Skilled worker shortage hurts U.S.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:49 am

sjc wrote:

Man, you sure are a KnoB. If anything what I had said makes it subjective. "You get what you pay for..." $20 may not be much of a different to affect quality, but when its in the thousands, or more, than you are into a significant issue.

Playing up to the audience is a pitiful game you seem to like to play.

Good work on not answering what makes it unfair.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:51 am

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Nope. They are exactly the same.

So what makes it unfair?

Nope.

So what makes it unfair?

I have to keep asking, since you have evaded the entire point and still believe that valuation is objective.

sjc wrote:

Man, you sure are a KnoB. If anything what I had said makes it subjective.

Not when you claim that paying less is unfair.

So what makes it unfair? Why can't you answer a simple question? Why must you evade?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Good work on not answering what makes it unfair.

Whatever, sparky.

http://www.cis.org/articles/1998/IR31/tradingvisas.html

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:54 am

Nothing in your link answers the question of why it is unfair to pay them less.

Please answer the question.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Not when you claim that paying less is unfair.

So what makes it unfair? Why can't you answer a simple question? Why must you evade?

Go play with yourself, KnoB. Rolling Eyes

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:57 am

Concession noted. You have now admitted that you were wrong about it being unfair. Any whining from you to the contrary will be an admission that you have no idea what you're talking about. Period.

This is what happens when you evade, sjc. Like it or not. If you are unable to answer questions about your claims, either admit that you don't know or don't make the claims. It's just that simple.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:46 am

SJC, since you didn't explain for yourself I'll take a shot at it. Embrace what you like and clarify what you think is wrong. The way people like SJC think is hard to explain logically since a lot of it is built on a sense of what is "right" and "wrong". How do you objectively define right and wrong? You pretty much can't but if you don't know what is right and wrong then you have a moral "flaw" or "error". (in fairness most people feel or think this way about morals and personal views)

My theory:

SJC thinks of employers and workers differently than most of us do. His view is more of a Marxist view.

To him employers and employees are two different classes at odds with one another. The employer exercises power (the ability to hire and fire) as an unfair advantage over the employee (helpless person who must have a job to survive).

He thinks employers exist and are able to make a profit because they are allowed to exploit workers. Just about any profits kept is money that should rightful go to the workers.

He thinks that workers sort of "own" their jobs and that to take the jobs away is wrong sort of like stealing.

Based on the above using one worker as a "weapon" against another is wrong and an unfair business practice. The reasons he said it was out-sourcing and in-sourcing was an unfair business practice in this thread is because the employer is using other workers in order to pay his workers less and get more profits.

(after SJC and others comment on my theory I can explain why such thinking is wrong)

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

I think, having read the OP, that a good portion of this problem can be traced to the declining education system in the United States.

Much like currency, once the government was put in charge of education, the quality has been in a slow but steady decline until we get a dollar worth abuot $0.03 of a 1910 dollar and a high school diploma worth about a 5th grade 1910 education.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:10 am

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

I think, having read the OP, that a good portion of this problem can be traced to the declining education system in the United States.

Definitely. That education isn't a better quality and regarded as more important by so many Americans is a big problem. Parental oversight and participation in their kid's education is too low.

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

Much like currency, once the government was put in charge of education, the quality has been in a slow but steady decline until we get a dollar worth abuot $0.03 of a 1910 dollar and a high school diploma worth about a 5th grade 1910 education.

I wouldn't trade the economy of today for the economy in 1910 even if the dollar is worth more. A low value dollar encourages exports.

Anyway, my position on the state's involvement in education is that other than ensuring a minimum standard and ensuring everyone can get an education it should let the private sector do the rest.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:29 am

How can it "ensure" that everyone gets an education without meddling in the private sector or establishing some coercive methods to conscript children into schools, be they private or public?

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:40 am

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

How can it "ensure" that everyone gets an education without meddling in the private sector or establishing some coercive methods to conscript children into schools, be they private or public?

Good question.

I'd say it'd need to have a law that parents and guardians must prove that the children in their care are getting education at a level that meets or exceeds the minimum standard. A certain amount of money would be paid on the child's behalf to an educational institution. The law could be expanded to include unique and practical circumstances.

I know it's a bit intrusive and coercive but I believe it is critically important to the person that child will become and to society itself that everyone have an opportunity to an education. Kids can't earn the money themselves and while parents should pay for it many of them won't and it's not just they who will suffer here. I have a philosophy of helping those who are unable to help themselves. Charity very well could work here instead of government but I'm not sure it'd work well. It could be inconsistent or "poisoned" like if most of them were religious indoctrination centers (as opposed to the government/liberal indoctrination centers we have now).

I know there are weaknesses to my plan here but there would be weaknesses in any plan.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:50 am

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

How can it "ensure" that everyone gets an education without meddling in the private sector or establishing some coercive methods to conscript children into schools, be they private or public?

Saitou wrote:

Good question.

I'd say it'd need to have a law that parents and guardians must prove that the children in their care are getting education at a level that meets or exceeds the minimum standard. A certain amount of money would be paid on the child's behalf to an educational institution. The law could be expanded to include unique and practical circumstances.

However, that's coercing children to be placed in some school, and parents to do it. And obviously would involve taxation (since how else would the money be paid on behalf of the child to the educational institution). Your suggestion merely continues the poor educational system of now.

Saitou wrote:

I know it's a bit intrusive and coercive but I believe it is critically important to the person that child will become and to society itself that everyone have an opportunity to an education.

An opportunity, yes. But not a requirement.

Saitou wrote:

Kids can't earn the money themselves and while parents should pay for it many of them won't and it's not just they who will suffer here.

That's just making others suffer, though, when you create the tax.

Saitou wrote:

I have a philosophy of helping those who are unable to help themselves.

Laudable. But there's no justification for enforcing that philosophy on others.

Saitou wrote:

Charity very well could work here instead of government but I'm not sure it'd work well. It could be inconsistent or "poisoned" like if most of them were religious indoctrination centers (as opposed to the government/liberal indoctrination centers we have now).

It's not up to you, though, to decide. That's the job of the parent.

Saitou wrote:

I know there are weaknesses to my plan here but there would be weaknesses in any plan.

I don't see how letting people make their own decisions contains any weaknesses.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

Saitou wrote:

I wouldn't trade the economy of today for the economy in 1910 even if the dollar is worth more. A low value dollar encourages exports.

It may appear to, but I'd rather have free trade than "fair" trade any day. You might be surprised what happens to exports and imports under a stable currency system.

Saitou wrote:

Anyway, my position on the state's involvement in education is that other than ensuring a minimum standard and ensuring everyone can get an education it should let the private sector do the rest.

It's much better that everyone be equally illiterate than many people have a good education?

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:20 pm

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

However, that's coercing children to be placed in some school, and parents to do it. And obviously would involve taxation (since how else would the money be paid on behalf of the child to the educational institution). Your suggestion merely continues the poor educational system of now.

The differences are: Parents choose what school to place their children in. There are more privately run schools to choose from. Yes there would be taxation as today but I think the costs would go down because of market forces rather than the government monopoly and teacher's uni0n stranglehold we have now.

Saitou wrote:

I know it's a bit intrusive and coercive but I believe it is critically important to the person that child will become and to society itself that everyone have an opportunity to an education.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

An opportunity, yes. But not a requirement.

For children I absolutely insist it be a requirement even if it inspires libertarians to call me quasi-fascist (or worse). I don't want irresponsible parents to be able to opt-out children from something critically important to their lives. You often remark on how the free market system provides solutions to any problems so surely it could provide an adequate (or better) school to choose.

Saitou wrote:

Kids can't earn the money themselves and while parents should pay for it many of them won't and it's not just they who will suffer here.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

That's just making others suffer, though, when you create the tax.

Some will suffer from the taxes and some will benefit from the schooling. I know this doesn't make taxation "fair" or "moral" however I don't find it acceptable that kids be denied an education. They can't choose their parents and can't earn their own money to pay for their schooling. If they are denied an education they are all but being setup for failure in the future. I consider government and taxation to pay for it necessary evils but the model for both that I think would be best would much more resemble what we had at the nation's founding than what we have today.

You can come back with notions of how unfair and immoral taxation is and how it's theft and the like. I can hardly argue with you there. The best I can offer is "necessary evil" and "not going away in our life times".

Saitou wrote:

I have a philosophy of helping those who are unable to help themselves.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Laudable. But there's no justification for enforcing that philosophy on others.

I can only justify it to people who make the same evaluation and reach the same conclusion as myself. You're right though--this is an unfairness that I wholly support.

Saitou wrote:

Charity very well could work here instead of government but I'm not sure it'd work well. It could be inconsistent or "poisoned" like if most of them were religious indoctrination centers (as opposed to the government/liberal indoctrination centers we have now).

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

It's not up to you, though, to decide. That's the job of the parent.

True but if we have a secular government using some of it's authority to offer more options they'll be there.

Saitou wrote:

I know there are weaknesses to my plan here but there would be weaknesses in any plan.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

I don't see how letting people make their own decisions contains any weaknesses.

The children do not have the ability to decide for themselves and they are the people that are most affected by any plan.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:30 pm

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

It's much better that everyone be equally illiterate than many people have a good education?

Since you are an intelligent person and well informed you don't need to make these kinds of arguments. If our crappy near communist system we have can produce graduates where most aren't illiterate then a privatized system should produce much better results where virtually no-one would be illiterate. Hell, even the system we had in decades past did a much better job than today's schools.

You libertarians often confuse me. You go to such an extreme where only near absolute liberty can be moral that you'll find some of the most unacceptable things acceptable. I know I'm using my own subjective judgement here but having children miss the opportunity for an education because their parents either can't or won't provide one for them is unacceptable and I think harmful to society.

Do you have anything better than "poor bastard" for such children? What if charity can't pick up the slack? Should the kid get a job? Or should he wait until he's in his teens and can work before he begins his education?


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore