Wealth.
Pages
| Author | Topic: Wealth. |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 03:41
Profile
Homepage
Kelandon/Ephesos: I not so much saying that luck is a quality of the strong. Either the strong or weak can be lucky. Luck is, rather, a random variable that exists in any form of economy that one can argue for or against. I was merely acknowledging it's role. My definitions remain the same, what makes you say they change? My concept of justice? I suppose it’s simply people getting what they deserve. Economically, justice is when a person gets the occupation and pay grade they deserve. This is important not only for the individual, but for all of society. When someone does not get a job suited to them (either a strong person being given an insignificant one or a weak person being given great power) society suffers as a whole. When people get the jobs they deserve, society benefits. In practice people don’t always get what they deserve, but this justice assured that society will pay whenever this happens. That is economic justice. Is that what you were asking for? Teachers: As I said before, secondary school teachers do not need much education, thus they get paid little. If they are really good at what they do, they should get more education and become a college professor. Staying a high school teacher shows lack of ambition, a quality of the weak. They may really enjoy what they do, and that is great, but it still shows complacence. Complacence should not be rewarded. Science: I have always had the impression that all scientists were paid well, given the amount of education they are required to have, is this not true? Anyway, I can see why fundamental researchers would get paid less. Major developments are rare, and to make such discoveries requires little incite into the needs of humanity. Remember, understanding humans (charisma) is an important quality of the strong, and it is a quality not necessary to discover important things. Alorael: I blame the education system. Education is something that should be nationalized, as I said earlier. The way it is run in the United States (regulation by state) is the worst system ever. But you thought I said the only role of the government is to protect the people? Yes, and it should also protect them from ignorance. It should protect their right to an equal opportunity. It should not give them free money (like you guys think) but it should give them education, but it should assure they all get off to the same start. What happens after that start is no longer the government’s responsibility. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 04:35
Profile
Homepage
Um, blaming the fact that the education system is run on a state-by-state basis is a pretty bad explanation for a phenomenon that occurs in every state. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 04:44
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Emperor Tullegolar: quote:Or, you know, they care about children and want to see them succeed in life. Good high school teachers are constantly educate themselves, taking classes over the summer and trying new things to improve their ability to teach. And they do it while putting up with a lot of crap from the school system, students, parents, and those who obviously don't understand the first thing about teaching but have an opinion on it anyway. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 05:20
Profile
quote:You act as if this is a one dimension scale where college professor better than high school teacher better than grade school teacher. This is NOT true. Each level has its own individual challenges. Would a college professor a great grade school teacher? Probably not. While it is true the number of facts that need to be taught are at a very low level, dealing with younger children in a classroom setting is not trivial. You need an entire different approach to things to be a great grade school teacher. In other words, it's a different skill set, but your limited worldview for whatever reason sees this skill set as inferior. It's not, it's different. People don't teach grade school or high school because they can't teach college. On the contrary, I had several teachers who taught college and then came to teach high school. The people who taught high school often preferred its unique challenges. Many of them said teaching high school was more difficult because you cannot make a lot of assumptions about background that you can in college. ET: There's something called Teach for America. They would put you, as a recent college grad, in some of the most difficult schools in the US. I suggest you try it. If you can come out of that and honestly say that teaching high school is easy, then I would be impressed. quote:Scientists get paid decently, typically 40k-120k US dollars per year. Some can make more, others less. Fact is people less skilled with a business degree tend to make more. You said everyone should be paid according to skill not utillity, now you seem to be changing your tune by adding new skills and shifting things around to fit your argument. Are you a flip-flopper? Sounds like shifting justifications to me. The point you still haven't addressed is that fundamental science makes all of the applications possible, requires more raw scientific talent, and still get paid less. Pardon Schrodinger and Heisenberg for not seeing all of digital logic when developing quantum mechanics. If not for them, Bill Gates would not be a billionaire. In fact, computers as they exist today would not. What I get from you is that applications are more important than the basic science itself. Under your logic, only the "weak" (or whatever warped definition you are using today) should go into basic science, a MUCH more difficult area of study. If this were true, we would hardly ever see advancement at a fundamental level because all "strong" minds would go toward using existing science and making it applications. Really, I want to know your justification for this. Applications are easy, yet make more. How does this jive to getting paid according to skill? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 06:47
Profile
Homepage
quote:This didn't address the issue at all. Laissez-faire capitalism rewards the inherently meritorious who happen to be lucky (as well as a fair number of slouches who also happen to be lucky). You have admitted this. This completely destroys your assertion before that laissez-faire capitalism is justified because it rewards the inherently meritorious, because it doesn't. This means that you need either to reconcile the above facts somehow or to give another justification for laissez-faire capitalism. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 06:59: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 06:52
Profile
Homepage
EDIT: Tags. And yet again, fixing post to not repeat Kel. Drat. quote:You're trying to give yourself a cheap way out of any of your definitions with the debate equivalent of "answers may vary", that's what. quote:So... class stratification and general misery in a significant portion of the population is best for society? If I am wrong in this derivation, please correct me. quote:Complacence? What about satisfaction with one's life? What about not feeling the need to struggle past an already comfortable existence? quote:I have a serious problem with your "manipulation skills = strength" theory. It shows a total lack of compassion in your views. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 06:54: Message edited by: Ephesos ] -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 07:14
Profile
The formative years arguably are the most important years to teach things like music, math, and science. Arguably, they provide the cornerstone for future ability. That is why so many countries try to get this part early. Darwinian economic systems don't provide the highest standard of living. If you look at the countries with the highest standard of living for the people who live their, the UK is not that high, and the United States is number 10. Somehow the United States got off the track when it decided to put forth an ideology of either a welfare state or economic darwinism, neither of which lead to good results. We should take a careful appraisal of why we are falling behind places like Australia, Norway, and similiar countries. We should not just make platitudes oh well they are more homogenous than we are. The economic decisions which need to be made to put the United States at the top of the ladder in Standard of Living would not be very palatable to many liberals or conservatives for that matter. A strong mixed economy-- graduated income tax, strong safety net, high luxury taxes, etc., less money spent on welfare, and more money spent on public works programs and small business investment. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 07:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:Now here is a subject I know rather well. Teachers DO need education, and quite a bit of it. Many teachers today (NOT ALL) don't even know what they're teaching. They just look it up out of a book, and act like they actually know what they're trying to teach. This form of teaching is probably about as effective as sitting every student down with a book, and having them read for the entire class. It works, but don't expect any exceptional results. If the teachers don't have an education, how do you expect their students to get an education. It becomes a constant, downward spiral that eventually will cripple the whole system of education. This brings me to a different aspect of teaching. Many of the teachers today (AGAIN, NOT ALL) don't even care about just how important a job they hold. To them, it's just a way to put food on the table. Should teachers be payed more? Of course! Their job is one of the most important of any country. A public educational system is a vital part of the economy, not to mention the social structure, of any country, even a Tullegolite one. However, the teachers of today treat this important task as if it were menial labor. There's a good percentage of teachers that actually care about teaching, but then you have a far greater percentage that couldn't care less about how they affect the lives of the students, or, more importantly, how they are supposed to affect the lives of their students. If you're not going to be passionate about what you're doing, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it. In a way, maybe Tullegolar is right. Teachers are lacking ambition. It's just that only teachers can truly change this. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 14:04: Message edited by: Nioca ] -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 08:51
Profile
Homepage
I agree that it's better for society to have people working at their skill level, but it's also better for society to have people working at the profession they are most passionate about because dedication improves performance. Pay is only a secondary motivator, but it's significant: pay people more for a job, any job, and you tend to get better work out of them. It's best for society never to underpay. Teachers: Putting all the worst teachers at the lower levels and all the best teachers at the top ensures that the better teachers will have to work twice as hard due to unprepared students. Besides, a huge number of college professors are teachers second and researchers or writers first. Original work and teaching aren't the same skill, and it makes more sense for a skilled teacher and mediocre publisher (or perish!) to work as a teacher and not professor. Science is probably the profession with the longest required period of extremely specialized training, and the pay does not reflect that at all. I don't follow your claim that pay should be tied to "insight into humanity." Plenty of scientists have insight and charm, and many of them rise high in the academic ranks because charisma helps everywhere. It does not change the fact that an MBA will earn you more money than that PhD in natural science ever will. —Alorael, who has never argued for free money to the poor. He argues that it is the governments purpose to protect from many things, and that protection takes the form of services to rich and poor. Because the poor have more needs, they should receive more services that don't apply to the wealthy. Getting everyone off to a fair start isn't just a matter of better education. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 09:22
Profile
Homepage
Alorael is right. I don't know where you got the idea that scientists get paid less because of the work they do is not "social". I will be spending the next ten years in school (very social) because I love what I plan to do. In fact I have to go to class right now but I will be back. -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 09:43
Profile
As I said, you don't become a scientist for the money. There are far better ways to accomplish that goal. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 11:01
Profile
I'm pretty sure Ulle said he was currently in college, and his telemarketing job was something to pass the time between classes. But I find his posts boring, so I'll not go back and research that. His personal experiences in life seem to have played a rather prominent role in defining his ethos, which becomes more and more understandable as he reveals those details. After all, his (obviously) strong father was able to move from poverty to riches. Should he (Egola) be nervous that within his own definitions there is a good chance that he will end back in that very same poverty? If it is indeed nature, rather than nurture, that establishes pecking order, it would definitely scare me to be in his shoes. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 13:32
Profile
Homepage
*i: I have never changed my definitions. I defined the strong as having both intelligence and charisma. Scientists can have all the intelligence in the world, yet it will only ever get them half way at the most. If this Schrodinger and Heisenberg were so great, how come they didn't sell their ideas better? A great idea is worthless if you can't apply it to the world we live in. Those that can apply it must understand it (intelligence) and also understand what people want (charisma) and thus they will make more money in the end. There should be no reason why someone can't partake in both areas of science, basic and applied. Kelandon: Your giving luck a bigger role than it deserves. Are you saying that people like Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the like all lucked out? No, they saw an opportunity (intelligence), knew how to exploit it (charisma), and did (ambition). Anyone can succeed. Only the really great know how. Ephesos: Answers do vary, as they do with any theory. Honestly, do you have an answer that works every time? I'd like to hear it. Yes, class stratification is the way to go. It promotes a greater work ethic, if the government was giving out hand outs, what reason do people have to work hard or even keep a job? As for satisfaction, if the teachers are satisfied with their pay (which is what we were talking about), then there is nothing to argue about here. Finally, compassion is for the weak. Where did compassion ever get anyone? It hurts not only the compassionate, but also the compassionees, as they will not work as hard if given the things they need. Alorael: I dispute your claim that an MBA is more valuable than a PhD. It depends completely on what you do with said degree. Someone with an MBA could end up as a bean counter making mere tens of thousands a year, while someone with a PhD could get a decent job, write books, invent, anything. The same argument goes for teachers I suppose. Amount of education, while important, still comes second to overall skill. In fact, there are plenty of people with no education at all that manage to find success at the highest levels. Salmon: Failure is as much a possibility for me as it is for anyone. However, I believe I have the qualities it takes, and as long as I have fun along the way it matter little where I find myself in the end. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 13:58
Profile
Homepage
How can you say that Schroedinger and Heisenberg weren't great? Do you know what they did? So, okay, their ideas don't directly effect you and me, but the later applications have. Maybe making millions of dollars was not their primary goal. Some people do research just for the joy of discovering new things. -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 14:22
Profile
Any ideas on how much the inventor of the wheel made, in terms of the currency of the day? Likely nothing. That discovery is among the foundations for all life today, yet the applications today seem to generate money. It's almost as if people are willing to be surprised that a wheel is still a remarkable thing. I would consider the wheel to be a remarkable baseline invention. It was inspiration. But worthless to the inventor. Why? Foundation science is inspired but untried, untested, and unknown. We have no clue if they are money-making or money-losing propositions, yet they are vitally important to continued economic development. Without Bell Labs in New Jersey we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Yet the scientists there got less pay than a middle manager at Google today. Yet they did it anyways, because the wealth they sought was the knowledge that they were changing the world. Remember, money is only good for buying things, and you only can buy things if you find a willing seller. ;) -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 14:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:You are still missing the main point: 1. Without basic research done by people like Schrodinger and Hiesenberg we wouldn't have modern computers. It doesn't matter how smart your aplied scientists are, but they can't make a major breakthrough without a lot of basic research. 2. The definition of basic research is that it has no practical applications at the time. It took many decades for practical applications of Einstein's work to become apparent. No matter how smart Einstein was, he couldn't make any practical applications for his research, because it took decades of work by many scientists to go from abstract theory to a product that can be sold. Here is another example that is easier to explain: Think about communication satellites. The ones that allow reporters to instantly submit news stories from around the world, allow you to get a wide variety of channels not carried by your local cable carrier, etc. This is an example of applied science. Some company spends a few hundred million dollars to launch a satellite like this and eventually starts making a profit when the costs of research and production are paid off years later. However, it took many billions of dollars to figure out how to launch satellites without them burning up or exploding, how to keep those satellites in desired orbit, how to get a reliable signal in desired location, etc. That multibillion dollar bill was paid by governments of USA and USSR. If these governments didn't pay for this basic research, any company that wanted to launch a communications satellite would have to spend, many billions, rather than a few hundred million. This would make communication satellites so unprofitable that no company would even think of launching them. This is how research works in the real world: first government pays a lot of money for basic research whose only purpose is to improve our understanding of the universe (quantum theory, space program). Next companies take that research and do the easy job of turning it into marketable products (modern computers, communication satellites). Most companies couldn't afford to do their own basic research. And while government definitely could take the relatively cheap step of turning results of its research into marketable products, that would be ... communism. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 14:38: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 16:19
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Nioca: quote:I think it's rather funny how perspectives can be so different. You claim to know a lot about the subject of teachers, and I'd like to think I know a lot about teachers as well. But you seem to blame the teachers for why they don't teach well, while I blame the school system itself. Sure, there are bad teachers. But there are also many good ones and many more average ones, and their ability to teach is hampered whenever the school system gets too messed up. After all, it's hard to teach meaningful information when there are so many tests and standards that have to be met, and money has to go to administering those tests instead of going to more useful things. And I don't see how most teachers are just working to put food on the table when they end up spending their own money to buy supplies or extras for their classes and students. (Plus, my father is a teacher and I distinctly remember having trouble finding a place to put my plate on the dinner table because of all the notebooks, binders, tests, and assignments all over the table. :P ) Finally, I don't remember how many teachers quit in their first few years of teaching, but it's quite a lot. And since teachers with more experience make better teachers, this high turnover rate isn't a good thing, and signals that we have a larger problem with the school system. quote:Dikiyoba thinks that's a good thing. It's the teachers with ambition that are scheming to get ahead and look for a district with a better offer or retire and then get re-hired part-time to make extra money instead of caring for the students. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 16:47
Profile
Homepage
quote:In all honesty, it's the whole system that's falling apart. quote:You just hit upon the problem. The average teacher today no longer measures up to past average teachers. Therefore, the quality of education suffers, and the system suffers as a whole. quote:That doesn't mean a teacher can't try to teach meaningful information. It just means they have to find an approach that works. quote:This has more to do with another subject then it does to teaching. I'm not interested in delving into that, because we're drifting too far off-topic as it is. quote:That wasn't quite what I meant. I was talking about how teachers lack the ambition to teach, instead of Tullegolar's terms of advancing up the social ladder.quote:Originally written by Dikiyoba: -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 16:56
Profile
We can't classify all teachers the same way. We have to stop grouping people since everyone is different and behave in different ways. There are teachers, such as the ones Nioca mentioned, that don't have the interest, the passion or the education to properly teach. I've seen plenty of those in my life who just don't care about the students. However, I have seen good teachers, as Dikiyoba mentioned, that really care about their students. Teachers that work from 8am to 6pm every day, that work on weekends and that are available to tutor on their personal hours. Teachers that go out of their way to make sure students get scholarships and as much financial aid as possible. Alas, I haven't seen many of those in college. You see the problem in my school is not the teachers not having great education, because they certainly have the best. Our teachers are Columbia and NYU graduates, with a vast experience in their careers. They’ve worked in the best research facilities, the biggest Accounting Firms, etc and their resume is oh so impressive, yet they are horrible horrible teachers. They are excellent professionals, but they couldn’t teach well to save their lives :rolleyes: Edit: Damn your fingers Nioca!! [ Monday, October 30, 2006 16:59: Message edited by: Kitana ] Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 16:58
Profile
quote:Your ideas depend on a very simplistic, monocausal, and linear view of the world. Unfortunately, science and discovery (and much of the real world) are inherently not so. You really should educate yourself (or at least do a better job of showing you actually know) on how the biological and physical sciences work before spouting this stuff. Why didn't Shrodinger/Heisenberg market their ideas better? Well, it could be there was little market at the time. The technology and the engineering of doing these things on an atomic level were not developed. That took billions of dollars and thousands of researchers. Now, had quantum mechanics not been developed, there would have been little motivation to invest the money to do the engineering. You cannot have incremental development as it makes no sense to go in that direction. It's a quasi chicken and egg problem if we demand the application come with the theory. While you could say Schrodinger should have done the engineering himself, I say, get serious. That's impossible even if all he did was work on that goal. There is no way he alone could have come up with the sheer resources to do it. Ironically, quantum theory did have a "market". It's called an atomic bomb and it is quite effective. Note that the Manhattan Project was a massive effort just to make an application. Einstein could have told you how to make a laser too, he posited the idea. He didn't have the technology to make one. We didn't have that until the 1960s billions of dollars later. That doesn't mean he is not a brilliant person. Basically, by your metrics there are no scientific geniuses I can see. I challenge you to name one scientist in the past 200 years who meets your criteria of strong. quote:On average an MBA makes more than a PhD, despite having less formal and rigorous training. Yes, we can look at individual examples and counter examples. However, that tells us little. Why, ET, does a person, on average, with an MBA make more than a PhD? [ Monday, October 30, 2006 17:05: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 17:05
Profile
Homepage
quote:I wasn't making blanket generalizations. quote:What in the world is that supposed to mean? -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 17:15
Profile
quote:What is it with you and rationality? And wanting to know things? Jesus. FYI, you answered to Dikiyoba's post quicker. I figured it would interfered with my post, so I edited and wrote that, but it didn't so moving on... Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 17:21
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Nioca: quote:Do you have a link or other evidence of that? I'd like that statement to be expanded on before I make any sort of judgement on it. quote:I believe that they are trying (most of them, anyway). But they could teach more effectively if they weren't having to worry about preparing for this test or that test by covering several materials really quickly instead of one in depth. quote:We can hold two discussions in one thread. Getting off topic is half the fun. Originally by Marlenny: quote:Dikiyoba suspects it's not enough time spent in the fluffy turtle pit. It's time to grab Nioca and throw him in. Edit: Added final quote. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 17:24: Message edited by: Dikiyoba ] Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 17:29
Profile
Homepage
quote:Trust me, rationality is the one thing that keeps me a sane and rational being. Otherwise, I would be of the far nuttier variety. And can I help it if I'm mildly curious, especially when you swear at me? -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Monday, October 30 2006 19:11
Profile
Homepage
... E.T., you're a lifesaver. For the past month, I've been playing around with the villain in my BoA scenario. I've never been completely satisfied with him, and it hasn't been easy for him either (I'm sure species changes are tough to recover from). Until now, I hadn't completely settled on a rationality for him. Now, I have one. I never went to a public high school, but I think that those who have get to thank John Dewey's misconstrued ideas for the calibre of education they received. -------------------- Too Nietzsche; Didn't Read Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |