Equality?

[DuncanONeil]

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I value love, oxygen and nature but did not work or pay for them. I know what you are saying but this is another one of those proverb type statements which have some truth but are not entirely valid.

The last sentence is quite true. But one must always analyze "proverbs". In the sense we are speaking neither oxygen nor nature are "given" to you. Love is a very unique entity. As a monopole construct it is nearly worthless and often frustrating. To be truly effective it must be given away, to be returned. And as that dipole construct it gains its true measure of value.

I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!
I do not know the american scholarship system and am also unsure if I understand your point correctly. Personally I do not think the principle - you only get what you work for - is the only principle at work. Often the benefits we received are not the fruits of our labor but the legacy of our parents. I had a good education but did not work for it in the sense you may be implying. The result of that education is an awareness of obligations and my duty to give to my children the same or better than what I received. I do not teach my kid he has to do this to get that. I teach him we do this because it is the right thing to do, it is our way, it is what makes us who we are.

In some respects that is correct. I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue. I worked in the high school to pay a portion of my tuition. I worked in college as well, though many of us do. My scholarship was a result of taking a specific job that if I completed the job I earned a set sum to assist with college.
But back to elementary school, all school actually, if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted. The learning is not a total washout but we do graduate students from high school that can not read.

Let's not forget the country benefits from education. and the government is repaid with the higher taxes paid on the higher wages the educated get. The Chinese work bloody hard but China is poorer than USA. The better education in America creates better skilled workers who create better technologies which increase national wealth. The tax the government receives from it's higher paid better skilled workforce is more than from poorly educated and low paid Chinese. I believe education should be free for all. It is not a cost, it is an investment and a bloody good one at that.

First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved! Yes education is an investment. An investment in the future. But not for the nation, that is a corollary. Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!

The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges.
I agree. Steelish introduced the climb up the corporate ladder point. I moved focus away because the number of people who succeed without education is small compared to the people for whom it would be impossible to succeed without education. The apples dont matter compared to the oranges.

Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top. The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks. To equate them is to diminish humanity a bit I might think. Or it presents an overdependence on formal education to provide all the answers.

PS - I think povery can be defined in terms on the minimum needed to live ie shelter, food, health etc. The country must provide this minimum life support no matter how undeserving the recipients may be. Above that minimum - okay that's a different kettle of apples.

Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?

[Kendal]

But one must always analyze "proverbs".
I cannot really analyse fortune cookies, proverbs, bumper stickers, tea leaves or whatever. Yes there is some truth in them but it is far from the whole truth.

I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue.
Well maybe this is why we all differ. You are talking from your personal background, steelish is talking from the basis of hers and I am not talking from my own personal background just the values and principles I was taught to believe in.

if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted
I said children do work - doing schoolwork. Steelish talked about work meaning doing chores for cash to learn the value of a buck and importance of hard work. Yes of course if they dont apply themselves as student then the education is not entirely wasted but they are not making the most of the opportunity but is this the same work as cash for chores.

First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved!
By free I mean at zero financial cost to student or family. Governments (local-national) should pay for it and have a degree of say in educational matters. My view is obviously different to yours on this one.

Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!
Better than China - but thats not saying much is it. As for Europe-America comparison I'm sure that would be a hot potato (we won't even agree on how to pronounce that word). Everybody benefits from education. The student from better job and pay. The government from more tax and more manageable citizens (unlikely to riot). The country from increased wealth, better products and services etc.

Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top.I am talking percentage. What percent of CEOs in America don't have a degree and also what percent of high earners are in jobs where you can succeed without a degree. The number of people steelish is talking about who made it to the top without education is few both in number and percent.

The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks.
I agree mostly but not entirely. I think back in the days of Henry Ford and the like you would be right but in todays world I am not so sure. Yep a Henry Ford today could probaby have a good garage and be moderately successful but I doubt he could have the same level of success. The difference between now and then is the higher level of technology and knowledge needed. I am not sure on this one but suspect I am right.

Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?
I briefly looked but the moment I saw stats on TV and house ownership I knew my defintion of poor was very different from what was being discussed. By poor I mean eating out of trash cans or not enough to give your kids healthy diets.


PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.

[DuncanONeil]

But one must always analyze "proverbs".
I cannot really analyse fortune cookies, proverbs, bumper stickers, tea leaves or whatever. Yes there is some truth in them but it is far from the whole truth.

Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts. Am I now to conclude that only those things you favor deserve analysis? By implication failure to analyze puts you in a position of, alternately, blindly accepting or blindly dismissing data.

I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue.
Well maybe this is why we all differ. You are talking from your personal background, steelish is talking from the basis of hers and I am not talking from my own personal background just the values and principles I was taught to believe in.

Here you are expressing that which has been clear in a lot of your writings, you assume. Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us. What you are referring to, improperly I think, to a discussion based on values and principles leavened with personal experience.

if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted
I said children do work - doing schoolwork. Steelish talked about work meaning doing chores for cash to learn the value of a buck and importance of hard work. Yes of course if they dont apply themselves as student then the education is not entirely wasted but they are not making the most of the opportunity but is this the same work as cash for chores.

Yes! It is the same!

First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved!
By free I mean at zero financial cost to student or family. Governments (local-national) should pay for it and have a degree of say in educational matters. My view is obviously different to yours on this one.

I have some small concerns of the input of government but as I said, very clearly Congress has no authority to intrude on the prosecution of education. I am very aware that such in not the case in all nations but it is here! The post high school level of education is divided between state schools and private schools. It is clear that the state schools are getting significant support from the state. If the state so chooses to do fine. But the Feds need to take their ball and go home. Lets include the teachers unions in that, they are weakening education as we speak.

Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!
Better than China - but thats not saying much is it. As for Europe-America comparison I'm sure that would be a hot potato (we won't even agree on how to pronounce that word). Everybody benefits from education. The student from better job and pay. The government from more tax and more manageable citizens (unlikely to riot). The country from increased wealth, better products and services etc.

See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
Government (in case it is not yet clear the preceding word in that form refers to the Feds) and teacher unions are an impediment to good education. As a result we are losing our educated base.

Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top.I am talking percentage. What percent of CEOs in America don't have a degree and also what percent of high earners are in jobs where you can succeed without a degree. The number of people steelish is talking about who made it to the top without education is few both in number and percent.

That is really an apocraphyl statement. With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task. Especially including positions below the CEO. But even so we are looking at a set of the US that encompasses a mere 10% of the country. Even a small percent of them is significant. Nobody gives two thoughts about youth that seek to be major league football players and that data set is, in total, only about 850 people nationally! Much smaller than the business community! And it is way easier to start a new business than a new football team.

The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks.
I agree mostly but not entirely. I think back in the days of Henry Ford and the like you would be right but in todays world I am not so sure. Yep a Henry Ford today could probaby have a good garage and be moderately successful but I doubt he could have the same level of success. The difference between now and then is the higher level of technology and knowledge needed. I am not sure on this one but suspect I am right.

1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success. It is the idea and drive. Even the Wright brothers did not do all of their airplanes themselves. Even today I do not need all the knowledge. I do need to know how to find it though. That is where the drive comes in.

Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?
I briefly looked but the moment I saw stats on TV and house ownership I knew my defintion of poor was very different from what was being discussed. By poor I mean eating out of trash cans or not enough to give your kids healthy diets.

This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition. Not so much because things but because there are so many assumptions. The category of "poor" you infer (not define) are infinitesimal. Not to say they are to be ignored. But we need to know what we are talking about. The lifestyle of the officially poor in the US puts the normal life style of some Europeans to shame. No wonder so many want to come here if the poor can live so well. Much of that stuff I did not have growing up, but then a bunch of it did not exist either. I still felt poor though we were, according to the stats, not.

PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a cop out to me!!

[Kendal]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society. Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets). This seems harsh in the extreme to me and I think would not save the taxpayer when they all end up in jail.

I would like to analyze * winks at Duncan * what went wrong because clearly something has. And address that problem. Yes its not easy to fix - but at least we should be trying. The USA can land a man on the moon and a missile on a dime the other side of the world. I think the problem of poverty and employment can be solved.

Duncan - Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts
Correct - but suggesting I analyse a proverb is for me not relevant to a serious discussion on equality and equal opportunit

Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us.y.
Steelish no work no reward views are the result of her parents teachings. Your similar view is based on what you had to do to get to college. My views are based on the output of my education ie my schooling. Both your views are based on what you had to do to get your education.

Yes! It is the same!
Then when I pointed out to steelish that kids do work - they do homework - you agree with me.

I have some small concerns of the input of government
In the UK the national government exercises little control over education other than what is in law (eg every day shall start with an act of worship). Control is linked to funding. So a private school will be self funded and controlled. State schools are run and funded by local government who share control with the school itself. I think it fair control and funding are loosely linked. I appreciate the USA is probably different but I am not talking about how it is as much as how I think it ought to be in both UK, USA.

See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
My point was I believe education should be free and paid for by government (local/national) with help from industry and elsewhere. Students should be able to go as far as their ability not pocket allows. I accept we cannot afford it but nevertheless it is the goal I would strive for and direction I would aim for.

Other issues - teacher unions etc - are other matters. As I said before, if governments were efficient they mostly probably could offer better education and health without extra burden to taxpayer. Problem is they are not.

With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task
I dont think we need to survey all 31 million. There are ways to get stats with sampling. For the poverty stats quoted they didn't run around homes counting TV sets did they. Please - it is possible to get stats and ballpark estimates.

1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success.
The more complex the product, market and business environment the more complex the skill set needed to be successful.

This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition.
It must be possible to work out the minimum needed to support a healthy life. Food, shelter, hygene etc. I am pretty sure it's not that hard to work out. This for me is subsistance level and that is a minimum a government must provide.

Sounds like a cop out to me!!
Correct, it is! I do not want to comment on her personal backgound because that is not the topic and because I do not want her to be offended, which she undoubtably would be.

[steelish]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society. Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets).

Oh yes, you most definitely have that wrong. I never suggested "stopping" welfare. What I am suggesting is to make the system better. Weed out those who take advantage and have the ability to hold a job and choose not to. To enable those who want to work, yet don't have the skills (either because they dropped out of school or some other reason).

No one that I know of wants to "punish" those who truly need welfare in order to spite those who do not.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society.

Which comment can be interpreted as; "If they do not have a job it is not their fault"

Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets). This seems harsh in the extreme to me and I think would not save the taxpayer when they all end up in jail.

Your assumption is predicated on a total lack of charity. Something you have espoused in earlier posts.

I would like to analyze * winks at Duncan * what went wrong because clearly something has. And address that problem. Yes its not easy to fix - but at least we should be trying. The USA can land a man on the moon and a missile on a dime the other side of the world. I think the problem of poverty and employment can be solved.

Thank you for the shout out. The only way that poverty can be eliminated is for everyone to have and make the same. In any other combination those with less will either be considered poor, or consider themselves poor.

Duncan - Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts
Correct - but suggesting I analyse a proverb is for me not relevant to a serious discussion on equality and equal opportunit

If it comes up as part of the discussion it becomes part of the discussion. You trivialize it by refusing to consider it.

Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us.y.
Steelish no work no reward views are the result of her parents teachings. Your similar view is based on what you had to do to get to college. My views are based on the output of my education ie my schooling. Both your views are based on what you had to do to get your education.

Again you are slightly off point. My views did not come about as a result of my earning a place in College. In fact the opposite is true. My views showed that I could earn a way into college. There is a school of thought that explains values; "What you are is where you were when!", Morris Massey.

Yes! It is the same!
Then when I pointed out to steelish that kids do work - they do homework - you agree with me.

And that is supposed to prove what?

I have some small concerns of the input of government
In the UK the national government exercises little control over education other than what is in law (eg every day shall start with an act of worship). Control is linked to funding. So a private school will be self funded and controlled. State schools are run and funded by local government who share control with the school itself. I think it fair control and funding are loosely linked. I appreciate the USA is probably different but I am not talking about how it is as much as how I think it ought to be in both UK, USA.

I note you left the unions out completely!! True I am not intimately conversant with the school system in the UK. But funding comes with strings. Strings from the Government are called mandates. Basically, you take our money you do it our way! Just that economic strings the administration is spreading and pulling in as many areas of the country as possible. Control of the schools should be community based, unfortunately the teacher unions have usurped that role as well!

See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
My point was I believe education should be free and paid for by government (local/national) with help from industry and elsewhere. Students should be able to go as far as their ability not pocket allows. I accept we cannot afford it but nevertheless it is the goal I would strive for and direction I would aim for.

The money is not what we agreed on. It was the goal and outcome of education. The funding is a Pandora's box especially if it comes from Government or is controlled by the union.

Other issues - teacher unions etc - are other matters. As I said before, if governments were efficient they mostly probably could offer better education and health without extra burden to taxpayer. Problem is they are not.

Nor are they flexible or risk takers. The are by nature pedantic and hidebound. Teacher unions are merely myopic!

With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task
I dont think we need to survey all 31 million. There are ways to get stats with sampling. For the poverty stats quoted they didn't run around homes counting TV sets did they. Please - it is possible to get stats and ballpark estimates.

Still requires a huge amount of time and capital to accomplish.

1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success.
The more complex the product, market and business environment the more complex the skill set needed to be successful.

Again the assumption that a single person requires all the knowledge to accomplish the task at hand. I had a contract to deal with. I did not like to focus nor terms of the contract. I read and wrote amendments to the contract. Then I called my lawyer in. Having done what I did we cleared the project in about an hour. It would have taken longer than that to explain my position to the lawyer. Plus the time for him to codify and put to paper the discussion. I am not a lawyer yet I was able to accomplish a law task on my own with a post consult with an expert. This is what I said in the previous message.

This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition.
It must be possible to work out the minimum needed to support a healthy life. Food, shelter, hygene etc. I am pretty sure it's not that hard to work out. This for me is subsistance level and that is a minimum a government must provide.

So basically what you are saying here is that it is the responsibility of the Government to GIVE you;

• a house
• 2,000 calories of food per day
• bath soap
• sampoo
• manicure
• pedicure
• haircut
• free transport to work

That "etc" is real hard to deal with! As well as subsistence, That is as varied as the definition of poor!

Sounds like a cop out to me!!
Correct, it is! I do not want to comment on her personal backgound because that is not the topic and because I do not want her to be offended, which she undoubtably would be.

She already told you such would not be the case!

[steelish]

PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.

If I cannot draw from my own experiences and knowledge of a subject, from where then?

I was offended by your accusations, not your argument.