CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
And to think I got this from reading Atlas Shrugged’s tvtropes page
Validity of Left-Right Divide Concerns
- Thread starter CurtisLemay
- Start date
And to think I got this from reading Atlas Shrugged’s tvtropes page
Seems like an overly successful marketing campaign for the services of colleges.
Unsurprisingly, if someone is taught by ads of any sort and takes them without a grain of salt, the effects are not going to be pretty, doubly so if the whole society does that.
Unfortunately there are no mandatory disclaimers for this particular kind of service advertising:
"Job market demand for degree holders is subject to the laws of supply and demand and if the job market for any reason happens to be oversupplied with degree holders, having a degree isn't going to help you nearly as much as it does now".
Two points I'd like to raise about this:
1. While it certainly *does happen* in the Communist system and I'm absolutely not denying that, it's not supposed to happen. Communist nations, including the Soviet Union, entirely eliminated unemployment systems because every able-bodied person was expected to work until they reached the age of approved retirement, and "social parasitism" was considered an actual crime -- in 1961 alone, the Soviets arrested over 130,000 persons for this offense, although most of those charges were dismissed when the persons subsequently found gainful employment in jobs that they were previously turning their noses up at.
1a. Many of those charged were intellectuals, so the traditional Western take on it was that it was a horribly repressive act which demonstrated how evil the Soviet regime was. On the other hand, does not the Western world also frown upon self-styled "intellectuals" who think that society owes them a comfortable living so that they can sit around all day doing nothing but write navel gazing ivory tower papers that have no practical function? Even academic professorships are expected to contribute *directly and materially* to society by teaching, not just working on their own pet projects.
2. It is very, very often the case even under Western capitalism, that many, many people who *should* be fired for incompetence *are not* fired. In fact, many succeed in taking credit for the accomplishments of the coworkers who are making up for their own incompetence, and are often the ones who get promoted, precisely because they're focused on looking good and/or sucking up to the bosses as opposed to actually doing good, honest work. If we say that we judge Communism by "what happens, even though it is theoretically not supposed to happen" -- which I agree is the reasonable standard -- then we should acknowledge that capitalism doesn't have perfect answers to this either.
If it was *just ads* being aimed at mature adults, who obviously are responsible for their own decisions, then I'd be a lot more accepting of just saying, "caveat emptor". But it's not just ads; the entire educational system *and middle class American culture* is highly, highly built around the college-to-white-collar narrative.
Also, the job market can change very quickly, so even those who have sincerely "done their homework" and focused on serious degrees for which there are solid employment prospects, can find themselves substantially underemployed. The sneering assumption that everyone who is "degreed unemployed/underemployed" knowingly brought this upon themselves by being lazy and pursuing a useless degree in underwater basket weaving is not at all accurate.
Honestly, pretty much the only people in college who demonstrate that kind of laziness are the "student athletes", and they're pretty much sabotaged by being railroaded to do it for the glory of the school.
Last edited:
LOL, that sentence is hilarious. "We don't mean this to happen, please ignore this glaring flaw in our system, it's not intentional".
Oh, so you freely admit that the Communist system was incapable of incentivizing people to work without putting a literal gun to their head. Selling the shit out of Communism there!a) It's much more prevalent under Communism, because the system itself rewards it, while in capitalism it's rarer and happens despite the system.
b) In the west people often don't get fired because of unions, or similar socialist constructs that were grafted onto the capitalistic system.
I have a personal grudge against @ShadowArxxy and don't wish to fully jump into this conversation, but I must give her one point.
She's right about the American culture around college.
I think trade schools are a good alternative and we should push for that..but it's not just advertisers pushing for college.
Our generation...we were raised with our parents, teachers, school counselors, every authority we know and trust, telling us, constantly, "if you want to be successful you have to go to college." It's hardwired into our way of thinking. This was pushed to us constantly for our first 17-18 years of life. That if you want a good successful life, you HAVE to go to college. Doesn't matter what for, just go. Follow your dreams, choose what you want, you can achieve anything, just go to college.
It's conditioning. We had this hammered into our brains through our entire lives up until we actually go to college.
Then people go to college for useless and expensive degrees, which they were pushed and influenced to do by everyone they know, and come out of it with a pile of debt and no opportunities.
She's right about that. I may not agree with the solution, but she is correct in her complaint.
She's right about the American culture around college.
I think trade schools are a good alternative and we should push for that..but it's not just advertisers pushing for college.
Our generation...we were raised with our parents, teachers, school counselors, every authority we know and trust, telling us, constantly, "if you want to be successful you have to go to college." It's hardwired into our way of thinking. This was pushed to us constantly for our first 17-18 years of life. That if you want a good successful life, you HAVE to go to college. Doesn't matter what for, just go. Follow your dreams, choose what you want, you can achieve anything, just go to college.
It's conditioning. We had this hammered into our brains through our entire lives up until we actually go to college.
Then people go to college for useless and expensive degrees, which they were pushed and influenced to do by everyone they know, and come out of it with a pile of debt and no opportunities.
She's right about that. I may not agree with the solution, but she is correct in her complaint.
As I pointed out, it's a flaw that happens in capitalism too.
I'm not pro-Communist and I'm not trying to "sell" Communism. That is also not what I said.
Under capitalism, the bottom line is pretty much, "Work or starve."
Under Communism, the bottom line is pretty much, "Work or we'll make you."
I would argue there isn't all that much difference between the two in this regard, especially since both ideological positions rest on the fundamental assumption that jobs will always be available for those who are able and willing.
You said just above that it's a "glaring flaw" in Communism and that it's hilariously stupid to point out that it happens despite the system, yet here you claim that it's not a glaring flaw in capitalism as well because it happens despite the system. This is a contradictory double standard.
Union jobs are few and far between in America these days; they're largely confined to public sector and legacy industries. There are plenty of non-union jobs where this happens.
<insert professional group> think they are totally awesome and are not told they are too full of themselves often enough is a common problem in US culture. Actors and journalists are couple of most obvious groups that also qualify.
Of course narrative realignments of such scale are never easy or tension free, and this one absolutely isn't going to be either.
A college is not your friend, your home, nor your savior in the tumultuous waters of the job market, a college is a business that has its own interests, a product it sells, its own budget, and wants your money in it, by selling you its product. Once they sell the product and get the money, the whole job market problem is no longer their problem, as they have already secured their jobs by doing so. Did you really need that product, was it worth the price and can you make good use out of it? That's your problem, not theirs.
That's what people need to be taught instead of glorified advertising.
As for the sneering, is that even avoidable at all in US culture of current year? Do what everyone does and sneer back.
Arlos
Sad Monarchist
This isn’t just an American problem, I think, we basically have the same things happening in France (though it is changing).
I would say that the bias against trade / vocational schools are a function of the fact that middle class Western culture absolutely idealizes white collar "professional" jobs. Blue collar jobs, and thus trade / vocational schools, are heavily stigmatized as being "only for those not smart enough for REAL COLLEGE".
One of the *big* historical issues with school counseling is that it was found that they had a consistent, proven record of pushing middle class white kids towards AP and college oriented courses even when they were struggling, while pushing minority kids towards vocational tracks. Unfortunately, the pushback against that was framed primarily in terms of now pushing EVERYONE to college, which solved one problem but made another one even worse.
I haven't actually suggested a solution, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with?
Sorry, I must have confused you with another poster. I thought your solution was free college for everyone.
gral
Well-known member
In Brazil as well, and here we had the historical precedent that in the 70's, the need for people with diplomas(mainly STEM ones) was so big that you would get a extremely well-paying job just by being an university graduate.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Agriculture and food distribution is handled at the national level because States do not generally grow their own food, only a handful do most of the production and it has to be distributed everywhere else. Imagine New York trying to feed it's massive population off the microscopic amount of land available and you'll see immediately the problems with states handling their own food supplies.
Currently we spend about 60 billion on SNAP. Estimates hold that removing food insecurity will cost about an additional... 20 billion though I think that's overoptimistic and consider half again that more reasonable myself. So certainly an increase but the "relatively small amount" you're talking about isn't that small, and the increase isn't that large on a national scale.
The costs we pay meanwhile? Food Insecurity costs the US 687 billion dollars.
Feeding the hungry is the deal of a lifetime.
Yes, Food Insecurity has a specific definition, which you neglected to add to your post for some reason. Let's take a look at what it means:
About 38% of very low food security people go whole days without eating, about 30% do so more than three times a month. Something like 75% are hungry but didn't eat anything and 100% eat less than they felt they should. But yeah, let's pretend hunger's not involved.
As for the Obesity let's take a look at your own citation. It only appears in women, not men for some reason, and the actual rate is 12% for the food insecure and 7% for food secure women. And while it's curious, there's also a medical explanation in your own post: the Resource Scarcity Hypothesis: when pressed by constant hunger, the body reacts by saving every calorie it can and cutting every corner, and then storing those calories for later use in case food runs out completely.
I would also quote a line that was boldfaced in your own citation:
The fact that food insecurity can coexist with obesity — and in fact correlate with it — highlights the importance of making healthy and nutritious food affordable for all.
Your own citation includes a call for action supporting what I'd like to do.
Ah, so now we get the perfection that is the enemy of the good. Nothing guarantees a job because life has few guarantees, but we can look at what statistically is more productive and shift things in that direction.
Abhishekm
Well-known member
Don't really want to get into this debate but there is a bit of bias there. If you go with "Work or Starve" for the first the honest statement for the second would be "Work or we Shoot you". In the first case it is not a matter of force causing the result whereas it is explicitly a matter of force that gives the result for the second statement.
Last edited:
I think there's an argument that can be made that a well-educated body of citizenry is a wise and sound investment. But that's completely separate from the middle-class obsession with white-collar professional degree jobs, and it in no way solves that particular problem.
If you asked *me* for a radical, "If I was in charge" solution to education, it wouldn't be "free college for everyone". It would be something along these lines:
1. Eliminate public high schools entirely, and move both the budget and the students to community colleges. Community colleges already teach courses all the way down to remedial arithmetic, reading, and writing, so this would not actually be "dragging them down" as you might think. And unlike the high-school-to-university pipeline, community colleges currently have *both* vocational *and* college transfer track offerings. As things stand now, the need for those remedial courses means we taxpayers are already paying for two public education systems -- the K-12 system, and the community college system. And the big difference is that community college *works*. Why keep paying double?
2. Community college wouldn't be made free, because people don't value free things the way they value things they've worked and paid for. It would remain largely as it currently is: state subsidized to keep costs managed and under control.
3. I would cut back sharply on compulsory attendance / truancy laws. Students who are *forced* to go to school are overwhelmingly disruptive, unengaged, and learn little if anything anyway. Students who *want* to be in school are there to learn, and will take the opportunities presented to them. The underlying issues that contribute to students who might otherwise flourish *not doing so* are, by and large, not solved by forcing them to sit in school, regardless of Hallmark movies that love to spread the feel-good myth that it just takes an inspirational teacher.
4. While I honestly don't want to *overly generalize* my own experience, I can say that I attended a community college as a teenager before transferring to a four-year university, and I also actually worked at another community college as paid teaching assistant for a while. The program I was working with was specifically for struggling students out of high school, and I found that the community college way of teaching -- basically very matter-of-fact, treating students as adults, expecting them to be responsible for their own grades and work, not chasing them if they didn't comply, but being available to help them whenever they came to us, it WORKED.
I would argue that "work or starve" is just as much an application of force. It's more indirect, sure, but it's still force.
Abhishekm
Well-known member
But who is exactly exerting that force here? Is there a government department actively starving people for not holding a job? Is it the grocer or restaurant not willing to give people food for free? The US spends what? 2 Trillion a year on welfare? How much does it spend on intentionally starving people?
There is a difference in terms of accountability there for the end result.
That is until someone notices that there is no more "food insecurity" to complain about, and changes the definition in some subtle way to make it reappear and require another 20bn to solve.
Estimates...
Its full of terms like "health care costs associated with food insecurity ". Not caused by. Associated. I think you know where i'm going with that.
It was a term you brought out, so thanks for also bringing in the definition.Yes, Food Insecurity has a specific definition, which you neglected to add to your post for some reason. Let's take a look at what it means:
About 38% of very low food security people go whole days without eating, about 30% do so more than three times a month. Something like 75% are hungry but didn't eat anything and 100% eat less than they felt they should. But yeah, let's pretend hunger's not involved.
And it clearly shows the problems - it is based in large part on such hard and objective scientific measures as... "being worried" or "feeling how much one should eat". Or downright organizational problems that in real world happen even to people who do have enough money for food, just have other priorities for either their time or money (hello stereotypical uni/college students, also substance abusers).
How many people skip meals because they have more important things to do, or because they just don't want to be a fatass? Especially out of the section of "food insecure" who also happen to be obese? Guess those wind up the "feeling hungry" statistics too.
It is a hypothesis, no hard data on what part of that phenomenon, if any, is caused by such mechanism, especially in one of the statistically fattest countries in the world, including among the poor - some degree of completely coincidental overlap is unavoidable.
Screw their call for action, its their opinion, and opinions are like assholes - everyone has their own.
Of course it is. However, most of these benefits are not inherently connected to the formal, credentialed kind of education. Much less so than they were even during the time when such statements were created - a time when books were expensive, and to get access to less common ones you pretty much needed a university library anyway.
The IT revolution has changed everything in that regard, and its power is unfortunately not being harnessed anywhere near its true potential.
For example, lets say that every second day, instead of watching entertaining TV shows everyone would read an educational book, and instead of fucking around on the internet everyone would watch a free online lecture.
Would such an unlikely countrywide change of habits result in a more educated citizenry?
Unarguably so. And it would not even require anyone to spend an extra dollar they wouldn't have spent anyway...
So here's the problem - it's not lack of money to give to colleges or anyone else that's stopping them, its purely lack of will to do that, most people would rather spend that time on entertainment.
Much less frequently, and not implicitly encouraged by the system.
The first also occurs in nature. It makes intuitive sense, and it places the responsibility for survival on the individual, also natural and most importantly, ethical. A grown adult is supposed to be able of taking care of himself.
The second usually occurs in prisons or concentration camps. People find working purely for someone else's sake without any tangible reward unnatural and demeaning.
No. In Communism, it happens DUE to the system and with its encouragement. The authorities are forced to correct that by killing and/or arresting people, which is not an actual organic part of the system in question.
Yet still not as many as under Communism. And it's easier to correct for, since the employer has the actual right to sack the worker.
Granted, American-style capitalism is imperfect (the balance of power is way too much toward the employer), European models that have a better balance between the worker's and the employer's needs and rights are probably more ideal, but it's still miles ahead of Communism, or a similar highly socialized system.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
What we have is less capitalism, and more corporatism; which is at the root of many of the problems with our economic system.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
1. You cannot possibly know or prove that.
2. This is not only a slippery slope fallacy, it's a particularly stupid and easily disproved example of the slippery slope. Food is one of the least elastic of all goods, people can eat only so much and require a medically established amount of nutrition per day so it's extremely unlikely for food supply purchases to balloon like that.
That the facts aren't on your side so you're going to quibble about word meanings and semantics instead? That's normally what I'd associate with far leftists but apparently it's really a bothsides issue.
And gravity is just a theory right? But it's hilarious that you're the one who brought up obesity and then, once we saw that it was not actually supporting your position, now suddenly it's "coincidental overlap."
I'm surprised though, that you claim that 2 out of 10 of the measures are a "large part." You literally quoted all the ones that depend on a person's mental assessment. Of the other eight, all are fairly objective measures like "Skipping meals" and "Go a whole day without eating 3+ times per month."
It's your freakin' citation. If the best thing you personally can present to support your side actually says "the other person is right" perhaps you should rethink your position instead of giving me whiplash with how fast you turn around and contradict your own sources and positions over and over.
I can know that the kind of institutions that throw this particular statistic around will still want a statistic they can throw at US government's face.
US obesity statistics would like to have a word with you.
And lets not forget the tiny little technical detail that people can still be victims of "food insecurity" even if their average caloric balance over time is in fact excessive, so that any hard issues with continuing with a "hunger problem" narrative that may have been caused by this inelasticity have already been defined out.
I'll stop when you stop bringing in funny statistics like "food insecurity" and calling them a serious hunger problem.
Add these two together, and you see how your hunger problem narrative can be non-disprovable, and as such, ridiculous.
If they are not obese, that means they are starving.
If they are obese, that means they got fat because of the looming threat of starvation.
Some of these are also ridiculously arbitrary and i've already brought that up. Like skipping meals. Loads of college students do that for various reasons. Especially if you specify that beer is not a meal. Hell, i personally sometimes skip meals and that has nothing with being unable to afford food. But hey, if it helps increase the "new fancy term for kinda sorta hunger problem" statistic, count them all in.
Or losing weight... Meanwhile for over half the country, losing weight may well be their doctor's advice. Millions of people, from the poorest to the richest, spend time and money on finding ways to lose weight that will work for them.
Why are you humiliating yourself like this?
I brought this source for its data, rather than its opinion about it.
Hilariously enough, that means you can't dismiss it on account of political or ideological bias, like you may have done if i dug out something similar from some right wing pundit site, hence your current futile attempt at pretending that a source's data cannot be separated from its opinion and conclusions drawn from said data. Or perhaps you have problems with the very concept of separating facts from opinions.