originally posted by: MOMof3
I think someone would come along and destroy you. Health and welfare of mankind does not make money.
You are correct. I think surveillance tech, tightly controlled media and perfected subterfuge techniques are keeping ALL of us from knowing if new
activist groups or aspiring political parties are springing up. I'd argue the government today, nips such movements in the bud, sending participants
to jail will-nilly, with no due process like was given in the 60's, and in turn, giving them horrible plea bargains at the end. I think people ARE
indeed trying to take action, but are quickly stomped out, rounded up by LEO's and NONE of it gets to the media, including blogger and Instagram
journalists. My guess is anyone that could teach them proper tactics to counter LEO's and EFFECTIVE political strategy, are quickly arrested on
trumped up charges and threatened to never return to help the activists again "or else". American protesters and alternative parties are so poorly
organized that I can't imagine them EVER having an ounce of success, but at the same time I think surveillance tech, tightly controlled media and
perfected subterfuge techniques are ENTIRELY responsible for said poor organization and preparation
In addition, I've always had a feeling that third party candidates actual vote counts, post election, are NEVER accurately reported. I figure most of
the time, a portion of their votes get thrown away, others are skimmed over and determined to be invalid, then accidentally missed or counted for the
wrong candidate, etc. So when the results are reported, the public just assumes the "third party guy lost anyway", so we never really know for sure
if they gained an increased number votes and support over the years. I suspect that MANY people are voting third parties and writing in candidates
currently, with increasing in numbers every year and the true results are being downplayed by both the news and even by staff working at the polling
originally posted by: greencmp
Indeed, considering how much people pay and what they do while matriculating, a university education is indicative of a desire to avoid the free
market for as long as possible. Usually, the only place left for such folks is the university itself or some political appointment to a bureaucratic
What a laughable statement. The government has made licenses and certifications mandatory to enter and to continue working, in MANY professions
today. Sure, not all these licenses and certifications require a 4-year degree or masters, but once you hit 60 semester units, you may as well find a
way to get the 2-year degree. I work in construction engineering, where a degree is required to get the license, period! Also many states have
eliminated the old rule where 8 years on the job was equivalent to a 4-year degree. But that hints at a larger policy issue, where the government
WANTS people in school, not just to rack up debt, but also to keep them out of the larger job market.
Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.
Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology
advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of
high school and then at the same time, encourage those high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters
degree or PhD. They do so because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market
that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for, able, qualified for and willing to work.
Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then
jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort.
Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within
their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their
Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career
type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!
This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for
work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of
people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that
jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE
less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum
education levels for employment, with the real goal of decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This
cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government
assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs"
suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.
With big business being hell bent on replacing living workers with machines, such comments as those in this post, miss a subtle point that ONLY the
children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid
who studied hard could become a lawyer, engineer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships,
family support, etc, OR they simply went into the trades and learned on the job WITH pay. HOWEVER, in engineering and technician curriculum’s today,
times are changing, which now favors kids whom have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before
entering college or a particular training program. So when they finally get to college or to their first apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of
free time to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of the classroom, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer, who flips burgers
part-time, to pay rent and school expenses.
Don't you see, 2 years of free Junior College can, in theory, INSTANTLY remove millions of people from the unemployment rolls, filling out
appllications and job fairs. It will also reduce the number of applicants applying to jobs, saving big business overhead costs. That Ford factory
line worker job, that once had 25,000 applicants might only have 15,000 now, because 10,000 people instead went to "free" Junior College.
edit on 12-2-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)