Politics

[Buster Bluth]

Our society as a whole is moving towards a more service based economy. I think that as we go towards more automated/robotic labor replacing unskilled labor, there will be a shift to the service portion of our goods/services economy.

More people paying to have their yards maintained, snow shoveled, houses cleaned, house renovations, etc.

Lower costs of goods -> more disposable income for other things.

I agree to an extent. What is stopping a Roomba-like machine from being deployed by Danny's Lawn Cutting Service in the future? One model can cut grass, one can blow snow.

Service sector: automated voice recognition systems have replaced thousands of costumer support people. Whenever I call my bank (USAA), it's a computer until I request a representative. This is used in insurance, banking, financial services, legal services, etc. ATMs have replaced thousands of bank tellers. That service has been automated.

With Waste Management, automated garage trucks are replacing garbagemen on the back physically lifting garbage cans.

I have already mentioned law and education. The list can go on, and is undoubtedly expanding.

But most importantly, I don't think Service Sector (or Tertiary Economy) pay as well. Not everyone can be a waitress haha

 

[woolybug25]

Buster, your thoughts on automation and the death pinnacle of capitalism are thought provoking. I just want to say that your additions to the politics topics have completely changed the tone of this thread over the last couple months. While there is still nonsense bickering and party line toting, intelligent debate/thought exchange has improved greatly. I don't know what life events happened to change your general outlook (let's be real, you used to be pretty hard line conservative in your comments), but your tone and topics have drastically increased the quality of conversation in this thread. I hope other posters that only post in this thread to emphasize their typical political talking pionts take your lead. This country needs more independent thinking like you have presented the last couple months. Regardless of political leanings, we are an intelligent group on IE. So I hope others decide to bring up similar thought provoking topics that you have. This thread will be better off for it.

Reps

 

[Buster Bluth]

Thanks man I appreciate it.

 

[GoIrish41]

When I read this ...

Minimum wage jobs are not for living off of.


If you stay on a minimum wage job your entire life, you have more serious problems than trying to raise a family on it.

... and then I read this ...

Our society as a whole is moving towards a more service based economy. I think that as we go towards more automated/robotic labor replacing unskilled labor, there will be a shift to the service portion of our goods/services economy.

can you understand why I see this as a contradiction? Not trying to be a smart a**. I'm reading this as you shouldn't work one of these minimum wage jobs your whole life, and, then saying the way our economy is headed we're going to have nothing but the type of jobs that pay minimum wage.

Am I missing something?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

When I read this ...



... and then I read this ...

Our society as a whole is moving towards a more service based economy. I think that as we go towards more automated/robotic labor replacing unskilled labor, there will be a shift to the service portion of our goods/services economy.

can you understand why I see this as a contradiction? Not trying to be a smart a**. I'm reading this as you shouldn't work one of these minimum wage jobs your whole life, and, then saying the way our economy is headed we're going to have nothing but the type of jobs that pay minimum wage.

Am I missing something?

See the examples I gave? Our lawn guy makes more than minimum wage. Same with the people who do our windows, outside of the house, put our docks and boat lifts in, etc. When I think minimum wage jobs I'm thinking cashiers, fast food workers, lower class restaurants, etc

 

[Ndaccountant]

Don't look at it as robots as much as automation, or "smart automation."

Not is certainly not just unskilled labor.

Law: legalzoom.com is the first of many automated lawyers. Need a make a will? Need to form an LLC? Need to make a simple contract? You don't need an actual lawyer for the simple stuff anymore. What is regarded as simple those is rising over time.

Education: Regardless of the popular opinion of the University of Phoenix and other online universities, recorded lectures are still replacing professors in rudimentary classes (i.e. the 101s of the world). Instead of teaching a class of thirty in a classroom, a few grad students can--and are--operating courses of 125 or so, with homework built in to go along with the recorded lecture of a great professor who is dead for all we know. Students submit questions, they answer it. Recorded lectures and FAQs can teach 90% of the course-load for the low-level classes.

Medicine: What about doctors? Two years ago Watson (the IBM supercomputer) was the size of a living room, now it's the size of a stack of pizza boxes and is 240% faster--in only two years. IBM is putting this know-literally-everything-bot in hospitals and it is having amazing effects. Not surprisingly, it is making better treatment recommendations than doctors and saving money and time in the process: Researchers say AI prescribes better treatment than doctors — Tech News and Analysis

This will all have good consequences, much like capitalism did with agriculture, textiles, and manufacturing. The cost of all of those things should plummet and be more readily available to everyone....but make no mistake the individual skills are being automated and there is no telling what smart automation can do. It'll be a whole new world.

The immediately scary part is that it won't completely replace people in these fields, but it replace some. We don't need that many lawyers anymore for a number of reasons; classroom sizes will increase as automated curricula are more effective; we won't need X doctors per person, we'll need .75X doctors, and they'll be 500% more effective. That's what capitalism does, makes people more effective with the use of capital-intensive machinery/technology.



I disagree entirely. I don't even think capitalists say that. The reason Walmart employees are paid so little is because their job is sooooo simple, skill has been almost completely replaced. They don't need to even be able to make change correctly (or 100% of the time), the computer tells them! They don't need supply chain managers in the warehouse constantly calculating how much XYZ stores need, the computer immediately knows once the barcode is scanned in the store--the computer prints out the order form and the trucker drives it there. When automation happens, wages fall or remain stagnate.

Well, I still think that the overall message is the same, regardless if it is low skill or a doctor. For example, we may need 25% less doctors, but those really smart people are not going away too.....they can be and will be redeployed. Maybe these doctors research more to find cures, maybe they help develop even more efficient software, the possibilities are endless. In the short run, yes, there could potentially be a mismatch of needs and skills in the labor force. But over time, these smart people are attracted to the fields were the jobs and pay are. I don't think most people 40 years ago would have imagined that there would be a growing market place for a thing called social media. But look at what that market has created. This new technology has afforded opportunities that would have never existed. It's creative destruction.

In the end, education is the most important thing. The smart people will be fine and will adapt as needed. In fact, the Presidential Jobs Council realizes that there is a huge mismatch of skills and jobs, even in high educated fields. Maybe less lawyers means the market is correcting itself. In the end, tt is the low skilled and low educated that will need assistance in improving their skill sets.

http://files.jobs-council.com/files/2011/10/JobsCouncil_Talent.pdf

 

[GoIrish41]

See the examples I gave? Our lawn guy makes more than minimum wage. When I think minimum wage jobs I'm thinking cashiers, fast food workers, lower class restaurants, etc

those are all service jobs though. sure, the lawn guy make a shade over minimum wage but all those other jobs you, yourself, listed as minimum wage job make up the majority of service industry jobs. If the economy of the not too far off future is going to be a service economy, I can see a scenario in which a person could be trapped in one of these jobs for his/her entire working life. Frankly, and I'm not trying to start an argument, I thought your original comments on the minimum wage could be read as out of touch with many the types of conditions many people in this country live in every day. Poor people don't stay in low paying jobs because they have alternatives.

 

[yankeehater]

The President last night proposed 29 new Government programs yet said he does not plan on adding a new dime to the National Debt. Those numbers don't seem to add up to me.

I would also still like to see what his job's plan is. Now he is talking about increasing the minimum wage, pretty dramatically I might add,and 90% of economists surveyed say that is a job's killer throughout history.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Well, I still think that the overall message is the same, regardless if it is low skill or a doctor. For example, we may need 25% less doctors, but those really smart people are not going away too.....they can be and will be redeployed. Maybe these doctors research more to find cures, maybe they help develop even more efficient software, the possibilities are endless. In the short run, yes, there could potentially be a mismatch of needs and skills in the labor force. But over time, these smart people are attracted to the fields were the jobs and pay are. I don't think most people 40 years ago would have imagined that there would be a growing market place for a thing called social media. But look at what that market has created.

In the end, education is the most important thing. The smart people will be fine and will adapt as needed. In fact, the Presidential Jobs Council realizes that there is a huge mismatch of skills and jobs, even in high educated fields. Maybe less lawyers means the market is correcting itself. In the end, tt is the low skilled and low educated that will need assistance in improving their skill sets.

http://files.jobs-council.com/files/2011/10/JobsCouncil_Talent.pdf

I have no disagreements there. But half of us are below average, what do they do?

And it's funny that you brought up social media. In the 60 Minutes clip I posted originally, he stated that Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple have a trillion dollars of market capitalization and employ, in total, about 150,000 people. That's less than what enter the US workforce in any given month.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I have no disagreements there. But half of us are below average, what do they do?

And it's funny that you brought up social media. In the 60 Minutes clip I posted originally, he stated that Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple have a trillion dollars of market capitalization and employ, in total, about 150,000 people. That's less than what enter the US workforce in any given month.

If you go back a few posts, i had an article attached about how education is the key to inequality and what is needed. I still think it is ultimately the individual that needs and wants to take the effort to modernize their skillset. We can only make sure the opportunity is there.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I have no disagreements there. But half of us are below average, what do they do?

And it's funny that you brought up social media. In the 60 Minutes clip I posted originally, he stated that Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple have a trillion dollars of market capitalization and employ, in total, about 150,000 people. That's less than what enter the US workforce in any given month.

But indirectly Social Media has caused other people to get employed. Hell, I had a job at a dealership part time managing all their social media stuff.

Most dealerships have now hired at least one person due to social media/online advertising. Other type of companies have done the same.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The President last night proposed 29 new Government programs yet said he does not plan on adding a new dime to the National Debt. Those numbers don't seem to add up to me.

I would also still like to see what his job's plan is. Now he is talking about increasing the minimum wage, pretty dramatically I might add,and 90% of economists surveyed say that is a job's killer throughout history.

His jobs plan is the same as it was in 2009 and the same it will be in 2029. Another stimulus. More money for local and state governments. Roads, bridges, firefighters, teachers and police.

 

[BobD]

Buster, your thoughts on automation and the death pinnacle of capitalism are thought provoking. I just want to say that your additions to the politics topics have completely changed the tone of this thread over the last couple months. While there is still nonsense bickering and party line toting, intelligent debate/thought exchange has improved greatly. I don't know what life events happened to change your general outlook (let's be real, you used to be pretty hard line conservative in your comments), but your tone and topics have drastically increased the quality of conversation in this thread. I hope other posters that only post in this thread to emphasize their typical political talking pionts take your lead. This country needs more independent thinking like you have presented the last couple months. Regardless of political leanings, we are an intelligent group on IE. So I hope others decide to bring up similar thought provoking topics that you have. This thread will be better off for it.

Reps

I agree. Well said wooly. I'm not good with words especially written. I learn a lot from Buster and many of the other posters here at IE. Some families probably paid a fortune for their kids to learn some of the stuff I've learned from OMM and some of the other contributors here.

 

[GoIrish41]

His jobs plan is the same as it was in 2009 and the same it will be in 2029. Another stimulus. More money for local and state governments. Roads, bridges, firefighters, teachers and police.

are you against having improved roads and safer bridges? Are you against having professionals whose function it is to keep us safe? Is it a bad thing to have more teachers to educate our kids? why not stimulate the economy by paying for things that we all need to maintain our society? more tax revenue coming in ... fewer requiring public assistance ... more people spending money to buy goods and services produced by US companies ... more jobs ... fewer American families in distress. Why is this bad? Because we don't have the money to pay for it right now? Nonsense. The cost of not improving our infrastructure, adequately educating our children, and leaving ourseves more exposed to risk is far more than a stimulus.

 

[chicago51]

I'll try to find the link when I am on a PC.

In regards to Buster comments on robots and automation. I did not think of how it related to Buster's comments until now.

I read something yesterday about when a 2005 state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama said. Basically he agreed with Buster that automation would lead to job loss. Obama also mentioned that government intervention was needed to reverse the tied of jobs going to China and other places.

How Obama himself went into details on how the US economy would have to evolve because of automation. He was not all doom and gloom about it but he thought change and evolution would be necessary.

You may love or hate Obama it is interesting though recognized the threat of automation on jobs currently held by people. Obama I sure read some of Mark's theories and that is probably were he got it.

 

[Downinthebend]

are you against having improved roads and safer bridges? Are you against having professionals whose function it is to keep us safe? Is it a bad thing to have more teachers to educate our kids? why not stimulate the economy by paying for things that we all need to maintain our society? more tax revenue coming in ... fewer requiring public assistance ... more people spending money to buy goods and services produced by US companies ... more jobs ... fewer American families in distress. Why is this bad? Because we don't have the money to pay for it right now? Nonsense. The cost of not improving our infrastructure, adequately educating our children, and leaving ourseves more exposed to risk is far more than a stimulus.

I'd like to talk about education-- how do you think it can be improved?

 

[GoIrish41]

I'd like to talk about education-- how do you think it can be improved?

For starters, I think there is a lot of evidence that suggests that smaller classroom sizes and highly qualified teachers is a recipe for success.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I thought this was an excellent column on education.

Michelle Rhee: My Break With the Democrats - The Daily Beast

 

[chicago51]

I'd like to talk about education-- how do you think it can be improved?

I think the focus has to be less on test scores.

A great deal is focused on college prep as it should be. More technology classes though need to be taught in high school.

I think research needs to be done on education itself. Some states are better than others some inner city schools in some cities do better than others. What are they doing that is working? In these days of limit budgets which is reality rather I like it or not we can not just throw money at schools. We need target innovations that are working in fund those things and promote those things nation wide. So we need to be a smarter government as opposed to bigger or smaller government in this case.

 

[GowerND11]

For starters, I think there is a lot of evidence that suggests that smaller classroom sizes and highly qualified teachers is a recipe for success.

As a teacher I completely agree, but we need more. Education is not something done in a concrete/brick building from 8 to 3 for 180 days. It is an everyday event that takes more than teachers. Parental involvement is HUGE when it comes to student success. As a student and as a teacher I have seen friends and students not succeed because parents were not there to push the student at home. More often than not this problem is with lower income students. I even had a student tell me their parents think school is stupid and have told them they shouldn't study or do homework. How F'ed up is that?

No Child Left Behind was a huge failure. It set standards that a lot of schools could not reach. On top of that, these standards were not flexible. In PA, at least, every year the bar would be raised for the entire state in writing/reading and math. Example: Year 1 a school district has to reach 56% proficiency for writing/reading and 58% in math. Ok, doesn't sound so bad, but what if a school was only making 42% in each the year before? Obviously there is a lot wrong already with this school, but that is besides the point. In Year 1 this school does not meet the bar. Students were, say, 45% in writing/reading and 47% in math. Now Year 2 comes along. This year the goal is 60% for both. Well how in the world is that failing school going to grow 15 percentage points? Then we see these same schools fail to meet AYP(Adequate Yearly Progress) every year. State reduces funding (that makes sense), parents complain, teachers are labled bad, students are dumb, etc. A better measure would be a flexible bar, where school districts are consistently achieving growth without having to meet unrealistic expectations.

One more thing, I think we are seeing too much babying of students as well. Can't fail them, no homework in some districts, can't yell, etc. Students currently have too much power over educators which is a manipulation of the system.

 

[GoIrish41]

At the Army laboratory where I work more than half of the workforce is eligible for retirement within the next ten years. In our colleges and universities, fewer and fewer students are graduating with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees that will be needed in order for my lab and virtually every other lab across the country, civilian or government, to find a pool of employees to fill the jobs that will be vacated. The Department of Defense sends a lot of money to its laboratories to develop educational outreach campaigns that aim to encourage students to pursue STEM careers. I think this is an excellent use of government resources that are targeted at helping to fix a long-term problem.

 

[chicago51]

As a teacher I completely agree, but we need more. Education is not something done in a concrete/brick building from 8 to 3 for 180 days. It is an everyday event that takes more than teachers. Parental involvement is HUGE when it comes to student success. As a student and as a teacher I have seen friends and students not succeed because parents were not there to push the student at home. More often than not this problem is with lower income students. I even had a student tell me their parents think school is stupid and have told them they shouldn't study or do homework. How F'ed up is that?

No Child Left Behind was a huge failure. It set standards that a lot of schools could not reach. On top of that, these standards were not flexible. In PA, at least, every year the bar would be raised for the entire state in writing/reading and math. Example: Year 1 a school district has to reach 56% proficiency for writing/reading and 58% in math. Ok, doesn't sound so bad, but what if a school was only making 42% in each the year before? Obviously there is a lot wrong already with this school, but that is besides the point. In Year 1 this school does not meet the bar. Students were, say, 45% in writing/reading and 47% in math. Now Year 2 comes along. This year the goal is 60% for both. Well how in the world is that failing school going to grow 15 percentage points? Then we see these same schools fail to meet AYP(Adequate Yearly Progress) every year. State reduces funding (that makes sense), parents complain, teachers are labled bad, students are dumb, etc. A better measure would be a flexible bar, where school districts are consistently achieving growth without having to meet unrealistic expectations.

One more thing, I think we are seeing too much babying of students as well. Can't fail them, no homework in some districts, can't yell, etc. Students currently have too much power over educators which is a manipulation of the system.

By test I mean standardized test. SAT ACT and other test for younger kids.

What do you think about test scores? Are they an effective way to evaluate schools and teachers? Do teachers have change what they teach based on what the tests are acting? Are tests effective for evaluating students in the first place.

Even as an adult taking test grad school I have not done on standardized test but I gets As and Bs in class.

 

[GoIrish41]

As a teacher I completely agree, but we need more. Education is not something done in a concrete/brick building from 8 to 3 for 180 days. It is an everyday event that takes more than teachers. Parental involvement is HUGE when it comes to student success. As a student and as a teacher I have seen friends and students not succeed because parents were not there to push the student at home. More often than not this problem is with lower income students. I even had a student tell me their parents think school is stupid and have told them they shouldn't study or do homework. How F'ed up is that?

No Child Left Behind was a huge failure. It set standards that a lot of schools could not reach. On top of that, these standards were not flexible. In PA, at least, every year the bar would be raised for the entire state in writing/reading and math. Example: Year 1 a school district has to reach 56% proficiency for writing/reading and 58% in math. Ok, doesn't sound so bad, but what if a school was only making 42% in each the year before? Obviously there is a lot wrong already with this school, but that is besides the point. In Year 1 this school does not meet the bar. Students were, say, 45% in writing/reading and 47% in math. Now Year 2 comes along. This year the goal is 60% for both. Well how in the world is that failing school going to grow 15 percentage points? Then we see these same schools fail to meet AYP(Adequate Yearly Progress) every year. State reduces funding (that makes sense), parents complain, teachers are labled bad, students are dumb, etc. A better measure would be a flexible bar, where school districts are consistently achieving growth without having to meet unrealistic expectations.

One more thing, I think we are seeing too much babying of students as well. Can't fail them, no homework in some districts, can't yell, etc. Students currently have too much power over educators which is a manipulation of the system.

I don't disagree with any of this. I also don't think that we can just throw money at all of the problems we face in the educational system. The program I described above, for example, receives a pretty small amount of money for what our program does in education. Last year, we reached 9,000 students with hands-on, real world lesson plans taught by scientists from my lab. That has a huge impact on students when a real-live scientist is telling them about a scientific concept instead of the teacher. We also do a lot of teacher professional development, teaching teachers what about what we do in our laboratories so they have real-world examples to support their teaching. We also fund educational modules like Engineering is Elementary to that students age getting exposed to real engineering problems. These types of lessons are designed to teach them how to think for themselves and develop an interest in subject matter that might one day compel them to pursue a degree in engineering. I think what we are doing today has a real chance of paying off down the road, if not for our lab, for some lab and maybe the country. The schools are getting far more than we are funded for because our employees really get hooked on participating in them and the program expands on its own.

 

[GowerND11]

By test I mean standardized test. SAT ACT and other test for younger kids.

What do you think about test scores? Are they an effective way to evaluate schools and teachers? Do teachers have change what they teach based on what the tests are acting? Are tests effective for evaluating students in the first place.

Even as an adult taking test grad school I have not done on standardized test but I gets As and Bs in class.

I think they can be effective when coupled with other factors. There has become too much emphasis on standardized tests and students know this. The sad part is that, because students know there is an emphasis on these tests, students either psych themselves out/get stressed over them, or simply say screw it I'm not trying. I remember taking these standardized tests in elementary school (mid to late 90s) that our teachers would tell us about the week before. There wasn't this emphasis on them and I think we relaxed. We took the tests as ONE of the measures of our abilities. Today they are THE measure.

Teachers have certainly changed the way they teach. They teach to the test now. We are seeing PSSA (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment) prep classes. Students taking math classes about how to take the test. Teachers teaching students how to use the calculator correctly for the test, instead of why they are doing the functions they are doing. Social Studies, Science, Electives, Languages, Gym, Art, Music, etc. are being taken away or reduced to teach for the test.

These tests were created by politicians and/or Department of Education employees who have limited to no teaching experience. A lot of why they were created was to vilify teachers and show they were not doing their job, despite many that were. With these standards they want the entire USA to be 100% proficient in reading and math. The problem with that is there is no wiggle room. Think of this, you can't do better than 10/10 from the foul line. You can't go 11/10. Therefore even if all school districts got to 100%, they then cannot have even 1, 1!!! student not pass.

 

[GowerND11]

I don't disagree with any of this. I also don't think that we can just throw money at all of the problems we face in the educational system. The program I described above, for example, receives a pretty small amount of money for what our program does in education. Last year, we reached 9,000 students with hands-on, real world lesson plans taught by scientists from my lab. That has a huge impact on students when a real-live scientist is telling them about a scientific concept instead of the teacher. We also do a lot of teacher professional development, teaching teachers what about what we do in our laboratories so they have real-world examples to support their teaching. We also fund educational modules like Engineering is Elementary to that students age getting exposed to real engineering problems. These types of lessons are designed to teach them how to think for themselves and develop an interest in subject matter that might one day compel them to pursue a degree in engineering. I think what we are doing today has a real chance of paying off down the road, if not for our lab, for some lab and maybe the country. The schools are getting far more than we are funded for because our employees really get hooked on participating in them and the program expands on its own.

I love being able to show students real world scenarios and bringing people in to show it. That is great this program can reach students. As i just mentioned in my other post, many teachers' hands are tied because of the tests. They are teaching students WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think. You can teach a student why, say, physics dictates whatever, but if you can't show a student how to apply it, then it gets lost. While what to think can be necessary (In social studies the what's would be dates, names, places), but being able to get a student to critically think (how did person X come up with this idea. Why was the battle fought here. What is the significance of what Locke wrote) really opens their mind and makes them better citizens and learners.

 

[Black Irish]

So we want our children to be better educated in order to fill the jobs of tomorrow (i.e. science & technology jobs) but not so well educated that they create a bunch of machines that take away all of our jobs?

 

[GoIrish41]

I love being able to show students real world scenarios and bringing people in to show it. That is great this program can reach students. As i just mentioned in my other post, many teachers' hands are tied because of the tests. They are teaching students WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think. You can teach a student why, say, physics dictates whatever, but if you can't show a student how to apply it, then it gets lost. While what to think can be necessary (In social studies the what's would be dates, names, places), but being able to get a student to critically think (how did person X come up with this idea. Why was the battle fought here. What is the significance of what Locke wrote) really opens their mind and makes them better citizens and learners.

You have a very difficult job, but there isn't one in the country that is more important. I hate that the teaching profession is used as a political football.

 

[chicago51]

I think they can be effective when coupled with other factors. There has become too much emphasis on standardized tests and students know this. The sad part is that, because students know there is an emphasis on these tests, students either psych themselves out/get stressed over them, or simply say screw it I'm not trying. I remember taking these standardized tests in elementary school (mid to late 90s) that our teachers would tell us about the week before. There wasn't this emphasis on them and I think we relaxed. We took the tests as ONE of the measures of our abilities. Today they are THE measure.

Teachers have certainly changed the way they teach. They teach to the test now. We are seeing PSSA (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment) prep classes. Students taking math classes about how to take the test. Teachers teaching students how to use the calculator correctly for the test, instead of why they are doing the functions they are doing. Social Studies, Science, Electives, Languages, Gym, Art, Music, etc. are being taken away or reduced to teach for the test.

These tests were created by politicians and/or Department of Education employees who have limited to no teaching experience. A lot of why they were created was to vilify teachers and show they were not doing their job, despite many that were. With these standards they want the entire USA to be 100% proficient in reading and math. The problem with that is there is no wiggle room. Think of this, you can't do better than 10/10 from the foul line. You can't go 11/10. Therefore even if all school districts got to 100%, they then cannot have even 1, 1!!! student not pass.

Thank you for your insight. When talking about issues I think it is important to listen what people in the field have to say. In this with education we need to listen to teachers. With public safety we need to law enforce etc. I know it is your job and you are getting paid but I have much respect for those like yourself that chose to teach. You picked a noble profession.

 

[GowerND11]

So we want our children to be better educated in order to fill the jobs of tomorrow (i.e. science & technology jobs) but not so well educated that they create a bunch of machines that take away all of our jobs?

The American education system is actually supposed to create productive and upstanding citizens. They should know how the government works and how they can influence the government/elections. They should be able to critically think, problem solve, and use teamwork/leadership to find solutions. The problem is there is a disconnect with what I just said and reality. We are creating citizens with little knowledge of how our country works, students whine when they aren't told the answers, group projects are seen as a way for slacking off, and more students want to be mindlessly told what to do than actually have an individual thought. This problem is cause by many factors: standardized tests, the google effect, limited parental involvment, social media, social pressures, and cultural problems (popularity of Jersey Shore and all reality TV).

 

[Bluto]

Well then that's a you problem. I posted a few weeks ago in this thread several household moving studies from 2011 and 2012 and census numbers from 2010. Here, I'll even help. 1) go to Google 2) Type in "people leaving California." 3) Read.

Mitt Romney's primary residence is in Mass. but he owns homes in a few other states. Mitt isn't chillin in beautiful San Diego 11 months out of the year. Why bring up Waco? Why not Houston? Austin? Dallas/ Fort Worth?

I did Google all that stuff. Thanks. Still a bunch of op eds with little actual numbers talking about economic impact and the like. That is unless Uhaul can be considered a good source.

Here's the one kinda reputable analysis from Forbes: apparently it's mostly poor and midle class people leaving. Maybe my reverse dust bowl crack wasn't too far off? Also, it's hardly the mass exodus you've been alluding to.

Jobs Aren't Leaving California For Texas, But People Are - Forbes

Dallas Forth Worth sucks butt. Austin is cool. Don't know much about Houston other than it spawned the Ghetto Boys, who rule btw. El Paso is like Bakersfield. South Padre Islands gonna be underwater any day now due to climate change. All those spring beakers are gonna be pissed.