disclosed a spectacular amount of classified information on the Bin Laden raid, both in terms of the actual raid specifics, seal team operation protocols, and CIA surveillance capabilities. Then he used presidential discretion to justify and declassify it.
My understanding is that as commander in chief he has the ability to decide when to declassify information he deems appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
This is 100% bullshit and anyone with even a high school level of understanding of physics knows this.
And they'd be wrong, since you need college level biochemistry to actually understand what's happening. I follow a "proper" regimen of diet and exercise and it works, however there are plenty of others who follow the same kind of workout and diet routine whose BMR is MUCH MUCH higher than mine. Some of them it's so high they complain about the opposite problem, inability to gain weight.
I disagree. With more and more tasks going to be handled by computers and machines in the future, I would argue we have hit and passed peak education.
That would reduce the DCF value of future salary improvement but not the social value of having more educated citizens. It would change the break-even point so there would need to be some discussion about the tradeoffs at that time but I think you're way too early in this assessment.
You are doing it right now. You admit that the value of any education is not infinite, but thats so damaging to your method of argument that you accuse the other side that they believe the value of any education is zero as if your accusations are a logical argument, and yet you have continued to not actually discuss what the value of any specific education actually is. Society cannot feel its way to prosperity. If you have to generalize to make your argument because specifics always seem to hurt it, its because its full of feels rather than thinks.
Well you're not going to get a full position paper in a Slashdot posting, sorry to burst your bubble on that one.
Yes as conservatives say, degrees have a definable monetary value which can be calculated using the discounted cash flows of the individual's projected salary. No, I don't agree with liberals that education has unlimited value and is worth any cost. However, I do agree with them that the social value of an educated person is greater than the DCF of their salary improvement. How much greater? Well that's an interesting question and one worth debating.
My personal position is that having members of the populace who both desire a college education and are capable of handling the material but not educating them due to their personal life circumstances is a waste of potential human capital and that currently the break even point is likely the bachelor's degree or it's equivalent. As a society I think it would be in our best interest to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to achieve at least that level of education. During the Agricultural period grade school was sufficient, during the Industrial period high school was sufficient, during the Information Age we now need a post-high school educated populace. This doesn't have to mean college, but it should mean significant education past the 12th year.
The free market is great at optimizing resource allocation given the correct constraints but like any optimizer if the constraints aren't set properly you get strange answers. Our current funding model for post-secondary education creates significant labor market inefficiencies that won't self-correct.
From an income perspective none. From a society and functional perspective huge. For one thing the bureaucracy required for guaranteed employment would be gigantic. Additionally the amount of negative self worth you'd get from being forced to do make work would far outweigh any usefulness that would come from the program. A basic income increases individual liberty while guaranteed employment actually reduces it.
Arguing the crossover point is a reasonable thing to do. My argument would be that the useful level of education tends to rise over time. Any level of education that is required for a significant portion of the population is going to be more effective if we pay for it as a group, right now that would be a bachelor's degree. The number of masters degree and Phd holders isn't high enough yet to warrant free access for everyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if we get there sometime this century.
An educated populace is a social good. It doesn't have infinite value but the value is much more than zero which is what you seem to be proposing.
But no, the majority of H1-B workers are not "slaves".
Of course not, nowadays we call them "salaried employees" instead. Have you seen the 10th Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary?
We tried this in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and ended up with 10 year waiting lists for cars.
The failure of the Eastern Bloc was due to their use of a centrally managed command economy, not a guaranteed basic income that they didn't even have.
The scenario you describe is unlikely at the funding level they're proposing. This has actually been tried in reality before, though obviously not on this scale, and the results were quite positive. A guaranteed basic income is one of the few socialist ideas that can actually work because it doesn't require massive bureaucratic intervention & oversight. Canceling more complicated social assistance programs and removing the minimum wage when this is implemented would actually result in a system that is MORE free market rather than LESS. Additionally removing the threat of starvation and homelessness moves some negotiating power from capital to labor and will result in more equitable bargaining that will solve a variety of social issues without government involvement.
I can tell that you never played D&D or you'd know the difference between wisdom and intelligence.
Except there is no evidence that they are "so awesome that hiring them is better than hiring a local.
Well then the H1-B visa should be denied shouldn't it? If they're not more awesome then you should be hiring locals.
You are wrong about Republicans. They don't believe in the right to smoke.
Of course not, smoking is prole. They do however believe in the right to sell cigarettes.
I've heard responses, just no credible ones and I say that as a registered Libertarian.
Says you. Funny, I've never seen externalities addressed by libertarianism.
The theory I've heard is some hand waving about it all being resolved in court. Frankly that just means the group with the most money will do whatever the heck they want. Externalities and social goods are two major flaws in Libertarian philosophy.
Don't be so sure, there is a big segment of the population that likes an aggressive straight talking candidate.
The fundamental problem is that few US citizens are motivated to attain high levels of education, and to earn their wages / wealth by contributing to society, rather than living off subsidies doled out by the guvment.
And record high college graduation rates are evidence of that lack of motivation?
That is not the purpose of the H1-B program. If you would like to hire those from another country, fine, but they dont get to jump to the front of the immigration line jsut because you want cheaper labor.
If they're so awesome that hiring them is better than hiring a local then we want them to be citizens. Every H1-B should get fast track immigration, solves the whole problem of foreign labor.
No. Though they have certainly been "militarized" over the last forty years or so, they're no where near to being a military force. I guarantee you that if the Marine Corps replaced the Policed Department in your area you'd know the difference right away, both in methods and objectives. Separation of those two functions is vital for any society that believes in individual liberty and representative government.
What you're leaving out is that in those times much of what we describe as police work was actually performed by the military. There is a good reason we separated those functions.
Sure, until they lay off seven of the nine people in the department.
Actually policing would be better off with competent mediocrity and low outcome variance. You want consistent policing not a mix of good and bad.
It's no secret the police are a bunch of idiots that are barely able to write a sentence by themselves.
I think that's overly harsh. Sure, they're not rocket scientists, but honestly that's not what the job requires. Mostly they're a group of blue & white collar guys with good intentions that get put in some pretty terrible situations. Yes, there are a couple of groups within the force that cause issues to be worse (corrupt cops, racists, power mongers, etc.) but that's going to be true of any large organization. The police became over-militarized in response to the chaos of the 1990s and now the needle probably needs to move back the other direction.
I'm pretty free market, but I'm not sure policing is an area I really wanted to see taken over by competing corporations. Sure, the current problems are bad but imagine what they'd be like with a profit this quarter short sighted-ness and a focus on cost-cutting. Yes, in theory you could write a contract to give them the correct incentives, but in practice I think the process would be so corrupt that it would not work well.
What Clinton did became illegal about a year after she left State.
Prior to it being illegal, I believe it was against the policy on the transmission and storage of classified information due to the fact that she wasn't using State Department equipment. She may have felt that as Secretary of State she was above the rules, but I would argue that is not the case. This is a much smaller issue that than title 18 one and if true would only merit a written censure or something of that nature.
be mad at Obama instead. He likely disclosed a spectacular amount of classified information on the Bin Laden raid, both in terms of the actual raid specifics, seal team operation protocols, and CIA surveillance capabilities. Then he used presidential discretion to justify and declassify it.
My understanding is that as commander in chief he has the ability to decide when to declassify information he deems appropriate.