nice article

[eppie]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210726562...us_inside_today


The main point I would like the address here is the fact (in my opinion) that in the world (west mainly I guess) the best jobs in terms of income are not the ones that benefit the economy and general prosperity the most.
As long as being an investmentbanker, profesional sporter, real estate agent or singer of low quality pop music makes you richer than 'real jobs' it will continue to be a burden on our nations. Is there any way to stop this, according to me, problem?

[Nystul]

You could choose not to buy CDs or game tickets, and handle your own business affairs. Then whatever money those people make isn't coming from you, and if your doctor, teacher, or garbage man would like to spend his hard earned money on the latest Madonna CD and a couple Lakers tickets, I don't really see a problem with that.

I think the state of the middle class in the U.S. and the weakening of unions has a lot to do with the globalization of business in this time period. It's a difficult thing to solve from within the country when the working class of less fortunate countries live in a much, much, worse state and therefor would happily work for so much less. That's how these migrant worker issues get started in the first place. Where I work it is closed shop and the hourly wages are negotiated on a national scale, but there hasn't been an increase in the starting wage for at least 10 years. Those jobs can't go overseas, but so many other jobs can that it creates a real pressure on the wage for unskilled labor. We could destroy trade agreements and put up walls, but I suspect that will cause all kinds of other problems.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . the best jobs in terms of income are not the ones that benefit the economy and general prosperity the most.

Yeah. So what? Your assumption is flawed. It is basically the assumption that (small 'c') communism is based on and we've all seen how well that works. In a market economy, the value of an item (and a person's time *is* an item) is no more, no less, than what two people (the buyer and the seller) agree to trade for that item. Which is why you can get a meal at McDonald's for about $5 while there are restaurants that will put you back $1000 or more for dinner for two. Is it fair? No, it isn't. But anyone stupid enough to base their world view on 'fair' should test the fairness of gravity from a tall building. On the way down, explain to the ground why it's hardness is unfair.

. . . Is there any way to stop this, according to me, problem?

Yes, education. As soon as you take a real course in economics, and realize how a market works, and why an outlier rate of one in thirty thousand is acceptable, that soon you will see that there was no problem except in your mind.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
Yeah. So what? Your assumption is flawed. It is basically the assumption that (small 'c') communism is based on and we've all seen how well that works. In a market economy, the value of an item (and a person's time *is* an item) is no more, no less, than what two people (the buyer and the seller) agree to trade for that item. Which is why you can get a meal at McDonald's for about $5 while there are restaurants that will put you back $1000 or more for dinner for two. Is it fair? No, it isn't. But anyone stupid enough to base their world view on 'fair' should test the fairness of gravity from a tall building. On the way down, explain to the ground why it's hardness is unfair.
Yes, education. As soon as you take a real course in economics, and realize how a market works, and why an outlier rate of one in thirty thousand is acceptable, that soon you will see that there was no problem except in your mind.

--Pete

Pete, I am not talking about a simple capitalism vs communism thing....(I tried it before). Your explanation might be suitable to a 5 year old but I am very much aware of these things.
First I need to point out that your market economy isn't a real market economy there are many many trade restrictions etc. and other governmental 'input', the only difference compared to e.g. Venezuela is that in the case of the US and other western countries these things favor the rich instead of the normal people. (this just to point out that your hallelujah market economy 101 is not working like you think it is).
I am not complaining about some people making more money than others.


My point (question) is a different one however. How can a species survive if we create society that makes it more interesting from a personal standpoint to do something that is useless, just because you make loads of money (i'm exaggerating a bit to make my point clear, entertainment has use of course) instead of doing useful things.

[kandrathe]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210726562...us_inside_today
The main point I would like the address here is the fact (in my opinion) that in the world (west mainly I guess) the best jobs in terms of income are not the ones that benefit the economy and general prosperity the most. As long as being an investment banker, professional sporter, real estate agent or singer of low quality pop music makes you richer than 'real jobs' it will continue to be a burden on our nations. Is there any way to stop this, according to me, problem?

The article sets up the weepy straw man of the poor down trodden worker who is abused by the man. In actuality, if you are an employer (at least in America) you have thousands of regulations to comply with and it takes an HR professional to help keep you legal. Workers have the right to vote with their feet and get a new job. If they are valuable, they will have no trouble selling their abilities to another buyer. The article finally gets to the point, "It is, in other words, a political disaster, with tax cuts, trade agreements, deregulatory measures, and enforcement decisions all finely crafted to benefit one part of society and leave the rest behind." What he means is that somehow the government has been rigged by the Reaganista's to benefit the wealthy. He is stating that in essence the tax cuts are for the wealthy, deregulation was for the wealthy, trade agreements are for the wealthy, and relaxing enforcements are all to benefits the already wealthy. I don't subscribe to this class warfare nonsense. These people are really, really good at being either myopic to their own viewpoints, or lying with numbers. So, his point is that by promoting capitalism, you are punishing the lower classes.

Investment Banker -- helps you to increase wealth beyond what you can do for yourself -- must be valuable to someone right?

Professional athlete -- While each ticket may only be $20 or so, when you can fill a stadium of 30 to 50 thousand to generate $600,000 in gross ticket sales, plus revenue for parking and food sales you are talking real money.

Entertainer -- Same with pop music or movie star, if you can sell a song at even $.10 a play, and you have millions of plays of that song a day, you can aggregate money.

So, no, pop star is not more valuable than teacher, but since the government and the unions control education here we may never know what people might pay for well educated children. I know some people who pay $15,000 per student per year for a private high school. So that would be $83 per day per pupil and figure 25 kids per teacher per day, so that amounts to $10,375 per week, or $375,000 for the 25 students for 2 semesters. There would be some overhead for building, books, and administration of course but still, there is no reason that teachers couldn't make into 6 figures if education were run more like business.

Point to a profession where people are paid less than their value and I'll show you the government intervention that makes it so.

[Chesspiece_face]

So, no, pop star is not more valuable than teacher, but since the government and the unions control education here we may never know what people might pay for well educated children. I know some people who pay $15,000 per student per year for a private high school. So that would be $83 per day per pupil and figure 25 kids per teacher per day, so that amounts to $10,375 per week, or $375,000 for the 25 students for 2 semesters. There would be some overhead for building, books, and administration of course but still, there is no reason that teachers couldn't make into 6 figures if education were run more like business.

Correction: SOME teachers could make into 6 figures. Fact is, the amount of people that can pay $15,000 per student per year for any school is ridiculously small and not a very good example of how well teachers could be doing as a whole.

You don't believe in class warfare, yet the quickest way you will ever get there is to capitalize education. The educated vs. The uneducated masses. I suppose there is a capitalistic solution though, just keep building McDonalds and Starbucks so all the uneducated people can work there and just sell each other double cheeseburgers. There is a bumper sticker somewhere in there but for the life of me i can't find it.

[kandrathe]

Correction: SOME teachers could make into 6 figures. Fact is, the amount of people that can pay $15,000 per student per year for any school is ridiculously small and not a very good example of how well teachers could be doing as a whole.

In our state, the cost per pupil in public schools depends on school district but ranges from $5,524 to $14,446 with the only difference being that the the bulk of the bill is paid by property taxes. Of course, the quality of the education does not correlate at all to the price paid per pupil.

You don't believe in class warfare, yet the quickest way you will ever get there is to capitalize education. The educated vs. The uneducated masses.

The option exists now for the rich. It is the mid middle class and below that cannot afford to pay twice for their children's education, once in property taxes to fund public and then also for their private tuitions. In fact you will find that the very best private schools educate the sons and daughters of the wealthiest people.

There is also the question of fairness for land owners to bear the burden every year for funding schools. The fair use of property tax would be to fund those things provided to local citizens by the municipality that everyone uses, like the politicians, police, fire, roads, etc. This would be a fair user fee for services provided. But, the way it is now, single people pay, grandma's pay, everyone pays whether they have zero kids or 12 kids. I have two kids, and I think it would be fair for parents to help figure out how to educate their own children. You would be surprised at how prices would become affordable if people started having to make their own choices. I feel this applies to health care as well.

If poor people need help with school tuition, health care, housing, food, etc, then the voters would be able to decide to have their government pick up the tab for those people. Handouts of the peoples money should be above board, and not masked by inherent socialism.

[eppie]

So, no, pop star is not more valuable than teacher, but since the government and the unions control education here we may never know what people might pay for well educated children. I know some people who pay $15,000 per student per year for a private high school. So that would be $83 per day per pupil and figure 25 kids per teacher per day, so that amounts to $10,375 per week, or $375,000 for the 25 students for 2 semesters. There would be some overhead for building, books, and administration of course but still, there is no reason that teachers couldn't make into 6 figures if education were run more like business.

Point to a profession where people are paid less than their value and I'll show you the government intervention that makes it so.

I find this bit very interesting...this is what I was thinking about when reading the article. Take the example of teachers. Many people feel that education is not good enough, this can be because of too big classes, uninterested teachers, not being able to get university trained teacher in high school etc. But can we change this other than the simple but crude 25 % salary increase for all teachers (and it might not even work). And would we agree? 25 % salary increase means a lot less tax money for other things. Should they just go on strike (it is very hard in a western country to get people en masse on the streets, people are always scared of losing what they already have. Should all school be privatized? Well I fully agree with chesspiece face, you will get class warfare.
ANyway these are things that cannot even be changed like this, there is not enough money to go around to have everybody for his own education, fire department, roads, trash collection etc.etc. if they were privatized.


My second point (main point actually) was the impact such a thing has on a society. There is no real stimulant to get skilled people to work on real problems we are facing. Things like world poverty, global warming, resistance of virusses to drugs, sustainable fuel economy.

[Pantalaimon]

25 % salary increase means a lot less tax money for other things.

I feel you're missing Kan's point by a large margin, eppie. If the education funding were removed from the tax burden ("privatized"), a 25% increase in salary doesn't mean a lot less tax money for other things... it's no longer being funded by the government. Perhaps regulated, but not funded - a 25% increase in teacher salary would correspond to an increase in education costs for the buyer of the service, in this case parents with children to educate.

However, the market would, in the long term, likely stabilize to salaries larger than now, but still reasonable: more people would choose to become teachers, increasing the supply and applying downward pressure on the salaries.

On that note, however, I'm not convinced that privatized education would remain affordable. You alluded to this I believe, Kandrathe, but everybody is currently paying for the education system regardless of enrollment. If you suddenly remove a portion of the "customer" base - those without children - the cost to the remaining portion will have to increase to maintain the same level of funding. Ignoring the often used magic bullet argument of private business = more efficient, yes, everybody's taxes would go down; however, the cost to a parent to educate a child would likely be more than the tax break. This may indeed exclude some children from receiving even a basic education. If I'm socialist for wanting to avoid that situation, so be it... I am Canadian, after all;)

ANyway these are things that cannot even be changed like this, there is not enough money to go around to have everybody for his own education, fire department, roads, trash collection etc.etc. if they were privatized.

The underlying point that I believe Kandrathe and I share is that the funding for the education system is a little... off. Things like FD, roads, trash collection, water supply are all related to owning property within a municipality, and thus should be paid with property taxes. Nobody is suggesting that those be privatized - at least not in this thread. Education is the one thing in that list "not like the others": it is not related to owning property at all.

My second point (main point actually) was the impact such a thing has on a society. There is no real stimulant to get skilled people to work on real problems we are facing. Things like world poverty, global warming, resistance of virusses to drugs, sustainable fuel economy.

There is a very large monetary incentive to solve the resistance of viruses to drugs. Pharmaceuticals is a very large-dollar industry, routinely attracting very bright minds.

On the other hand, solving 'world' poverty (what's wrong with solving poverty at home? Why is everything so much more appealing when it's in Africa? Slight derailment:P) is an inherently hard thing to monetize. Hence, there are relatively few in that "field", and those present are not there to earn big bucks. So yes, I suppose I agree that there is no real stimulant in some noteworthy causes. But talk is cheap. People can pay lip service to feel good causes all day, but try to tax them to provide some sort of economic incentive for solving world poverty and they'd riot. So at the end of the day, the market continues on.

[eppie]

The underlying point that I believe Kandrathe and I share is that the funding for the education system is a little... off. Things like FD, roads, trash collection, water supply are all related to owning property within a municipality, and thus should be paid with property taxes. Nobody is suggesting that those be privatized - at least not in this thread. Education is the one thing in that list "not like the others": it is not related to owning property at all.
There is a very large monetary incentive to solve the resistance of viruses to drugs. Pharmaceuticals is a very large-dollar industry, routinely attracting very bright minds.

Well, because you might see education as an investment in a person so that this person can make money the rest of his life. This is only one part of it however. An educated population will be richer than an uneducated one because with the same means a lot higher level of prosperity can be obtained. So spending public money on schooling seems a good thing to me.
Just substracting the tax you pay for education per person and adding the amount you would have to pay for your child when there would be only privatized schools is for this reason not correct.

Your assumption in your first paragraph that salaries would in the long term be larger than they would be seems also a bit strange. If the distribution of wealth would remain the same as it is now there would not be enough people able to pay for education. Some of them would have more than enough, but most of them wouldn't and would choose to not give their child education.

Back to the costs we pay for teh fire department......would we pay them if they would solely rely on private gifts? I think nobody assumes that his house will burn down....and if it would, why not just take out an insurance?

[Pantalaimon]

Well, because you might see education as an investment in a person so that this person can make money the rest of his life. This is only one part of it however. An educated population will be richer than an uneducated one because with the same means a lot higher level of prosperity can be obtained. So spending public money on schooling seems a good thing to me.

Umm, agreed? It doesn't change the fact that use of the education system is not proportional to owning property. Therefore, I think the funding scheme leaves something to be desired. I don't believe the funding should be removed.

Your assumption in your first paragraph that salaries would in the long term be larger than they would be seems also a bit strange. If the distribution of wealth would remain the same as it is now there would not be enough people able to pay for education. Some of them would have more than enough, but most of them wouldn't and would choose to not give their child education.

I don't think the increase is education costs would be as substantial as the knee-jerk doomsday reaction typified here, when taking the tax reduction into account. Yes, the cost would be more because some people are no longer paying into a system they don't use. Yes, this would likely decrease the amount of people who receive education - and yes, this would have an economic impact on society. I wouldn't like it, as I already admitted to: call me an altruist, but an educated workforce is too valuable to quibble over a few thousand dollars a year that I pay into a system I may not be using now, but will likely get my money's worth in the future.

However, I firmly believe educators are currently underpaid compared to the market value of the service they render. Their pay doesn't reflect their value within society. That is, after all, the point you started off with, correct? "Useless" jobs getting paid more than "useful" jobs like teaching? Therefore, it stands to reason that if you let the market dictate teacher salary, it would increase over what it is now - they'd be being paid fair value for their service, no more and no less.

I'm not an economist, I'm an engineer, so correct me if I'm wrong but basic Economics 101 suggests to me that the price point for a product would be where they can make the most money. It's highly unlikely that this point would exclude a large number of people. Yes, you can charge 2 bucks a glass for a lemonade stand and sell two glasses a day because you're adorable. But charge 25 cents a glass and sell twenty glasses and you come out ahead.

Back to the costs we pay for teh fire department......would we pay them if they would solely rely on private gifts? I think nobody assumes that his house will burn down....and if it would, why not just take out an insurance?

I'm not sure I understand this, could you elaborate? If the fire department were privatized, the only logical scheme I can fathom is that your insurance company would pay the fire department for their services rendered in case of a fire. So yes, you would take out insurance. And no, the fire department would not have to rely on "gifts"... privatizing something does not mean turning it into a charity, it means charging enough for a service to maximize your revenue.

[Occhidiangela]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210726562...us_inside_today
The main point I would like the address here is the fact (in my opinion) that in the world (west mainly I guess) the best jobs in terms of income are not the ones that benefit the economy and general prosperity the most.

Why does that matter? Is money the only measure of value to you? Eppie, that's scathingly materialist-capitalist of you, to measure worth by the dollar value. On the other hand, money can't by love, nor happiness, but it can rent it for a while.

As long as being an investmentbanker, profesional sporter, real estate agent or singer of low quality pop music makes you richer than 'real jobs' it will continue to be a burden on our nations. Is there any way to stop this, according to me, problem?

Economies of scale allow accrual of large piles, which is then often spent on people doing "real jobs" of many varieties: the sound guy at the concnert, the IT guys at the bank, the hot dog or beer vendor at the sports event, the painter of plumber who fixes the house so the real estate agent can help the owner sell it, and so on. The people who build fancy yachts, and maintain them, for the millionaires have "real jobs" as do the maids who clean their homes, the accountants who keep track of their dough, and their many assistants who help them pile up more filthy lucre.

Eppie, at the risk of breaking my ribs with laughter: what is a "real job" in your world?

Occhi

[Nystul]

Umm, agreed? It doesn't change the fact that use of the education system is not proportional to owning property. Therefore, I think the funding scheme leaves something to be desired.

It's not meant to be proportional to use of the system. That's kind of the whole point. Unless you want a country where only a portion of the population has anything but home schooling as a viable option for grade school education. Do you think a family of 6 living in an apartment or trailer park is going to make enough money from property tax relief to fund private education for their kids? And if they do, do you think those teachers are going to be well paid?

[eppie]

However, I firmly believe educators are currently underpaid compared to the market value of the service they render. Their pay doesn't reflect their value within society. That is, after all, the point you started off with, correct? "Useless" jobs getting paid more than "useful" jobs like teaching? Therefore, it stands to reason that if you let the market dictate teacher salary, it would increase over what it is now - they'd be being paid fair value for their service, no more and no less.

I don't think that is going to happen. In an ideal world maybe yes, but in reality not I am afraid. Take all those millions of people at the bottom of society. They will absolutely not be able to afford education, and a large part that can't afford will chose not to because other bills need to be paid. (this is all in line with the conclusion after almost every thread here on the lounge that says that people are stupid). Free market doesn't work for these things.
Take health care; in Holland health care insurance was privatized not to long ago....it for sure hasn't gotten any cheaper.This might also have to do with the fact that fusion after fusion, there are only two or three insurance companies left...in a while it will maybe be only one....what then....let a chinese company come in??

I'm not an economist, I'm an engineer, so correct me if I'm wrong but basic Economics 101 suggests to me that the price point for a product would be where they can make the most money. It's highly unlikely that this point would exclude a large number of people. Yes, you can charge 2 bucks a glass for a lemonade stand and sell two glasses a day because you're adorable. But charge 25 cents a glass and sell twenty glasses and you come out ahead.

This (also replying to occhi) is a 'failure' of these economic theories. They hold, but don`t take into account long term gain in prosperity for all (simple economic growth (dollars) goes hand in hand with population growth).

[kandrathe]

Should all school be privatized? Well I fully agree with chesspiece face, you will get class warfare.

I think you already have a bifurcated system, and that was my point in my reply to him. Those who can afford to pay for private education have the advantage over those who cannot. Another option tossed around here would be vouchers. You give each parent a voucher worth the amount the government is willing to pay per child, and let the parent choose which school to spend the voucher whether that be public, private or parochial. This puts competition into school choice, and automatically holds schools accountable for providing the best product (an educated child). Then, to Nystul's example of the family of 6 in the trailer park, they would still be able to choose which school is best within the amount of the voucher (and it may be that some altruistic schools would give grants to low income students).

Anyway these are things that cannot even be changed like this, there is not enough money to go around to have everybody for his own education, fire department, roads, trash collection etc.etc. if they were privatized.

That statement makes no sense! You somehow believe that government can get things done, but private industry cannot? The tax money comes from somewhere currently to pay for all the things that government does. In my community we have private trash and recyclables collection, and there are at least three choices and three trucks which come at different times and different days. We are a small town community, so when we need road work done we put out an RFQ and people bid on doing the work. For police and fire we've banded together as 8 communities that are close together and created a joint system with sufficient coverage for all, yet support one medium sized infrastructure rather than 8 small ones. It works great, and we keep prices low. With education however the government mandates quite a bit, so our hands are tied on how innovative we can be.

My second point (main point actually) was the impact such a thing has on a society. There is no real stimulant to get skilled people to work on real problems we are facing. Things like world poverty, global warming, resistance of viruses to drugs, sustainable fuel economy.

I agree with you here. On the one hand we dangle the carrot of monetary success, on the other hand we expect certain professions (e.g. teaching, science, and innovators) to be done purely altruistically. That is, the thinking generally is that people who engage in those professions should know they won't be paid well because they are more interested in self actualization (contributing to humanity). So, you may not attract people to these professions merely by raising pay -- that is, it also must be fulfilling to the individual. The converse philosophy would be to design the Platonic socialist utopia where certain professions which are inherently altruistic are fully funded by State, such as artists, scientists, philosophers, and educators. It's a nice thought, but it won't work because without accountability these professions would become diluted with free loaders who don't care about their productivity or the quality of their work.

My thoughts on the role of government here is to stimulate demand for these professions, but not to fund them outright with grants and such. Government grants should be reserved for pure research into things which no capitalist would risk, but the research should be for very meaningful results rather than the fluff that we invest in now. I think JFK did a great job in stimulating science and engineering, as well as physical fitness. There is a leadership role in challenging the society to rise up and conquer tough problems, and if they want to back it with funding they should stimulate the demand for these professions and the formation of new businesses who would employ them. In this area for example, NASA is a great investment, not maybe for its overt missions like landing people on Mars, but for the impetus to conquering some very difficult technical problems in solving those problems end up creating whole new industries and innovations. The other great impetus for innovation in our history has been war, and I would prefer we find a less destructive source of inspiration.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Your explanation might be suitable to a 5 year old but I am very much aware of these things.

Clearly not, given that you continue to make your sophomoric arguments in favor of socialism. Which gives the five year old the advantage. He might be ignorant, but he's got the potential to learn.

First I need to point out that your market economy isn't a real market economy there are many many trade restrictions etc. and other governmental 'input', the only difference compared to e.g. Venezuela is that in the case of the US and other western countries these things favor the rich instead of the normal people. (this just to point out that your hallelujah market economy 101 is not working like you think it is).

Nice rebuttal. Now, had I said "the US market economy", then you would have been partially right. But since I was speaking market economy in the abstract -- you know, the idea rather than any implementation -- your argument is just another example of your euro-trash propensity to grab any excuse to bash the United States.

Compare the changes in the well being of countries as a function of where on the laisser faire to communism economic scale they lie. Look at Hong Kong, before and after. For that matter, look at China as it is moving a little bit toward a free market. Look at the surge in prosperity in India as government regulations are lifted. Compare that to the stagnation in most of the socialist European countries, and very much to the total failure of the communist countries. Now, tell me again why increased government control is good? It seems quite the opposite to me. The old adage, "he governs best who governs least" seems to apply quite well to economics.

The one point in favor of your argument is that the government does need to control some things in business and industry. It needs to enforce contracts (so that, e.g., the insurance policy you buy pays off when it should). It needs to enforce product safety (giving you a court to sue the the manufacturer of defective products, and a law to sue them under). And so forth. But all these necessary limitations are to ensure safety, integrity, honesty, and to protect the consumer. The existence of a totally free market combined with consumer protection laws is not impossible. Even those who flunked out of Econ. 101 usually know at least that much.

How can a species survive if we create society that makes it more interesting from a personal standpoint to do something that is useless, just because you make loads of money instead of doing useful things.

Clearly your understanding of motivations is no better than your understanding of economics.

Obviously a person who's ability and talent is kicking a ball would have become a doctor if he could make more money as a doctor than he does as a soccer player. The fact that, outside of soccer, he's a barely functioning idiot has nothing to do with it.

Clearly the doctor who charges the most must be the best, since money is the only motivation.

What the school system really needs is a large number of teachers who don't give a damn for the kids, who are themselves ignorant, who couldn't teach a snake to crawl, but who went into teaching for the money.

Bah. Enough.

--Pete

[eppie]

Bah. Enough.

--Pete

Pete, you can't or won't understand the subject and continue to put words in my mouth. For the second time you posted a amount of text saying nothing. I have no idea why you care to react anyway. You remind me of that movie with Jack Lemon and Walther Matthau.

[eppie]

Great post kandrathe, I found the bit about how your communities pay for things like the fire department very enlightening, I wasn't aware of these things. I fully agree with the fact that if you let a government pay big salaries for certain jobs, like teaching, you will most likely attract a lot of person not able to teach and just in it for the money. There needs to be some other 'great thing' about it.....like the old fashioned respect. But how bring that back?
I have a friend with a Ph.D who is teaching on high school.....he is the only one with that education on his (quite big) school, many don't even have a masters degree.
Same goes for (example from Holland) this school that teaches to become an educator. Apparently more than half of the people doing this school (so these are people that want to go and become a teacher) could not to maths on a 7 grade (elementary school) level, the level of kids aged 10 to 11.

[Occhidiangela]

Great post kandrathe, I found the bit about how your communities pay for things like the fire department very enlightening, I wasn't aware of these things. I fully agree with the fact that if you let a government pay big salaries for certain jobs, like teaching, you will most likely attract a lot of person not able to teach and just in it for the money.

There needs to be some other 'great thing' about it.....like the old fashioned respect. But how bring that back? I have a friend with a Ph.D who is teaching on high school.....he is the only one with that education on his (quite big) school, many don't even have a masters degree.

Same goes for (example from Holland) this school that teaches to become an educator. Apparently more than half of the people doing this school (so these are people that want to go and become a teacher) could not to maths on a 7 grade (elementary school) level, the level of kids aged 10 to 11.

Let's get back to what a "real job" is in your world, now that you have told us about narrowly educated educators. Do they have a "real job" or are they societal placeholders?

Occhi

[kandrathe]

There needs to be some other 'great thing' about it.....like the old fashioned respect. But how bring that back? I have a friend with a Ph.D who is teaching on high school.....he is the only one with that education on his (quite big) school, many don't even have a masters degree. Same goes for (example from Holland) this school that teaches to become an educator. Apparently more than half of the people doing this school (so these are people that want to go and become a teacher) could not to maths on a 7 grade (elementary school) level, the level of kids aged 10 to 11.

I work quite often with venture capitalists on new ventures, and with young businesses and entrepreneurs. You would be surprised at how often the topic of relevance is discussed. These are people who are interested in doing something productive and meaningful with their wealth rather than toss it into a trusty bank.

Are you familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of need?



Maslow's theory is that once you get beyond the concerns of job security people start looking for meaning in what they do and that for the normal human they have a predictable psychology based on the above hierarchy. It takes a leap of faith in humanity for many people to accept this idea, and we have all seen certain people who are extremely unethical in their behavior in life and on the job. It might be that there are quite a number of people who maybe don't fit this mold for one reason or another.

In Maslow's scheme, the final stage of psychological development comes when the individual feels assured that his physiological, security, affiliation and affection, self-respect, and recognition needs have been satisfied. As these become dormant, he becomes filled with a desire to realize all of his potential for being an effective, creative, mature human being. "What a man can be, he must be", is the way Maslow expresses it. -- Wikipedia

As a thought experiment, imagine a world where robots do ALL the meaningful work, that is, grow the food, make the food, make the clothing, make the housing, etc. And, the only thing available for us humans would be to keep ourselves entertained. Would it be necessary to pay ourselves for this busy work? Does it make any sense to think in terms of labor and management?

I believe we are seeing the beginnings of this type of transition into our modern society where the basics (bottom of Maslow's pyramid) are pretty much handled by a very small portion of the work force leaving the bulk of us to try to find a meaningful place in society. As more and more automation occurs, where machines, computers, and robotics replace humanity we may find fewer and fewer relevant careers. So, a socialist base is created to maintain the basics for all, and then in a twisted irony, we chafe at having to work at McDonalds, or Starbucks. When it was really our zeal and intelligence that made our jobs redundant in the first place. Look at how many people it took to make a Model A Ford, versus a modern automobile. Interestingly enough I began my career in the 80's writing educational software, and recently had the opportunity to work with many colleges and universities on educational software once again. Vast strides have been made to move the mechanics of many disciplines into software. For example, music. There now exists software that can listen to how you play a song and rate how technically well you played the notes and met the timing requirements. This means that a music teacher no longer needs to listen one on one with 60 students to review fundamentals. Once the student has met basic goals the teacher can they work with the student on musicality, and expression. This is a common theme here with technology. Computers can easily remove the drudgery and repetition from education leaving the nuances and creativity of thought to well attuned educators. How many educators are prepared to step beyond baby sitting, and teaching more than the fundamentals?

I know you are saying the intelligent thing for our societies would be to drive people to higher learning and enable them to think about tough problems. I think one reality is that IQ 100 is an average. That may mean that for a larger and larger portion of our populations, there is not a real meaningful use for them anymore. Although, again, as Occhi indicated, it might just be in how you define "useful" or "meaningful". So, we enjoy listening to music, watching movies, watching football, and hockey, and even though these people are not rocket scientists they are useful while they can entertain us.

So, then, the modern challenge for humanity is not to become bored to death.