Great questions. I don't have the answers either, and it is good that a lot of these things are FINALLY being discussed.Unit2Sucks said:
First, let me say this has been a really nice debate.
blungld - I don't think raising the marginal income tax rate to 50% for people above $5M or even $1M is unreasonable, but as noted above, I also don't think it will move the needle. It certainly won't pay for all the things TB is asking for. I take your point however about removing power and influence. Maybe we should tie tax rates to political influence. Koch Brothers should pay 99% tax, by way of example.
For me, the thought experiment gets really interesting where I ask myself how I feel about personal liberty in a world where the state is providing more an more benefits. Similar to how parents say "not when you are living under my roof" I start to think that if society is paying for someone's healthcare we should be able to stop them from smoking, eating twinkies, etc. Ditto when it comes to paying for college. If someone wants to sow their wild oats and study 14th century folklore, more power to them. If we are being asked to pay for it, I would prefer they learn a trade that more directly contributes to society. Maybe we need to expand the GE requirements to ensure our money is training and adequate modern workforce while still allowing people to pursue their passions.
I don't pretend to have the answers but I think there are a lot of questions that the "everything free for everyone" crowd doesn't seem to be asking.
I might prefer that we not be so ruthlessly transactional about education. Skills gained from education in the arts and humanities DO ALSO translate to productivity, just more indirectly. It's not a waste to invest in them along with STEM fields.Unit2Sucks said:
If we are being asked to pay for it, I would prefer they learn a trade that more directly contributes to society.
This reminds me of what my first year speech teacher said on the first day of class. He listed that top 5 things employers look for in an employee:sycasey said:I might prefer that we not be so ruthlessly transactional about education. Skills gained from education in the arts and humanities DO ALSO translate to productivity, just more indirectly. It's not a waste to invest in them along with STEM fields.Unit2Sucks said:
If we are being asked to pay for it, I would prefer they learn a trade that more directly contributes to society.
(I'll also reference Another Bear's posted articles about tech companies coming to see the value in humanities majors. I can also say that this matches my personal experience, working at a tech company -- I've been able to advance and gain promotion by leaning on the "people skills" I got from studying Theater Arts in college. Trust me, directing a stage production requires a lot more personality-juggling than anything I've had to do in my day job.)
I'm not against GenEd requirements, as a rule, to require a rounded education. My understanding is that most major universities already have those.
Great point GS. I frequently see "requirements" that no one individual is likely to meet. I don't want to discount how much more analytical modern business has become and how critical it is to be conversant in the tools of the trade, but it does make you wonder how in the world someone is supposed to develop those skills. I will say this, the days of saying "I don't do math" appear to be numbered. With very few exceptions (like our brand team), everyone where I work is expected to have a "data orientation" and to understand analytics and metrics and live and breathe spreadsheets.golden sloth said:
I think this goes to a different issue, which is that the burden of becoming a skilled worker has shifted from the employer (via on the job training) and society (via public education) to the individual. This exposes the individual to a lot more risk and exploitation from companies who are requiring more and more job readiness from day one. I know several people in high positions that complain about needing the perfect candidate ready to take over from Day 1 two months ago, yet are unwilling to hire someone that matches 70% of what they need, and then complain about not enough talent in workforce. Companies can't treat employees like an off the shelf item, sometimes they need to take on the burden of shaping the employee they need,
"Everything free for everyone" is exactly the rhetoric that is so frustrating.Unit2Sucks said:
First, let me say this has been a really nice debate.
blungld - I don't think raising the marginal income tax rate to 50% for people above $5M or even $1M is unreasonable, but as noted above, I also don't think it will move the needle. It certainly won't pay for all the things TB is asking for. I take your point however about removing power and influence. Maybe we should tie tax rates to political influence. Koch Brothers should pay 99% tax, by way of example.
For me, the thought experiment gets really interesting where I ask myself how I feel about personal liberty in a world where the state is providing more an more benefits. Similar to how parents say "not when you are living under my roof" I start to think that if society is paying for someone's healthcare we should be able to stop them from smoking, eating twinkies, etc. Ditto when it comes to paying for college. If someone wants to sow their wild oats and study 14th century folklore, more power to them. If we are being asked to pay for it, I would prefer they learn a trade that more directly contributes to society. Maybe we need to expand the GE requirements to ensure our money is training and adequate modern workforce while still allowing people to pursue their passions.
I don't pretend to have the answers but I think there are a lot of questions that the "everything free for everyone" crowd doesn't seem to be asking.
The Health Insurance Industry has done an "incredible" job being invisible in the health care debate. All the animus directed at heartless Republicans or Obamacare and practically nothing at their effect on cost, denying coverage, profit off of sickness, and their lobbying.TandemBear said:
"Everything free for everyone" is exactly the rhetoric that is so frustrating.
Let's look at health care. From what I understand, we spend three trillion on medical care annually in the country. One third of that goes to the insurance industry. Moving to single-payer and simply eliminating medical insurance from the equation shaves ONE TRILLION from medical costs. There's a way to fund something! And this doesn't address all the other excesses in health care that could realize far more savings by moving away from a fee for service model, putting brakes on pharmaceuticals and medical devices and the myriad other things enumerated in Elizabeth Rosenthal's book "An American Sickness." Health care professionals need to be appropriately compensated, but what's going on now is beyond absurd.
So there's an area completely separate from taxes that frees up much-needed capital.
The student loan system is another. We encourage banks to make lots of money on the backs of students incurring college debt. Let's streamline that. Make it like a utility and regulate it. Prevent usurious loaning practices.
And then there's military spending...
See how we're find places to free up money?
It CAN be done.
Agree 100%. A lot of it is that despite what the unemployment rate purports to tell you, the employers still have their ability to be choosy in the field of people seeking employment. When the available labor force starts getting actually small (as opposed to fudged figures by the federal government "small"), then they'll be forced to hire people who are not quite perfect for the position.golden sloth said:
I think this goes to a different issue, which is that the burden of becoming a skilled worker has shifted from the employer (via on the job training) and society (via public education) to the individual. This exposes the individual to a lot more risk and exploitation from companies who are requiring more and more job readiness from day one. I know several people in high positions that complain about needing the perfect candidate ready to take over from Day 1 two months ago, yet are unwilling to hire someone that matches 70% of what they need, and then complain about not enough talent in workforce. Companies can't treat employees like an off the shelf item, sometimes they need to take on the burden of shaping the employee they need,
The ironic thing about that Crossfire episode with Jon Stewart is that it ended the show. Crossfire basically stopped airing shortly after Stewart laid waste to the entire affair.sycasey said:Let's all remember the great day that Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson a "d***" right to his face, live on air.Eastern Oregon Bear said:Watching that interview turn from a normal one to Tucker Carlson sputtering for words and finally just swearing at the guest was quite amusing.B.A. Bearacus said: