Which is precisely the problem! 16-20 years of education should not be the minimum to obtain a decent job!
This means we've either got to start moving "college-level" work down into K-12 education (there's room, middle school is mostly wasted time) or reduce the amount of education necessary for a good job. Take your pick.
I would set up an economy that doesn't require a BS at minimum or a Phd at higher income levels just to get a reasonably secure job in a real field, not gizmometry.
Marx predicted this exact thing. He's been wrong for over 100 years in a row, so pardon my optimism.
Marx was wrong for 100 years, because the Left took non-revolutionary paths to their goals such as unionization, collective bargaining, and welfare state programs (back when they worked and were "with the times"). These may have been imperfect, but they worked, and they made radical leftism unnecessary and Marxist analysis incorrect.
Problem: Retrenchment of those gains is making Marxism more and more correct. This year 12.5% of workers were unionized. The blue-collar jobs that paid for your family to live mostly no longer exist. The white-collar jobs that are staples of the American upper-middle class (Slashdotter jobs) live in fear of outsourcing and are more competitive than ever. Service industries pay little, but are the main growth industries. The welfare state has been passively retrenched: conservatives have kept it from being updated for so long it has become a zombified hulk of little use for its former applications. Thanks to all of the above factors (especially the tiny union membership) collective bargaining is a joke.
As the gains of the moderate left are lost Marx becomes more and more applicable to our own situation. So forgive me for thinking that one of these days either a parallel economy will form to meet people's needs, shorter working hours will be instituted to increase both leisure and the demand for labor, or workers will take control of capital (probably in the form of cooperatives rather than a revolution) and end the economic problems that oppressed them.
About technology: Technology brings increased productivity, which itself reduces the need for workers. However, you can't run a modern society in which only the ~10% most productive workers actually produce anything and everyone else is unemployed.
We can't have an economy in which only the best 10% of any profession are employed. At least not if we want to have a capitalist economy. If you want to move to something in which the government or non-profits supply the unemployed with enough money to live while only the 10% Best work, do so by all means. I don't think anyone wants that kind of economy, though.
What concrete and statistical data do either of you have to support your conclusions?
Personally, my intuition veers towards the idea that most "fine artists" can't make rent, simply because 90% of everything is crap. Which is exactly the problem we're also seeing in IT fields now: only the top 10% can get paid.
Which white rabbi, all the Ashkenazic rabbis are white!
Seriously, it's quite interesting, but here's an alternate theory: Life arose "spontaneously" in several places; such that not all life has a single common ancestor. If the environment was right for forming life, why couldn't it have happened multiple times and result in multiple trees of life?
In our school we read the first chapter of "1984" on a handout. That was it. Not even "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism", which were the really good bits.
Crappy games? Not really true. Back in the days of N64 there were a few firms (HAL Labs, Rare) that third-party developed exclusively for Nintendo and made damn good games doing it.
You might be able to guess that I keep my N64 around.
Apparently Microsoft liked the Dreamcast controller so much, they stole it. Sure, there's no an X logo where the VMU port used to be, but that's meaningless.
The VMU, now there's something nobody cared about!
Yep. "Skeet" are geese (and possibly other birds) that are hunted for sport (only the white man hunts for sport). As in: "Dick Cheney was supposed to be shooting quails and skeet, but shot his friend instead due to drunkenness."
You're mostly right about the connections. I remember just last year I got into the Science Research course by impressing the teacher with a ray tracing algorithm I'd written for a book (Vertex/Pixel Shaders 2 thingy). So that was actually rather meritocratic.
Still, at the end of the year my grade should have been rather low due to an end-of-year suspension that kept me from giving my end-of-year presentation on my progress and my inability to find a mentor (the people working social psychology for what I wanted were in Arizona, and we needed local mentors), but it somehow ended up being a 92.
That's one of the reasons (besides being home-schooled now) that I'm not in the course anymore: A teacher who inflates your grade isn't worth having.
So I suppose that other than my Right not to be Murdered I have no Right to Live? 'Cause if I do somebody better allow me enough land to farm my own food on.
Welcome to Earth, population 6 billion. Mazl tov on getting here.
Perhaps choices such as "dollar or stick" are obvious, and so we spend far less time on them than we would on a "normal" choice?
The human mind is made for finding the differences between things and assigning qualitative judgments to those differences. So of course when presented with a choice of things that are all the same it tries to find the differences. Hence choosing chocolate very slowly.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is precisely the problem! 16-20 years of education should not be the minimum to obtain a decent job!
This means we've either got to start moving "college-level" work down into K-12 education (there's room, middle school is mostly wasted time) or reduce the amount of education necessary for a good job. Take your pick.
I would set up an economy that doesn't require a BS at minimum or a Phd at higher income levels just to get a reasonably secure job in a real field, not gizmometry.
Marx predicted this exact thing. He's been wrong for over 100 years in a row, so pardon my optimism.
Marx was wrong for 100 years, because the Left took non-revolutionary paths to their goals such as unionization, collective bargaining, and welfare state programs (back when they worked and were "with the times"). These may have been imperfect, but they worked, and they made radical leftism unnecessary and Marxist analysis incorrect.
Problem: Retrenchment of those gains is making Marxism more and more correct. This year 12.5% of workers were unionized. The blue-collar jobs that paid for your family to live mostly no longer exist. The white-collar jobs that are staples of the American upper-middle class (Slashdotter jobs) live in fear of outsourcing and are more competitive than ever. Service industries pay little, but are the main growth industries. The welfare state has been passively retrenched: conservatives have kept it from being updated for so long it has become a zombified hulk of little use for its former applications. Thanks to all of the above factors (especially the tiny union membership) collective bargaining is a joke.
As the gains of the moderate left are lost Marx becomes more and more applicable to our own situation. So forgive me for thinking that one of these days either a parallel economy will form to meet people's needs, shorter working hours will be instituted to increase both leisure and the demand for labor, or workers will take control of capital (probably in the form of cooperatives rather than a revolution) and end the economic problems that oppressed them.
About technology: Technology brings increased productivity, which itself reduces the need for workers. However, you can't run a modern society in which only the ~10% most productive workers actually produce anything and everyone else is unemployed.
You mean like the Condorcet Method?
I was agreeing with you, you know!
We can't have an economy in which only the best 10% of any profession are employed. At least not if we want to have a capitalist economy. If you want to move to something in which the government or non-profits supply the unemployed with enough money to live while only the 10% Best work, do so by all means. I don't think anyone wants that kind of economy, though.
What concrete and statistical data do either of you have to support your conclusions?
Personally, my intuition veers towards the idea that most "fine artists" can't make rent, simply because 90% of everything is crap. Which is exactly the problem we're also seeing in IT fields now: only the top 10% can get paid.
Motion Pictures + Video Games + Anime/Manga
Since when were these things "fine arts", especially game development?
Which white rabbi, all the Ashkenazic rabbis are white!
Seriously, it's quite interesting, but here's an alternate theory: Life arose "spontaneously" in several places; such that not all life has a single common ancestor. If the environment was right for forming life, why couldn't it have happened multiple times and result in multiple trees of life?
Without knowing (in whole or part) the nature of the designer you cannot detect if something was designed.
On the other hand, if you know something was designed you can infer characteristics of the designer.
Due to these facts we'll never figure out whether life on Earth is random or started from a design of some sort.
5. Collectable virus game built in! Better than Pokemon on crack.
Gotta catch 'em all!
In our school we read the first chapter of "1984" on a handout. That was it. Not even "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism", which were the really good bits.
Crappy games? Not really true. Back in the days of N64 there were a few firms (HAL Labs, Rare) that third-party developed exclusively for Nintendo and made damn good games doing it.
You might be able to guess that I keep my N64 around.
Apparently Microsoft liked the Dreamcast controller so much, they stole it. Sure, there's no an X logo where the VMU port used to be, but that's meaningless.
The VMU, now there's something nobody cared about!
Strange, mine has lasted me five years to date. They screwable joystick broke, but that's because my brother threw the thing on the floor.
Just a minor question, but why can't countries produce and sell goods to their own domestic markets rather than exporting them?
I'm seeing some kind of pattern. People raised atheists become religious fools, and people raised religious become atheist fools.
The Israelis don't have to riot in the streets. When somebody threatens them, they blow that somebody up.
Yep. "Skeet" are geese (and possibly other birds) that are hunted for sport (only the white man hunts for sport). As in: "Dick Cheney was supposed to be shooting quails and skeet, but shot his friend instead due to drunkenness."
Now there will be whole new cliques of "console jocks" who stuff those who can't beat them at Smash Brothers Melee and Grand Theft Auto into lockers.
Whose dumb idea was professional gaming, anyhow? We make enough people rich and arrogant for being able to play inconsequential games as is.
You're mostly right about the connections. I remember just last year I got into the Science Research course by impressing the teacher with a ray tracing algorithm I'd written for a book (Vertex/Pixel Shaders 2 thingy). So that was actually rather meritocratic.
Still, at the end of the year my grade should have been rather low due to an end-of-year suspension that kept me from giving my end-of-year presentation on my progress and my inability to find a mentor (the people working social psychology for what I wanted were in Arizona, and we needed local mentors), but it somehow ended up being a 92.
That's one of the reasons (besides being home-schooled now) that I'm not in the course anymore: A teacher who inflates your grade isn't worth having.
So I suppose that other than my Right not to be Murdered I have no Right to Live? 'Cause if I do somebody better allow me enough land to farm my own food on.
Welcome to Earth, population 6 billion. Mazl tov on getting here.
Perhaps choices such as "dollar or stick" are obvious, and so we spend far less time on them than we would on a "normal" choice?
The human mind is made for finding the differences between things and assigning qualitative judgments to those differences. So of course when presented with a choice of things that are all the same it tries to find the differences. Hence choosing chocolate very slowly.
What, you mean there's music in the stores worth buying? That won't take me an hour of careful searching and sampling to find?
That's stereotypical Brooklyn, AC. Nice try, but no cigar.
Why should the cops spend ANY time investigating an org centered around a legal activity?
They seem to spend plenty of time investigating the ACLU, so you tell me.