Beer
Well-Known Member
You sound like you may be a bit biased ....
CEO raises minimum wage to $70000, takes $70000 wage himself until profits are met.
You sound like you may be a bit biased ....
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Don't ya think you're a bit biased?
I get the feeling you don't like me btw.
Anyways, based on my experience in school, and with the people I know (and yes, I do work with those in academia on a very regular occasion), most of them are people who think their very small-scale studies are proof that they could work on a large scale with no thought process towards the labor, or other various factors involved because they've never had to deal with them. Obviously there are good people in academia, I just think there's a fair amount who haven't experienced the workplace outside of a university, and are a good bit clueless when it comes to real life.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
The biggest sign that you don't know what you're talking about is the way you're addressing "academia" as a general thing. There is a huge difference between departments. For example, the difference between someone who is an expert in econometrics is going to be a verrrrry different professional than an expert in anthropology who is a verrry different professional than someone with a PhD in Social Work. There is absolutely NO WAY to generalize about "academia" and "academics" in one categorical generalization. Sorry. You're wrong.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
On top of that, states often have a very poor record of supporting civil rights and liberties. If I'm a member of a traditionally marginalized social group (e.g., black, gay, female), my biggest fear would be states rights run amuck. In states, or local governments, it is much easier for factions to capture politics (for example, evangelical Christians, or closer to home, Mormons) and then use this power to advance their interests and/or to oppress those in opposing factions or out groups.
While there are many virtues to state/local government, there are also many vices, same for national government. The assumption common on the right that state/local government is inherently superior to the big, bad evil national government is naive.
Personally, I am very, very glad that the decisions related to constitutional rights are not left up to states to decide.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Sure I'm biased. Who isn't? That said, I've been out of academics for years and no longer have any skin in the game. I'm also a social scientist and will concede any number of criticisms about social science (e.g., the hubris among social scientists that they can accurately model and predict complex systems). In this, you and I are appear to be in agreement. That doesn't make them unable to deal with 'reality' any more than the average, say, political conservative who tends to interpret all events through a conservative world view, or a Mormon who tends to interpret events through a Mormon lens.
Let's try an experiment, let's replace academic in your argument above with some other random profession:
"Obviously there are good people in banking, I just think there's a fair amount who haven't experienced the workplace outside of a bank and are a good bit clueless when it comes to real life."
See how that works?
No, I don't have any dislike for you. I was just annoyed that you were taking cheap shots at Dalamon, who I consider on the whole a pretty thoughtful poster who doesn't deserve such cheap shots. I was going to let it lie, until I read your post on academics, which I considered such a egregious and simple minded stereotype that I felt compelled to respond.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Yes, this would be another good example.
Alas, the one example I brought up wasn't addressed. So, good luck holding the torch on this one.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Valid points. I get the impression that sometimes those in academia take themselves a bit too seriously (as in, they can't be wrong, ever) but that's just my opinion. Still, you bring up good points. You're probably more right than I am on this.
As for Dala, if you check, he came at me first.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
1) I prefer not to go back and forth with you, because I just don't see the point. You're, well...you're difficult to converse with.
2) It's been ~30 minutes since you last posted. I'm assuming you're referring to your response to me, if I'm wrong, then ignore...but cmon man, be patient. Some of us have jobs that require our attention for brief periods of time.
b_line
Well-Known Member
The problem with this experiment is that, in general, people in banking deal with literally almost EVERYONE in every field, across the entire world. Academics study cross-sections of their field of interest.
Asserting that the academic world is just as in touch with the rest of the workforce as any other field is a pretty big reach. There are certain fields of academic study that the professors or researchers are a lot closer to the reality. For example, healthcare instruction is generally done at an actual hospital, and business instructors are, generally speaking, usually business men or women themselves, and are or have recently been close to their field of work.
A career academic, on the other hand, does not have a lot of real world experience. They have research experience, and have worked hard in putting themselves in a good situation to publish articles that other career academics will study and critique. That is why people say that academic types are out of touch with reality. Refute it all you want, but to compare academia to banking is disingenuous and disappointing for a self proclaimed social scientist, and you probably know that.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. I may or may not be more right. Hell, we all engage in our own stereotypes.
I call truce, doesn't mean you're not fair game later
If Dalamon was indeed the aggressor this time, then shame on him, and (I guess) shame on me.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Eh, I probly baited him a bit. I like him, and I'm not taking any of this too seriously. Just for entertainment and to pass time. ****, I like the little Canuck.
Dalamaintnuthin wants to play some more? I'm bored, why not.
You asked for solutions.
Do you have a clue what EITR is? Even Obama and the left in this country agrees our developed world leading EITR is too high.
I didn't expect you to understand or even attempt to think through the global economic implications of a more competitive America. When you grow up a little and widen your focus you might return back to that thought experiment.
I didn't use Japan as an example of a different health care system that the US could emulate. Your attempt to derail failed.
Define "justly", and while you're at it explain away the never ending waiting lines that virtually every country but the US rants about.
Our effective taxes on the rich are as high as Canada's and plenty other G20 nations. If you add in corporate double taxation they are much higher. We also just raised taxes on investment income by 50% and are yet to calculate what the higher effective tax rate will be.
We spend a trillion USD per year on millitary and yet we still manage to provide better healthcare to our citizens than wasteful countries like yours who would rather see people die of curable disease than increase health care spending.
[/QUOTE]
Stop the demagoguery and start thinking critically.
Our tax as a % of GDP is low because we're more productive, not because we don't tax enough. I suppose we could retard our economy and turn it into a European **** hole until GDP shrinks enough that taxes are high enough to please you leftist ideologues.
Also, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum (hey that's fun throwing in debate 101 buzz words!), comparing the US to minature states like Denmark is absurd. Excluding them takes away from your narrow minded, monolithic views that are out of touch with reality.
You asked for solutions.
Do you have a clue what EITR is? Even Obama and the left in this country agrees our developed world leading EITR is too high.
I didn't expect you to understand or even attempt to think through the global economic implications of a more competitive America. When you grow up a little and widen your focus you might return back to that thought experiment.
I didn't use Japan as an example of a different health care system that the US could emulate. Your attempt to derail failed.
Define "justly", and while you're at it explain away the never ending waiting lines that virtually every country but the US rants about.
Our effective taxes on the rich are as high as Canada's and plenty other G20 nations. If you add in corporate double taxation they are much higher. We also just raised taxes on investment income by 50% and are yet to calculate what the higher effective tax rate will be.
We spend a trillion USD per year on millitary and yet we still manage to provide better healthcare to our citizens than wasteful countries like yours who would rather see people die of curable disease than increase health care spending.
Stop the demagoguery and start thinking critically.
Our tax as a % of GDP is low because we're more productive, not because we don't tax enough. I suppose we could retard our economy and turn it into a European **** hole until GDP shrinks enough that taxes are high enough to please you leftist ideologues.
Also, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum (hey that's fun throwing in debate 101 buzz words!), comparing the US to minature states like Denmark is absurd. Excluding them takes away from your narrow minded, monolithic views that are out of touch with reality.
I really do think it's unfair to compare a federally heavy-handed country of 320 million and 3.8M square miles to a federally controlled country of 173 THOUSAND square miles and a population of... 9 million.
Anyone that denies the difference clearly lacks either intellectual honesty or management experience, even at the most basic level, or, more likely, both.
Anyone that denies the difference clearly lacks either intellectual honesty or management experience, even at the most basic level, or, more likely, both.
We agree on some things(we should make education better, we should find a way to resolve poverty). We disagree on others(other nations are making themselves great, raising taxes is bad). I think we can both argue about how unattainable a meaningful degree is in our system compared to other systems across the world. Other shenanigans.. blah blah blah. Great, status quo, as it should be.
But something you mentioned a few pages back... a seemingly running theme.. not exactly, but something along the lines of if the dollar falls, American corporations will ruin economies of every other nation they can weasel their way in to.
Is that correct?
I think what we need to do here is to define things. When you say school in the US is cheap as hell, what're you basing that on? The cheapness is in comparison to what? Furthermore, this idea that anyone can get a 4 year degree in whatever field, debt free seems magical. Could you be more specific?
Maybe I'm not understanding this graph. I'm sure you posted it for a reason. Can you explain it to me please?
Your first sentence has me a bit perplexed. Are you saying that if you come from an impoverished area and you're trying to better yourself, unless you're able to make some arbitrary amount yearly, you have no business going to college?
Adding cost of living is not disingenous since it still comes off the bottom line and if you're going to school, depending on load, there's an opportunity cost.
Also, remember, most degrees now-a-days take longer than 4 years as a result of class availability which happens far too often currently.
I was speaking about the population in general. Impoverished young adults already receive pell grants and such that are not available to even poor-ish kids not in poverty. There is opportunity for those who cannot work full time and go to college to essentially receive a full ride scholarship.
Reading this forum for as long as you have you should know I'm a promoter of targeting aid to impoverished communities. If we did that then America would not have much of a poverty problem. We have highly concentrated pockets that skew our #'s.