View Poll Results: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • no regulation

    6 16.67%
  • regulate for safety

    26 72.22%
  • level the playing field

    8 22.22%
  • penalize unwanted industry

    5 13.89%
  • strengthen government

    3 8.33%
  • reasonable costs so businesses can thrive

    16 44.44%
  • moderate to severe regulations to control industry

    2 5.56%
  • help nationalize industry by placing undue burdens on businesses

    1 2.78%
  • other...

    7 19.44%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45

Thread: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

  1. #31
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I like this formulation, both A and B. Now the question becomes how do you define the public's needs and its importance?

    As an example, does the public need the detailed financial reporting, from a publicly traded company, specified by Sarbanes-Oxley in order to attempt to stop another Enron scandal from occurring? Is it important enough to outweigh the reporting burden on companies. Many companies would say no as it is a heavy burden.
    I don't think the companies should be the main voices here. They are going to go off of what is best for their owners or shareholders, not what might be best for their clients or the general health.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  2. #32
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    College is not and should not be mandatory. We should not offer it for free. We are not a social democracy. You can make a fine living without a college education.

    The basic problem I see with what you are saying is that you think you can produce an educated populous by mandating it. The reality is that the drop-out rate is skyrocketed. People who need it are not getting educated through the capable school system already in place. There is no way to wave a wand so that they are suddenly ready for college.

    It is a situation that is impervious to regulation.
    No, you cannot make a fine living without a college education anymore. Instead, you make a basic living, usually below the poverty line or with the help of food stamps and other welfare. That is not a "fine" living.

    And consider, the drop-out rate is skyrocketed under the current system, not my system. But why is that so?

    It is because people are having a tougher time affording college. They are unable to pay for it or find loans for it, and so they must enter the work force without a college education and thus are denied the opportunity to apply for better jobs.

    So it is not government-provided education that is causing these drop-out rates but rather the lack of money or credit to continue to pay for post-secondary education.

    So what is likely to happen to those who are unable to attain a post-secondary education because of the high costs involved? One of two things.

    The first is that they get an entry-level job and never leave that level. While they may have a high degree of experience, they have little to no formal training or education in their field. That makes it less likely for them to get a job despite having the skills for that job - they lack a certified piece of paper saying they are qualified, which is a barrier to employment.

    The second thing is that they go into criminal enterprises. Search on Google for news reports about the increase in prostitution in our country due to the Great Recession we're currently in. People are becoming prostitutes in order to earn an income. The reason why is because currently the job market is so bad that they must resort to prostitution because there's a demand for it.

    Now imagine that a person is perpetually denied access to a job market because they lack a post-secondary education to possess a qualified occupational or academic training. What do they do to earn income? They resort to criminal enterprises, such as prostitution, in order to earn an income. Only they don't possess any skills to get out of prostitution.

    This shows why increasing access to education helps to reduce the crime rate. In order to understand this, you have to look at crime in an economic light and view it as an illegal business.

    Criminals whose crimes earn money (such as drug crimes, prostitution, gambling, burglary, theft, contract killing) don't commit crimes because "they are just criminal" or because "they are just evil;" rather, they commit those crimes because one doesn't need any training in those criminal ventures. You don't need too much training in order to get clients as a prostitute. You don't need too much training to hook people on addictive drugs and get them to pay for that product. That is one reason why criminals start to commit crimes - there are low barriers to entry and they require few skills to start.

    But who becomes such criminals? They are people who are 1) young, 2) minorities, 3) from impoverished areas. Why do people in these demographics start to commit crimes?

    The young do it because they have trouble competing in job markets because their youth makes them inherently unskilled compared to others. They simply haven't had the time to learn skills that allows them opportunity in job markets. Now, this is supposed to offset by post-secondary education that they can access with student loans and scholarships - however, for those who cannot gain access to student loans or scholarships, many become criminals just to earn an income.

    Minorities do it for a variety of reasons, most of them relating to ethnic disparity. In the past, minorities were discriminated against, making it difficult for them to enter the job market. Thus, they resort to crime to earn an income. However, there is also the cost of imprisonment factored into that, which is a burden to them and their dependents. And because their initial poverty is a barrier to opportunity, as is their criminal record, they must either continue criminal ventures to earn a viable income or resort to lower paying entry-level jobs. Because of this, they cannot afford to send their children to college and don't have the skills themselves to train their children on marketable job skills. That means that their children are taught to be criminals as well simply because it is the only job opportunity available to them. So they become career criminals just so they can earn a living. And the cycle continues, until it is broken by such efforts as affirmative action, which allows minorities to enter job markets that were denied to them before and allows them access to legitimate professional skills so they no longer have to be criminals in order to earn an income.

    Impoverished areas are much the same as above. People who are from impoverished areas usually immediately enter the work force in order to earn income. This keeps many of them in entry-level positions instead of allowing them opportunity to occupations where they can demand higher income. This continues the cycle of poverty, which they can break easier by going on criminal business ventures to earn a greater income.

    So increasing access to post-secondary education and occupational skills will help reduce crime rates because more of the population will have easier access to marketable skills. Fewer people will be required to resort to criminal enterprises in order to earn an income, and so will reduce the crime rate overall.

    Another reason why I'd like tax-paid post-secondary education for all Americans is because of the disparity of income for graduates. Basically, all students pay the same for all credits in a college. However, graduates don't earn the same amount of income when they enter the job market. So while a 4-year degree for engineering costs the same as a 4-year English degree, an engineer earns more money than an English major does.

    This is important when it comes to paying off student loans. Equal costs for degrees that allows people to earn unequal incomes mean that some types of professional accrue more debt than other types of professionals. Those who earn less find it a tougher time to pay off those loans. This is a further barrier to economic prosperity.

    But allowing tax-paid post-secondary education will help offset that. I would also try to make the costs of education for a profession be relative to the income that such a professional could earn. That would decrease the disparity to paying back student loans between different professional areas and, should a tax-paid post-secondary education system arise, help reduce costs to taxpayers. (And I must admit I got this idea from Jeb Bush and Eric Cantor, who are both conservatives.)

    And, effectively, everyone needs a post-secondary education nowadays. Plumbers need not only job skills for plumbing but also education on environmental impacts of sewage and waste. Auto mechanics need more education on computer skills as cars and trucks become more computerized in order to increase the time of diagnosing problems with the automobile. Secretaries require more computer skills for a variety of programs and formats used to store and present information. Professional trades that were historically easy to enter into have become less so because of the increase in the need for formal education related to that professional field.

    I am not naive enough to say that this system will end poverty in our country. However, I think it will reduce it. I also think it becomes more and more necessary as more and more professions rely more and more on automation and computerization.
    Last edited by samsmart; 06-01-10 at 06:34 AM.

  3. #33
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    We can barely afford to pay the teachers K-12... now is not the time for this. Besides, like Reef said... we don't need another entitlement program.
    This is because we don't increase taxes enough to pay for them. I would place a progressive tax on all businesses in order to pay for it, as the government should tax those businesses for providing an educated populace for those businesses to benefit from rather than requiring businesses to incur the costs of educating and training the populace themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    I made it through 5 years of college basically paying for all of it with loans. Now that I have a degree, I will get a job and pay back my loans. It may take some time to pay them back, but it was all worth it. Money is not an issue here... you just need decent grades.
    But not all degrees pay the same amount of income, despite the cost for 4-year degrees being the same. Also, jobs aren't guaranteed once you get a degree. I have several friends who are deep in debt with student loans who are having trouble finding jobs that they can get to earn income to pay them back. I saw one story about a woman who got her law degree, has $50,000 in student loans to pay off, but can't get hired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Everyone is given choices in life. If you decide to waste your life with video games, gang involvement, drugs, etc... you have only yourself to blame. Every child in the U.S. is given the opportunity to make something of themselves. They just need to grow up and learn how things work in this country.
    Exactly my point. Which is why I think people should be able to have better access to learn how things work in this country by providing them with a tax-paid post-secondary education.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Yes... but that doesn't mean kids will take advantage of the great opportunities they are given.
    Well, I was just pointing out that the original reason why we started the public education system was to help people gain job skills so they can earn a living. I think we should continue this to a single opportunity at a post-secondary degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    I bet a majority of those in poverty never strove to do well in high school and don't know any applicable skills anyways... besides pushing a button on an order taking screen.
    Well, they probably strove to do well in high school, however I believe that a high school education isn't enough for entry-level positions.

    Also, a person can't really help the high school education they receive as they have no say in it. I mean I came from a rural area, and so there was very little emphasis put on the sciences (physics, chemistry) or mathematics, and more emphasis put on more basic things. Also, high school curriculums can be exceedingly misleading. Take, for example, the fight in Texas with regards to conservative leaning social studies, or in Kentucky regarding the inclusion of Intelligent Design. Basically, our current system for high school education doesn't adequately prepare students for college. Ask any college educator - they'll tell you. So when we don't adequately prepare high schoolers for college, is it any wonder that they don't do well in college?

    People need basic occupational training as well, which high school just doesn't provide. And of course they don't have any applicable skills - they have to pay someone to teach them those applicable skills, but can't because they're poor. Which means that for them to learn an applicable skill, they have to rely on on-the-job training. Which employers don't want to do because it increases their operating costs because their goal is to make a profit for their business, not provide applicable skills for people. So poor unskilled people lose out on hiring opportunities as employers favor skilled people they don't have to pay to train. Leaving the poor impoverished and unskilled. Which continues the vicious cycle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Sorry but this is ridiculous. Like I said... everyone is given an opportunity to learn in this country. But each person needs to make the choice to work hard and make something of themselves. Why would kids who don't try hard in high school try to get into college? You try hard in high school to get into college... THEN after high school and you have proven you are responsible and are able to handle the task of learning, you are given the opportunity to get into college. This opportunity doesn't, and SHOULDN'T, just fall in your lap. These people choose crime because it's easier than studying or reading a book. Life is full of choices, and these people have made theirs.
    We don't require kids to earn the opportunity to go from PreK to elementary school. we don't require kids to earn the opportunity to go from elementary school to middle school. We don't require kids to earn the opportunity to go from middle school to high school. Likewise, we shouldn't require kids to earn the opportunity to go from high school to college, or university, or to a trade school. This should especially be the case when it is in college and university and in a trade school when people learn the skills they need to earn an income on their own and become self-sufficient. By keeping the ability for people to learn occupational skills so high, is it any wonder that they become dependent on the state for income? Instead of going to the state for income through welfare or food stamps, I'd rather people go to the state to learn marketable skills to get them off of welfare and food stamps.
    Last edited by samsmart; 06-01-10 at 07:00 AM.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    No, you cannot make a fine living without a college education anymore. Instead, you make a basic living, usually below the poverty line or with the help of food stamps and other welfare. That is not a "fine" living.

    And consider, the drop-out rate is skyrocketed under the current system, not my system. But why is that so?

    It is because people are having a tougher time affording college. They are unable to pay for it or find loans for it, and so they must enter the work force without a college education and thus are denied the opportunity to apply for better jobs.

    So it is not government-provided education that is causing these drop-out rates but rather the lack of money or credit to continue to pay for post-secondary education.
    Well, Sam, we completely disagree and I think you are completely fooling yourself.

    You can make a fine living without a college degree. You can join the military, or you can succeed as a plumber, electrician, carpenter, construction, cook, small business owner, secretary, etc. You do not need a college degree for these endeavors.

    The problem with drop-outs is not because people are having a tougher time affording college! That really made me laugh. Kids are barely finishing high school with the preparation for college. Many can't read. Many poor kids drop out of high school years before they are college age. It has nothing to do with college being unaffordable to them. They can't or won't do the work in high school! The get enticed by the easy money of crime. For whatever the reason, they are not candidates for college.

    The fact that you want to expand the budget to include college education, when we are in the midst of severe budget problems getting worse, is just perfect for a tax and spend liberal. I will fight you tooth and nail over this stupid proposal. Typical liberal nonsense.

  5. #35
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    The difference is that regulations are proactive while the legal system is reactive. If I eat a burger that's toxic and then sue, I've already been harmed and the makers already have my money. If there is a food inspector checking to make sure the restaurant is using proper sanitary practices, I don't get sick in the first place and the restaurant doesn't have to worry about being sued.
    It wouldn't have to be. In an ideal situation, before a factory could start up, they would have to work out deals with neighbors to determine how much they can pollute and how much they have to pay for that pollution. But like I said, we don't do that in this country, so that is why I said only regulate for pollution.

    Besides, stuff still happens even with an FDA. We get E. Coli scares and all kinds of things. We don't need them. Any company that wanted to keep a good reputation would make sure themselves to keep food safe.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  6. #36
    Educator ronpaulvoter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 04:25 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    627

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Regulation should be VERY limited.

    In nearly every case, government regulations go FAR beyond what is reasonable and thus destroy our economic base.

    Most busineses should not be regulated at all. Even safety, which a lot of people are voting for, can be self-regulated. Businesses that are unsafe or produce unsafe products, lose their clienteles, and thus, their profits.

    About the only things that should be regulated are monopolies and quasi-monopolies, like public utilities. But even here, the regulations should NOT be excessive.

  7. #37
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Exactly my point. Which is why I think people should be able to have better access to learn how things work in this country by providing them with a tax-paid post-secondary education.
    I'm not sure about your schools, but I learned how things work in the U.S. and the world at my middle and high school. I didn't need college to understand how to do math, learn about science, read and write in English well, learn about history, and learn about our cultures.

    I attended classes, did assignments, read books, studied, and worked my ass off for good grades. And that is how I got into college... good grades. Why would a college want to waste tax payer's money by allowing someone with straight Cs, Ds and Fs to get into their college? They clearly didn't care about their grades in high school... one can assume the same behavior would continue in college. Some could say that tax payers money is already being wasted on these failing students by continuing to have them stay in high school... but I think all kids should have access to a basic education... it's up to them to take advantage of that opportunity and continue their education after high school.


    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    People need basic occupational training as well, which high school just doesn't provide. And of course they don't have any applicable skills - they have to pay someone to teach them those applicable skills, but can't because they're poor. Which means that for them to learn an applicable skill, they have to rely on on-the-job training. Which employers don't want to do because it increases their operating costs because their goal is to make a profit for their business, not provide applicable skills for people. So poor unskilled people lose out on hiring opportunities as employers favor skilled people they don't have to pay to train. Leaving the poor impoverished and unskilled. Which continues the vicious cycle.
    Yes, you have to pay for further education. People can be motivated to do well in school in part because they don't want to waste their money.

    And EVERY job has some training. But you can't go into a job without ANY applicable skills and expect to get the job over someone who knows more than you. If you want to become an electrician, learn about electricity. You can't expect the employer will hold your hand every step of the way, but they will show you how to safely handle working with electricity and show you the proper ways of setting things up and how to use the tools they use. Same goes for any other job that doesn't require a college degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    We don't require kids to earn the opportunity to go from PreK to elementary school. we don't require kids to earn the opportunity to go from elementary school to middle school. We don't require kids to earn the opportunity to go from middle school to high school. Likewise, we shouldn't require kids to earn the opportunity to go from high school to college, or university, or to a trade school. This should especially be the case when it is in college and university and in a trade school when people learn the skills they need to earn an income on their own and become self-sufficient. By keeping the ability for people to learn occupational skills so high, is it any wonder that they become dependent on the state for income? Instead of going to the state for income through welfare or food stamps, I'd rather people go to the state to learn marketable skills to get them off of welfare and food stamps.
    If after 12+ years of schooling they haven't learned any applicable job skills or skills that can get them into a college... that is their own fault. Ever heard of a book? Or the internet? Or a public library? The public library usually has both of those things. There are more places the learn on your own than I think you realize. You don't need a school or a teacher to learn. Hell, many of the things I know about the world I learned from reading and from the internet.

  8. #38
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    It wouldn't have to be. In an ideal situation, before a factory could start up, they would have to work out deals with neighbors to determine how much they can pollute and how much they have to pay for that pollution. But like I said, we don't do that in this country, so that is why I said only regulate for pollution.
    We could never do that, and it wouldn't be ideal. That would create so much red tape that it would make doing business all but impossible. I agree that we should regulate for pollution. I like the idea of just taxing people based on the amount of pollution they produce (with more severe kinds of pollution incurring higher taxes).

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez
    Besides, stuff still happens even with an FDA. We get E. Coli scares and all kinds of things.
    True, every now and then, something will be missed by the regulators. That doesn't mean that the regulations aren't necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez
    We don't need them. Any company that wanted to keep a good reputation would make sure themselves to keep food safe.
    The fact that there are examples of companies NOT doing this should be all the evidence you need that that isn't always true.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #39
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Well, Sam, we completely disagree and I think you are completely fooling yourself.
    It's fine that we disagree. I don't think I'm fooling myself at all, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    You can make a fine living without a college degree. You can join the military, or you can succeed as a plumber, electrician, carpenter, construction, cook, small business owner, secretary, etc. You do not need a college degree for these endeavors.
    No you don't. However, you do need to go to a trade school for the majority of the occupations you've mentioned. And it takes money for one to go to a trade school as well. And not everybody has the money for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    The problem with drop-outs is not because people are having a tougher time affording college! That really made me laugh. Kids are barely finishing high school with the preparation for college. Many can't read. Many poor kids drop out of high school years before they are college age. It has nothing to do with college being unaffordable to them. They can't or won't do the work in high school! The get enticed by the easy money of crime. For whatever the reason, they are not candidates for college.
    Well, you are correct in that they get enticed by the easy money for crime rather than do well in school. But that's why I also think that we should cut the salaries of education administrators and teachers in the public school system by a certain percentage and then use that money to pay students who get good grades.

    After all, in the real world we don't demand that people perform an action for free. Neither should we expect the same from our children. So if we want our kids and teenagers to learn, we should pay them for their labor in that process. With such an incentive, I think kids and teens would apply themselves better to an education. They would also better learn how to apply that education to making an income for themselves. So instead of throwing all this money at everything but the students like we've been doing for the past 70 years, lets throw some money directly at the students to get them interested in learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    The fact that you want to expand the budget to include college education, when we are in the midst of severe budget problems getting worse, is just perfect for a tax and spend liberal. I will fight you tooth and nail over this stupid proposal. Typical liberal nonsense.
    I didn't necessarily say I wanted to expand the budget. What I would do is I would reduce other entitlement programs by a certain percentage and then use that money for this program. For instance, I would reduce the money in food stamps since people would need less food stamps because they'd better be able to acquire a job and buy food for their own self.

    And I may try to pass a progressive tax on businesses to pay for it. After all, my proposal would increase the quality of our workforce that our businesses has access to. Smaller businesses would pay less than larger businesses. And this would be of benefit to businesses since the pool of quality workers would be expanded. The better my workers are, the better the services I can provide. The better the employees of the businesses whose goods and services I consume, the better services I can receive. It's a win all around.

    And I think this is better than your proposals, which is have kids go up to high school, get deep into debt with loans to try to pay off their education, and, along with the debt they get into with a mortgage, car payment, car insurance, and health insurance, clear enough to also pay for their utilities, gas, and food at the end of the week. I mean the sole reason why we are in the great recession we're in is because people have been living on credit. Student loans and loans for education and job training is a part of that. My plan would help make the populace be better educated and better trained and give them access to opportunities they wouldn't have had otherwise.

  10. #40
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    I'm not sure about your schools, but I learned how things work in the U.S. and the world at my middle and high school. I didn't need college to understand how to do math, learn about science, read and write in English well, learn about history, and learn about our cultures.
    Well, you're right in that I had somewhat of a skewed elementary and high school education. I went to a parochial school in a rural area, so much of I what I learned was justification of religious principles. So that might be totally anectdotal, and I admit that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    I attended classes, did assignments, read books, studied, and worked my ass off for good grades. And that is how I got into college... good grades. Why would a college want to waste tax payer's money by allowing someone with straight Cs, Ds and Fs to get into their college? They clearly didn't care about their grades in high school... one can assume the same behavior would continue in college. Some could say that tax payers money is already being wasted on these failing students by continuing to have them stay in high school... but I think all kids should have access to a basic education... it's up to them to take advantage of that opportunity and continue their education after high school.
    If a kid made straight Cs, Ds, and Fs in high school, then they likely won't want to go to college. However, they are going to have to learn some kind of job skills. Which is why I would also want to do this for trade schools, so at the very least those mediocre students have access to learning a professional occupational skill. I think that truck drivers and plumbers and carpenters and the like are just as important as any academic occupation, and we should help those people become tradesmen if they want to take the opportunity for it. And if they don't want to take the opportunity for learning a trade at the government's expense, then so be it - I wouldn't make it mandatory that they go.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Yes, you have to pay for further education. People can be motivated to do well in school in part because they don't want to waste their money.
    But not everyone has the money to invest in an education. So even if they wanted to do well in school, those wouldn't have access to the money needed to get an education.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    And EVERY job has some training. But you can't go into a job without ANY applicable skills and expect to get the job over someone who knows more than you. If you want to become an electrician, learn about electricity. You can't expect the employer will hold your hand every step of the way, but they will show you how to safely handle working with electricity and show you the proper ways of setting things up and how to use the tools they use. Same goes for any other job that doesn't require a college degree.
    How can someone safely learn about electricity? Primarily by going to a technical school. What can those who can't afford it do? Go into debt and hope the job market is good enough to pay back the loan as well as pay for a mortgage, car, fuel, food, and health insurance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    If after 12+ years of schooling they haven't learned any applicable job skills or skills that can get them into a college... that is their own fault. Ever heard of a book? Or the internet? Or a public library? The public library usually has both of those things. There are more places the learn on your own than I think you realize. You don't need a school or a teacher to learn. Hell, many of the things I know about the world I learned from reading and from the internet.
    I've learned many things on the internet as well. However, most of those things are only on an intellectual level, and not at all at a professional level needed to earn a suitable income. Reading about things can only take a person so far. At some point, they'll need experience and a teacher to help guide and mentor their education and acquisition of marketable skills.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •