As I said before employers would start refusing to accept certain colleges like they do in Japan. This would shift the real battle to highschool were T-Hawk would enjoy an even greater advantage. There's other ways but this isn't it.
|
Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)
|
|
September 15th, 2018, 23:45
(This post was last modified: September 16th, 2018, 01:06 by MJW (ya that one).)
mjw Senate time!
With only 54 days left this doesn't mean anything but here we go. By Oct 1st Nate Silver should have enough data that the Classic model should work fine and I would switch everything over to it. NM is Safe D because "What is Aleppo?" guy will actually get more votes and he cannot win because the GOP guy is too dumb to drop. I would be very unlikely to change anything before Oct 1st expect MT and TN. MT due to lack of polling and TN because she might get caught with her hand in the cookie jar (illegal coordination with PACs). I might bump WV to Lean D because of its extreme GOP, and there's a potential of a shift like what happen in IN in 2016, but one state is not enough to justify ditching the model. This election also really doesn't matter because the GOP is going to get creamed in 2024, GOP will lose at least too many seats in the House to do anything without DEM support and the DEMs will be too cowardly to attack until 2024 due to Trump's shocking victory (I think they will get cocky in 2024 because they ether win in 2020 and have time to forget about Trump or crush the GOP in 2024 after eight years of Trump). Edit: If I ditched tilt; NV&ND would go to lean and IN is tossup (September 15th, 2018, 06:42)AdrienIer Wrote: Follow your dreams, unless you come from a poor background. In that case you might compete with people born in wealthy families, and that would be bad. Got it.I dont understand english very good, but who said that in theyr post before? I am relay courious what i missed.
Nobody said it and the gif isn't neonazi, AdrienIer is just having a fit processing alternative viewpoints. Albeit Gavagai has something like a talent for phrasing his views in just such a way to cause foaming at mouth, mostly by including triggering references that he himself declares to be largely gratuitous.
September 16th, 2018, 18:22
(This post was last modified: September 16th, 2018, 18:22 by MJW (ya that one).)
(September 16th, 2018, 16:32)mackoti Wrote:(September 15th, 2018, 06:42)AdrienIer Wrote: Follow your dreams, unless you come from a poor background. In that case you might compete with people born in wealthy families, and that would be bad. Got it.I dont understand english very good, but who said that in theyr post before? I am relay courious what i missed. Read T-Hawk's post #1849. Focus on the line "Any sensible employer would choose to hire me with that much additional experience over someone of equal work ethic and talent but without that." (September 14th, 2018, 12:31)T-hawk Wrote: Twice as many of them graduate college, but that doesn't double the number of economically productive jobs, because there isn't twice the consumption to support them. When everyone has a degree, then no one does. One of the biggest fallacies that the leftist side of politics falls victim. If everyone has a good, it is not worth anything. Same with education. By allowing everyone (too many) to have it they made it worthless. (September 17th, 2018, 01:41)TheArchduke Wrote: One of the biggest fallacies that the leftist side of politics falls victim. If everyone has enough to eat meals are worthless? If everyone has a roof overhead homes are worthless? You really prefer a world were the poor can starve to death out in the streets and don't get any chance at education? IMO we have far too many uneducated idiots running around in this world to be a miser with education. (September 16th, 2018, 16:32)mackoti Wrote:The argument that education must remain very expensive or there will be too much competition for high skill job comes down to that. Instead of allowing anyone to access education (and allowing only the best to get to the higher levels like a master's degree and thesis) some here want higher education to stay mostly in the hands of the wealthy. It's a fallacy. But education based entirely on merits means people like GWBush don't go to the best universities, because their place would be taken by someone better than them yet most likely not born into the same social class. Which is unthinkable to those who worship the rich.(September 15th, 2018, 06:42)AdrienIer Wrote: Follow your dreams, unless you come from a poor background. In that case you might compete with people born in wealthy families, and that would be bad. Got it.I dont understand english very good, but who said that in theyr post before? I am relay courious what i missed.
September 17th, 2018, 03:29
(This post was last modified: September 17th, 2018, 03:40 by Bacchus.)
Is the logic 'giving everyone subsidies to attend Harvard won't actually increase the number of places in Harvard, only Harvard's fees' really that challenging to process? Nobody here wants to shut anyone out of anything, people made an extremely straightforward argument on why a purported expansion of access isn't, why is it impossible to address that argument on its merits, instead of lamenting some conspiratorial class war agenda?
Other arguments were made on how a drive to make higher education universal just makes a degree worthless in terms of 'privilege' (I would add the drive actually introduces a de facto tax, especially punitive on rural populations, on people with elderly dependants, various other distressed groups and is disastrous for social mobility); and on how punishing people who have done nothing wrong is unethical. Again, neither has anything to do with worshipping the rich, unless a failure to agree that being born rich is itself a crime is now enough to qualify as worship. |
