Without education, what kind of jobs will be available to young Americans?

[midcan5]

"Thirty years ago, 10 percent of California’s general revenue fund went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons. Today nearly 11 percent goes to prisons and 8 percent to higher education." Friedman/Mandelbaum in 'That Used To Be Us'

Education is a curious debate topic, does anyone doubt that education helps? Of course not. Does anyone doubt that a good education in America today cost lots? Of course not. But for whom and for why are the harder questions. If the bell curve applies to humankind and I think it does, what talents exist for those on the left side of the bell if our only goal is a piece of paper? And having managed people for over twenty five years, education is not a consistent indicator of accomplishment, potential, or even smarts. Education often means you sat in class because you were supposed to sit in class, college teachers today tell me there are Check schools - write the check, get the degree.

How about people whose talents are more material oriented: artists, craft people, mechanics, construction, farming, massage (don't laugh), painting, music, acting, patience work like brick laying etc etc etc. Do they need college and 120k in bills? I'd hope they read and understand the responsibilities of a citizen in America but....

My wife teaches math and says lots simply can't grasp it, what do you do then? When I read the writing on this site, I wonder about English too, or at least good writing. And I admit lots of mistakes too. It seems to me if Americans supported America by contributing to it through taxes, by hiring Americans, by buying American, by realizing sometimes government has to build the nation and requires resources to do that, we would be fine. Education would take care of itself as it did for over a hundred years. Today Americans fight each other over stupid political ideologies that got us nowhere these past forty years.

"The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations." Jeffrey D. Sachs The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American

 

[Photonic]

"Thirty years ago, 10 percent of California’s general revenue fund went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons. Today nearly 11 percent goes to prisons and 8 percent to higher education." Friedman/Mandelbaum in 'That Used To Be Us'

Education is a curious debate topic, does anyone doubt that education helps? Of course not. Does anyone doubt that a good education in America today cost lots? Of course not. But for whom and for why are the harder questions. If the bell curve applies to humankind and I think it does, what talents exist for those on the left side of the bell if our only goal is a piece of paper? And having managed people for over twenty five years, education is not a consistent indicator of accomplishment, potential, or even smarts. Education often means you sat in class because you were supposed to sit in class, college teachers today tell me there are Check schools - write the check, get the degree.

How about people whose talents are more material oriented: artists, craft people, mechanics, construction, farming, massage (don't laugh), painting, music, acting, patience work like brick laying etc etc etc. Do they need college and 120k in bills? I'd hope they read and understand the responsibilities of a citizen in America but....

My wife teaches math and says lots simply can't grasp it, what do you do then? When I read the writing on this site, I wonder about English too, or at least good writing. And I admit lots of mistakes too. It seems to me if Americans supported America by contributing to it through taxes, by hiring Americans, by buying American, by realizing sometimes government has to build the nation and requires resources to do that, we would be fine. Education would take care of itself as it did for over a hundred years. Today Americans fight each other over stupid political ideologies that got us nowhere these past forty years.

"The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations." Jeffrey D. Sachs The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American

Want to know something else interesting? Denmark has a better aerospace industry than us because of that. Also, what happens to those people who go into technical fields, who are now being boned because they can no longer afford education? Those Physicists, engineers, biologists, doctors, etc. What happens to them?

 

[rdean]

"Thirty years ago, 10 percent of California’s general revenue fund went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons. Today nearly 11 percent goes to prisons and 8 percent to higher education." Friedman/Mandelbaum in 'That Used To Be Us'

Education is a curious debate topic, does anyone doubt that education helps? Of course not. Does anyone doubt that a good education in America today cost lots? Of course not. But for whom and for why are the harder questions. If the bell curve applies to humankind and I think it does, what talents exist for those on the left side of the bell if our only goal is a piece of paper? And having managed people for over twenty five years, education is not a consistent indicator of accomplishment, potential, or even smarts. Education often means you sat in class because you were supposed to sit in class, college teachers today tell me there are Check schools - write the check, get the degree.

How about people whose talents are more material oriented: artists, craft people, mechanics, construction, farming, massage (don't laugh), painting, music, acting, patience work like brick laying etc etc etc. Do they need college and 120k in bills? I'd hope they read and understand the responsibilities of a citizen in America but....

My wife teaches math and says lots simply can't grasp it, what do you do then? When I read the writing on this site, I wonder about English too, or at least good writing. And I admit lots of mistakes too. It seems to me if Americans supported America by contributing to it through taxes, by hiring Americans, by buying American, by realizing sometimes government has to build the nation and requires resources to do that, we would be fine. Education would take care of itself as it did for over a hundred years. Today Americans fight each other over stupid political ideologies that got us nowhere these past forty years.

"The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations." Jeffrey D. Sachs The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American

Want to know something else interesting? Denmark has a better aerospace industry than us because of that. Also, what happens to those people who go into technical fields, who are now being boned because they can no longer afford education? Those Physicists, engineers, biologists, doctors, etc. What happens to them?

We still have the best, but nearly all are Democrat.

 

[Wicked Jester]

"Thirty years ago, 10 percent of California’s general revenue fund went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons. Today nearly 11 percent goes to prisons and 8 percent to higher education." Friedman/Mandelbaum in 'That Used To Be Us'

Education is a curious debate topic, does anyone doubt that education helps? Of course not. Does anyone doubt that a good education in America today cost lots? Of course not. But for whom and for why are the harder questions. If the bell curve applies to humankind and I think it does, what talents exist for those on the left side of the bell if our only goal is a piece of paper? And having managed people for over twenty five years, education is not a consistent indicator of accomplishment, potential, or even smarts. Education often means you sat in class because you were supposed to sit in class, college teachers today tell me there are Check schools - write the check, get the degree.

How about people whose talents are more material oriented: artists, craft people, mechanics, construction, farming, massage (don't laugh), painting, music, acting, patience work like brick laying etc etc etc. Do they need college and 120k in bills? I'd hope they read and understand the responsibilities of a citizen in America but....

My wife teaches math and says lots simply can't grasp it, what do you do then? When I read the writing on this site, I wonder about English too, or at least good writing. And I admit lots of mistakes too. It seems to me if Americans supported America by contributing to it through taxes, by hiring Americans, by buying American, by realizing sometimes government has to build the nation and requires resources to do that, we would be fine. Education would take care of itself as it did for over a hundred years. Today Americans fight each other over stupid political ideologies that got us nowhere these past forty years.

"The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations." Jeffrey D. Sachs The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American

Want to know something else interesting? Denmark has a better aerospace industry than us because of that. Also, what happens to those people who go into technical fields, who are now being boned because they can no longer afford education? Those Physicists, engineers, biologists, doctors, etc. What happens to them?

We still have the best, but nearly all are Democrat.

Go sweep the parking lot, Democrat....And clean the damn toilets before you leave, Democrat!

 

[rdean]

Want to know something else interesting? Denmark has a better aerospace industry than us because of that. Also, what happens to those people who go into technical fields, who are now being boned because they can no longer afford education? Those Physicists, engineers, biologists, doctors, etc. What happens to them?

We still have the best, but nearly all are Democrat.

Go sweep the parking lot, Democrat....And clean the damn toilets before you leave, Democrat!

That's because Democrats will work for an education. The Republican base lives off Social Security and Medicare. Look at Republican get togethers. It's a "depends" party.

 

[FA_Q2]

We still have the best, but nearly all are Democrat.

Go sweep the parking lot, Democrat....And clean the damn toilets before you leave, Democrat!

That's because Democrats will work for an education. The Republican base lives off Social Security and Medicare. Look at Republican get togethers. It's a "depends" party.

And the proof for this war and this idea...

Oh yea, you said so.

 

[daveman]

I can do that too you know.

Professionals
Professionals, those who have a college education and whose work revolves around the conceptualization of ideas, have supported the Democratic Party by a slight majority since 2000. Between 1988 and 2000, professionals favored Democrats by a 12-percentage point margin. While the professional class was once a stronghold of the Republican Party, it has become increasingly split between the two parties, leaning in favor of the Democratic Party. The increasing support for Democratic candidates among professionals may be traced to the prevalence of social liberal values among this group.[23]
“ Professionals, who are, roughly speaking, college-educated producers of services and ideas, used to be the most staunchly Republican of all occupational groups... now chiefly working for large corporations and bureaucracies rather than on their own, and heavily influenced by the environmental, civil-rights, and feminist movements — began to vote Democratic. In the four elections from 1988 to 2000, they backed Democrats by an average of 52 percent to 40 percent. ”
A study on the political attitudes of medical students, for example, found that "U.S. medical students are considerably more likely to be liberal than conservative and are more likely to be liberal than are other young U.S. adults. Future U.S. physicians may be more receptive to liberal messages than conservative ones, and their political orientation may profoundly affect their health system attitudes."[24] Similar results are found for professors, who are more strongly inclined towards liberalism and the Democratic Party than other occupational groups.[22] The Democratic Party also has strong support among scientists, with 55% identifying as Democrats, 32% as Independents, and 6% as Republicans and 52% identifying as liberal, 35% as moderate, and 9% as conservative.[25]


Also, I'm not a leftist, I do my own damn research.

You're citing that bullshit Pew Research poll about scientists.

About the Survey | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

About the Scientist Survey

Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.​

Only 2,533 respondents. And they took out elementary and high-school teachers, leaving college professors.

So this study also confirms something else conservatives have been saying for decades: Academia is biased to the left.

If you do your own research, you won't buy the Dem's Wiki page bullshit.

Oh I'm sorry, should I have quoted from your fair and unbiased conservapedia?

I don't cite conservapedia. And I showed you the poll was skewed.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your "independent thinking".

 

[daveman]

We still have the best, but nearly all are Democrat.

Go sweep the parking lot, Democrat....And clean the damn toilets before you leave, Democrat!

That's because Democrats will work for an education. The Republican base lives off Social Security and Medicare. Look at Republican get togethers. It's a "depends" party.

Repeating your astoundingly stupid ideas and claiming they're true only proves that you're astoundingly stupid.

 

[grunt11b]

Some in this country are fighting education. Especially science. Without an education, what kind of jobs will be available? Or don't people care?

I make over $50,000 a year in West Virginia, without any college background. $50,000 a year here is like making $80,000+ in alot of other parts of the country. Fuck college, it only indoctrinates anyways. They've lowered the collegiate standard so low anymore that morons can get in and make it, and then 4 years later you see them flipping burgers at mcdonalds wondering what the hell happened.

 

[grunt11b]

Some in this country are fighting education. Especially science. Without an education, what kind of jobs will be available? Or don't people care?

who is fighting education?
Who is fighting science?

Or are you falling for the rhetoric.

yeah...thats it...you are one of those easily duped by rhetoric.

I think you're wrong, he is not duped by it, he is one of the ones preaching the rhetoric for others to be duped. It's an election year, plan to hear much more of this from him.

 

[Mr. H.]

If you're willing to travel, live out of your car, and bust your ass for 80 hours a week the oil and gas industry is hiring anyone and everyone. They are competing for jobs- skilled, unskilled, educated, uneducated. They can not fill positions because no one wants to work. They'd rather sit on their asses and collect unemployment. That's not conjecture it's fact.

 

[grunt11b]

I think Warrior is a auto response bot. No matter the topic he'll reply the same way

At least he replies with substance and puts into the debate actual intellect instead of insults like you just posted.

 

[grunt11b]

Some in this country are fighting education. Especially science. Without an education, what kind of jobs will be available? Or don't people care?

who is fighting education?
Who is fighting science?

Or are you falling for the rhetoric.

yeah...thats it...you are one of those easily duped by rhetoric.

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Fact!

Which might explain why America ranks so low scientifically these days.

 

[grunt11b]

Some in this country are fighting education. Especially science. Without an education, what kind of jobs will be available? Or don't people care?

Grass cutter, car washer, military meathead, cop, wackin off at Wackenhut, Walmart shelf stocker.
The murkin dream.

It's funny you mention that, because I see alot of college grads doing these exact same jobs. They vote for Obama, and then wonder why there are no jobs to get after college, talk about cutting your own fucking throats. Dumbass people deserve a dumbass president.

 

[grunt11b]

I think Warrior is a auto response bot. No matter the topic he'll reply the same way

his response was informative and directly addresses the topic at hand.
Why do you dismiss it with criticism and without debate?

Because liberals have no substance or facts to actually debate with.

 

[grunt11b]

rdean asked the question based on the fact that some people want to cut spending on education.

Uhm, if he wanted to ask about cuts in spending for education, I think he would have asked about cuts in spending for education. There are many in this country waging a war on Education as a concept, and Science in particular. Trying to re-write history text books or trying to force Intelligent Design into schools as hard science, has nothing to do with spending cuts.

So why do it?

In all honesty, nothing in the constitution gives the federal government any authority to create and maintain a department of education. Education is a states issue. So fuck the DOE. It should be done away with instead of costing taxpayers $500,000,000,000 a year to indoctrinate our kids with. And yes, that is 9 zeros that are wasted.

 

[grunt11b]

Uhm, if he wanted to ask about cuts in spending for education, I think he would have asked about cuts in spending for education. There are many in this country waging a war on Education as a concept, and Science in particular. Trying to re-write history text books or trying to force Intelligent Design into schools as hard science, has nothing to do with spending cuts.

So why do it?

there are many?

I dont think many.

Off the top of my head:

Climate Change
Evolution
Stem Cell Research
American History

Have all come under attack in recent years. Not to mention the basic idea of Logic has pretty much been tossed out the window by anyone the Right. But not so much the specifics is what's the problem, but the fact that these attacks attack the process.

For example, many "conservatives" like to attack the Theory of Evolution, saying "Well, it's just a theory. I have a theory too." They don't want to acknowledge that in the Scientific Community, a Theory has weight. It's been tested and has evidence supporting it. It's been upgraded from a Hypothesis (remember that word?). Calling "Intelligent Design" a "Theory" the same as the Theory of Evolution, is an attack on the Scientific Process.

If this keeps up, the Chinese will be inventing everything and we will be working for them.

the theory of evolution is just that, a theory that liberals have no facts to back up, but instead use the propaganda as a tool to convince themselves and others there is no god. I like ann coulters response to evolution. If you have time to read it, you might just learn something.

But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better.

Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.

After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, "Evolution, I think, is correct!"

That's the most extended discussion of Darwin's theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.

There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.

Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.

The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.

Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.

We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.")

If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.

Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.

Darwin's response was to say: Start looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the "extreme imperfection of the geological record."

One hundred and fifty years later, that record is a lot more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species.

But things have only gotten worse for Darwin.

Thirty years ago (before it was illegal to question Darwinism), Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: "The situation hasn't changed much."

To the contrary, fossil discoveries since Darwin's time have forced paleontologists to take back evidence of evolution. "Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record," Raup said, "such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

The scant fossil record in Darwin's time had simply been arranged to show a Darwinian progression, but as more fossils were discovered, the true sequence turned out not to be Darwinian at all.

And yet, more than a century later, Darwin's groupies haven't evolved a better argument for the lack of fossil evidence.

To explain away the explosion of plants and animals during the Cambrian Period more than 500 million years ago, Darwiniacs asserted -- without evidence -- that there must have been soft-bodied creatures evolving like mad before then, but left no fossil record because of their squishy little microscopic bodies.

Then in 1984, "the dog ate our fossils" excuse collapsed, too. In a discovery The New York Times called "among the most spectacular in this century," Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era.

Despite being soft-bodied microscopic creatures -- precisely the sort of animal the evolution cult claimed wouldn't fossilize and therefore deprived them of crucial evidence -- it turned out fossilization was not merely possible in the pre-Cambrian era, but positively ideal.

And yet the only thing paleontologists found there were a few worms. For 3 billion years, nothing but bacteria and worms, and then suddenly nearly all the phyla of animal life appeared within a narrow band of five million to 10 million years.

Even the eye simply materializes, fully formed, in the pre-Cambrian fossil record.

Jan Bergstrom, a paleontologist who examined the Chinese fossils, said the Cambrian Period was not "evolution," it was "a revolution."

So the Darwiniacs pretended they missed the newspaper that day.

Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

These aren't scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It's an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism -- including, for example, the entire fossil record -- they explain away with non-scientific excuses like "the dog ate our fossils."

Liberals' View of Darwin Unable to Evolve - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative

 

[Moonglow]

it depends on what u want to do, some career choices have to have a degree some not.

 

[grunt11b]

I just want to say this because it's absolutely true.

The less educated the society, the less they can compete on a global scale.

Education goes, the United States goes. Other countries will effortlessly pass us because we won't be able to remain ahead when we are so far behind.

I beg to differ, according to the left, we have the most educated people in the world running our country right now, and they cannot figure out how to create jobs. They also are so educated that they have no idea what our constitution even says or know anything about economics 101. I would put a 12th grader up against Obama any day of the week in a 5 question trivia on economics and bet a paycheck that Obama loses.

 

[grunt11b]

Not all jobs require an education.

But clearly some do. Will those jobs still be there, for Americans, a generation from now after we've had decades of fighting against Education?

Of course those jobs will be there, as long as the left doesn't tax the business owners out of the country that is.