Educated vs "Non-Educated"

What's "produced" by a buying farming coop is a service of making goods and services it purchases available to its customers.

When my wife and I lived across the street from a dairy farm, we regularly shopped at a coop that sold groceries, farming supplies (we had a huge vegetable garden), gas, clothes, appliances, and on and on.

 

Yang is not proposing equalizing incomes, but even if he was it would not be socialism. BTW, I don't care for his proposal, but Yang could be touching on a problem we're going to face soon as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and high-speed wireless communication eliminate many millions of jobs.

Huh? What does all of this have to do socialism?

 

That’s a valid point. I’m not sure where the line is then. Would any business, say Sam’s Club, that requires investment for membership be producing the same thing? Or only if it redistributed some profits to members? Or if memberships actually purchased a share in the company?

Did any products then carry the COOP brand name? Back in the day many products sold were branded with the coop brand and some were even manufactured by the coop. I could be wrong, I’m only going off local coops, but now feed products are about the only thing branded with the name and only a small percentage comes out of a mill owned by the cooperative if any. Cenex oil/fuel sold in their coops is probably their production. The big coops merge so often anymore it’s hard to keep up. My local that I’m involved with has merged with other local coops and changed names 3 times in the last ten years. So far my equity has carried over each time without loss. I suppose my equity is safer the bigger the coop becomes, but I’m not a fan of less local control.

 

Wrong take.....Yang is giving exactly the same amount to everyone. The basic income under his program is equalized. This is not a case where poor get more nor is it progressive as in other programs . Anyone who wants to earn more is obviously free to earn more. But everyone has the same basic income to start.
. It has nothing to do with addition income from working..

His explanation is...
over 80% of the jobs eliminated from manufacturing are replaced by robotics and manufacturing jobs are less people with hammers and more people running around with iPads. The basic income is equalized so people are more able to retrain and go to school while still receiving a basic income.

There are only two ways the United States can compete with nations like a China who will be selling us, “immagrant” robotic labor.

First we must open the door to higher educated immigrants and second allow tuition free college education at public universities and tech schools. .
Tell us when it reaches socialism...your definition has nothin* to do with facts.

 

All depends on the definition of religion.

 

I'd rather have a magna cum laude doctor than no doctor or have to wait days or even weeks for a summa cum laude doc.

It is because insurers would not be allowed to ask about your health or age before selling you coverage.

I taught at the school for more than a decade. On a small staff of about 20 teachers (the numbers changed as student numbers went up and down), we had three future principals, a district superintendent, a professor, and two future union presidents.

Only any additional vacation time and maternity leave are non-monetary benefits.

You must have missed where it says workers don't have the right to take action to stop the employer from hiring nonunion staff. That means they can't all quit (strike).

How about not being able to quit (strike)?

How about a lot less compensation? I worked as a unionized grocery clerk for $3.05 per hour, time-and-a-half for Saturday and after 6:00 PM on weekdays, and double-time for Sundays. That $3.05 in 1963 would be $25.78 today.

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3.05&year1=196301&year2=201912​

Does this mean you no longer think I may overlooking the impact of technology?

 

I’m sure a hung over college kid who didn’t study the night before an exam, does a lot of praying.

 

Social services are programs that follow guidelines of socialism
.

 

Give it a try. How would you go about it? Mandate larger classes or start a government training program? I’m not at all opposed to more doctors as long as they don’t do more harm than good.

Then we are going in circles. If the insurer can’t quantify risk, it’s not insurance.

But how do you know performance of students from poor home life families was equal to that of students with good parents?

Semantics. Use wage instead of monetary if you prefer.

Quitting and striking are not equivalencies. That’s nuts.

Meh. Studies show differences between wages in right to work states and non right to work are between 3% and 5%. Certainty worth the freedom. Forcing unions on business is evil in my opinion. It violates so many rights...

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3.05&year1=196301&year2=201912​

I really don’t know. The graph you provided completely ignored it.

 

Oh, please... you must think you're smarter than the rest of us.

Like I said ... retirement. People tend to look at the SS benefit as their savings for retirement.

Take a look... https://www.ssa.gov/

 

Huh? I taught in government-owned public schools and I can assure you some teachers were "sitting around doing nothing."

 

Let me guess, the ones sitting around doing nothing were the two future union presidents?

 

The federal government will have to put more money into training doctors. There are various approaches--subsidized tuition, grants to universities, grants to states, etc.

It is insurance because there's is no certainty of a payout. Insurers have an interest in keeping their patients healthy.

Because we knew the demographics of our district. Without going into detail, at one point we became a feeder school for grades 11 and 12 to three different high schools. Our students dominated the honor roll in all three high schools. We looked at achievement tests and our students went from below the average of other district schools to way above the average.

Doesn't make any difference.

Employers can replace striking workers--and sometimes do--so calling it "nuts" suggests you may be misreading the situation.

Let's see your evidence.

The graph shows how the worker is doing, not identifying the reason they've fallen short.

 

I guess this would fit your narrative, but it wasn't the case.

 

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/2...e-really-less-smart-on-average-than-atheists/

 

Looking through various studies certain patterns emerge. There tends to be a relationship between church attendance and grades in K-12. It may have something to do with the conformist nature of schools. I grew up in a religious household, where we attended church weekly and prayed daily. Even attended a Benedictine school. I got mostly A’s throughout school. That would seem to confirm your assertions. However neither church nor school attendance were voluntary. I had no choice in the matter. My brothers grew up under the same conditions yet struggled in school. So already I am biased as to the issue. In my family, the atheist kid always got the good grades and went to college, while the religious ones didn’t.

If I look at other studies, there seems to be an inverse correlation between religious belief and intelligence. That is an average atheist tends to have an IQ higher than an average theist. When one reaches the top echelons as to IQ or educational attainment, the percentage of atheists is considerably greater than at the average level. Of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, more than 90% reject the idea of a god.

The terms used in the literature is that of intuitive and reflective. That is religiously minded people tend to think and react intuitively, whereas atheistically minded people tend to think and act more reflectively. This, I’m sure, is why the scientifically minded tend to be so much more less religious than the general population. From my point of view, the more one learns and understands about the workings of nature, the more difficult it becomes to believe gods are involved.

 

Religious participation by children is rarely voluntary. The correlation that you are seeing may be the involvement level of the parents. It may be that parents who more forcefully push religion on their children, also more forcefully push school performance on their children. Perhaps half of Jewish Americans are quite low on the religiosity scale, yet they tend to push their children to do well in school. The same dynamic can be seen in Eastern Asian descended families. The religiosity, or at least theist religiosity, is also quite low, yet the children are pushed to do well in school.

 

There was a shift that occurred somewhere around 1980 of so when businessmen began to discover that they could make more profit pushing money around, than they could building things, and at a reduced risk. A lot of the wealth gains over the past 40 years has come from squeezing the assets out of companies, rather than purely production improvements.

 

Social services are not socialism. They are just the benefits of living in a society. Socialism is about ownership of the means of production. If the state were to own say the automobile manufacturers and the computer companies, and the profits went to support government programs, then that would be socialism. Public schools and healthcare is a benefit of living in a society that offers those benefits.

 

But instead, the state designs and forces sales of an insurance program where they completely control who the beneficiaries are.
Wow. The product is owned and regulated by the government .

 

You don’t think that government controlled GM until the bailout was paid off ? You're really falling all over yourself trying to explain why the practice of socialism isn’t socialism.

Look up socialism, it’s ownership OR regulation. The government doesn’t have to own companies, regulating them applies. Now tell me the car companies are not heavily regulated for the good of the people.

 

Sounds good.

Come on. No certainty of payout when you know there are preexisting conditions? How do you keep someone healthy who by definition is already not healthy?

Thanks. Any idea why it died with the dissolution of your team? Sounds like it could be something that could change the world if it could be replicated.

Your right. Benefits that don’t put dollars directly into the workers pocket aren’t valuable, don’t entice workers to take positions, and don’t cost the employer. If we are discussing worker compensation and all we mention is the hourly wage, then it most certainly makes a difference.

Yes employers should have that right. Striking is not quitting. Nothing stops someone from quitting a job unless they have signed a contract.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/aer.20170491
https://www.epi.org/files/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf

Well the reasons are important to me.

 

Had the government retained ownership of GM it would have been a socialist thing to do. Regulations are the rules of the road.

 

Really ? -ism is a suffix to many words. It simply means the “ practice of”
Any social program when put into practice by the government IS demonstrating socialism. Don’t be hung up on one name to describe our government by the governmental activities and programs it supports. It practices capitalism, socialism and authoritarianism under some conditions. Socialism is a big part of govt. responsibility. Social security is what it sounds, the practice of socialism.

 

Regulations are rules and directives made by an authority.
They don’t apply to just roads. Tell me one major industry (
that is not regulated by the government. Just one.