Yeah, it starts out sounding like an anti-globalization topic, but it isn't. I'm actually all for globalization; I love the concept, the challenges of dealing with other cultures, and the chance to work in new places and potentially increase your profits (or your company's) in new markets. I also enjoy cheap goods, which make more sense to my economic mindset than buying crappy and expensive American alternatives. That being said, I spent the second day of my finance class today having the sh'it methodically scared out of me by the professor, who predicted the low odds of our success and the general problems we'll have in the future.
His basic premise: "You're here at the University of Delaware in a business class attempting to get a good education. Because of where you are, you are all bright. Above average. But do you know what you have against you?"
(Pulls up a map of Asia)
"Around 4 billion people who want the jobs that you want. Here is what you're up against. You've come to the point where being sharp isn't nearly enough. Everyone else is just as smart! You need to be imaginative as well."
Some facts he listed:
1-70% of people in general leadership positions end up failing. 80% of manufacturing plants close down within their first decade of operation. 80% of people who invest in stock end up losing more money than they put in.
2-The University of Arizona is the fastest growing university in America. Its classes, however, are taught online. My professor had this to say "In 5, 10, maybe 15 years, I won't have a job any more. At least not here. I'll be making videos if anything."
3-In 1970, 87% of college graduates got jobs within a year after graduating. Today, less than 70% do (note, my professor didn't talk about the fact that many MANY more people attend college today).
4-If you didn't know, the link between productivity and profit is severed (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_03222000). What this means is that productivity increases do NOT mean clear increases in income. Actually, that link is even worse; when you adjust for inflation, an average worker made $36,800 in 1970, and only $32,400 in 2000.
5-The predictions for the future? The fastest growing job demand is for medical assistants, assisted living services, and elderly care, all of which pay low wages. What about the lowest demands? The demand for American technological and computer experts (because other countries can do it as good as us, but for 1/10 the price).
6-Meanwhile, the disparity between CEOs and average workers continues to increase. In 1970, a CEO made 42x what the average worker made. In... 2003, I believe, CEOs made 412x what the average employee made. The top five Wall Street firms (Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos.) had bonuses in 2006 ALONE that were larger than the increase in wages of 93 million working Americans for the last five years. These firms employ 173,000 people total. The point? Try to be one of those 173,000, and not part of the 93 million others.
7-Finally, he introduced a site called "Elance" which allows outsourcing of tasks, anything from writing a paper for you to creating a website. The prices are pretty cheap, so if you want a professional website, I suggest looking there.
His advice:
"Stop working HARD. HARD working is not a good thing, and employers know this. They don't want hard workers; they want smart workers. If you take 40 hours for something that takes another guy 20 hours, then you either need to learn how to work smarter, or prepare to get a pink slip."
"The top qualities businesses want these days? Leadership, communication skills, adaptability. The ones they don't care about at all? Work ethic, ethics in general, cultural sensitivity, and technological skills. If you find your main strengths are those undesirable ones, I suggest you change. Quickly."
How does all of this affect you? Do you all worry about the future for yourselves and your children? Just curious; for me, it just supplied more incentive and more motivation, despite the odds against me.
Edited, Feb 8th 2007 7:47pm by LockeColeMA
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Globalization and the future
Globalization and the futureFollow
Oh, personal anecdote, though. A huge shock was announced today; a very large Chrysler plant just south of the college is closing down, which means 7,500-10,000 people are being laid off. Other businesses in the area (the non-student-related ones) have had the same thing happen; at least 3 other businesses have closed in the past year. Just a more social sign of the times. Might be silly, but can people think of how these places could have stayed open?
LockeColeMA wrote:
Oh, personal anecdote, though. A huge shock was announced today; a very large Chrysler plant just south of the college is closing down
Might be silly, but can people think of how these places could have stayed open?
Might be silly, but can people think of how these places could have stayed open?
Make cars that don't suck?
Quote:
Make cars that don't suck?
That's what I said in class ;-).
Correction: Daimler-Chrysler plant. They made SUVs. Apparently blamed the shut-down on the economy and change in public opinion. Seems to me that if they wanted to stay in business, perhaps they should have adapted to said opinion.
Dude... wait, what?
46 posts
This just prove that the rest of us people sitting at our computer should be the most successful people in the job market. Our lives are based around our computer. School, Work, Gaming, Social Interaction (Thats dating for most of you). We should be the leaders of our generation. So why is it not so then?
Konvick wrote:
This just prove that the rest of us people sitting at our computer should be the most successful people in the job market. Our lives are based around our computer. School, Work, Gaming, Social Interaction (Thats dating for most of you). We should be the leaders of our generation. So why is it not so then?
What's this "we" ****? Who the fUck are you?
I'd ask him what exactly he thinks his point is other then to randomly try to scare a bunch of kids...
His basic premise: "You're here at the University of Delaware in a business class attempting to get a good education. Because of where you are, you are all bright. Above average. But do you know what you have against you?"
(Pulls up a map of Asia)
"Around 4 billion people who want the jobs that you want. Here is what you're up against. You've come to the point where being sharp isn't nearly enough. Everyone else is just as smart! You need to be imaginative as well."
He's a professor? Of what? Yes. I'm sure that thoe 4 billion people will all magically gain the professional skills to compete for US jobs, but at the same time no other jobs will ever appear. If 4 billion new people join the ranks of "skilled labor", you can bet that they'll want a higher standard of living to go right along with it. That means more banks, more car dealerships, more TV manufacturing, etc... Which means more jobs to build and manage those things.
You can't just look at one half of the economic equation. A professor of economics should understand this.
And yet, despite that, the market keeps going up, the total number of successful businesses keeps increasing, and the total number of jobs available keeps increasing as well. None of these statistics actually tell you whether the economic picture as a whole is better or worse, or even whether these rates represent any problem at all. Perhaps it just means that there are more people with the capital to *try* new ventures. Even if a higher percent fail, the result is more new ventures succeeding. Which is good.
Doubtful. What percentage of the total does this university represent? If I were to start a new school tomorrow and managed to increase my student count from 0 to 1, I could also claim to be the fastest growing school in the country (infinite growth, right?). That wouldn't mean my school was poised to take over the entire education system though...
He's also not explaining what this means. Um. So he'll teach online instead of directly (assuming that this does take over or something, which I doubt). How does that affect things going forward? He's still just presenting random facts in a vaccum and implying a bad result. He needs to explain to me exactly how an increase in the rate of online education is harmful.
That's still a pretty high percentage. He's also not taking into account the percentage that continue on to higher education. 40 years ago, a Bachelor's degree was sufficient for pretty much any job you might want baring actual academic employment. You technically "graduate" when you get your 4 year degree, whether you go on to get a masters or not. I'd bet that number is almost entirely made up of continuing students. He can argue that the higher requirements is "bad", but he needs to show that instead of just tossing the fact out there.
You missed a key part of the chart (and I'm guessing your professor did as well, or just choose to ignore it). The chart does not measure "workers", but "families". I'm pretty sure you'll find that the increase in single parent families (and just single workers in general) over the last 40-50 years is largely responsible for that number going down. The problem here is that he's not actually measuring what he thinks he's measuring. If we assume that every single household consisted of 4 people (an average used by a number of economic indicators), then the chart would indeed tell us about average standard of living over time. However, that's simply not the case. There are far more smaller families (single people, married couples without children, or with fewer children) then there were at earlier points on the chart.
If you measured actual salaries on a per-worker basis, I'm betting you'll find that much of the doom and gloom that appears here really doesn't exist. What you're really seeing is that people for one reason or another are choosing to live lifestyles that are less financially efficient (lots more single people supporting themselves on just their wages). We can debate whether that's a bad thing or not, but I'd suggest that more people live off single incomes because they *can*. Which is itself an indication of prosperity. In many other economies a typical houshold may consist of many more workers (including child workers in some cases). I don't think it's "bad" that we don't have to do that, and contriving a chart that would make families with working children look "better" is a bit disengenous, don't you think?
First off, he's contrasting two things using two different measurements. "Fastest growing" versus "job demands". One is a relative change-over-time value (like the U of A thing earlier), while the other is an absolute value.
The baby boomers are getting old and are wealthy enough to afford better medical assistance. That's why that's the fastest growing job area. If he's stupid enough to think this means anything other then supply and demand doing its normal thing, then he's not qualified to teach IMO. Demand for American tech and computer experts is "lowest", not because they aren't in demand, but because that's still a relatively new field. How about he be honest and compare the relative number of medical assistants and assisted living caregivers against tech/computer experts from 10 years ago versus today. I'm pretty sure that would paint a dramatically different picture.
I also love how he tosses the "other countries can do it just as well but for 1/10th the price". Tell him he's spouting bogus trash for me, cause he is. Despite what some ignorant people love to spout, it's not actually *cheaper* to outsource/offshore most jobs. The labor cost really isn't the biggest issue. The costs to operate a remote site vastly outweigh any labor costs involved. And most of the "non-american" tech/computer experts? They aren't hired in place. We hire them from their countries (typically India, Pakistan, China, and South Korea), pay to get them work visas, pay to transport them here to the US, and we pay them the same salaries that American workers would get paid (quite well as a matter of fact). The reason we hire so many in this fashion is because there is more demand domestically for those skills then there are American workers to fill that demand.
Tell you what. You want a guaranteed 6 figure income? Get a CS degree, and specialize in silicon chip mask layout design. It's a tough job and not everyone can do it (it requires a combination of scientific and artistic skill sets that is hard to find). If you have the aptitude you are *guaranteed* a job in any of a hundred different locations in the US that are desperate for people to do this. The demand for that (and many many other skills) are really that high. Perhaps if your professor actually participated in the job market instead of just teaching about it from an academic point of view, he'd know all of this.
A valid point if only 173,000 people ever did well in today's market. This is a whole topic by itself, however companies would not pay those CEOs that quantity of money if they didn't feel they got their money's worth. Yes. You'll always hear about the handful that contracted into great deals and then did a crappy job. But you don't hear about the vast majority of CEOs who make huge decisions for their companies and bring them profits that vastly outweigh the salaries they command. I'd also like to point out that if it was such a simple job skill set, then anyone could do it, and there'd be more CEOs competing for those top jobs, and the salaries would drop (simple market economics). Clearly, those high paid guys are doing more then just sitting in a big leather chair and laughing about all the cash they're getting for doing nothing. And clearly also, they *aren't* easily replaced, or they would be. Perhaps by one of those 4 billion people who are just as smart, right?...
I'd also like to point out that CEOs are contracted. It's no different then a football player who gets injured his first year, but still gets paid his 15 million dollars cause that's what he contracted for. Businesses take a risk when they hire a CEO. They offer big bucks for the position, and the position can make or break them. He's welcome to try to run a fortune 500 company *without* hiring a "big gun" CEO. Perhaps he'll be in the 80% who fail?
Sure. And there's this place called "McDonalds", which allows the outsourcing of cooking meals. See! I can toss out silly irrelevancies as well... ;)
He's absolutely 100% wrong. While modern workforces do prefer smart workers to hard workers, that's not exactly a bad thing. Um. They also want you to work hard as well. It's not that you get to work only 20 hours because you can do twice as much work in that time. They'll want you to work 40 hours and actually *do* twice as much work. I'm also curious what he thinks would be better. We should reward employees simply for physically taking up space? A workforce that rewards efficiency generates more productivity then one that doesn't, which improves life for all of us.
He's totally off on what businesses want. Yes. They want leadership/communication skills and adaptability. But that's also not a bad thing. I'm not sure what his point about ethics was. Is he saying that because he knows anything? Or because he's just assuming that any business that requires that their workers be smarter and more capable is somehow automatically "unethical" in some way? I'm really confused why he puts "work ethic" in there, since that somewhat goes hand in hand with the whole "able to get twice as much done over time" bit. It's incredibly hard to find people who can do that, but don't have a good work ethic. Unless he's suggesting that some ideal economic system would reward people simply for showing up at their workstation on time and filling a full timecard without regard to how much they accomplish. Seems to me like he's pining away for the old days of monotonous factory work or something. Um... that was a pretty horrid work standard and hardly high on "ethics" of any kind.
I already covered the technical skills bit. He's so wrong on this one, it's laughable. You want to make sure you have the best skills you can possibly have. I'd argue that the best job opportunties right now are in technical areas. But of course, you actually have to have the skills for the job. You can't just show up on time and fill a slot for 8 hours and fake it like many could (and did!) in the old factory model. Those with the correct technical skills can literally write their own tickets in today's market.
It should. As you pointed out globalization is a good thing. Competition is a good thing. We should react to this by working harder *and* smarter. We should be moving away from the old "mindless factory drone" approach to labor. We *are* moving away from that. And it's a good thing IMO, despite your professors apparent fear about it.
Edited, Feb 8th 2007 9:54pm by gbaji
LockeColeMA wrote:
His basic premise: "You're here at the University of Delaware in a business class attempting to get a good education. Because of where you are, you are all bright. Above average. But do you know what you have against you?"
(Pulls up a map of Asia)
"Around 4 billion people who want the jobs that you want. Here is what you're up against. You've come to the point where being sharp isn't nearly enough. Everyone else is just as smart! You need to be imaginative as well."
He's a professor? Of what? Yes. I'm sure that thoe 4 billion people will all magically gain the professional skills to compete for US jobs, but at the same time no other jobs will ever appear. If 4 billion new people join the ranks of "skilled labor", you can bet that they'll want a higher standard of living to go right along with it. That means more banks, more car dealerships, more TV manufacturing, etc... Which means more jobs to build and manage those things.
You can't just look at one half of the economic equation. A professor of economics should understand this.
Quote:
Some facts he listed:
1-70% of people in general leadership positions end up failing. 80% of manufacturing plants close down within their first decade of operation. 80% of people who invest in stock end up losing more money than they put in.
1-70% of people in general leadership positions end up failing. 80% of manufacturing plants close down within their first decade of operation. 80% of people who invest in stock end up losing more money than they put in.
And yet, despite that, the market keeps going up, the total number of successful businesses keeps increasing, and the total number of jobs available keeps increasing as well. None of these statistics actually tell you whether the economic picture as a whole is better or worse, or even whether these rates represent any problem at all. Perhaps it just means that there are more people with the capital to *try* new ventures. Even if a higher percent fail, the result is more new ventures succeeding. Which is good.
Quote:
2-The University of Arizona is the fastest growing university in America. Its classes, however, are taught online. My professor had this to say "In 5, 10, maybe 15 years, I won't have a job any more. At least not here. I'll be making videos if anything."
Doubtful. What percentage of the total does this university represent? If I were to start a new school tomorrow and managed to increase my student count from 0 to 1, I could also claim to be the fastest growing school in the country (infinite growth, right?). That wouldn't mean my school was poised to take over the entire education system though...
He's also not explaining what this means. Um. So he'll teach online instead of directly (assuming that this does take over or something, which I doubt). How does that affect things going forward? He's still just presenting random facts in a vaccum and implying a bad result. He needs to explain to me exactly how an increase in the rate of online education is harmful.
Quote:
3-In 1970, 87% of college graduates got jobs within a year after graduating. Today, less than 70% do (note, my professor didn't talk about the fact that many MANY more people attend college today).
That's still a pretty high percentage. He's also not taking into account the percentage that continue on to higher education. 40 years ago, a Bachelor's degree was sufficient for pretty much any job you might want baring actual academic employment. You technically "graduate" when you get your 4 year degree, whether you go on to get a masters or not. I'd bet that number is almost entirely made up of continuing students. He can argue that the higher requirements is "bad", but he needs to show that instead of just tossing the fact out there.
Quote:
4-If you didn't know, the link between productivity and profit is severed (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_03222000). What this means is that productivity increases do NOT mean clear increases in income. Actually, that link is even worse; when you adjust for inflation, an average worker made $36,800 in 1970, and only $32,400 in 2000.
You missed a key part of the chart (and I'm guessing your professor did as well, or just choose to ignore it). The chart does not measure "workers", but "families". I'm pretty sure you'll find that the increase in single parent families (and just single workers in general) over the last 40-50 years is largely responsible for that number going down. The problem here is that he's not actually measuring what he thinks he's measuring. If we assume that every single household consisted of 4 people (an average used by a number of economic indicators), then the chart would indeed tell us about average standard of living over time. However, that's simply not the case. There are far more smaller families (single people, married couples without children, or with fewer children) then there were at earlier points on the chart.
If you measured actual salaries on a per-worker basis, I'm betting you'll find that much of the doom and gloom that appears here really doesn't exist. What you're really seeing is that people for one reason or another are choosing to live lifestyles that are less financially efficient (lots more single people supporting themselves on just their wages). We can debate whether that's a bad thing or not, but I'd suggest that more people live off single incomes because they *can*. Which is itself an indication of prosperity. In many other economies a typical houshold may consist of many more workers (including child workers in some cases). I don't think it's "bad" that we don't have to do that, and contriving a chart that would make families with working children look "better" is a bit disengenous, don't you think?
Quote:
5-The predictions for the future? The fastest growing job demand is for medical assistants, assisted living services, and elderly care, all of which pay low wages. What about the lowest demands? The demand for American technological and computer experts (because other countries can do it as good as us, but for 1/10 the price).
First off, he's contrasting two things using two different measurements. "Fastest growing" versus "job demands". One is a relative change-over-time value (like the U of A thing earlier), while the other is an absolute value.
The baby boomers are getting old and are wealthy enough to afford better medical assistance. That's why that's the fastest growing job area. If he's stupid enough to think this means anything other then supply and demand doing its normal thing, then he's not qualified to teach IMO. Demand for American tech and computer experts is "lowest", not because they aren't in demand, but because that's still a relatively new field. How about he be honest and compare the relative number of medical assistants and assisted living caregivers against tech/computer experts from 10 years ago versus today. I'm pretty sure that would paint a dramatically different picture.
I also love how he tosses the "other countries can do it just as well but for 1/10th the price". Tell him he's spouting bogus trash for me, cause he is. Despite what some ignorant people love to spout, it's not actually *cheaper* to outsource/offshore most jobs. The labor cost really isn't the biggest issue. The costs to operate a remote site vastly outweigh any labor costs involved. And most of the "non-american" tech/computer experts? They aren't hired in place. We hire them from their countries (typically India, Pakistan, China, and South Korea), pay to get them work visas, pay to transport them here to the US, and we pay them the same salaries that American workers would get paid (quite well as a matter of fact). The reason we hire so many in this fashion is because there is more demand domestically for those skills then there are American workers to fill that demand.
Tell you what. You want a guaranteed 6 figure income? Get a CS degree, and specialize in silicon chip mask layout design. It's a tough job and not everyone can do it (it requires a combination of scientific and artistic skill sets that is hard to find). If you have the aptitude you are *guaranteed* a job in any of a hundred different locations in the US that are desperate for people to do this. The demand for that (and many many other skills) are really that high. Perhaps if your professor actually participated in the job market instead of just teaching about it from an academic point of view, he'd know all of this.
Quote:
6-Meanwhile, the disparity between CEOs and average workers continues to increase. In 1970, a CEO made 42x what the average worker made. In... 2003, I believe, CEOs made 412x what the average employee made. The top five Wall Street firms (Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos.) had bonuses in 2006 ALONE that were larger than the increase in wages of 93 million working Americans for the last five years. These firms employ 173,000 people total. The point? Try to be one of those 173,000, and not part of the 93 million others.
A valid point if only 173,000 people ever did well in today's market. This is a whole topic by itself, however companies would not pay those CEOs that quantity of money if they didn't feel they got their money's worth. Yes. You'll always hear about the handful that contracted into great deals and then did a crappy job. But you don't hear about the vast majority of CEOs who make huge decisions for their companies and bring them profits that vastly outweigh the salaries they command. I'd also like to point out that if it was such a simple job skill set, then anyone could do it, and there'd be more CEOs competing for those top jobs, and the salaries would drop (simple market economics). Clearly, those high paid guys are doing more then just sitting in a big leather chair and laughing about all the cash they're getting for doing nothing. And clearly also, they *aren't* easily replaced, or they would be. Perhaps by one of those 4 billion people who are just as smart, right?...
I'd also like to point out that CEOs are contracted. It's no different then a football player who gets injured his first year, but still gets paid his 15 million dollars cause that's what he contracted for. Businesses take a risk when they hire a CEO. They offer big bucks for the position, and the position can make or break them. He's welcome to try to run a fortune 500 company *without* hiring a "big gun" CEO. Perhaps he'll be in the 80% who fail?
Quote:
7-Finally, he introduced a site called "Elance" which allows outsourcing of tasks, anything from writing a paper for you to creating a website. The prices are pretty cheap, so if you want a professional website, I suggest looking there.
Sure. And there's this place called "McDonalds", which allows the outsourcing of cooking meals. See! I can toss out silly irrelevancies as well... ;)
Quote:
His advice:
"Stop working HARD. HARD working is not a good thing, and employers know this. They don't want hard workers; they want smart workers. If you take 40 hours for something that takes another guy 20 hours, then you either need to learn how to work smarter, or prepare to get a pink slip."
"The top qualities businesses want these days? Leadership, communication skills, adaptability. The ones they don't care about at all? Work ethic, ethics in general, cultural sensitivity, and technological skills. If you find your main strengths are those undesirable ones, I suggest you change. Quickly."
"Stop working HARD. HARD working is not a good thing, and employers know this. They don't want hard workers; they want smart workers. If you take 40 hours for something that takes another guy 20 hours, then you either need to learn how to work smarter, or prepare to get a pink slip."
"The top qualities businesses want these days? Leadership, communication skills, adaptability. The ones they don't care about at all? Work ethic, ethics in general, cultural sensitivity, and technological skills. If you find your main strengths are those undesirable ones, I suggest you change. Quickly."
He's absolutely 100% wrong. While modern workforces do prefer smart workers to hard workers, that's not exactly a bad thing. Um. They also want you to work hard as well. It's not that you get to work only 20 hours because you can do twice as much work in that time. They'll want you to work 40 hours and actually *do* twice as much work. I'm also curious what he thinks would be better. We should reward employees simply for physically taking up space? A workforce that rewards efficiency generates more productivity then one that doesn't, which improves life for all of us.
He's totally off on what businesses want. Yes. They want leadership/communication skills and adaptability. But that's also not a bad thing. I'm not sure what his point about ethics was. Is he saying that because he knows anything? Or because he's just assuming that any business that requires that their workers be smarter and more capable is somehow automatically "unethical" in some way? I'm really confused why he puts "work ethic" in there, since that somewhat goes hand in hand with the whole "able to get twice as much done over time" bit. It's incredibly hard to find people who can do that, but don't have a good work ethic. Unless he's suggesting that some ideal economic system would reward people simply for showing up at their workstation on time and filling a full timecard without regard to how much they accomplish. Seems to me like he's pining away for the old days of monotonous factory work or something. Um... that was a pretty horrid work standard and hardly high on "ethics" of any kind.
I already covered the technical skills bit. He's so wrong on this one, it's laughable. You want to make sure you have the best skills you can possibly have. I'd argue that the best job opportunties right now are in technical areas. But of course, you actually have to have the skills for the job. You can't just show up on time and fill a slot for 8 hours and fake it like many could (and did!) in the old factory model. Those with the correct technical skills can literally write their own tickets in today's market.
Quote:
How does all of this affect you? Do you all worry about the future for yourselves and your children? Just curious; for me, it just supplied more incentive and more motivation, despite the odds against me.
It should. As you pointed out globalization is a good thing. Competition is a good thing. We should react to this by working harder *and* smarter. We should be moving away from the old "mindless factory drone" approach to labor. We *are* moving away from that. And it's a good thing IMO, despite your professors apparent fear about it.
Edited, Feb 8th 2007 9:54pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 08 2007 at 11:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Your professor is wrong. Every act of trade increases wealth, by definition. That's the only reason trade occurs. Everytime you receive something you value more than that what you value less and give away in exchange. On the flip side, every time you use violence to prevent trade, that by definition is creating poverty precisely because the wealth increasing benefits of trade are lost.
gbaji wrote:
I'd ask him what exactly he thinks his point is other then to randomly try to scare a bunch of kids...
Why are you on the defensive about this topic? Everything this teacher said is basically true, and I think it's his job to teach those kids what their labour market is like, and the cirumstances in which it operates. he didn't make an judgment of value on this, simply stated some facts that were meant to open the eyes of these kids.
And, judging from the OP's post, he succeeded.
It's almost as though you are afraid of people knowing what's really going on
Quote:
So he'll teach online instead of directly (assuming that this does take over or something, which I doubt). How does that affect things going forward? He's still just presenting random facts in a vaccum and implying a bad result. He needs to explain to me exactly how an increase in the rate of online education is harmful.
Hoe does it imply that this is a "bad resutl". He's just stating an opinion about the future of his job. And if you stopped for five second, you would realise he is right. Physically going to a classroom to hear a guy speak is expensive. Not only that, but the more students you have, the more teachers you need to employ, the bigger the classrooms will be, etc...
Economically, it makes so much more sense to teach online, trough something like Video-Skype. Universities are businesses too. And then you have foreign students, etc..
I don't get your gripe with what this guy is saying. It was a prediction, it's most likely going to come true, and he wasn't saying "good/bad", just "that's the way it's msot likely going to be".
Quote:
I'm betting you'll find that much of the doom and gloom that appears here really doesn't exist. What you're really seeing is that people for one reason or another are choosing to live lifestyles that are less financially efficient (lots more single people supporting themselves on just their wages).
And you base that on... intuition? Revelation?
It's a well-known fact that:
Quote:
In the period between 1979-2003, household income grew 1% for the
bottom fifth of households, 9% for the middle fifth, and 49% for the top
fifth. Household income more than doubled—up 111%—for the top 1%.
bottom fifth of households, 9% for the middle fifth, and 49% for the top
fifth. Household income more than doubled—up 111%—for the top 1%.
Quote:
Between the economic peaks of 1979 and 2000, the top 1% claimed
40% of all household income growth; the middle fifth claimed 5.3% and
the bottom fifth, less than 1%.
40% of all household income growth; the middle fifth claimed 5.3% and
the bottom fifth, less than 1%.
Quote:
The rise in inequality has been caused both by the shift toward greater
capital income and the growing concentration of capital income among
the very highest income groups, particularly the top 1%. The top 1%
received 37.8% of all capital income in 1979; their share rose to 49.1%
by 2000 and rose further to 57.5% in 2003 (most recent data).
capital income and the growing concentration of capital income among
the very highest income groups, particularly the top 1%. The top 1%
received 37.8% of all capital income in 1979; their share rose to 49.1%
by 2000 and rose further to 57.5% in 2003 (most recent data).
Check it out here.
Even the Fed Reserve Chaiman said so:
Quote:
Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,†Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.â€
Or even the guys at Goldman Sachs, this well-known bastion of Socialism:
Quote:
In another recent report on the boom in profits, economists at Goldman Sachs wrote, “The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor’s share of national income.†Low interest rates and the moderate cost of capital goods, like computers, have also played a role, though economists note that an economic slowdown could hurt profits in coming months.
I really don't get why you are so threatened by statements like these. Is discussion bad? is trying to improve the system bad? Do you really think, like Leibniz, that all is the best it can possibly be in the best of possible worlds?
Globalisation is a good thing, but there are downsides. Talking about them should not be a threat, simply an honest way of looking at a problem. Why are the US still gviing farm and steel subsidies if globalisation is so perfect? Why are there so many noises about the China's valuation of their currency? Why is there a trend, amongst both Democrats and Republicans, towards more protectionism? Could it be because the industries in the states that they represent are in danger?
There are problems and downsides to the current system, and this is obvious since nothing is ever perfect.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Why are you on the defensive about this topic? Everything this teacher said is basically true, and I think it's his job to teach those kids what their labour market is like, and the cirumstances in which it operates. he didn't make an judgment of value on this, simply stated some facts that were meant to open the eyes of these kids.
Labor Market A = Education Level X. Labor Market B = Education Level 4X. It's absurd to claim a bigger or more educated labor market leaves society worse off. It's quite clearly the opposite. Division of labor and free trade brings about massive net wealth increase. If you're going to argue against trade, then get to sewing your own clothes, milking your own cows, growing your own food, manufacturing your own computer components, etc.
Quote:
In another recent report on the boom in profits, economists at Goldman Sachs wrote, “The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor’s share of national income.â€
In another recent report on the boom in Valentine's Day love making, economists wrote, "The most important contributor to higher ****** levels over the past five years has been a decline in Monsieur RedPhoenixxx's share of national orgasms.
Let us know when you figure out nation's don't earn incomes; individuals do.
Quote:
Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,†Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.â€
How about the unequal distribution of beatiful women? You gonna demand the right to rape too? A redistriubtion of 49% of the sex acts of beautiful women to ugly men? Or should everyone be free to decide who and when they have consensual sex with another? Same thing goes for trade, friend.
This is a typical example of how liberal leftists are wholly in a **** police state mentality. Register and classify according to income level, then proceed to use politcal power to execute redistributive spoils of violence compliance.
Edited, Feb 9th 2007 9:15am by MonxDoT
Dude, if you're going to post non-sensical crap to increase your post count, please don't quote me.
Second, please go and get married to Varus.
That is all.
Second, please go and get married to Varus.
That is all.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx take your computer back to the store and tell them you are too stupid to own it. Support your anti-globalization stance and GTFO the internet. It's not my fault if you're hindered by an uneducated bubba view of trade. Guess you just don't like being called out on the government snooping into peoples' private lives, huh? Want to keep pretending your a good decent person, and not far worse than George Bush, huh?
Ok, since we seem to have some sort of communication problem, let me be as clear and blunt as I can be:
I'm not argue with someone who doesn't have a clue. I'm not here to hold your hand, or to inflate your ego by pretending that what you say has any relevance to anything real. And I'm certainly not going into a debate with a guy that doesn't actually read the posts he's answering to.
So, just this once, I'll give you an exemple of what I'm talking about.
Let's take your previous reply.
This doesn't mean anything. It doesn't prove anything. And it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Nothing. It's a stupid equation that has no relation to anything discussed here.
I never said that. Neither did the OP.
So, what are you referring to? And why make that statement? Why should I reply to something that no one said, that has no relevance to the issue, and is blatantly stupid?
Who said it doesn't? Who talked about Division of labor? Who questionned free trade? In fact, who EVER said globalisation as a whole was a "bad thing" in this thread?
Who argued against "trade"?
Second, even if someone said "globalisation has some downsides", does this automatically mean "all trade is bad"? Aren't there some shades of grey in this huge issue? Ever heard of nuances?
According to your sentence, anyone who makes a point about globalisation should immediately stop using all items that use traded material. See how ridiculously stupid that is?
And that's just your first paragraph. I won't waste my time deconstrucitng the others since they are even more stupid.
So, you don't read the posts you answer too, you're automatically belligerent, you assume my point of view instead of trying to understand it, you answer to things people have never said, or implied, and you present poorly formulated, poorly worded, and poorly thought-out arguments that are both insulting and mind-numingly stupid.
I'm not going to waste my time on Crap like this. If I want to argue with a seven year-old, I have a little cousin that's a lot more fun than you.
To sum up: I think you are too stupid to argue with. I don't feel like trying to teach you the basics of debating with someone. I don't think someone who somehow comes out with :
is worth my time.
But I know a whole bunch of ignorant, belligerent, fanatical, one-sided assholes that don't listen to other people and don't sit to think about what they write you could argue with. www.jihad.com should provide you with similarly-minded people with whom you could have lots of fun.
I hope this made things a little clearer.
I'm not argue with someone who doesn't have a clue. I'm not here to hold your hand, or to inflate your ego by pretending that what you say has any relevance to anything real. And I'm certainly not going into a debate with a guy that doesn't actually read the posts he's answering to.
So, just this once, I'll give you an exemple of what I'm talking about.
Let's take your previous reply.
Quote:
Labor Market A = Education Level X. Labor Market B = Education Level 4X
This doesn't mean anything. It doesn't prove anything. And it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Nothing. It's a stupid equation that has no relation to anything discussed here.
Quote:
It's absurd to claim a bigger or more educated labor market leaves society worse off.
I never said that. Neither did the OP.
So, what are you referring to? And why make that statement? Why should I reply to something that no one said, that has no relevance to the issue, and is blatantly stupid?
Quote:
Division of labor and free trade brings about massive net wealth increase
Who said it doesn't? Who talked about Division of labor? Who questionned free trade? In fact, who EVER said globalisation as a whole was a "bad thing" in this thread?
Quote:
If you're going to argue against trade, then get to sewing your own clothes, milking your own cows, growing your own food, manufacturing your own computer components, etc.
Who argued against "trade"?
Second, even if someone said "globalisation has some downsides", does this automatically mean "all trade is bad"? Aren't there some shades of grey in this huge issue? Ever heard of nuances?
According to your sentence, anyone who makes a point about globalisation should immediately stop using all items that use traded material. See how ridiculously stupid that is?
And that's just your first paragraph. I won't waste my time deconstrucitng the others since they are even more stupid.
So, you don't read the posts you answer too, you're automatically belligerent, you assume my point of view instead of trying to understand it, you answer to things people have never said, or implied, and you present poorly formulated, poorly worded, and poorly thought-out arguments that are both insulting and mind-numingly stupid.
I'm not going to waste my time on Crap like this. If I want to argue with a seven year-old, I have a little cousin that's a lot more fun than you.
To sum up: I think you are too stupid to argue with. I don't feel like trying to teach you the basics of debating with someone. I don't think someone who somehow comes out with :
Quote:
This is a typical example of how liberal leftists are wholly in a **** police state mentality
is worth my time.
But I know a whole bunch of ignorant, belligerent, fanatical, one-sided assholes that don't listen to other people and don't sit to think about what they write you could argue with. www.jihad.com should provide you with similarly-minded people with whom you could have lots of fun.
I hope this made things a little clearer.
MonxDoT wrote:
Labor Market A = Education Level X. Labor Market B = Education Level 4X
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
This doesn't mean anything. It doesn't prove anything. And it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Nothing. It's a stupid equation that has no relation to anything discussed here.
Sure it does. You wrote:
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Everything this teacher said is basically true, and I think it's his job to teach those kids what their labour market is like, and the cirumstances in which it operates. he didn't make an judgment of value on this, simply stated some facts that were meant to open the eyes of these kids.
You're talking about a labour market, "what it is like". It's a simple comparison of two labor markets, i.e. a national vs. a global. You compare one labor market that is less educated and smaller versus another labor market that is more educated and bigger, or however you want to compare them. It still doesn't change the fact that every single trade profits both parties to the exchange.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Second, even if someone said "globalisation has some downsides", does this automatically mean "all trade is bad"? Aren't there some shades of grey in this huge issue? Ever heard of nuances?
What downsides? How can there be any downside whatsoever when *by definition* every single voluntary exchange profits both parties to the exchange. The only downside possible is using violence to rob people of their freedom to trade with whomever they want whenever they want. Did you not read my post before yours showing that "globalization" is a wholly imaginary artificial term, no different:
MonxDoT wrote:
And let me add, labeling international trade "globalization" is as stupid as labeling trade between Chicago and Boston "globalization", is as stupid as labeling trade between California and New York "globalization", is as stupid as labeling trade between the south side residents of Chicago and the north side residents of Chicago "globalization", is as stupid as labeling trade between siblings living in the same house "globalization".
But you want to trump up nationalism to advance a socialist agenda.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
According to your sentence, anyone who makes a point about globalisation should immediately stop using all items that use traded material. See how ridiculously stupid that is?
Any point you make about "gloablization" is a point you make about neighbors in the same city, cities in the same nation, individuals in the same house. And they are all equally absurd. The only reason anyone trades is the only reason anyone has consensual sex: it makes them better off by definition, that's why they do it.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
But I know a whole bunch of ignorant, belligerent, fanatical, one-sided ******** that don't listen to other people and don't sit to think about what they write you could argue with. www.jihad.com should provide you with similarly-minded people with whom you could have lots of fun.
Oh, if it's crap, I should be sensitive and not challenge it in a forum not for the faint of heart? Who's the fanatic forcing registering of peoples' incomes with the State Police, rallying up class envy to get one group of people to violently rob another group of people based on income level? Jihad in words versus jihad in actions, at the minimum. So robbing people is not belligerent? Because you "vote" to rob people? Forcing people to divulge personal information to the State in order to work is not "belligerent"? Using violence or the threat of violence to prevent individual A from voluntarily trading with any individual B whatsoever wherever is not "belligerent"?
Sorry my friend, all I did was describe by simple irrefutable observation that which is. Maybe you should spend a little less time criticizing George Bush, and a little more time criticizing yourself. After all, it's your **** police state mentatility that brought about the cultural acceptance of people like George Bush.
You keep on proving my points.
No. The teacher was talking about a labor market. I was explaining to gbaji that there was no expressed value judgement in this, only an analysis of a specific labor market.
is not
It's an equation that has no relevance whatsoever to anything, nor context.
I didn't compare anything.
And, there you go again. I hate nationalism. I am probably the least nationalistic person on this forum. I'm not really French, and I'm not really British. I'm European, if anything, or a Londoner, I guess. I think nations are a silly and antiquated concept.
So accusing me of "trumping up nationalism" is like acusing BT of sexual moralism.
No. Globalisation today is absolutely not "free-trade" on a plantery level. Most countries in the world have quotas, protected markets, subsidies, tarriffs, duties. The US, the EU, obviously China...
So no, you are wrong, and it is an incredibly stupid argument to make, one which once gain has no concept and no practical applicable value to anything that goes on in the world today. Globalisation is not "exactly the same" as when I go to buy a pack of cigarettes.
Even that is wrong. You should've said "they think they will be better off". There are millions of exemples of trade where one party has ended worse off than before the trade.
And what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Oh right, like everything else you write, absolutely nothing.
Anyway, I said I wouldn't answer, and i did, so I lose.
Shame on me, it won't happen again.
Quote:
You're talking about a labour market, "what it is like".
No. The teacher was talking about a labor market. I was explaining to gbaji that there was no expressed value judgement in this, only an analysis of a specific labor market.
Quote:
Labor Market A = Education Level X. Labor Market B = Education Level 4X
is not
Quote:
a simple comparison of two labor markets, i.e. a national vs. a global
It's an equation that has no relevance whatsoever to anything, nor context.
Quote:
You compare one labor market that is less educated and smaller versus another labor market that is more educated and bigger
I didn't compare anything.
Quote:
But you want to trump up nationalism to advance a socialist agenda.
And, there you go again. I hate nationalism. I am probably the least nationalistic person on this forum. I'm not really French, and I'm not really British. I'm European, if anything, or a Londoner, I guess. I think nations are a silly and antiquated concept.
So accusing me of "trumping up nationalism" is like acusing BT of sexual moralism.
Quote:
Any point you make about "gloablization" is a point you make about neighbors in the same city, cities in the same nation, individuals in the same house
No. Globalisation today is absolutely not "free-trade" on a plantery level. Most countries in the world have quotas, protected markets, subsidies, tarriffs, duties. The US, the EU, obviously China...
So no, you are wrong, and it is an incredibly stupid argument to make, one which once gain has no concept and no practical applicable value to anything that goes on in the world today. Globalisation is not "exactly the same" as when I go to buy a pack of cigarettes.
Quote:
The only reason anyone trades is the only reason anyone has consensual sex: it makes them better off by definition, that's why they do it.
Even that is wrong. You should've said "they think they will be better off". There are millions of exemples of trade where one party has ended worse off than before the trade.
Quote:
Who's the fanatic forcing registering of peoples' incomes with the State Police, rallying up class envy to get one group of people to violently rob another group of people based on income level? Jihad in words versus jihad in actions, at the minimum. So robbing people is not belligerent? Because you "vote" to rob people? Forcing people to divulge personal information to the State in order to work is not "belligerent"? Using violence or the threat of violence to prevent individual A from voluntarily trading with any individual B whatsoever wherever is not "belligerent"?
And what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Oh right, like everything else you write, absolutely nothing.
Anyway, I said I wouldn't answer, and i did, so I lose.
Shame on me, it won't happen again.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
I was explaining to gbaji that there was no expressed value judgement in this, only an analysis of a specific labor market.
And that's what we're doing now, analyzing the labor market, and showing that the professor is wrong in his assertions. That's fine if you didn't like my starting simplified labor market formula.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
No. Globalisation today is absolutely not "free-trade" on a plantery level. Most countries in the world have quotas, protected markets, subsidies, tarriffs, duties. The US, the EU, obviously China...
So no, you are wrong, and it is an incredibly stupid argument to make, one which once gain has no concept and no practical applicable value to anything that goes on in the world today. Globalisation is not "exactly the same" as when I go to buy a pack of cigarettes.
So no, you are wrong, and it is an incredibly stupid argument to make, one which once gain has no concept and no practical applicable value to anything that goes on in the world today. Globalisation is not "exactly the same" as when I go to buy a pack of cigarettes.
No kidding there's violently constructed barriers to free trade and theftaxation and protectionism galore. Every instance of those violently constructed barriers leaves all parties to trade worse off, less wealthy than they otherwise would be. Those barriers create poverty.
How is globalization not "exactly the same" as when you go to buy a pack of cigarettes? You trade something away in return for a pack of cigarettes. Every instance of trade, whether it's in your family, in your city, in your nation, or between individuals of different nations is indeed exactly the same in that one person exchanges something away in return for something else. Sure Bubba the local hood can stand in front of the gas station door you're trying to enter to purchase some cigarettes at and demand a duty tax of one Euro to let you through. That's exactly the same the world over too when describing trade barriers.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Even that is wrong. You should've said "they think they will be better off". There are millions of exemples of trade where one party has ended worse off than before the trade.
The only reason any individual specific action of trade occurs at the time of trade is because both parties to the exchange are by definition better off each trading away that which they value less in exchange for that which they value more. Period. If that wasn't so, trade would never occur, ever. Of course, individual subjective valuations are constantly changing through time.
Here's an example of what happens when you interfer with free trade:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/249871,CST-NWS-waiting09.article
Quote:
Where's the beef? Venezuelans can't agree
February 9, 2007
BY NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON
CARACAS, Venezuela -- Meat cuts vanished from Venezuelan supermarkets this week, leaving only unsavory bits like chicken feet, while costly artificial sweeteners have increasingly replaced sugar, and many staples sell far above government-fixed prices.
President Hugo Chavez's administration blames the food supply problems on unscrupulous speculators, but industry officials say government price controls that strangle profits are responsible.
Milk, coffee shortages
Major private supermarkets suspended sales of beef earlier this week after one chain was shut down for 48 hours for pricing meat above government-set levels, but an agreement reached with the government on Wednesday night promises to return meat to empty refrigerator shelves.
Shortages have sporadically appeared with items from milk to coffee since early 2003, when Chavez began regulating prices for 400 basic products as a way to counter inflation and protect the poor.
Yet inflation has soared to an accumulated 78 percent in the last four years in an economy awash in petrodollars, and food prices have increased particularly swiftly, creating a widening discrepancy between official prices and the true cost of getting goods to market in Venezuela.
''Shortages have increased significantly as well as violations of price controls,'' Central Bank director Domingo Maza Zavala told the Venezuelan broadcaster Union Radio on Thursday.
Black market
Most items can still be found, but only by paying a hefty markup at grocery stores or on the black market. A glance at prices in several Caracas supermarkets this week showed milk, ground coffee, cheese and beans selling between 30 percent to 60 percent above regulated prices.
At a giant outdoor market held last weekend by the government to address the problems, a street vendor crushed raw sugar cane to sell juice to weary shoppers waiting in line to buy sugar.
''They say there are no shortages, but I'm not finding anything in the stores,'' grumbled Ana Diaz, a 70-year-old housewife. ''There's a problem somewhere, and it needs to be fixed.'' AP
February 9, 2007
BY NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON
CARACAS, Venezuela -- Meat cuts vanished from Venezuelan supermarkets this week, leaving only unsavory bits like chicken feet, while costly artificial sweeteners have increasingly replaced sugar, and many staples sell far above government-fixed prices.
President Hugo Chavez's administration blames the food supply problems on unscrupulous speculators, but industry officials say government price controls that strangle profits are responsible.
Milk, coffee shortages
Major private supermarkets suspended sales of beef earlier this week after one chain was shut down for 48 hours for pricing meat above government-set levels, but an agreement reached with the government on Wednesday night promises to return meat to empty refrigerator shelves.
Shortages have sporadically appeared with items from milk to coffee since early 2003, when Chavez began regulating prices for 400 basic products as a way to counter inflation and protect the poor.
Yet inflation has soared to an accumulated 78 percent in the last four years in an economy awash in petrodollars, and food prices have increased particularly swiftly, creating a widening discrepancy between official prices and the true cost of getting goods to market in Venezuela.
''Shortages have increased significantly as well as violations of price controls,'' Central Bank director Domingo Maza Zavala told the Venezuelan broadcaster Union Radio on Thursday.
Black market
Most items can still be found, but only by paying a hefty markup at grocery stores or on the black market. A glance at prices in several Caracas supermarkets this week showed milk, ground coffee, cheese and beans selling between 30 percent to 60 percent above regulated prices.
At a giant outdoor market held last weekend by the government to address the problems, a street vendor crushed raw sugar cane to sell juice to weary shoppers waiting in line to buy sugar.
''They say there are no shortages, but I'm not finding anything in the stores,'' grumbled Ana Diaz, a 70-year-old housewife. ''There's a problem somewhere, and it needs to be fixed.'' AP
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'd ask him what exactly he thinks his point is other then to randomly try to scare a bunch of kids...
Why are you on the defensive about this topic? Everything this teacher said is basically true, and I think it's his job to teach those kids what their labour market is like, and the cirumstances in which it operates. he didn't make an judgment of value on this, simply stated some facts that were meant to open the eyes of these kids.
Well. So is everything on this site. How you present the facts is *everything*. In the case of the professor, he's presumably supposed to be teaching the students about how economics "works" so that they can be more successful in life (that is the point of paying to send your kids to college, isn't it?). His presentation on this particular area was incredibly one-sided.
Quote:
And, judging from the OP's post, he succeeded.
At scaring them, yes. But that's not his job IMO.
Quote:
It's almost as though you are afraid of people knowing what's really going on
Except he's not teaching them "what's really going on". He's teaching them only the tin-foil hat version of what's going on. He's presenting only the negatives instead of giving them a complete picture.
Quote:
Quote:
So he'll teach online instead of directly (assuming that this does take over or something, which I doubt). How does that affect things going forward? He's still just presenting random facts in a vaccum and implying a bad result. He needs to explain to me exactly how an increase in the rate of online education is harmful.
Hoe does it imply that this is a "bad resutl". He's just stating an opinion about the future of his job. And if you stopped for five second, you would realise he is right. Physically going to a classroom to hear a guy speak is expensive. Not only that, but the more students you have, the more teachers you need to employ, the bigger the classrooms will be, etc...
Well, the whole "I wont have a job, at least not here. Maybe I'll be making videos", certainly came off as negative, don't you think? Did you honestly read that portion and think he wasn't making a judgement? And if he wasn't, then what was the point? It's not like he discussed the positive economic aspects of online study (as you did). The *only* statement he made about it was that it would put him out of a job...
Quote:
Economically, it makes so much more sense to teach online, trough something like Video-Skype. Universities are businesses too. And then you have foreign students, etc..
Yes. It does. But he didn't mention those, now did he? Again. All he said about it was that it would negatively impact *him*.
You seem to leap to the assumption that I'm somehow afraid of him "teaching the truth", but it seems more to me like he is afraid of change and how it might affect him and he's pressing those fears on to his students. That's bad teaching IMO.
Quote:
I don't get your gripe with what this guy is saying. It was a prediction, it's most likely going to come true, and he wasn't saying "good/bad", just "that's the way it's msot likely going to be".
When your prediction only says "I'll be out a job most likely", that's not "good/bad", it's just "bad". Kinda like everything else he talked about.
Quote:
And you base that on... intuition? Revelation?
I base this on the very simple observation that the rate of single income families has increased over the exact same period of time that "family wages" has declined in the chart he showed.
It's not rocket science. It really isn't.
Quote:
It's a well-known fact that:
Quote:
In the period between 1979-2003, household income grew 1% for the
bottom fifth of households, 9% for the middle fifth, and 49% for the top
fifth. Household income more than doubled—up 111%—for the top 1%.
bottom fifth of households, 9% for the middle fifth, and 49% for the top
fifth. Household income more than doubled—up 111%—for the top 1%.
Quote:
Between the economic peaks of 1979 and 2000, the top 1% claimed
40% of all household income growth; the middle fifth claimed 5.3% and
the bottom fifth, less than 1%.
40% of all household income growth; the middle fifth claimed 5.3% and
the bottom fifth, less than 1%.
Yup. Just like all the "facts" in the DHMO site I linked. These facts don't say *why* this happened, nor what impact it actually has. I'll also point out that every single one of those "facts" can be caused purely by an increase in single parents in the US, especially among the lower income brackets. Remember, this is measuring "household income growth", not actual relative income.
Quote:
The rise in inequality has been caused both by the shift toward greater
capital income and the growing concentration of capital income among
the very highest income groups, particularly the top 1%. The top 1%
received 37.8% of all capital income in 1979; their share rose to 49.1%
by 2000 and rose further to 57.5% in 2003 (most recent data).
capital income and the growing concentration of capital income among
the very highest income groups, particularly the top 1%. The top 1%
received 37.8% of all capital income in 1979; their share rose to 49.1%
by 2000 and rose further to 57.5% in 2003 (most recent data).
This is actually discussing a different issue btw.
I do find it interesting that you bash me for assuming that the professor was saying all of this to convey a negative outcome/outlook, yet when you counter my assertions on this, you proceed to dig up more "facts" showing negative economic outlook as well. If he wasn't doing so, why do you defend his position by doing so yourself?
I really don't get why you are so threatened by statements like these. Is discussion bad? is trying to improve the system bad? Do you really think, like Leibniz, that all is the best it can possibly be in the best of possible worlds?
I'm not "threatened" at all. However, I do believe that this professor was giving his students an incredibly one-sided view of the economy. How is it wrong to argue that all sides be presented? You seem to want debate and discussion, but then you defend someone who presented an incredibly biased view.
That's not "discussion". Usually that's called "propaganda".
Globalisation is a good thing, but there are downsides. Talking about them should not be a threat, simply an honest way of looking at a problem. Why are the US still gviing farm and steel subsidies if globalisation is so perfect? Why are there so many noises about the China's valuation of their currency? Why is there a trend, amongst both Democrats and Republicans, towards more protectionism? Could it be because the industries in the states that they represent are in danger?
Wonderful! You teach the class then. Because the professor didn't talk about a single one of those issues. He just proceeded to list off a bunch of alarmist "facts" without providing adequate context for them, nor presenting any of the countering "good things" that globalism provides.
There are problems and downsides to the current system, and this is obvious since nothing is ever perfect.
Yes. But there are also positives and solutions present in the current system as well. A good teacher would present both when discussing globalism rather then just rattling off the bad stuff. I'm not concerned with the facts he's presenting. I'm concerned with one-sided nature of the facts he's presenting. That's not "education"...
Edited, Feb 9th 2007 4:19pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 244
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (244)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Globalization and the future
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC