jerseyhoya wrote:He's stubborn and old and dumb. I would not be at all surprised if he continues to run for reelection.

GO AWAY PLZ

if he steps aside due to the indictment it is actually a blessing for republicans

dajafi wrote:Brooks the Thinker shows up today, big-time:

Between 1870 and 1950, the average American’s level of education rose by 0.8 years per decade. In 1890, the average adult had completed about 8 years of schooling. By 1900, the average American had 8.8 years. By 1910, it was 9.6 years, and by 1960, it was nearly 14 years.
...
America’s edge boosted productivity and growth. ....It’s not globalization or immigration or computers per se that widen inequality. It’s the skills gap. Boosting educational attainment at the bottom is more promising than trying to reorganize the global economy.

It's sort of painful that discussions like this are limited to the editorial page; the election really should be fought out on this as much as or more than the nonsense both candidates are emphasizing.

I'm with you that Brooks has found an appropriate ballpark. My discomfort is that he comes at it wielding the intellectual/rhetorical equivalents of a hockey stick & a hula hoop.

That is, he literally believes skill levels are the issue, rather than the "ownership" broadening (redistribution for you, joiseyhoya - I ain't afraid of them pinko commie-type terms) they can (but are by no means guaranteed to) produce.

More years of school or training have no straight line correlation with "true" increases in skills. I'll concede they may correlate nicely with endless volumes of "bowling trophy"-quality credentialling, which of course is not the same thing at all.

Moreover, do I really need better plumbers, electricians, or respiratory therapists if we're all better off with structural changes that allow us essentially to 'pretend' more of us are doing useful "skillsy" work, while enjoying the output of a system that is actually more productive?

If I'm king I want FEWER people with their hands on the controls, and am prepared to trade off considerably more bread, chocolates & circuses if everyone (or a lot more people, particularly those who just do not have requisite abilities, or the energy to apply them) just get out of the way, and act more like owners (the "real" american dream) than operators.

It worked for TR away back at the turn of the 20th century - he was good with reduced work hours as a way to give more people more 'engagement' (can just picture how he'd spit out that horribly maltreated word).

Some amusing political links

Reading this garbage is harmful. We have evidence.

Ah, I remember when my kind of people were comfortable in the Republican Party.

drsmooth wrote:I'm with you that Brooks has found an appropriate ballpark. My discomfort is that he comes at it wielding the intellectual/rhetorical equivalents of a hockey stick & a hula hoop.

That is, he literally believes skill levels are the issue, rather than the "ownership" broadening (redistribution for you, joiseyhoya - I ain't afraid of them pinko commie-type terms) they can (but are by no means guaranteed to) produce.

Maybe I'm missing something here... but the economic impact of more widely distributed "credentialing" (perhaps a more neutral term than "skills") is that you need not do as much redistribution to bring about a relative gain in equality. As our President once said, it "makes the pie higher."

One probably could argue citizenship/democracy benefits too, but I'm less comfortable with that one.

drsmooth wrote:More years of school or training have no straight line correlation with "true" increases in skills. I'll concede they may correlate nicely with endless volumes of "bowling trophy"-quality credentialling, which of course is not the same thing at all.

Moreover, do I really need better plumbers, electricians, or respiratory therapists if we're all better off with structural changes that allow us essentially to 'pretend' more of us are doing useful "skillsy" work, while enjoying the output of a system that is actually more productive?

I'd include all three of those categories as "skillsy" work. To me, the distinction is between high school completion or less and post-secondary certificate or more, with trades apprenticeship most definitely in the second bucket. I know plenty of advanced degree holders who make a lot less than plumbers; that they have some theoretical class advantage, grounded in dubious 19th century values. probably gives them less comfort than the great vacation to which the plumber can treat himself, his wife and kids.

drsmooth wrote:If I'm king I want FEWER people with their hands on the controls, and am prepared to trade off considerably more bread, chocolates & circuses if everyone (or a lot more people, particularly those who just do not have requisite abilities, or the energy to apply them) just get out of the way, and act more like owners (the "real" american dream) than operators.

It worked for TR away back at the turn of the 20th century - he was good with reduced work hours as a way to give more people more 'engagement' (can just picture how he'd spit out that horribly maltreated word).

The big trend in our labor market, given the disappearance of the industrial economy and the decline of unions, is that credentials determine compensation. This might or might not be justified--for myself, I know I make more money than plenty of people who work harder, in terms of physical exertion or hours spent on the clock--but it does seem to correlate with economic standing and some measure of output. I'd be happy enough if we could just level the starting line and do more to help people finish (by which, again, I mean any kind of post-secondary credential).

pacino wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:It's more complicated than just that... Obama has to consider a variety of factors... if he goes with richardson then it's a Black and a Latino, that can work pro it can work con. Same with a woman. Does he want 2 first on his ticket at the same time? On the other hand, I think a governor and a state like NM can do him some good. Biden feels very forced and un-natural. There was a time when I thought Biden could be very presidential himself, and kind of stood for something. A small unknown state like Delaware isn't going to help Obama very much. Historically, have 2 Senators ever won the White House?

There are many more factors than just playing to your strength rather than trying to cover a weakness.

AHHHHH OVERLOAD

BTW, there would be one full white guy on the ticket if Obama and Richardson were to be it. They'd have all their bases covered, and it certainly matters the ethnicity of the candidate. I factor that into my decision when I vote.

I don't know what you beef is?

Are you saying that no portion of the voting populace will care about Black, Latino and Female? That it's ludicrous to discuss a running mate in those terms? There's no way around the hype of the "first Black president" and it might be a positive or a negative to add the first "female Vice President" etc... that's all I'm saying. There are a variety of factors. He could also go for someone older kind of a Cheney to Bush factor. Didn't Dukakis have an older guy, the whole "you're no John Kennedy" to Quayle thing...?

I have no problem with Biden, he can do the job and play the part. I don't know that he adds a lot of voters for Obama. NM was a swing state and in the SW the Latino vote is substantial. Richardson could be helpful.

All I'm saying is that playing to your strength or trying to cover a gap -- isn't the only basis to decide the best running mate.

dajafi wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I'm with you that Brooks has found an appropriate ballpark. My discomfort is that he comes at it wielding the intellectual/rhetorical equivalents of a hockey stick & a hula hoop.

That is, he literally believes skill levels are the issue, rather than the "ownership" broadening (redistribution for you, joiseyhoya - I ain't afraid of them pinko commie-type terms) they can (but are by no means guaranteed to) produce.

Maybe I'm missing something here... but the economic impact of more widely distributed "credentialing" (perhaps a more neutral term than "skills") is that you need not do as much redistribution to bring about a relative gain in equality. As our President once said, it "makes the pie higher."

One probably could argue citizenship/democracy benefits too, but I'm less comfortable with that one.

drsmooth wrote:More years of school or training have no straight line correlation with "true" increases in skills. I'll concede they may correlate nicely with endless volumes of "bowling trophy"-quality credentialling, which of course is not the same thing at all.

Moreover, do I really need better plumbers, electricians, or respiratory therapists if we're all better off with structural changes that allow us essentially to 'pretend' more of us are doing useful "skillsy" work, while enjoying the output of a system that is actually more productive?

I'd include all three of those categories as "skillsy" work. To me, the distinction is between high school completion or less and post-secondary certificate or more, with trades apprenticeship most definitely in the second bucket. I know plenty of advanced degree holders who make a lot less than plumbers; that they have some theoretical class advantage, grounded in dubious 19th century values. probably gives them less comfort than the great vacation to which the plumber can treat himself, his wife and kids.

drsmooth wrote:If I'm king I want FEWER people with their hands on the controls, and am prepared to trade off considerably more bread, chocolates & circuses if everyone (or a lot more people, particularly those who just do not have requisite abilities, or the energy to apply them) just get out of the way, and act more like owners (the "real" american dream) than operators.

It worked for TR away back at the turn of the 20th century - he was good with reduced work hours as a way to give more people more 'engagement' (can just picture how he'd spit out that horribly maltreated word).

The big trend in our labor market, given the disappearance of the industrial economy and the decline of unions, is that credentials determine compensation. This might or might not be justified--for myself, I know I make more money than plenty of people who work harder, in terms of physical exertion or hours spent on the clock--but it does seem to correlate with economic standing and some measure of output. I'd be happy enough if we could just level the starting line and do more to help people finish (by which, again, I mean any kind of post-secondary credential).

The truly troubling thing, and I'm not sure Brooks mentions this, and I really don't think it's a political issue at all, is how college attendance among males appears to be declining.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I'm with you that Brooks has found an appropriate ballpark. My discomfort is that he comes at it wielding the intellectual/rhetorical equivalents of a hockey stick & a hula hoop.

That is, he literally believes skill levels are the issue, rather than the "ownership" broadening (redistribution for you, joiseyhoya - I ain't afraid of them pinko commie-type terms) they can (but are by no means guaranteed to) produce.

Maybe I'm missing something here... but the economic impact of more widely distributed "credentialing" (perhaps a more neutral term than "skills") is that you need not do as much redistribution to bring about a relative gain in equality. As our President once said, it "makes the pie higher."

One probably could argue citizenship/democracy benefits too, but I'm less comfortable with that one.

drsmooth wrote:More years of school or training have no straight line correlation with "true" increases in skills. I'll concede they may correlate nicely with endless volumes of "bowling trophy"-quality credentialling, which of course is not the same thing at all.

Moreover, do I really need better plumbers, electricians, or respiratory therapists if we're all better off with structural changes that allow us essentially to 'pretend' more of us are doing useful "skillsy" work, while enjoying the output of a system that is actually more productive?

I'd include all three of those categories as "skillsy" work. To me, the distinction is between high school completion or less and post-secondary certificate or more, with trades apprenticeship most definitely in the second bucket. I know plenty of advanced degree holders who make a lot less than plumbers; that they have some theoretical class advantage, grounded in dubious 19th century values. probably gives them less comfort than the great vacation to which the plumber can treat himself, his wife and kids.

drsmooth wrote:If I'm king I want FEWER people with their hands on the controls, and am prepared to trade off considerably more bread, chocolates & circuses if everyone (or a lot more people, particularly those who just do not have requisite abilities, or the energy to apply them) just get out of the way, and act more like owners (the "real" american dream) than operators.

It worked for TR away back at the turn of the 20th century - he was good with reduced work hours as a way to give more people more 'engagement' (can just picture how he'd spit out that horribly maltreated word).

The big trend in our labor market, given the disappearance of the industrial economy and the decline of unions, is that credentials determine compensation. This might or might not be justified--for myself, I know I make more money than plenty of people who work harder, in terms of physical exertion or hours spent on the clock--but it does seem to correlate with economic standing and some measure of output. I'd be happy enough if we could just level the starting line and do more to help people finish (by which, again, I mean any kind of post-secondary credential).

The truly troubling thing, and I'm not sure Brooks mentions this, and I really don't think it's a political issue at all, is how college attendance among males appears to be declining.

As the 70's faded and the last vestiges of the dynamism of the 60's had been either dilluted or comodofied, and grandpa Reagan came in to usher in the era of the power-tie -- we went from a terrain of education to certification. From I want to learn mentality and learn how to think and question, to a "if I do this, what will I get mentality". Along with this continued the trend of killing off unions and reducing the well paid manufacturing and jobs to a service sector economy in which now WalMart is the kingpin. (ironic aside -- close friend's wife is an in-house lawyer for WalMart and they let her work 10 hours a week keep her high salary and full bennies -- nothing like what they do for the retail workers)

So the terms need to be better defined. It's not just a correlation between so-called 'education', something abstract in most conversations, and technology, something also very broad and many-faceted in its meaning. Things become ubiquitous -- like cell phones, internet ... but it isn't necessarily a sign of progress or a more literate or skilled populace.

We still have massive class divides in this country. And there are many things wrong. The educational systems are the way the are largely, to keep the masses down, pre-occupied watching Entertainment tonight, eating Kraft Mac n Cheese and getting a pink phone for their kids... sports, Disneyland and enough education to covet and use these technologies and particiapte in these cultural distractions, but not ask too many questions -- be easily herded and manipulated into mythologies about terrorists and bogeymen, and tie a yellow ribbon around a brain that has been mal-nourished and mal-stimulated.

Philly the Kid wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I'm with you that Brooks has found an appropriate ballpark. My discomfort is that he comes at it wielding the intellectual/rhetorical equivalents of a hockey stick & a hula hoop.

That is, he literally believes skill levels are the issue, rather than the "ownership" broadening (redistribution for you, joiseyhoya - I ain't afraid of them pinko commie-type terms) they can (but are by no means guaranteed to) produce.

Maybe I'm missing something here... but the economic impact of more widely distributed "credentialing" (perhaps a more neutral term than "skills") is that you need not do as much redistribution to bring about a relative gain in equality. As our President once said, it "makes the pie higher."

One probably could argue citizenship/democracy benefits too, but I'm less comfortable with that one.

drsmooth wrote:More years of school or training have no straight line correlation with "true" increases in skills. I'll concede they may correlate nicely with endless volumes of "bowling trophy"-quality credentialling, which of course is not the same thing at all.

Moreover, do I really need better plumbers, electricians, or respiratory therapists if we're all better off with structural changes that allow us essentially to 'pretend' more of us are doing useful "skillsy" work, while enjoying the output of a system that is actually more productive?

I'd include all three of those categories as "skillsy" work. To me, the distinction is between high school completion or less and post-secondary certificate or more, with trades apprenticeship most definitely in the second bucket. I know plenty of advanced degree holders who make a lot less than plumbers; that they have some theoretical class advantage, grounded in dubious 19th century values. probably gives them less comfort than the great vacation to which the plumber can treat himself, his wife and kids.

drsmooth wrote:If I'm king I want FEWER people with their hands on the controls, and am prepared to trade off considerably more bread, chocolates & circuses if everyone (or a lot more people, particularly those who just do not have requisite abilities, or the energy to apply them) just get out of the way, and act more like owners (the "real" american dream) than operators.

It worked for TR away back at the turn of the 20th century - he was good with reduced work hours as a way to give more people more 'engagement' (can just picture how he'd spit out that horribly maltreated word).

The big trend in our labor market, given the disappearance of the industrial economy and the decline of unions, is that credentials determine compensation. This might or might not be justified--for myself, I know I make more money than plenty of people who work harder, in terms of physical exertion or hours spent on the clock--but it does seem to correlate with economic standing and some measure of output. I'd be happy enough if we could just level the starting line and do more to help people finish (by which, again, I mean any kind of post-secondary credential).

The truly troubling thing, and I'm not sure Brooks mentions this, and I really don't think it's a political issue at all, is how college attendance among males appears to be declining.

As the 70's faded and the last vestiges of the dynamism of the 60's had been either dilluted or comodofied, and grandpa Reagan came in to usher in the era of the power-tie -- we went from a terrain of education to certification. From I want to learn mentality and learn how to think and question, to a "if I do this, what will I get mentality". Along with this continued the trend of killing off unions and reducing the well paid manufacturing and jobs to a service sector economy in which now WalMart is the kingpin. (ironic aside -- close friend's wife is an in-house lawyer for WalMart and they let her work 10 hours a week keep her high salary and full bennies -- nothing like what they do for the retail workers)

So the terms need to be better defined. It's not just a correlation between so-called 'education', something abstract in most conversations, and technology, something also very broad and many-faceted in its meaning. Things become ubiquitous -- like cell phones, internet ... but it isn't necessarily a sign of progress or a more literate or skilled populace.

We still have massive class divides in this country. And there are many things wrong. The educational systems are the way the are largely, to keep the masses down, pre-occupied watching Entertainment tonight, eating Kraft Mac n Cheese and getting a pink phone for their kids... sports, Disneyland and enough education to covet and use these technologies and particiapte in these cultural distractions, but not ask too many questions -- be easily herded and manipulated into mythologies about terrorists and bogeymen, and tie a yellow ribbon around a brain that has been mal-nourished and mal-stimulated.

But c'mon. The self-important spoiled pricks who wrote the Port Huron Statement back in 1962 said pretty much the same thing.

I find this debate actually somewhat interesting. I've long held the belief that our main problem is an increasing desire to solve common sense problems with academic thought. But how do you undo that process and way of thinking? Is it even possible?

FTN wrote:I find this debate actually somewhat interesting. I've long held the belief that our main problem is an increasing desire to solve common sense problems with academic thought. But how do you undo that process and way of thinking? Is it even possible?

We can't solve common sense problems not because of academic obfuscation, but because of class interests. Because a lot of common sense competes with the bottom line. It's common sense to not let corporations pollute, but then they'd have to shut down. And what is common sense to me, may not be to you. When people think their interpretation of the Bible is unfallable and trumps anything else, then we ahve competing views and conflict.

I live in a neghborhood that has a lot of cafes, bars, bistros... and a big park. I've lived here long enough to see some things change -- we have several big music events in the park now. To some, it's a horror, to others its a great celebration. To some it's common sense to keep our 'hood nice for those who live here and not wreck the park and sell beer to knuckleheads who converge. To others, it's common sense to use the park and have music and festivity and boost business for the small businesses in the 'hood.

You can never get a consensus on what constitutes "common sense".

dajafi wrote:Maybe I'm missing something here... but the economic impact of more widely distributed "credentialing" (perhaps a more neutral term than "skills") is that you need not do as much redistribution to bring about a relative gain in equality. As our President once said, it "makes the pie higher."

I'm not so concerned with "neutrality" as "reality", a meaningful distinction as you've indicated in a later portion of your reply.

dajafi wrote:To me, the distinction is between high school completion or less and post-secondary certificate or more, with trades apprenticeship most definitely in the second bucket. I know plenty of advanced degree holders who make a lot less than plumbers; that they have some theoretical class advantage, grounded in dubious 19th century values. probably gives them less comfort than the great vacation to which the plumber can treat himself, his wife and kids.

I agree with you here. I think.

dajafi wrote:The big trend in our labor market, given the disappearance of the industrial economy and the decline of unions, is that credentials determine compensation. This might or might not be justified....

But isn't this Brooks' confusion? He appears to contend that if we can run more people through credentialling mills we'll enjoy an exhilarating, and REAL, productivity updraft.

Count me as skeptical. I'm more inclined to see it as reinforcing spurious, divisive, non-productive, marginal "class" distinctions, and increasing the level of confusion about what constitutes productivity.

Philly the Kid wrote:You can never get a consensus on what constitutes "common sense".

I'm not a Marxist (jhoya - really!!), but it's hard to get common when distribution of economic clout is uncommon - Pareto optimal, you might say.

One person, one vote is a handy, but not especially hefty, counterweight, as political issues are of less pressing concern when one's belly is full, one's tivo operational, and one's cellphone is soon to be a coveted (today, old news tomorrow) smartphone.

Sure, let's let people earn in to some more balanced level of economic equity. Make it easier for everyone to up their skills -because skills is what makes Bill Gates Bill Gates, right? :goddammitwherestherolleyesemoticonanymore:

The concept makes sense - if not 'common' sense - but it's frankly of diminishing relevance in a world where skills are treated dismissively, discounted heavily, in favor of obeisance to 'personality' and the power of ownership concepts that have stagnated even as the economic & technological forces that undergird them have mutated dramatically over the past 50-75 years.

Philly the Kid wrote:

pacino wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:It's more complicated than just that... Obama has to consider a variety of factors... if he goes with richardson then it's a Black and a Latino, that can work pro it can work con. Same with a woman. Does he want 2 first on his ticket at the same time? On the other hand, I think a governor and a state like NM can do him some good. Biden feels very forced and un-natural. There was a time when I thought Biden could be very presidential himself, and kind of stood for something. A small unknown state like Delaware isn't going to help Obama very much. Historically, have 2 Senators ever won the White House?

There are many more factors than just playing to your strength rather than trying to cover a weakness.

AHHHHH OVERLOAD

BTW, there would be one full white guy on the ticket if Obama and Richardson were to be it. They'd have all their bases covered, and it certainly matters the ethnicity of the candidate. I factor that into my decision when I vote.

I don't know what you beef is?

Are you saying that no portion of the voting populace will care about Black, Latino and Female? That it's ludicrous to discuss a running mate in those terms? There's no way around the hype of the "first Black president" and it might be a positive or a negative to add the first "female Vice President" etc... that's all I'm saying. There are a variety of factors. He could also go for someone older kind of a Cheney to Bush factor. Didn't Dukakis have an older guy, the whole "you're no John Kennedy" to Quayle thing...?

I have no problem with Biden, he can do the job and play the part. I don't know that he adds a lot of voters for Obama. NM was a swing state and in the SW the Latino vote is substantial. Richardson could be helpful.

All I'm saying is that playing to your strength or trying to cover a gap -- isn't the only basis to decide the best running mate.

Delaware is bigger than New Mexico, and Biden is certainly more influential than Richardson on a national level. I'd rather Richardson be helpful because he was, you know, good at his job. Which he is, but still. Sheesh! This whole crap about trying to find the best candidate to try to bring some section of the voting populous to the polls IS ludicrous. Get a guy(or gal, WHO CARES) that can bring VOTERS to the polls, not black voters or white voters or female voters or gay transexual black hippie voters.

We are soooo stuck in the 60s and 70s.


BTW, the Justice Department was hiring people on the basis of their political leanings, and Monica Goodling (remember her?) purposely prevented a lady from finding employment because she heard rumors she heard rumors hte lady was gay. This is our civil service...and people still wonder whether unions are necessary.

pacino wrote:Delaware is bigger than New Mexico

No

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Delaware is bigger than New Mexico

No

Delaware--3 counties, 2 at high tide.

You are right, but it's close. I just found that hilarious...New Mexico is some important state with 1.2 millon people, and Delaware is an impossibly small state with a mere 600K people. So I flipped the populations in my mind, whatever.

But, of course that negates everything else I wrote, so you all got me! ptk is right, let's all pick everyone by race and state! I respectfully bow out and let you all go back to talking about how we can get a certain percentage of latinos and Virginians and such.

1,954,599 - New Mexico
853,476 - Delaware

Honestly I didn't even read the rest. I also didn't read what p-t-k wrote. I'm trying to finish a project so I can leave work in time to be in my seat with a beer in by hand at Nats Park by first pitch.

Going on track records, I'm sure what you're saying makes more sense on the whole, but when your post starts off with something blatantly wrong it really loses some of its value.

They must be hiding those people out in New Mexico, because I saw no one while I was there.

pacino wrote:They must be hiding those people out in New Mexico, because I saw no one while I was there.

~16 people per sq mile in NM, vs 437 in Delaware, & 278 in Pennsy

western states=big

These two graphs do a good job of summarizing what's most annoying to me about politics. I know these disparities are logical and expected to a certain extent, but still

I use the top one in my American government class! I think it really explains a lot.