Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by JBond, Jan 10, 2013.
I know huh. Guess the Nyquil dose was too low
Don't confuse working longer hours and taking work home with working hard. Many people get their work done at work.
Americans also take less vacation than most other countries as well. I don't think that is healthy. I remember being in Disneyland when some Dbag was proudly telling his friends that he only responded to five work emails that morning as he is on vacation. My thought was, mmmm, how about not responding to any?
Europeans are healthier physically and usually mentally than North Americans. They also get more vacation time. Coincidence, who knows. I know this much, I need my six weeks a year or else I face burnout.
The very nature of technology means replacing man made labor. And with that replacement there has to be a shift in different sectors of production. This country has not done a great job in making that shift compared to countries around the world. And as a result we see our economy struggle.
My point on education as the blog article suggests is that you need to look at expenditures in education, not simply per capita or per pupil basis. You draw the conclusion that we shouldn't pay teachers so much, based on this argument, and if you looked at average teacher pay compared to other OECD countries, you would see that it was significantly less.
You also made a complete assumption as to where I was going with my argument in an attempts to create a straw man.
I think the problem is in regards to where and how we spend. I believe that we have to make teaching a more highly sought after profession in this country, and also make becoming a teacher more difficult. Not difficult in terms of expense, but rather more training, education, and criteria. That being said we should be investing in programs that allow more and better teachers to more easily come to the profession.
How much road does California have to maintain vs the roads in Tennessee. You want to talk about apples and oranges yet you want to completely ignore the different realities both states face.
My point is in terms of education or any government funded organizations, it's not just how much you spend, but how you spend and how you put an emphasis on education.
Massachusetts has done a good job in investing in teachers over the years, and the investment has paid dividends. That being said there are still areas where there are poorer resources available where the education is not at all good. It's difficult to get good teachers to stay in these areas, and with nclb, many of these schools are ironically left behind.
Why is Massachusetts so high in income per pupil? Could it be related to the investments we make in maintaining our economy? Yet it's funny when we are referred to as taxachusetts. Wouldn't our higher taxes drive down economic growth?
In closing I do agree with you, I don't like to see waste, fraud, and abuse. We could have a whole conversation on corporate contracts that are siphening tax money.
because if theres one goal i have in life, its to live like a european. Not on my to do list. i dont vacation much period. and id rather take care of things at home instead of worrying about my "six weeks a year" if it works for you great, but it doesnt make you physically or mentally better. it just makes you you. and thats the difference.
frankily you want phyically and mentally better, go see the amish, after they are doing building something for you, they'll show you how mentally in shape they are too. do i want to live like them, no, so its not the goals of many americans to be like our counter parts.
we can also look at towns with contracts that are siphoning resources from our towns and cities.
its not always corporate thats evil.
Agreed, and the world is more open and transportation is better and there is labor arbitrage. There's also currency value and arbitrage there, declining birth rates, etc. There is an equilibrium that will bring developing countires up and developed ones down over time.
I never made an assumption on how much we should pay teachers, if I did please point it out. What I am saying is that they WAY we spend it IS NOT not working and yielding results that provide students ready for the work force
Have NO issue there. But all education needs to be enforced with more emphasis at home. This is not nearly universal enough
Can you come back with numbers other than trying to build the strawman?
Get back to me after you realize how much each gets in terms fed spending, "earmarked" funding, etc. Suffice it to say that there is money available to fix potholes.
agreed, emphasis has top be cultural - home and community - not just teachers.
Mass income per pupil is so high because there economy is relatively stable and a large part is built on human capital bolstered by exclusive higher education universities and technology. There are recession proof industries and healthcare, education and government have historically been at the top.
I haven't really followed Massachusetts because I haven't lived there, but unemployment seems to be going in the opposite direction than california and TN
Knoxville Tennessee was not hit hard by the recession because much of the economy was derived from the university of Tennessee and DOD (federal) facilities.
plus it looks like Mass is the least diverse of Mass, TN and California...which shocked me compared to TN.
That does cause issues. There are many more kids who can't speak English in 1st grade in California than in Mass and TN. The point, money alone will not solve the education problem. With deficits as they are, blindly calling for money without thinking out of the box is a losing proposition.
Corporations are not be angels, but the fact that governments operate without any checks or interest from the public can allow things like this to happen.
Do you think that last article is warranted for public employee unions to negotiate those benefits?
All of that money is being siphoned from roads, etc. My overarching point is that money is most easily hidden in government, education and healthcare - 3 areas that the consumer does not invest time to see if it is not being wasted; moreover it has become a complacency and deemed acceptable because "thats the way it is".
If people thought the 2008-9 Crisis was bad, wait until US Treasury interest rate goes up and the interest payments rival Social Security payments. That was just a small shift in global equilibrium, that will be 10.0 magnitude quake
McLovin, please see that you're not the only person I was discussing things with... talk about narcissism.
So sorry, when I post something and someone hits the "quote" button on my post and uses the pronoun "you" in their response addressing my points, I would have thought it was directed at me. But granted that is my Tennessee education not an elite Ivy school one.
But resulting to name calling at least gave me comfort in that I knew it would be coming.
Its post #183 if you need a refresher.
I nominate this thread for one of the weirdest of the year. Strange answers and even stranger tangents.
The economy can't grow if people aren't trading goods and services. I never suggested otherwise. We were discussing how wealth was created.
I suggested no such thing. Thanks for the playing, though.
Very interesting thread...
I think there isn't one answer but many on why a later generation acts differently or has different values than a previous generation.
But one thing that wasn't brought up (at least I don't think I saw it) was the presence of a historical "reset" button to radically change the values or collective personality of an entire generation.
For example the American Civil War was a historical "reset" button that greatly affected at least one generation.
More recent "reset" buttons were the Great Depression of the 1930's and World War II.
Those that went through the depression (especially adults) became very careful about money and leery that the next great depression could be right around the corner.
Then you had the slightly younger folks who went to war and were (provided they survived) elated about life in general and wanted everything that life could offer.
We haven't experienced a "reset" since WW2... Not in the scale of the Great Depression or the last world war. Consequently we're seeing new generations taking the same attitudes as the previous 2-3 generations and practicing them even more aggressively.
At some point another "reset" will occur and from that there will most likely be a generational "shift" in thinking, personality and overall values... It may come in the form of a massive war or some economic tragedy like the financial default of the government.
The response before that should have clued you in. Just a refresher.
I'd suggest re-reading your statements, friend.
I did, and nothing changed. We were still discussing the virtues of saving and investment.
You mean post #178 when you said:
Must have been the other McLovin.
Looking back in this thread, you keep chiding people to back up claims with data, well I have. You have yet to present any data or study other than a feeble attempt to discredit one study using a progressive blog site that was impuning a different study using different factors.
I've tried being respectful, but you are way to invested in your position. If you want the last word you can have it. You behaving like pretty immaturely to be 27. There are some people that can make cogent points that differ from you. You don't have to buy it, but talking down is no way to convert someone
very thoughtful post and read, kudos, i enjoyed it.
please see post 186
also as for as backing up my claims, hows this for a diagnosis of your behaviors
In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior—where situational factors are often taken into consideration. This discrepancy is called the actor–observer bias.
As a simple example, consider a situation where a driver, Alice, is about to pass through an intersection. Her light turns green, and so she begins moving forward when an ambulance blows through the red-light with sirens blaring and lights flashing, and cuts her off. Despite knowing that there is a good reason for the driver's behavior, she is likely to form a negative opinion of the driver, e.g. "what an inconsiderate driver!".