When should America discriminate?

Bodhisattva said:

Bollocks?

Mate... you are an American in France... not a Pom.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant response ...

Nap said:

Why would you believe that it would please me for you to commit suicide? I was merely giving you a simple solution to your issues with paying US taxes while living abroad (assuming you were telling the truth about never returning)

Click to expand...

Sheer irrelevance.

Moving right along ...

Lafayette said:

Surprise question, isn't it? Some people think never.

I don't, and here is why (from the National Center for Education Statistics) - Infographic:
Percentage distribution of associate's degrees and bachelor's degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2013–14

It is clear (to me) from the above infographic that we should indeed discriminate FOR all those ethnicities that do not have the same postsecondary graduation rate as whites! They need help and they should get it for no cost whatsoever to them.

Not to do so IS discriminatory in that we seem to think that kids who don't get a degree don't deserve one. And yet, without a public-education option at the Tertiary Level (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) that is free, gratis and for nothing America is effectively incarcerating people in relative poverty. And at the moment that discrimination exists at the level of the colour of one's skin as seen from the above infographic.

Nobody except the south of the US questioned who should be "free" from the very beginning of the US. After 1864 that question we thought settled. And yet, the graphic above shows how much ethnicities are not free economically to obtain a work-skills offering postsecondary education.

And, why is this a key distinction? Because, as we exit the Industrial Age we enter the Information Age where higher educational skills will be key to finding decent jobs. And yet, today, it should be obvious to all that slapping products together in a production line is now at a level where robotics applied to virtually all product-lines extant in America has shown us the way.

So, for the future of our country and its racial harmony I suggest that Tertiary Education be made free, gratis and for nothing. Why do I know that's the right thing to do? Well, because I am a Yank who lives in France and I have seen personally what free-education can do here. I spent about $1000 per school year on a post-secondary education for my children here in France, because it is subsidized by the French government.

So, now you understand where Bernie got his idea for free tertiary-education. And why Hillary so willingly accepted it into her election platform that the Federal government should subsidize all Tertiary Education for families with an income below $100K annually. (Because 54K was the median income of American families in 2017 at election time, and so a family of four with two working parents typically had below $100K as total family income.)

That is the investment our country should be making for our young. Or, we'll simply have to pay the tab for the Unemployment that will afflict more and more of our fellow citizens who did not have the means to obtain a postsecondary degree under the existing conditions.

Today, only 46.1% of all Americans have a "post-graduate degree". That is not even half the population! And so, what are the other 54% of the population to do? Well, 14% of them are living their lives below the Poverty Threshold year after year after year.

Which is shameful of a country that could well afford to educate them free, gratis and for nothing.

We need to get our priorities right ...

Click to expand...

So you want to fight discrimination by using discrimination. Maybe the solution should be to get the people who aren't succeeding to change what they want to be a success at. Instead, you want to provide a handout instead of a hand up.

holbritter said:

You obviously do not know that much about how it works. If you are poor, you will go to college for free. It's called Financial Aid. No money out of your pocket, they even pay for books and room and board, and you don't have to pay anything back. For the middle class, you can get education loans. You do have to pay it back though.

So your whole argument is wrong. The people you are talking about can go to college absolutely free.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!! Anyone who can't get the grants and scholarships needed to to school for free is either making too much money (or their parents are), are going to a far too expensive school or are just not trying very hard.

Lafayette said:

Irrelevant response ...

Click to expand...

Bollocks...

Lafayette said:

Both France and the US are coming out of Major Recessions.

Even during those recessions, degree-holders were a lesser part of the unemployed base ...

Click to expand...

The recession has been over for years.

Lafayette said:

There is absolutely no pertinent data that you can site to underscore this remark.

You are wholly beside the point - Education gives possibilities of employment, not reduces them.

Click to expand...

True, only in that it differentiates one person from another, e.g. one is equipped to do the job while another is not.

Lafayette said:

One liners are no response whatsoever in a debate.

The fact of the matter is that education and employment (meaning earnings and unemployment) are indeed directly related to educational achievement. Especially in a country that where the GDP almost entirely Services Industries oriented.

Moving right along ...

Click to expand...

And you think if everyone had a college degree they'd automatically get better earnings?

Bullseye said:

And you think if everyone had a college degree they'd automatically get better earnings?

Click to expand...

I don't "think that". I know that!



You want to dispute the statistical facts? Be my guest. Go find the stats that indicate the contrary to that which is demonstrated above ...

Bullseye said:

True, only in that it differentiates one person from another, e.g. one is equipped to do the job while another is not.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is true in any society or educational system.

But, we must not remain blind to the factual evidence:
*Jobs change. We are leaving the Industrial Age and entering the Information Age, for which a higher level of training/learning (best designated by diplomas) have already taken the lead in the Services Industry Economy that the US (and most of the Western World) has become.
*Either we evolve in that same direction, and we are not because of the high-costs of Tertiary Education in America, or as a Services-Industry based economy we submit to the consequences.
*And too evolve adequately as an job-creating economy, we must make Tertiary Education as easy to obtain as Secondary Education. That is free, gratis and for nothing* ...

Wanna chose between the two? I think the choice happens to be evident ...

*Meaning this:
-The above is precisely what Hillary was proposing. She had taken that leaf from Bernie's campaign-book. (And Bernie had learned it from Europe.)
-Post-secondary Education subsidized by the Federal government at state-schools. For all families the total compensation of which is less than $100K per year.
-And despite the fact that she won the popular-vote, she was not made PotUS. (Because the US is a "backwards democracy" due to an archaic popular-vote manipulation called the Electoral College.)

Bullseye said:

The recession has been over for years.

Click to expand...

Dream on.

The downward evolution of wages has been longer than just the Great Recession. And because it is long-term, it is embedded in the economy. Only fundamental change will alter it.

That is, it will take more than just wishful-thinking, or a Donald Dork PotUS, to improve wage-rate fundamentals.

Look at wage-rate evolution over the period in question (from here):


Note that we are exactly in the same position (in terms of "wage and salary growth") as in the latter half of the 1960s - between zero and 5% p.a. ...

PS: And that correction could have started had Hillary won the election, because she promised free Tertiary Education to all families with incomes of less than $100K (total income). Really-dumb is as really-dumb does ...

Lafayette said:

Wrong again. You are making a bad habit of it.

There is no justification of the above comment. It is wholly nonsensical.

Find the data to support your allegations. There is none ...

Click to expand...

No data? Seriously? Maybe in France but here in the States a graduate walking away with a degree in biotech or computer science or any of the engineering fields is almost guaranteed to be walking straight into a well-paying position whereas a degree in art history or Etruscan art is guaranteed to be working into a Starbucks as an apprentice barista. No data? Really, have you even looked? Here's a Google search to help you

Lafayette said:

I don't "think that". I know that!

You want to dispute the statistical facts? Be my guest. Go find the stats that indicate the contrary to that which is demonstrated above ...

Click to expand...

not disputing the general fact that college grad make more, I'm saying how much more and how many are unemployed depends on what their major is. AND the reason for both - less unemployment AND better PAY is because there are fewer of them than the general public. IF you start giving everyone a "free" education you increase the competition for jobs, which lowers salaries. Simple relationship, really.

PAY THE COST

Bullseye said:

IF you start giving everyone a "free" education you increase the competition for jobs, which lowers salaries. Simple relationship, really.

Click to expand...

You are afraid of job-market competition, evidently.

The improvement in general education has effects upon both Demand and Supply. People with higher salaries have better jobs and spend their money in better ways (for families).

The US has one of the most over-crowded penitentiary systems in America. When you look who inhabits these jails, it is for the most part a highly uneducated group of people.

Ask yourself Whyzzat?

From here: Inmate Education Levels

Prisoners are significantly less educated than the general population of adults. When looking at the educational level of inmates, it is clear there is a deep need for education. It’s twice as common for inmates to have only a grade eight education or less, and a high percentage of prisoners don’t have a high school diploma or equivalent or a college education. Learning disabilities are common and prisoners with an ethnic minor background tend to have lower education levels.

Click to expand...

Americans don't want free (or nearly free) national post-graduate education? So they pay the cost of their shortsightedness in higher crime rates ...

bullseye said:

no data? Seriously? Maybe in france but here in the states a graduate walking away with a degree in biotech or computer science or any of the engineering fields is almost guaranteed to be walking straight into a well-paying position whereas a degree in art history or etruscan art is guaranteed to be working into a starbucks as an apprentice barista. No data? Really, have you even looked? here's a google search to help you

Click to expand...

Then put the data up for all to see and discuss !!!!!!

Lafayette said:

Surprise question, isn't it? Some people think never.

I don't, and here is why (from the National Center for Education Statistics) - Infographic:
Percentage distribution of associate's degrees and bachelor's degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2013–14

It is clear (to me) from the above infographic that we should indeed discriminate FOR all those ethnicities that do not have the same postsecondary graduation rate as whites! They need help and they should get it for no cost whatsoever to them.

Not to do so IS discriminatory in that we seem to think that kids who don't get a degree don't deserve one. And yet, without a public-education option at the Tertiary Level (vocational, 2- or 4- or more years) that is free, gratis and for nothing America is effectively incarcerating people in relative poverty. And at the moment that discrimination exists at the level of the colour of one's skin as seen from the above infographic.

Nobody except the south of the US questioned who should be "free" from the very beginning of the US. After 1864 that question we thought settled. And yet, the graphic above shows how much ethnicities are not free economically to obtain a work-skills offering postsecondary education.

And, why is this a key distinction? Because, as we exit the Industrial Age we enter the Information Age where higher educational skills will be key to finding decent jobs. And yet, today, it should be obvious to all that slapping products together in a production line is now at a level where robotics applied to virtually all product-lines extant in America has shown us the way.

So, for the future of our country and its racial harmony I suggest that Tertiary Education be made free, gratis and for nothing. Why do I know that's the right thing to do? Well, because I am a Yank who lives in France and I have seen personally what free-education can do here. I spent about $1000 per school year on a post-secondary education for my children here in France, because it is subsidized by the French government.

So, now you understand where Bernie got his idea for free tertiary-education. And why Hillary so willingly accepted it into her election platform that the Federal government should subsidize all Tertiary Education for families with an income below $100K annually. (Because 54K was the median income of American families in 2017 at election time, and so a family of four with two working parents typically had below $100K as total family income.)

That is the investment our country should be making for our young. Or, we'll simply have to pay the tab for the Unemployment that will afflict more and more of our fellow citizens who did not have the means to obtain a postsecondary degree under the existing conditions.

Today, only 46.1% of all Americans have a "post-graduate degree". That is not even half the population! And so, what are the other 54% of the population to do? Well, 14% of them are living their lives below the Poverty Threshold year after year after year.

Which is shameful of a country that could well afford to educate them free, gratis and for nothing.

We need to get our priorities right ...

Click to expand...

It would be helpful if you had information about why the students who attended college weren't graduating before advocating for a solution that may not solve that problem.

Lafayette said:

Dream on.

The downward evolution of wages has been longer than just the Great Recession. And because it is long-term, it is embedded in the economy. Only fundamental change will alter it.

That is, it will take more than just wishful-thinking, or a Donald Dork PotUS, to improve wage-rate fundamentals.

Look at wage-rate evolution over the period in question (from here):

Note that we are exactly in the same position (in terms of "wage and salary growth") as in the latter half of the 1960s - between zero and 5% p.a. ...

PS: And that correction could have started had Hillary won the election, because she promised free Tertiary Education to all families with incomes of less than $100K (total income). Really-dumb is as really-dumb does ...

Click to expand...

You do understand you chart shows wage GROWTH right? so it show a continuous path of increased wages with the exception of the 2007-2009 recession. So thanks for posting a chart the supports what I've been saying.

Lafayette said:

PAY THE COST



You are afraid of job-market competition, evidently.

Click to expand...

No, my point was higher competition means lower wages.

Lafayette said:

The improvement in general education has effects upon both Demand and Supply. People with higher salaries have better jobs and spend their money in better ways (for families).

Click to expand...

Not by magic, which you seem to be implying. Better education equates to being able to qualify for higher paying jobs.

Lafayette said:

The US has one of the most over-crowded penitentiary systems in America. When you look who inhabits these jails, it is for the most part a highly uneducated group of people.

Click to expand...

Probably true, and for the most part those individuals dropped out of school or were expelled for behavior. The education was available to them, they chose not to use it.

Lafayette said:

Ask yourself Whyzzat?

From here: Inmate Education Levels

Americans don't want free (or nearly free) national post-graduate education? So they pay the cost of their shortsightedness in higher crime rates ...

Click to expand...

What exactly do you think these pictures and graphs prove? Prisoners were never denied education, they chose to get it up.

Bullseye said:

No, my point was higher competition means lower wages.

Click to expand...

Not always, it depends. Economics is not a simple as some think.

Bullseye said:

Not by magic, which you seem to be implying. Better education equates to being able to qualify for higher paying jobs.

Click to expand...

In general, yes. But there are other criteria that enter into consideration. As reflected here:

Meaning economics is not as much of a science as we might like to think. There are other sociological factors that enter into account. After all, the science of economics is about humans. We manifest highly unpredictable qualities.

Unlike planets that constantly but boringly orbit about a sun

Bullseye said:

Probably true, and for the most part those individuals dropped out of school or were expelled for behavior. The education was available to them, they chose not to use it.

Click to expand...

There has been no real study of why kids leave school. But, it would seem to me, that it happens because of the lack of parental guidance in the matter of education? Children of parents with advanced degrees tend to obtain advanced degrees. (It becomes a "good habit" class-wise.)

Bullseye said:

What exactly do you think these pictures and graphs prove? Prisoners were never denied education, they chose to get it up.

Click to expand...

Nope, I disagree. You think that whatever caused a prisoner to be jailed was justified because it was volitional.

Volition (the fact of being able to chose) is conditioned by class circumstance. I am the child of uneducated immigrants and yet went on to university.

I suspect that migrants want their children to "be better" than they themselves are; but that does not mean ipso facto, that they will insist that they get an education. Especially when the cost is so very high ...

AliHajiSheik said:

It would be helpful if you had information about why the students who attended college weren't graduating before advocating for a solution that may not solve that problem.

Click to expand...

That "may not solve the problem"?

Look at the data-chart I posted (from here).

IT DOES SOLVE THE PROBLEM ... !

Lafayette said:

That "may not solve the problem"?

Look at the data-chart I posted (from here).

IT DOES SOLVE THE PROBLEM ... !

Click to expand...

No, it may solve a different problem, but not why graduation rates among enrolled students varies by race. That was what you posted and then you went off on a different issue of actually getting into college and barriers to that. If people in college aren't graduating, how will that improve by adding more students?

AliHajiSheik said:

No, it may solve a different problem, but not why graduation rates among enrolled students varies by race. That was what you posted and then you went off on a different issue of actually getting into college and barriers to that. If people in college aren't graduating, how will that improve by adding more students?

Click to expand...

What you do not seem to understand:
1. Half the secondary-school graduates are NOT going on to a post-secondary education.
2. Of those that do, a significant percentage are failing to complete.

One must ask, therefore, the question, "What is happening"?

It could very well be that they cannot afford the money for even a six-month Vocational Training? And the fact that an Associate's or Bachelor's degree costs $10K a year is beyond their means?

So why shouldn't we provide them a post-secondary education that costs them exactly the same amount as a secondary-schooling degree?

Instead of spending about half the Discretionary National Budget on the DoD ... ?

I like the analogy of America to sports. There are men's sports and women's sports, yet this is not considered discrimination. People, of common sense, accept the fact that there are differences in skills and work ethic, and that men are naturally larger and stronger than women. Sport is divided to allow both men and women to participate. They all play by the same rules, with natural selection choosing the best in both men and women's sports. It is not humans choosing, so they can stack the deck in his own favor. This is natural selection. In terms of sports, blacks are over represented in terms of demographics. This is fine, because they have been naturally selected and people don't mind nature deciding.

The confusion with natural selection, comes from left defining equality in terms of results, and not in terms of the opportunity to compete by the same rules. In sports, anyone can go out for any team. Natural selection will narrow this down to the best team in terms of performance. The left thinks the final team needs to be picked in advance, without regards to natural selection. This may mean different rules for different people until there is only coed sports that look like America in color proportions. They prefer artificial selection that benefits them politically, since they are not natural, and natural does not favor them. They pretend to favor natural, as a disguise, to hide unnatural tendencies.

For example, if we pick baseball players, naturally, it is about who can field and hit the best. If we pick an intellectual sport team; DOE, why is not about the scores of standardized tests? If we choose citizen lawfulness as the criteria for the team, why not have the variety team decided by no criminal infractions? In all cases, the rules are the same for all, and natural selection chooses based on natural propensities. Those with the right stuff score the best in each area. The left does not like nature to decide since nature will not choose unnatural.

at
America should discriminate against terrorists.