Social Justice... Does it really mean the lazy never have to work again?

[Don Corleone]

Education, be it kindergarten or at the PhD level is never free. There is a cost. The question is at what point society continues to recognize a benefit from seeing a majority of its citizens educated to that level, regardless of ability to pay.

In the founding days of country, our economy was primarily agrarian, and a rudimentary "3R" education was sufficient. As we moved into industrial age, the 3Rs became a base requirement, with secondary now moving into the category of 'desireable by society', and as a result, public secondary schools were founded to provide a secondary education.

In the early to middle part of the twentieth century, we again shifted the focus of our economy from an industrial one to a more technological one. Again, the educational requirements for the average citizen shifted. It was in society's best interest to see a large portion of it's population educated at the university level (either in true liberal arts universities, or in technical colleges). Yet, this time, the onus was left on the individual to pay for their education. The government acted more as a facilitator, establishing guaranteed loan programs to see to it that a college education was achieable, at the expense of starting life in debt. Still, with the increased earning potential of the individual, it still made educations affordable.

I would argue that we have moved to a place where a college degree is a minimum. The whole illegal immigration trend is an orchetsrated attempt by both parties to ensure low salary pressures on unskilled labor. There's actually been movement to press salaries down at the college educated level as well. Accounting, banking, software design, engineering, medical research... many fields that were traditionally a 'slam dunk' for somebody who had the intelligence and drive to get through four years of college are now being farmed out to 3rd world educated populations, such as China and India, or they are brought here in sufficient numbers to deflate prices. The only way forward for the 'average American' is to continue to drive their own producitivty and knowledge level up... financial security in today's day and age requires a post graduate degree. If we're going to require such an advanced degree of people we have two options: 1) establish programs to help people achieve these goals 2) devolve into a stratified society, where it becomes cheaper for the sufficiently educated to just keep a majority of the population on sustenance living and farm all the labor they could have been doing over to India and China. Personally, I lean towards one.

In a representative democracy, equal access to sufficient education must be a basic right, otherwise you devolve quickly into a Platocracy.

[doc_bean]

I would argue that we have moved to a place where a college degree is a minimum.

If I had seen your reply earlier I would have added it to my previous post. Two things:

1. Highschool has become a waste of time

Really, how many of us were bored all throughout HS ? I surely was, and Belgian HS is supposedly one of the hardest. HS now serves to the slowest students without allowing the better students to advance at THEIR own pace (at least here). Add to that that a lot of HS subjects are pure filler, 70% of the things you learn you forget. Not everyone needs to know about chemical compounds and Rutherford's theory of the atom, not everyone needs to know the kidney works, and nearly no one needs to know what they teach in these new 'social' classes. We're raising a nation of quiz players here !
If given the chance I'm sure a significant percentage of students could have taken and finished a university-like education 2-5 years earlier then they can now.

2. I'm not a big fan of outsourcing

Factories that their production to Asia might consider moving their tech support to Asia, might consider settling their management in Asia, might consider hiring local engineers, etc.
If we (the west) wan't to stay competitive we need a balanced economy, specializing might lead to higher productivity (in the short run) but it's a threat in the long run. Besides, a lot of good innovative ideas have come from the 'production floor' rather than from engineers in their office. Putting both too far apart is not a good plan, and it won't last.

[Don Corleone]

Doc, you seem to be laboring under the incorrect notion that there is something you or I can do to stop the flow of jobs to Asia. I totally agree with you that mid-level management is next, eventually senior management, and the rich guys who thought it was such a great idea are going to find their jobs outsourced next. But it's a fact, and one neither you nor I can do much about. All we can do is find new ways to make the product we have to sell in the marketplace of labor more competitive then alternatives.

[doc_bean]

Doc, you seem to be laboring under the incorrect notion that there is something you or I can do to stop the flow of jobs to Asia. I totally agree with you that mid-level management is next, eventually senior management, and the rich guys who thought it was such a great idea are going to find their jobs outsourced next. But it's a fact, and one neither you nor I can do much about. All we can do is find new ways to make the product we have to sell in the marketplace of labor more competitive then alternatives.

We need to make production competitive here again, through all possible government incentives. This knowledge-economy is a bubble, and it will burst. Better to catch it first.

EDIT: and we need protectionism back !

I see little point in having more 'liberal arts' majors, what will they contribute to society ? Better to teach them how to repair cars !

[Haudegen]

I´d like to add a thought that hasn´t been mentioned here:

The productivity in our time has risen so much that not everybodies´ labor force is needed to provide the food, the cars, services and all the other things. Above was stated that in the days of Jesus there were no lazy people, at least none we know about. But back then almost everyone was needed in the economy, and be it only to grow the plants a man consumed for himself.

Therefore I think the axiom that everyone who wants a job will get a job is no longer. Especially those people with low qualification will become redundant more and more. And to force everyone to get a higher qualification doesn´t seem to be an appropriate answer to me. How many lawyers, doctors, managers, entertainers does the society need? Will there be an increased need for those services in the future? I don´t think so. However the competion in these services will increase which may lead to better quality.

[Kanamori]

There is another breed of people whom you support, but it is not through a Democratic government. You support them with your own labor, and everything is owned in their name, they hire others to any and all of the work. They also buy single watches that cost more than most smokers would ever spend on weed in their lifetime.

[Avicenna]

If I had seen your reply earlier I would have added it to my previous post. Two things:

1. Highschool has become a waste of time

Really, how many of us were bored all throughout HS ? I surely was, and Belgian HS is supposedly one of the hardest. HS now serves to the slowest students without allowing the better students to advance at THEIR own pace (at least here). Add to that that a lot of HS subjects are pure filler, 70% of the things you learn you forget. Not everyone needs to know about chemical compounds and Rutherford's theory of the atom, not everyone needs to know the kidney works, and nearly no one needs to know what they teach in these new 'social' classes. We're raising a nation of quiz players here !
If given the chance I'm sure a significant percentage of students could have taken and finished a university-like education 2-5 years earlier then they can now.

2. I'm not a big fan of outsourcing

Factories that their production to Asia might consider moving their tech support to Asia, might consider settling their management in Asia, might consider hiring local engineers, etc.
If we (the west) wan't to stay competitive we need a balanced economy, specializing might lead to higher productivity (in the short run) but it's a threat in the long run. Besides, a lot of good innovative ideas have come from the 'production floor' rather than from engineers in their office. Putting both too far apart is not a good plan, and it won't last.

Everyone needs to learn about all subjects otherwise only the people who know what they really want to do are the ones who geniunely want to learn a lot and therefore expose themselves to more things, eventually selecting what they want to specialise in. The rest of the population would probably select a job they don't like, end up wasting their time learning it and not being able to reach their full potential. A country without high school would just lead to people with wrong jobs, bad social skills and in short end up to be a complete failure laughed at by the rest of the world.

Specialising is what made America the power it is today. If you learn about EVERYTHING (like in high school, ironically, what you just said to be a bad thing) you won't have time in your short little human lifetime to learn about enough, say, to even understand Einstein's theories, much less do research and find new things yourself before you die.

[doc_bean]

Everyone needs to learn about all subjects otherwise only the people who know what they really want to do are the ones who geniunely want to learn a lot and therefore expose themselves to more things, eventually selecting what they want to specialise in. The rest of the population would probably select a job they don't like, end up wasting their time learning it and not being able to reach their full potential. A country without high school would just lead to people with wrong jobs, bad social skills and in short end up to be a complete failure laughed at by the rest of the world.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in history classes we had to remember dates, and lots of them, a waste of time since the average person forgets all of them 5 mintues after a test. In English and Dutch we had to answer questions on the exams about texts we had read throughout the year, so time was wasted memorizing them. We had a mandatory 'art' class, completely pointless to know gothic from renaissance architecture if you don't care about it, if you ask me. The 'social studies' people had to learn rather advanced math, like complex numbers, derivatives and integrals (I just know I've got this word wrong...), which they will never use again.

A lot of time is wasted in high school, not just because of useless subjects, but also because of the terribly slow pace everything is taught at. Most people could learn the same in a much shorter amount of time, without a lot of extra (after school) work.

[Kanamori]

Dont you have index raises in those to follow inflation?

Why would you do something silly like that? They only need to get three fulltime jobs and childcare for their children in between in order to compensate for the inflation. If they don't get three jobs, then they're lazy piles of worthlessness that don't deserve to live with teeth in their mouths.

But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho?

Approaching the question from a different angle works better for me. Why are you content to just leave people rot in the streets if they are unwilling to work? It is offensive to the human condition. I don't care if someone won't work because they're lazy, which I think is much less often the case than that they are mentally ill -- you have to wonder what state of mind someone has to be in for them to accept living on the street with only some very dirty sweatpants, a sweatshirt and a blanket -- if I have something to give to somebody who is much worse off than me, however it may be, I'm willing to help them out because they are another human being and they should not live worse than livestock that are about to be shipped off to the slaughterhouse. I do not advocate giving them riches, but they should have a life where they are, some how or another, sheltered and have the basic amenities for living. In essence, they should not be first required to do the work because they will not necessarily seek it out. That is not to say that it could not be strongly encouraged while also giving shelter to those who cannot. And also, it isn't charity if you're forcing them to provide all of that for themselves.

As to this idea where, if somehow, and this wil never happen, people had equal opportunity then it is justified that someone who gets a worse job deserves a worse living conditions, I disagree. Simply put, we are not all of the same capability, and that does not mean that those people deserve worse living conditions. Although I'm not nearly intelligent enough to find a practical solution to a problem that's been around since the beginning of history, that does not mean that they somehow deserve the condition they are in.

[rory_20_uk]

That is your view, and you can give to charity. I don't see why others should be forced to give regardless of menefit or intention to people.

Senior doctors don't refer all drunks to rehab: there's no point.

how much do you give to charities? I hope all of your diposable income, as there are many who deserve things more than you appear to state you deserve your luxuries.

As was seen in Communism when it started in Russia farmers thought that as goods from the cities would arrive regardless of their effort, why try to farm well, as there was no benefit?

I think humanity should strive to achieve, to push the boundries of excellence. I find this attitude of helping all regardless cause is likely to cause society to stagnate.

[Kanamori]

I hope all of your diposable income, as there are many who deserve things more than you appear to state you deserve your luxuries.

I give, but not nearly enough. It is funny you mention it though because my grandfather left Germany before WWII because of the economic state and he hated how little his rich family did for the poor. He came to America, bought a farm, and gave everything he could to help South Americans and the impoverished here to afford an education when they couldn't. If everyone were as charitable, the world would be a wonderful place.

And the argument that you don't want to give is moot. The system is a democracy of sorts, and because of that if a law passes, it has popular support.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think humanity should strive to achieve, to push the boundries of excellence. I find this attitude of helping all regardless cause is likely to cause society to stagnate.

There is of course, the purely pragmatic reason for the state (via your taxes) to support the unemployed and marginalised (which I'm surprised hasn't come up so far).

Create a disenfranchised underclass and they turn to crime. All those who have no stake in society rapidly take out their anger on those who do by 'redistributing wealth' themselves. Then you have to spend a great deal of money combatting the crime wave. Fine upstanding citizens have to take refuge behind walled suburbs with guns.

Make a big enough underclass and they take everything you have through revolution, 'cause you can no longer jail or kill all of them. That gets real expensive.

But of course, that could never happen.

[rory_20_uk]

The current system isn't democracy. If a law is passed then the majority of people in power want it to.

I agree that masses with nothing to do is a bad thing. But the problem there is idle hands more than anything else.

Social class 4/5 used to be called the "salt of the earth". Why that changed to "the scum of the earth" is multifactorial of course.

IMO some are the goverment building hope that all avenues are available to everyone, and the consequent disillusionment that failure brings. Esentially the complete destruction of the class system was a bad idea.
Lack of blue collar jobs. Manufacturing provides a feeling of achievement not present in many low office jobs and their ilk.

Education goes on for too long for no results. Many should stop at 14, some at 16 with only 40% doing a levels and about 10% doing degrees. The others learn useful skills that there is a definite benefit of. If you're not academic at 12 the next 4 (or now 8) years are wasted. Be a plumber - they earn more than I do!
Schools and parents are scared to make children disciplined. Then the state wades in with ASBOs when it's far too late.