|
|
| Re: ARTICLE: 1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed (935315) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: ARTICLE: 1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Tue Apr 24 15:39:01 2012, in response to Re: ARTICLE: 1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed, posted by JayMan on Tue Apr 24 09:11:28 2012. We need to take a serious look at immigration in this country. People decry places like Alabama for their tough stance on immigration, and that the exodus of illegals from state has only served to leave crops lying unpicked in the fields, but this is only because the system is setup to be reliant on illegal Mexican labor. Cutting off the supply might allow the system to adapt to their absence—or maybe not, we'll see.Indeed, a reform of such a system is needed. Unfortunately, the political will isn't there; as I'm sure you know, politicians use the "immigration" issue to garner Hispanic votes in election seasons (which pisses me off for several reasons - one, immigration isn't the top issue for all Hispanics (it certainly isn't for THIS Hispanic male)...and two, I'm against amnesty for illegals; methinks it makes no sense for legal immigrants to go through hurdles of red tape while illegals get a free pass...) Labor at the bottom needs to be subsidized, but not by raising the minimum wage—that would only tax businesses and raise the price of basic goods and services as well as discourage hiring. I was thinking along the lines of a negative income tax, as Robert Reich has proposed. Reich's proposal also includes education reform in the form of smaller class sizes and higher teacher pay (i.e. to incentivize better teachers working in low-income communities); however, this won't mean much if low standards persist. The increased EITC proposal sounds very interesting; to address the "lowered prestige" issue you brought up, mayhap pay EMTs/CNAs more than the "burger-flippers" as you call them after adjusting for the modified EITC. No matter how fair you make the market place, the well-connected are always going to be better off than the unconnected. But also remember that success takes more than just IQ; it also requires certain personality traits. Self-discipline is one, but in some fields, say business, connections matter not only from what they bring, because having connections in and of itself itself is an effect of personality. For example, there are some fields that have a dearth of East Asians (business and law are examples), but this certainly not because they don't have the brains, but because they don't have the personality traits to excel. E. Asians tend to be introverted and "nerdy", where as these fields call for more type A personalities. More "alpha" types are likely to have large networks of connections as well. Is this why some companies give prospective/new hires personality tests in addition to/as part of the interviewing/hiring process? Definitely true that those w/connections are better off on average... I'm not convinced. For one, the option of voluntary sterilization already exists (although it is mainly for contraceptive/health purposes...). True, but there are no incentives for the people who we don't want to breed to undergo it. Incentives need to be put in place to encourage the economically unproductive to curb their reproduction. Like? If you mean financial, just how much "incentive" ($$$) is incentive enough? Moreover, there are other concerns: 1) The potential for abuse, as history shows; this could be further exacerbated by how cats in power conclude one to be "economically unproductive." 2) The additional costs incurred (i.e. by gov't and to taxpayers) by such incentives. We also need to encourage the productive individuals in society to breed more, but to be honest, I can't think of anything that's likely to be effective at that task... Neither can I, especially given the amount of sacrifice required to raise children in terms of time, money, resources, etc. (especially if we're talking about more productive couples having more children than they planned/provisioned for); additionally, the system is set up such that couples and even single mothers with children are already advantaged financially by tax breaks and subsidies compared to legally single individuals. Even if such breaks/subsidies/benefits were increased or new ones introduced, you'd probably have a very hard time convincing such couples to take on more responsibility than they're willing to handle. Steve Sailer has argued that curbing the low-IQ population growth would encourage more reproduction among higher IQ groups. He claims that without needing to flee low-IQ ghettos, the cost of living would be lower and more higher-IQ couples could raise families. I can't say that he's wrong, but I'm not sure what the magnitude of that effect would be. I honestly don't believe this would have a significant effect. Using gentrified areas as examples, the cost of living in these areas typically increases as properties are improved. Additionally, since it appears wealth and birth rates are negatively correlated, if the "need to flee low-IQ ghettos" is no longer present, it may still not be enough to "encourage" additional reproduction among these couples. I think that when too many of them are living close together, for a variety of reasons, child-bearing drops. You will note that all the states with a high White fertility rate are vast open nothingnesses, where the typical family can claim a lot of their room to themselves (and, by extension cost of living is low). I'm sure this is true of all human groups, but perhaps some are more sensitive to it than others. You may be on to something here (and that is a nice pic). I'd say you might be right about sensitivity; when I've visited family in rural areas the scenery was beautiful and peaceful but MAN are those places BORING. Mayhap that's a result of living in the Bee-Ex my whole life, but still... As I said, cutting off illegal immigration is a given. However, immigration reform alone is unlikely to have the desired effect. And even still, high-IQ immigration isn't necessarily a good thing, as we don't want foreigners to out-compete native-born Americans for cognitively demanding jobs. Tell that to companies that continue outsourcing; you're not gonna get Americans to work in those cognitively-demanding fields for scraps. Of course, you also have to take globalization into account; this makes preventing foreigners from "out-competing" native-born Americans tough at best ABSENT some of the reforms we've discussed at length. You're right that IQ is not the sole barometer of success; with America as a nation possessing a higher average IQ than many other nations, our mediocre standing in many fields relative to other nations REALLY speaks volumes. visit my blog! |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|