[mycroft]

My concerns about trade pacts is that it always seems to be bad for every country - People have been saying that NAFTA was bad for US labour and bad for Mexico; well, apart from the stuff already present in the Auto Pact, it was bad for Canada as well. I wonder who they're good for.

I don't think this is necessarily the case with trade pacts; just the ones that get negotiated recently. Apart from everything above (and I will push the ISDS in particular), the three things that get me are Data Security (i.e. the fact that, from customers/employees to companies, there is to be none, remove any you have (EU, we're looking at you)), the migration of some of the more draconian copy"right" proceedings from the MPAA to the rest of the world, and the fact that these deals are negotiated in such secrecy that the intent is for the public to know what's in it the day after it's ratified by your government and not before.

Why? I'm sure it's because we're going to be happy with what's in it, and they want to give us a pleasant surprise for our birthday.

A minor concern is that it seems like the free flow of manufacturing is guaranteed, but the free flow of retail is "grey market" and a big no-no. So, you can use the fact that living is much cheaper in Bangladesh to make your products, but I can't use that fact to buy them there? Interesting.

PMI will probably happen - but it's another thing that will be fought against tooth and nail - because the big companies won't let the "hey, it's crap, but it's this or starve, right?" lever go very easily. It's just too useful (the so-called "gig economy" or "choose your hours and your clients" jobs will disappear save for those who actually want to gig, for instance, if their employees "independent contractors" have an alternative to "volunteering").

[Al_U_Card]

mycroft, on 2016-September-29, 09:24, said:

My concerns about trade pacts is that it always seems to be bad for every country - People have been saying that NAFTA was bad for US labour and bad for Mexico; well, apart from the stuff already present in the Auto Pact, it was bad for Canada as well. I wonder who they're good for.

Negociators, bureaucrats that apply and oversee the regulations and corporations that have access to whatever locale provides the best profitability.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-29, 09:17, said:

How do we overcome the "let's go back to the Wild West good old days" mentality in sufficient numbers to pass constructive legislation that is for the benefit of the many rather than the few?

You don't have to, if you restrict the passage of legislation that controverts individual rights, liberties and freedoms. Legislating to "fix" problems invariably ends up creating more problems than before, with an extra layer of bureaucracy added into the mix, for good measure. Currently, the addition of riders and other items of special interest into laws make them fraught with danger. Less is actually more.

[kenberg]

Quote

This is another area where I think that competing realistic ideas would be very welcome. I need to see a seriously ill friend but I will come back to this later. Opportunity is very good. I am not positive that free college is so good. It might, as is often the case, depend on the details.

Winstonm, on 2016-September-29, 09:17, said:

How do we overcome the "let's go back to the Wild West good old days" mentality in sufficient numbers to pass constructive legislation that is for the benefit of the many rather than the few?

In brief: Huh?

I'll confess to having somewhat ill-formed ideas here but I will try.

There are many differences between high school and college. A big difference, I think, is that choice is involved. I finished elementary school when I was 13, and then I went to high school. No choice. I finished high school when I was 17, and I chose to go to college. I chose which college, I chose a major, I gave some thought to why I was doing this. Affordability was involved. I think 17 is a good age to be thinking about all of this.

There should be a thought based decision to go on to college, and performance based financial help would be a push in that direction. I don't want to overstate this, I want everyone to have the opportunity. But I don't think it is good, and especially I don't think it is good for the young person, to have this opportunity in the form: Well, you are 17, you graduated from hs, so of course you go on to college. No charge, and no planning needed.
A 17 year old needs to be thinking about her/his plans and how to accomplish them . As the old saying goes, If not now, when? Given effort on his/her part I am fine with spending public money to help make opportunity available.


Something like the above is where I am at. I'm open to thought on this. I think that 17 year olds are ready to largely take responsibility for their own lives and I think we should work with them on this but leave many of the choices and much of the effort to them.

I don't think of this as the Wild West. I'm a cowboy who never saw a cow, never roped a steer cause I don't know how.....

[Phil]

Not a fan of FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE unless.....Wait for it...it's a MOOC or at least an online degree.

Brick and mortar education is so last century and Uncle Sam doesnt need to subsidize these to the tune of 30, 40, 50k a year...or more simply so high school grads get to enjoy that 'college experience'.

Subsidizing JUCO + 2 years at university is only marginally better.

Whatever we do, these should be treated like ROTC, etc.. so when you get out, you get to use your degree and get some experience giving back and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.

[kenberg]

I disagree with the last part of the above. Too much like indentured servitude. Give help or don't give help, but when the student is done with college s/he is done.


Again going on my personal experience. When I stated college I barely knew what grad school was. I liked math, people told me that if I liked math I should be an engineer, I scanned the engineering programs and it appeared EE and Aero were the most math heavy so I flipped a mental coin and chose EE. As I got going and learned more i switched to Physics and then to Math. Grad school and being a Prof were ideas that came later.

If the idea, or part of it, is to help kids from non-academic backgrounds, my background was seriously non-academic. I learned, and I have a store of memories. One being early in college when I was asked if I would like to go with some folks to see the Monet exhibit and i said "Who's Monet?" This became something of a punchline for cluelessness.

I think it is very reasonable to expect a 17 year old to address life seriously. But don't expect those from non-academic (NB I did not say disadvantaged, I said non-academic) background to know the details of where they are headed. As to ROTC, I got the sales pitch from them at a mandatory session on a variety of topics before classes started. Fortunately I had worked for a while as a door to door salesman and I knew a con job when I heard one.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-September-29, 13:19, said:

In brief: Huh?

I'll confess to having somewhat ill-formed ideas here but I will try.

There are many differences between high school and college. A big difference, I think, is that choice is involved. I finished elementary school when I was 13, and then I went to high school. No choice. I finished high school when I was 17, and I chose to go to college. I chose which college, I chose a major, I gave some thought to why I was doing this. Affordability was involved. I think 17 is a good age to be thinking about all of this.

There should be a thought based decision to go on to college, and performance based financial help would be a push in that direction. I don't want to overstate this, I want everyone to have the opportunity. But I don't think it is good, and especially I don't think it is good for the young person, to have this opportunity in the form: Well, you are 17, you graduated from hs, so of course you go on to college. No charge, and no planning needed.
A 17 year old needs to be thinking about her/his plans and how to accomplish them . As the old saying goes, If not now, when? Given effort on his/her part I am fine with spending public money to help make opportunity available.


Something like the above is where I am at. I'm open to thought on this. I think that 17 year olds are ready to largely take responsibility for their own lives and I think we should work with them on this but leave many of the choices and much of the effort to them.

I don't think of this as the Wild West. I'm a cowboy who never saw a cow, never roped a steer cause I don't know how.....

Let me try again. Can you imagine any of the current Republican Congressmen or Senators agreeing to raise taxes in order to pay for a public service that does not benefit the the top 1%? In my view, this group leans toward libertarian ideology, which to my thinking is not far off from yipee-o-kay-ay let's go back to the days when men were men mindset.

[barmar]

There are pros and cons to the "give back" idea of free college tuition.

I think I've heard of rural areas that have no (or too few) nearby doctor sponsoring one of their best college students to go to medical school, on the condition that they'll come back and take up a practice there. There's a specific need, so it's a win-win situation for both. Presumably the student was already planning to go to med school, so he's just being constrained on where he practices and perhaps his specialty.

But this type of thing seems like a special case. For most people, the point of making college free is that it's an investment in the future of the country. In order to compete in the global economy, we need a more educated workforce. A generation or two ago there were lots of manufacturing jobs that paid a good salary to people with at most a high school education. Those have practically all dried up in this country. While some people can still make a decent living without a college education (Ken has talked about his children in the past), it's more the exception than the rule.

As for Richard's idea that we just guarantee a certain income, but not earmark it specifically for college, is that really workable? Would that minimum income really be enough to both live on and also pay for college? I just assume that the free college plan would be on top of whatever general welfare we provide. So everyone gets to eat and have a roof over their head, and if you also want to go to college you get that as well.

Germany, one of the most vibrant economies these days, has free college tuition.

[shyams]

barmar, on 2016-September-29, 18:00, said:

As for Richard's idea that we just guarantee a certain income, but not earmark it specifically for college, is that really workable? Would that minimum income really be enough to both live on and also pay for college? I just assume that the free college plan would be on top of whatever general welfare we provide. So everyone gets to eat and have a roof over their head, and if you also want to go to college you get that as well.

The UK (or more specifically, England) has a structure akin to this. A graduate student (UK citizen) can draw a loan for their education. The loan becomes payable if, and only if, the student goes on to work in a job that earns him/her £xx,xxx per year (I think it's £21k). Students who never attain that salary will never have to pay back the loan. Those who earn more than £21k will have a capped payment in excess of £21k --- in other words, a person earning £22k will have to make a mandatory payment which is significantly lower than a person earning £52k.

If I recall from a past news report, the UK Govt recovers only 45%-50% (not sure if this includes accrued interest) of the loan funds -- the rest never become payable.

[Elianna]

kenberg, on 2016-September-29, 16:02, said:

I disagree with the last part of the above. Too much like indentured servitude. Give help or don't give help, but when the student is done with college s/he is done.

We (at least in CA, I don't know if it's statewide or nationwide) have something that is a twist on this. Instead of signing up ahead of time to "give back", if a someone has worked for (I believe 3+) in certain public service jobs (for example - teaching at a school where a certain percentage of students receive free or reduced lunch) and have a college loan, they can apply for loan forgiveness.

So it's not a promise that they MUST fulfil, but an extra bonus if they are working at a high needs but not as high-paying job.

[kenberg]

Elianna, on 2016-September-29, 21:20, said:

We (at least in CA, I don't know if it's statewide or nationwide) have something that is a twist on this. Instead of signing up ahead of time to "give back", if a someone has worked for (I believe 3+) in certain public service jobs (for example - teaching at a school where a certain percentage of students receive free or reduced lunch) and have a college loan, they can apply for loan forgiveness.

So it's not a promise that they MUST fulfil, but an extra bonus if they are working at a high needs but not as high-paying job.

I think (but like you I am unsure) that something like this is nationwide. It seems to me that it might be better to simply have some sort of bonus pay for working in challenging educational environments, thereby encouraging everyone whether or not they have a loan. Seems simpler. But subject to details, I can support such efforts.

I regard educational inequality as more serious than income inequality. Of course they are strongly linked. If I recall correctly, you are contributing to the solution here. It is important.

Anyway, going off to college was, like many things, easier when I did it in1956 than it is now. This is not good.

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2016-September-29, 09:24, said:

My concerns about trade pacts is that it always seems to be bad for every country - People have been saying that NAFTA was bad for US labour and bad for Mexico; well, apart from the stuff already present in the Auto Pact, it was bad for Canada as well. I wonder who they're good for.

There is a lot of human nature in this. The trade agreements are for the most part good for everyone involved but naturally there are some that lose out. Since it is a big issue for the losers (and their families) and not an issue at all for the winners it is often politically useful to portray such deals as bad and to take the side of the losers, at least in the rhetoric. Add the basic tendency for people always to feel that someone else is doing well at their expense where governments and corporations are concerned and you can see why most major pacts are unpopular, particularly at times of economic turbulence such as those we have seen for the last years.

So first find out what the real facts are surrounding NAFTA and similar agreements. Things may be bad now (possibly depending on your viewpoint) but how would they be different if it was not in place? And would the effects be different if the economies had performed better? As a general rule, the relaxation of tariffs favours the companies in the stronger economy and the workers in the weaker one. I do not know the details of NAFTA but it would not surprise me if it followed this same basic trend. Very likely, American companies have done well while some jobs have been outsourced that otherwise might not have been. The American government has almost certainly done well through the additional tax return generated.

Does that make America a winner or a loser? Well, that rather depends on whether you know someone whose job got outsourced or not. And of course anyone who did lose their job is going to blame NAFTA even if the position would have been lost without it. That is the nature of these things. So the negatives get magnified in the eyes of a certain group, while the positives are hidden behind the general economic malaise.

There is an alternative of course. The government could put up punitive trade tariffs and make sure everyone gets assigned a job in the home economy. Something like the USSR in the 70s. Somehow I doubt that is what DT is looking for though! Out of interest, has he actually specified how he plans to force American companies not to outsource? The truth is I cannot ever remember hearing any specific policy detail coming from the DT campaign. Perhaps that is not surprising over here in Europe though as I do not follow things too closely. Are there any details so far?

[y66]

The bump cameth. +1 to cherdano

[Elianna]

kenberg, on 2016-September-30, 06:18, said:

I think (but like you I am unsure) that something like this is nationwide. It seems to me that it might be better to simply have some sort of bonus pay for working in challenging educational environments, thereby encouraging everyone whether or not they have a loan. Seems simpler. But subject to details, I can support such efforts.

I regard educational inequality as more serious than income inequality. Of course they are strongly linked. If I recall correctly, you are contributing to the solution here. It is important.

I agree with you about educational inequality being a serious problem, and support your suggestion about offering incentive to work at a low SES school. The problem is that most schools are funded by local tax dollars, and it's a lot easier to get more money from a higher tax base.

There are some very interesting books on educational inequality if anyone is interested.

[kenberg]

Elianna, on 2016-September-30, 19:29, said:

I agree with you about educational inequality being a serious problem, and support your suggestion about offering incentive to work at a low SES school. The problem is that most schools are funded by local tax dollars, and it's a lot easier to get more money from a higher tax base.

There are some very interesting books on educational inequality if anyone is interested.

Jot down a couple of suggestions if you will. My thoughts on the subject tend to be a jumble.

[Elianna]

kenberg, on 2016-September-30, 20:38, said:

Jot down a couple of suggestions if you will. My thoughts on the subject tend to be a jumble.

Two really interesting ones are by Howard Kozol: Savage Inequalities and Shame of the Nation.

The latter is more recent, but the former has more details about what specifically makes schools unequitable (and history behind it).

You can see a microcosm of the inequitable pay scale in the Bay Area. Palo Alto andEast Side Union (in San Jose) are close enough that you can reasonably work at either and not have it affect your commute too much. But if you click on each you can find the payscales. For teachers who are good enough to have choices, you can see where the monetary incentive is.

Of course, not all people make purely monetary choices (I'm very lucky that I don't have to), but then again - this is the Bay Area and housing especially is under severe pressure.

(I don't work for either of the two districts linked, but my school loses a lot of 2+ years teachers to other districts and the most cited reason of people leaving is salary. Of course, there are other reasons among which the most prominent is fatigue of putting so much emotion into the job because of teaching such high needs students - one can get tired and want an easier job that pays more. I certainly keep getting tempted right around December/May.)

[kenberg]

I read a bit from the samples that Amazon provides for Shame of the Nation. He speaks a lot about the stultifying effects of a rigid approach to learning and I agree. What to do about it? I suppose I have to buy the book and read it!

Views differ. When I was maybe a junior in college I was surprised to see on campus someone I knew in both elementary school and high school. He had not gone on to college right away but there he was and we chatted. He wanted to be a high school teacher. Then he went on to say he wanted to be just like Mr. K., our biology teacher. Mr. K. was at the top of my list of teachers that I could not stand. One of my teachers had an alcohol problem and was often pretty well soused by the time I reached his sixth period class. I preferred him to Mr. K., an authoritarian who had little knowledge of and no interest in the subject he was teaching. So you never know who will be admired.

Education experts have told me more than once that a teacher really does not need any great knowledge of the material as long as s/he has mastered the education courses. I beg to seriously differ. All of the teachers that I respected had a deep interest in the subject that they were teaching. And there was another trait, now that I think about it. Many of the best could be truly disappointed in me. I don't mean that they said "I am disappointed in you Kenneth". I mean they were disappointed and you could see it. I got a scholarship and it took an obvious emotional effort for my Freshman/Sophomore Spanish teacher to congratulate me on it. It made an impression. We need such people.

Anyway, I liked what I read of Shame. Thanks.

[mike777]

kenberg, on 2016-October-01, 11:13, said:

I read a bit from the samples that Amazon provides for Shame of the Nation. He speaks a lot about the stultifying effects of a rigid approach to learning and I agree. What to do about it? I suppose I have to buy the book and read it!

Views differ. When I was maybe a junior in college I was surprised to see on campus someone I knew in both elementary school and high school. He had not gone on to college right away but there he was and we chatted. He wanted to be a high school teacher. Then he went on to say he wanted to be just like Mr. K., our biology teacher. Mr. K. was at the top of my list of teachers that I could not stand. One of my teachers had an alcohol problem and was often pretty well soused by the time I reached his sixth period class. I preferred him to Mr. K., an authoritarian who had little knowledge of and no interest in the subject he was teaching. So you never know who will be admired.

Education experts have told me more than once that a teacher really does not need any great knowledge of the material as long as s/he has mastered the education courses. I beg to seriously differ. All of the teachers that I respected had a deep interest in the subject that they were teaching. And there was another trait, now that I think about it. Many of the best could be truly disappointed in me. I don't mean that they said "I am disappointed in you Kenneth". I mean they were disappointed and you could see it. I got a scholarship and it took an obvious emotional effort for my Freshman/Sophomore Spanish teacher to congratulate me on it. It made an impression. We need such people.

Anyway, I liked what I read of Shame. Thanks.

[mike777]

Ken you suggest that
1) teach without any great knowledge
2) make bucks, many bucks
3) so what?

[mike777]

Elianna, on 2016-September-30, 22:28, said:

Two really interesting ones are by Howard Kozol: Savage Inequalities and Shame of the Nation.

The latter is more recent, but the former has more details about what specifically makes schools unequitable (and history behind it).

You can see a microcosm of the inequitable pay scale in the Bay Area. Palo Alto andEast Side Union (in San Jose) are close enough that you can reasonably work at either and not have it affect your commute too much. But if you click on each you can find the payscales. For teachers who are good enough to have choices, you can see where the monetary incentive is.

Of course, not all people make purely monetary choices (I'm very lucky that I don't have to), but then again - this is the Bay Area and housing especially is under severe pressure.

(I don't work for either of the two districts linked, but my school loses a lot of 2+ years teachers to other districts and the most cited reason of people leaving is salary. Of course, there are other reasons among which the most prominent is fatigue of putting so much emotion into the job because of teaching such high needs students - one can get tired and want an easier job that pays more. I certainly keep getting tempted right around December/May.)

and your point is?