|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| The difference is that they don't pay the penalty with their life that the rest of us do. |
Of course they can and they have. My uncle was at one time in charge of a bank. Now he lives alone in a tiny studio and has loft everything between his bad decisions and his divorce.
| Quote: |
| Managing to be born into a reasonably wealthy family that can help pay for education is not a sign of virtue. It is just lucky. This is something you don't seem to get. |
I don't get it, because I've never said that.
All I've been saying is that being born poor doesn't make your life virtuous either. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean that they are blameless.
| Quote: |
| The real problem, as I see it, is that the comfortable class doesn't want to loan money to the underclasses because they are afraid their kids can't compete with the bright and talented kids who weren't born to priviledge. |
Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that student loans exist, and are given out by financiers, suggests that in fact the comfortable class is perfectly fine with that.
What they don't want is for money to be loaned out that won't be repaid.
And they are perfectly fine with their kids competing. Kids that weren't born to privilege have been accepted into universities like never before AND financed the money to do it. The result? A decrease in the value of degrees, lowered academic standards, and billions in unpaid loans.
Do you think if college was free for everyone who was poor and that it was twice as expensive for everyone who was rich that we wouldn't have had this same result, minus the debt. Only now instead of student loans, they'd have more credit card loans or whatnot.
| Quote: |
| Since all of society benefits |
No it doesn't. Some of society benefits some of the time.
Conversely it also has its downsides in society- decreased academic standards, decreased value of college degrees, decrease in wages because of the surplus of workers, overinflated hopes and dreams...
| Quote: |
| My real purpose in starting this thread wasn't to debate with a Ron Paul (the poor are poor because they deserve it because of their grandfather's foolish choice) follower, but to raise the question of what is the fairest, most equitable, most socially efficient way to educate our youth for the the benefit of us all? |
While you may get a fairest, most equitable system, you won't get a fair or an equitable one. Not as long as human beings act as human beings.
The best I could come up with is selective admission based on objective criteria- A fixed number of slots that are awarded based on standardized test scores.
Variable slots means the wealthy can influence things. Subjective criteria such as grades or extra-curriculars can again, be manipulated. Everyone has the same chance on the test.
Of course this is moot, because there are private universities and that the "rich and powerful" will always maintain those. Or you could outlaw private education.
See how the real world falls short of the lofty rhetoric?
| Quote: |
| You wouldn't necessarily lose anything. The bailouts could proceed by the Fed inventing $1 trillion and washing out the bad student loans. Yes, there would be inflation. But then there would be massive economic relief as consumers who were scrimping to pay student loans off began to buy more. It would be a massive stimulus. |
Handing everyone a check for $10,000 would be a massive stimulus. Why don't we do that? Just start printing money.
We don't need a stimulus. What we need is a long-term solution to the jobs problem.
Trickle-up is as silly as trickle-down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People are still talking past each other.
We can both deal with symptoms and alleviate pain. We can both increase jobs and deal with the debt problem. We certainly need to focus more on growth and less on inflation to do it though and that has not happened yet but it is definitely being talked about both in Congress and at the Fed.
We can alleviate the pain of debt without having full on debt relief. We can do this by subsidizing loans rather than full on pay them all off. And, we do not necessarilly have to go into more national debt if we reprioritize current spending and increase taxes.
The key is to communicate to the government that we need a pro-growth economic policy and that citizens underwater on their home and school loans need SOME relief not just banks. We need to re-prioritize.
Can we at least find some common ground in this discussion and then debate the points that we truly disagree on so we don't just go round and round with the same "he said - she said" arguments that we seem to be doing.
So, what can we agree on?
What do we need to discuss? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As Ive said, I'd be open to the idea of a general rebate for ALL students. More importantly, there should be a focus on restoring the value of degrees by making the attainment of one far more difficult.
u
But no debt forgivness. Neither CEOs nor poor students should be rewarded for making bad, risky decisions.
Someone asked what would be the cost to those who didnt take out loans or paid for their education? Simple, the lost opportunity cost of that money spent. Debt forgivness would cost them a lot. Remember they might be working at McD's just the same All these people were ready to accept the rewards of their college debt plan. Well accept the risks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Neither CEOs nor poor students should be rewarded for making bad, risky decisions. |
So you'd abolish bankruptcy entirely?
There are two rules. If you're a CEO and make risky decisions, you get them absolved in bankruptcy. If you're a student, and make the "risky decision" to get AN EDUCATION, you're stuck with non-dischargeable debt.
Its absolutely scandalous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
While you may get a fairest, most equitable system, you won't get a fair or an equitable one. Not as long as human beings act as human beings.
|
I am not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you are saying that if it can't be made perfect then it shouldn't be done at all. If that is your point, then it is preposterous.
I'll admit that I'm shocked that anyone would say in the 21st Century that university degrees should be limited.
And Kuros is right. It is scandalous that some people have laws that offer them a second chance but others do not have the same opportunity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So you'd abolish bankruptcy entirely?
There are two rules. If you're a CEO and make risky decisions, you get them absolved in bankruptcy. If you're a student, and make the "risky decision" to get AN EDUCATION, you're stuck with non-dischargeable debt.
Its absolutely scandalous. |
Bankruptcy is not the same as debt forgiveness. Some of the protesters seem to be calling for the debt to simply be "written off".
I'd accept some form of bankruptcy, but with STIFF penalties, both for CEOs and students. Maybe then our society would become less dependent on credit and consider saving as an alternative.
Taking out that loan was a gamble. They crapped out or got 00 green, or busted at 22, or however else you want to call it. They gambled and lost. They knew the risks.
Unlike them, I was someone who actually read a book and paid attention during history class and knew about boom and bust cycles and advised people that the 'Roaring 90s' would not last forever and that broad prosperity is not a historical norm. I cautioned friends against taking out student loans and warned them that there was no guarantee an 80k a year job was out there waiting for them.
People said I was being a "downer" and "how can you say that I'll fail?" and "I'm not about the money" well now they are working at Starbucks and whining about their money. THEY KNEW THE RISKS.
Here's an idea- all that money that would have been forgiven, give it instead to the people who already paid the bill. Let them stimulate the economy. Reward success.
| Quote: |
| I'll admit that I'm shocked that anyone would say in the 21st Century that university degrees should be limited. |
If you believe that a society where everyone had a college degree would somehow be some magical place where everyone was smart, I don't know what to say.
If everyone were to get a college degree that means you lower standards and flood the market with over-expectation having workers.
A college degree had more value in the old days because fewer people had them. We have more people than ever before graduating from college, yet this generation is dumber than the previous one. What does this mean? It means we lowered standards, took away the motivation to learn, and let a bunch of people into college who didn't belong there. Why because we ditched objective standardized testing because in favor of people who were in clubs or who took easy classes and got 4.0s from teachers who were too soft to fail them.
Here's an idea for better college- get the idiots out. I had my college money blown on multiple mandatory "Intro" classes that taught people stuff I knew in Middle School. I mean crap like "There are 3 branches of government" and who Nikita Khrushchev was.
Please, spare the sob story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZIFA
Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: Dici che il fiume..Trova la via al mare
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| More importantly, there should be a focus on restoring the value of degrees by making the attainment of one far more difficult.. |
They've already done this in the UK.
problem is that they haven't selected out the less intelligent but the less rich. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread has gotten off the track of its original intent, which was to discuss the issue of student indebtedness.
In an effort to get it back on track:
PROPOSAL:
Since society benefits most when the maximum number of people are educated to their individual maximum potential, but with our antiquated 'private enterprise system' being sacrosanct, I propose we re-jigger the loan system so that students pay something around 1% interest (or whatever is enough to cover the cost of administering the program), retroactive to whenever so it lightens dramatically the debt on the current generation of young people when they need money most.
Going forward, we make loans geared to encouraging engineers and scientists at a lower interest rate than other majors.
I would be open to a plan to charge another 1% to collect revenue to help fund community colleges and trade schools.
What say you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZIFA wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| More importantly, there should be a focus on restoring the value of degrees by making the attainment of one far more difficult.. |
They've already done this in the UK.
problem is that they haven't selected out the less intelligent but the less rich. |
This seems to be the problem in the US, too. All too many (not all, but all too many) of the rich have this sense of entitlement that they are entitled, deserve, are owed, have a right to, the privileges and benefits of our society. That proportion doesn't seem to feel they need to earn it.
Poor Chelsea Clinton got lambasted today because she was hired by NBC with no background qualifications for the job whatsoever, just as was Jenna Bush, Megan McCain, that Russert guy, and the CEO of the NYT.
That is not to say these young people might not develop the skills needed in their new jobs, but it does mean that people who have spent years working their way up from the bottom, learning the skills and developing the qualifications for those jobs, won't get the particular jobs filled by the kids of celebrities who have done nothing but manage to get themselves born to the right families. I don't begrudge Chelsea, Jenna, Megan, etc their jobs, but the playing field is not level. It's level when we all start at the bottom and work our way up; it is not level when some start at the top and hold on if they are lucky enough or fall in a few years if they just can't cut it. 'Someone' who has been working for years is being forced to wait because they can't compete with 'name recognition'. It isn't fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Poor Chelsea Clinton got lambasted today because she was hired by NBC with no background qualifications for the job whatsoever, just as was Jenna Bush, Megan McCain, that Russert guy, and the CEO of the NYT.
That is not to say these young people might not develop the skills needed in their new jobs, but it does mean that people who have spent years working their way up from the bottom, learning the skills and developing the qualifications for those jobs, won't get the particular jobs filled by the kids of celebrities who have done nothing but manage to get themselves born to the right families. I don't begrudge Chelsea, Jenna, Megan, etc their jobs, but the playing field is not level. It's level when we all start at the bottom and work our way up; it is not level when some start at the top and hold on if they are lucky enough or fall in a few years if they just can't cut it. 'Someone' who has been working for years is being forced to wait because they can't compete with 'name recognition'. It isn't fair. |
Yet those girls have something that a lifetime of experience won't necessarily provide: access. Hiring them isn't simply an elite vs. non-elite thing, as they bring something to the table that very few could. This isn't always the case when it comes to privilege, but there are plenty of times when it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Poor Chelsea Clinton got lambasted today because she was hired by NBC with no background qualifications for the job whatsoever, just as was Jenna Bush, Megan McCain, that Russert guy, and the CEO of the NYT. That is not to say these young people might not develop the skills needed in their new jobs, but it does mean that people who have spent years working their way up from the bottom, learning the skills and developing the qualifications for those jobs, won't get the particular jobs filled by the kids of celebrities who have done nothing but manage to get themselves born to the right families. I don't begrudge Chelsea, Jenna, Megan, etc their jobs, but the playing field is not level. It's level when we all start at the bottom and work our way up; it is not level when some start at the top and hold on if they are lucky enough or fall in a few years if they just can't cut it. 'Someone' who has been working for years is being forced to wait because they can't compete with 'name recognition'. It isn't fair. |
Yet those girls have something that a lifetime of experience won't necessarily provide: access. Hiring them isn't simply an elite vs. non-elite thing, as they bring something to the table that very few could. This isn't always the case when it comes to privilege, but there are plenty of times when it is. |
Hmmm...Let's see. I think I'll put you down on the list for highly restricted access to the good jobs. The wealthy connected have one or two kids, some of whom are dolts and end up living only on daddy's inheritance and sooner or later squander it in a generation or two...the rest deserve to get the highest paying jobs because mommy and daddy were members of the 'right' golfing clubs. Any jobs not already filled by them can go to the exceptionally skilled/exceptionally lucky lower classes.
Screw the rest of them. They didn't have access to the great jobs because they weren't born to the right families. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| ZIFA wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| More importantly, there should be a focus on restoring the value of degrees by making the attainment of one far more difficult.. |
They've already done this in the UK.
problem is that they haven't selected out the less intelligent but the less rich. |
This seems to be the problem in the US, too. All too many (not all, but all too many) of the rich have this sense of entitlement that they are entitled, deserve, are owed, have a right to, the privileges and benefits of our society. That proportion doesn't seem to feel they need to earn it.
Poor Chelsea Clinton got lambasted today because she was hired by NBC with no background qualifications for the job whatsoever, just as was Jenna Bush, Megan McCain, that Russert guy, and the CEO of the NYT. |
Right. The game is rigged, and almost everyone recognizes it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZIFA
Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: Dici che il fiume..Trova la via al mare
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| ZIFA wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| More importantly, there should be a focus on restoring the value of degrees by making the attainment of one far more difficult.. |
They've already done this in the UK.
problem is that they haven't selected out the less intelligent but the less rich. |
This seems to be the problem in the US, too. All too many (not all, but all too many) of the rich have this sense of entitlement that they are entitled, deserve, are owed, have a right to, the privileges and benefits of our society. That proportion doesn't seem to feel they need to earn it.
Poor Chelsea Clinton got lambasted today because she was hired by NBC with no background qualifications for the job whatsoever, just as was Jenna Bush, Megan McCain, that Russert guy, and the CEO of the NYT.
That is not to say these young people might not develop the skills needed in their new jobs, but it does mean that people who have spent years working their way up from the bottom, learning the skills and developing the qualifications for those jobs, won't get the particular jobs filled by the kids of celebrities who have done nothing but manage to get themselves born to the right families. I don't begrudge Chelsea, Jenna, Megan, etc their jobs, but the playing field is not level. It's level when we all start at the bottom and work our way up; it is not level when some start at the top and hold on if they are lucky enough or fall in a few years if they just can't cut it. 'Someone' who has been working for years is being forced to wait because they can't compete with 'name recognition'. It isn't fair. |
And then you start to notice all the family dynasties when it comes to movie stars, pop music, sports, etc.
nepotism has just gotten out of control nowadays. And they always come out with "Oh but actings in her blood" bollox. Its because mommmy and daddy went to college with the director. But this kind of elitism has almost become acceptable. Nobody bats an eyelid anymore.
There is some sort of repugnant eugenicism and "right of the well-bred" snobbery at play here. Ever noticed the endless family favorites happening in F1? Never mind the White house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Since society benefits most when the maximum number of people are educated to their individual maximum potential, but with our antiquated 'private enterprise system' being sacrosanct, I propose we re-jigger the loan system so that students pay something around 1% interest (or whatever is enough to cover the cost of administering the program), retroactive to whenever so it lightens dramatically the debt on the current generation of young people when they need money most.
Going forward, we make loans geared to encouraging engineers and scientists at a lower interest rate than other majors.
I would be open to a plan to charge another 1% to collect revenue to help fund community colleges and trade schools.
What say you? |
Mostly agreed, but ditch the Community Colleges. Waste of money outside of a few areas, such as teaching specific skills (like computer skills or automotive, etc.) and perhaps a few two-year degrees. Okay, maybe not ditch them, but the Community College program needs to be overhauled. It shouldn't be a University-lite institution, it should be more focused on specific, in-demand skills and training.
| Quote: |
| That is not to say these young people might not develop the skills needed in their new jobs, but it does mean that people who have spent years working their way up from the bottom, learning the skills and developing the qualifications for those jobs, won't get the particular jobs filled by the kids of celebrities who have done nothing but manage to get themselves born to the right families. I don't begrudge Chelsea, Jenna, Megan, etc their jobs, but the playing field is not level. It's level when we all start at the bottom and work our way up; it is not level when some start at the top and hold on if they are lucky enough or fall in a few years if they just can't cut it. 'Someone' who has been working for years is being forced to wait because they can't compete with 'name recognition'. It isn't fair. |
Yeah, so what?
Life isn't fair. No two things on this planet have an equal chance, not a leaf, not a tree. Now there are things that you can try to make less unfair, but unless you are going to do some sort of Platonic abducting of children and whatnot, family ties will always be a part of it.
And why shouldn't one be able to pass on their resources and expertise and advantages to their children? Maybe their children have gained some sort of special insight.
And maybe, just maybe, some of those "rich kids" actually ARE smarter and better equipped than some of those who come from the bottom.
| Quote: |
And then you start to notice all the family dynasties when it comes to movie stars, pop music, sports, etc.
nepotism has just gotten out of control nowadays. And they always come out with "Oh but actings in her blood" bollox. Its because mommmy and daddy went to college with the director. But this kind of elitism has almost become acceptable. Nobody bats an eyelid anymore.
There is some sort of repugnant eugenicism and "right of the well-bred" snobbery at play here. Ever noticed the endless family favorites happening in F1? Never mind the White house. |
Are you seriously suggesting that Ken Griffey Jr., Cal Ripken, Prince Fielder, etc. got there because of nepotism and not because they benefited from familial expertise and were great at their sport?
Sorry, but sports is about as equal opportunity as it gets. You either score or you don't. You either make the pass or you don't. You're faster than the other guy or you aren't. Considering the fact that kids from Compton outnumber "My daddy was a Pro" in the NBA by magnitudes, your argument falls on its face.
But don't we use this argument for the trades and other things as well- Cooks, Mechanics, Woodworkers, Farmers, Artists, Musicians, etc. etc.
You know, there is something to growing up next to your family's profession and being exposed to it day in and day out...
It certainly provides an advantage. My mother was a teacher and it certainly gave me advantages in heading into this field. There's just certain things you pick up on as a child sitting at her school or her bringing her work home. Certain things with materials or staff meetings, or school bureaucracy, or classroom management I witnessed and somehow my brain remembered it. Am I receiving an unfair advantage?
Isn't that what parents are supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass on knowledge? And if people possess that knowledge, aren't they supposed to use it?
As I said before, no matter how crappy a hand you got dealt in the U.S., you've got a way better one than 90% of the world out there. Maybe that 90% of the world should be bitter and angry and resentment filled to the poor of the U.S. for being so entitled over their accidents of birth. Maybe they should target them.
Seriously a poor person in the U.S. is holding a pair of jacks compared to the rest of the world's 4-7 off-suit.
Yeah, let's target the privileged and entitled and wasteful of what they've been given. Let's target the 99-10. The bottom 99% of America, still better than 90% of the world and living spoiled off of it.
By thy own "logic"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
