Donald Trump

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

My conjecture is that this will slowly reverse/correct itself IF higher education is more accessible. There's no way to do this point justice without getting too long-winded, but, basically, the idiots with the participation awards will get weeded out in favor of the sharp tacks currently digging the ditches.

With the federal government involved?

Lol. And Cadiro helps boost the trade value of uniques. I mean, don't get me wrong, if your goal is just "I want the experience" then there's something to getting taxpayers to pay for you... but if you want it to be worth anything on the market, think again.

Not that it'd be "the experience" anymore anyway. Not really. It'd be four more years of high school.

I mean, if you guys are thinking "what we need is the government to step in and reform education," they just did that not too long ago, it was called No Child Left Behind. How's that working for you?

College in the US was free to really low cost in the mid to late 40's to somewhere in the mid 70's if I remember and with the large increase to college graduates the US had the most skilled labor force in the world and it was the most prosperous time for the middle class in modern US history.

The market is already adjusting the value of a 4 year without considering cost, it's far more mandatory and in a lot of industries that will only get you an entry level position with little room for advancement. The market is saturated and it can be hard to get a job in some fields. Postgraduate degrees are becoming more mandatory for entry level positions in more areas.

Take for example that my brother in the mid 70's went to college for little money for a two year electronics degree and got a job as one of the first employees at a now large tech company, that same job would require a masters today and tons of student debt. If the bar was as high as it is now then he might not have pursued that career and wouldn't have been as successful. And the cost of his education wasn't an indicator for how good he was at his job.

What we need is heavy government/tax payer investment into making college more affordable and accessible so more people can get the skills they need to succeed in this new technological world and enter in the real middle class which requires more purchasing power than it did 20 years ago.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

What we need is heavy government/tax payer investment into making college more affordable and accessible so more people can get the skills they need to succeed in this new technological world and enter in the real middle class which requires more purchasing power than it did 20 years ago.

I have to weigh in on this. While I do aprove free college in my country (and it's not even the best implementation possible, see Germany for better results), it's not necessarily the best system possible, just one that works. I've seen arguments about how the whole setup is regressive (subsidy to upper middle class) and more intelligent alternatives (taxing income rather than loans and more). I won't say what's the best for US, there are economists for that.

The problem I see with your comment is that is not realist. Why there is a need for more purchasing power in first place? Why blue collars have become impoverished/priced out? There is always going to be a big set of the population that would waste their time in college. Its purpose is different from high school, and you'd be better having trade schools and similar for a lot of people.

Sanders said something like "every people with the skills should study", and I could criticize that statement saying that the number of graduates should roughly match the market needs.

That doesn't mean no free college (see how Germany solves the problem, in my country the problem is that there are not enough people studying, so different worlds).

That being said, the loan system in US seems to bring a debt burden that impacts big purchases and the economy overall, and that has balooned out of control because of a mix of market and government failures, so it doesn't really match the market either as it is. Also, your system seems wasteful from the outside (with over the top campuses and all that). That reduces social mobility and creates somewhat of an aristocracy in the long run (people that don't have to run debt are at an advantage, and people more likely to get indebted stupidly are likely to not have the money to afford it).

I'd rather have more competence in my job rather than a safe income though, so I'd prefer the free college system even if it oversupplies the market a little (for the record, entry wages for engineers in my country are like 12k per year, so feel free to outsource your jobs here, ;) ).

PS: on topic, Donald Trump comments about the debt gave me cancer. That guy is dangerously ignorant, a la Homer Simpson.

I don't want to go into a big wall-o-text so the super short answer is that the widening income inequality in the US, your country's income inequality is very likely much better than ours (assuming you don't live in Libya or something), is eroding not only the middle class who would want go to college but the blue collar working class that would much rather find their path in life without needing a college education. And one really great way to reduce inequality is through investments in public education.

Basically a more educated work force increases wages of those already working, reduces unemployment giving more people more money to spend on shit where they otherwise might not meaning more jobs at all levels of education to make more shit for all that new demand and those people with higher wages and less unemployed produce more tax revenue making it easier to invest tax dollars back into public education, public works giving more opportunities across all sectors etc etc.

When inequality is extreme enough it can cause a cycle that stalls that progress and the US has been stuck with high inequality for decades now. My other brother was a meat packer and near the late 70's was making about 50k in today's money. That same job now makes less than 30k and the cost of living has risen dramatically since then so people are spending less at the store meaning companies aren't growing as much so they downsize to maintain the appearance of high profits and with lower wages and higher unemployment government tax revenue shrinks meaning less investment into the middle class. etc etc

I'm not going to go deep on that (I have a limited knowledge about how public education works in practice, although I know it can be successful), but I see two assumptions: public education works to reduce inequality and high inequality is damaging to the economy. Those are not evident things as they seem, I'd recommend you to read papers about the subject if you have the time. As I see it, public education can have decreasing returns/be more useful for people with more money in first place and inequality (measured via Gini index) may not be problematic if the base level for the population is good to begin with.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just be careful with that kind of assumptions.

I'm not talking about modest inequality. I'm talking about high enough inequality that's it's disruptive to the natural productive cycle a capitalistic economy thrives in.

Anyway for an easy to understand and fairly entertaining explanation about inequality in the US I'd recommend watching robert reich's 'inequality for all'.

Edit: I know public spending is relatively iffy because governments are extremely inefficient at spending money compared to how the market would allocate it. But I'm trying to be as brief as possible.

"

dickhole_mcghee wrote:

Sweet mother that is some gorilla math and reasoning there. I know he did use the specific "abortion clinic bomber" but come the fuck on, it wasn't obvious what he meant?

I know what Scrotie meant, and his mind and heart are in the right place (imo) on this issue as far as I can tell. I also know what Ray Cheetah meant, and my reply to Scrotie was more in the vein of not painting any group with a broad brush. Painting a group as "good students" is just as much a bias as painting a group as "bad students". Painting a group as violent or peace loving is bias, as well.

The numbers I posted have nothing to do with opinion. They don't have to do with individuals, and strangely enough, they may not really have anything to do with religion as a core cause. We can certainly say from recent history, that birth origin or even where a person grows up is not the sole determinant of whether they will end up in a terrorist group.

Now look back at Ray's post. Did he say a single negative thing about a specific religion or group? NOPE. He stated his opinion on where current trends with various groups will lead.

It is not different than saying that unions in the USA are trying to get more people enrolled in unions and if they get enough people that unions will have much more voting power and be harder for union opponents in political office to defeat.

THAT is the point of my post.

People like to find offense in places where it doesn't really exist. That doesn't mean we can call someone racist because we don't like they way they punctuate their sentences. However, society is getting to that point where any offense is a lynching offense.


Exhibit A:

", instead (insert XXXXX random idea here) ...if you're not an outright misanthropic...."

IOW - if Person A doesn't agree with person B, they are an outright misanthropic ....?

Here is the breakdown on what is happening in reality. People are using the stereotyping techniques inherent in racism, sexism, ect and applying them to individuals and thinking that that's acceptable.

Person G wears suspenders - AKA - they are racist. Person H wears their baseball cap upside down - they are racist. Person Y pretends to be a vegan but takes supplements made with gelatin, they are racist.



DiLorenzo’s Law is in widespread effect.


My interepretation of Ray's post is more in line with the following sentiment:



Put simply, the democratic party has only ONE goal, and it has nothing to do with the welfare of the people, of their freedoms, of their equality, of their pay rate or of their ability to obtain medical care. Their single goal is to become so electorally dominant that their competition is destroyed.

It's a Darwinian goal, to be sure. Some will actually applaud it. What they don't realize, is that like any monopoly -whether it is a big corporation, a big religion, or a big unified government, they will abuse the heck out of that power.

But there won't be any alternatives. You can vote for them, or you can just not bother voting, because it won't matter.

It has nothing to do with racism. My own analysis would be that people who think it is racist actually harbor some unspoken latent racism of their own that they are projecting, but that is just my perspective, and I have no way to verify or disprove it.

They just seem to be secret racists.

(see how that works?) FWIW, I don't assume that people are latent XXX anything, the above was just for the purpose of illustration.

If someone thinks they can make it through life only hanging around people they agree with 100%, they are in for a lot of disappointment. Learning to agree to disagree without finding other people disagreeable is not easy to do. It takes a little more effort, but in the long run, it is exactly the sort of thing that will allow differing cultures to find common ground and respect each other and get along.


If the democratic party succeeds in becoming the only viable party in the USA, it won't last more than a single round of elections anyways, as the party fragments from within. Power struggles don't cease just because everyone is wearing the same team jersey.

Ask any organized crime members if they all get along perfectly just because they are members of the same organization. Power is the most addicting and dangerous drug there is.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Now look back at Ray's post. Did he say a single negative thing about a specific religion or group? NOPE. He stated his opinion on where current trends with various groups will lead.

So London being full of muslims is as bad as he says? I mean, the elected Major is a shining example of a well integrated muslim. He is very liberal (even pro gay marriage), and a voice criticizing conservative muslims. London may not have the same problems that other places (or at least, the problems are not big enough to fear). It rubbed wrong everyone because it seems more like a rant against muslims outbreeding western civilization and taking important positions rather than a desire to be safe. As I said before about the whole multiculturalism thing, culture matters less than rights, freedoms and knowledge.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Put simply, the democratic party has only ONE goal, and it has nothing to do with the welfare of the people, of their freedoms, of their equality, of their pay rate or of their ability to obtain medical care. Their single goal is to become so electorally dominant that their competition is destroyed.

Every political party has that goal, thing is that is not possible in a competitive enviroment (generally). It's like monopolies and the lack of free market. Democrats may be shitty, but they are still the sane (ish) option. If anything, wonder why there is a two party system increasingly going batshit in both directions in first place.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I'm not going to go deep on that (I have a limited knowledge about how public education works in practice, although I know it can be successful), but I see two assumptions: public education works to reduce inequality and high inequality is damaging to the economy. Those are not evident things as they seem, I'd recommend you to read papers about the subject if you have the time. As I see it, public education can have decreasing returns/be more useful for people with more money in first place and inequality (measured via Gini index) may not be problematic if the base level for the population is good to begin with.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just be careful with that kind of assumptions.

To the extent that there are good paying jobs that are unfulfilled because of a lack of qualified people, education is a sure fire solution. To the extent that people with a better education can use that knowledge to actually create new good paying jobs (think Google or a successful biotech firm) education is a wonderful tool. On the other hand, when you've got 137,650 electrical engineering positions and you have 185,932 people trained as electrical engineers, education doesn't help bridge the economic gap.

The growing economic gaps are a problem and there is a lot of financial momentum in the whole process that will be difficult to stop.

Part of the problem (imo - and for those more knowledgeable about the current state of investment markets, feel free to correct my errors in thinking) is that the markets over rewards investing that isn't really generating new growth or ideas. Money makes money and maybe makes even more money, without necessarily generating any new jobs. IMO, venture capitalism (at the true seed stage and not just before an announced IPO) should offer a much lower taxation for the potential growth it offers.

Think of how many jobs involve the cell phone industry. Now consider the following quote:

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

Where would we be if market forces had quashed the phone industry because it wasn't a predictably reliable income generator?

Another portion of the middle class that is missing is the decline of the small business owner. While efficiency of scale is part of the story there, regulation and taxation and death taxes are also a major factor in the demise of the group that once employed 80% of the population in the USA.

It's a complex problem, to be sure. I think the only way we will make progress on finding a solution will be if we can get the various political sides to actually work together. (Yeah, I know that seems like a pipe dream). The people in the "other" party aren't the enemy, they just have a different perspective on solving the problem.

Yeah, compromise is never as much fun as winning, initially, but in the long run it pays off. If our leaders can walk away from a legislative session and say "None of us are completely happy with the outcome, but we made progress for our constituents" then they have accomplished the job we elected them to do.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Now look back at Ray's post. Did he say a single negative thing about a specific religion or group? NOPE. He stated his opinion on where current trends with various groups will lead.

So London being full of muslims is as bad as he says?

Did he say it was bad? Unless I read his post wrong, he merely said if they win this election, they will continue winning elections.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

It rubbed wrong everyone because it seems more like a rant against muslims outbreeding western civilization and taking important positions rather than a desire to be safe.

If I have six kids, and you only have three kids, is that my fault, or your fault, or is it anyone's fault?

If you work hard (two jobs) and send all three of your kids to college, and your neighbor doesn't and none of his kids go to college, is that your fault, his fault or anyone's fault?

There's no blame involved here. There's no right or wrong involved. There's just a matter of how we count people during a given census and how those numbers look when we take a census later on. Historically speaking, there have been some terrible abuses of power by the people who think we need to control population growth. I've gone into details before, but the idea that the best way for the human race to succeed is to limit it's growth is a very foolish one imo.

Unfortunately, the western culture has been brainwashed into thinking that anything other than replacement rate population growth is bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad <-- insert a few billion (well, make it 8 billion) "bads" in there.

Differing groups may value things differently. Most groups value family in some form or another. Ray has voiced an opinion based on observation that can be disproven - in other words, a hypothesis.

What happens when hypotheses are validated or invalidated by the facts?

When you look at the historical rationale for why people have large numbers of children, and why over time, many end up having fewer children, than Ray's perspective becomes even less potentially about culture or race, but becomes more about education, socio-economic support networks, and becoming established in a new homeland.

If you haven't already read about it, take a look at the "Hipanic Paradox" <--which isn't what people will assume it is AT ALL. You'll see a trend (a positive trend, BTW) that looks like it has to do with race and it doesn't.

TL/DR version of the immediate above:

There are numerous studies and meta studies. What looks like a racial, ethnic or place of origin causation (in the case of the Hispanic Paradox) turns out to be a matter of social support.

They are finding something similar in Alzheimer's disease - nothing to do with race, but how social support networks make a measurable difference - in this case something they can measure in a slice of someone's brain.

http://www.hbo.com/alzheimers/supplementary-cognitive-reserve.html

"

NeroNoah wrote:

If anything, wonder why there is a two party system in first place.

Because people have different ideas. Parties come and go, and I am more surprised we don't have three or four parties. I was hoping this election cycle would make alternative candidates more viable, so the two parties couldn't just assume they were going to collect enough votes to win no matter what.

I know, a foolish hope, but I am an optimist at heart, and despite all the negative things people do, I don't think that the dark side is the stronger side of human nature.

Part of the problem might be allowing people who want to run for high political office to actually hold such an office. Maybe the candidates should be drafted and then the public votes on the pool of draftees?