30 Aug 2019, 2:22 am
30 Aug 2019, 3:01 am
30 Aug 2019, 3:44 am
30 Aug 2019, 6:03 am
30 Aug 2019, 6:24 am
A "living wage" would seem to be a function of your spending and family expenses.
If you "live large", and have lots of kids, then you need a "super sized" income. 
30 Aug 2019, 8:44 pm
30 Aug 2019, 8:49 pm
30 Aug 2019, 9:19 pm
31 Aug 2019, 7:46 am
cyberdad wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
Liberals have turned these jobs into careers, that's the most bizarre concept to me. So we have one demographic just starting out, not really wanting anything except a way to earn extra money. Then, we have another demographic demanding that they get a living wage out of a job that a monkey could be trained to do. Next thing you know there will be a union for deep fryer operators..
ummm wasn't Trump elected on a platform of protecting American jobs and brining jobs back to America?? the very opposite of what you are espousing here. He told white Americans on minimum wage jobs he would protect their "monkey" jobs by imposing tarriffs on Chinese goods and bring jobs back from China.
Of course we know that was a lie. His corporate backers are the ones who are "downsizing" and taking jobs offshore in the name of "remaining competitive. They skim wages to keep shareholders happy with large profits.
I find it amusing that you would denigrate the white American base trump relies so heavily on by calling their jobs easy enough for monkeys to do. Be careful there are limits to rampant capitalism.
They have the job, what they don't have is the ability to turn the job a monkey could do into a highly specialized career.
Many people who choose these jobs as a second job want the mindless repetition. To them, it's like not really having the stress of a job because the don't have to think. Or, as a first job, it's easy to learn while growing accustomed to the responsibility of setting an alarm and being someone who can be counted on as an employee.
But not to you guys... You want higher wages, the same cheap cost for the food so the poor who need a dine and dash won't be affected. It must be nice to want what you want and not have a clue how it's accomplished other than to say, "these places make a lot of money, so we want more!"
Brilliant!
31 Aug 2019, 7:49 pm
31 Aug 2019, 8:16 pm
31 Aug 2019, 8:30 pm
01 Sep 2019, 5:32 am
15 Sep 2019, 11:50 am
Persephone29 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
California has a horrible record for standardized testing... Why should they pay a teacher whose kids all flunk the standardized tests? If they are going to flunk anyway, might as well save some money. You can use the word 'confound,' it's all connected. It might not be political, but certain groups are seeing to it that they are not evolving to be better, but worse by demanding more money for lower performance.
There is a strong evidence base that keeping children in the education system (retention) equates to improved economic outcomes for the country and improved outcomes for the children themselves.
The old days when you could leave school at 15 and find a job are long gone. Youth unemployment in Australia is a major problem and is probably contributing toward the disproportionate levels of youth suicide. Keeping kids in school gives them skills they can put to use in future employment. Even if they are flunking.
In the old days there used to be a tiered system where children looking to do some type of trade or unskilled could be put in a stream that gives them minimum literacy and numeracy skills and they get hands on work experience which is like an apprenticeship.
Conservative government funding cut-backs means this type of tertiary training and support is fast vanishing as training colleges are being closed. Private colleges are expensive and the quality of graduates is dubious. For the kids with no money they have to compete for limited direct apprenticeships in the workforce often unpaid and without parental support impossible to maintain.
Teachers have been blamed although now the Australian government has made it mandatory that even preschool teachers need to have a Masters degree (a little over the top) and they have introduced literacy and numeracy standardised testing for existing teachers, many have lost their jobs despite working for many years instead of being offered re-training.
I love education. My kids and their kids love education... It's a cultivated attitude. But, there must be a standard by which every worker's effectiveness is measured. Here, we call them annual evaluation, every worker gets one. Ineffective workers are done away with... Inner city teachers are regularly assaulted, disrespected and ignored. The student who intends to learn will learn in any environment. The student who doesn't plan to learn will not learn, no matter how many real life teachers are in place.
In that an intention is a plan of action that if too abstract can prove to be obstructive; and in that an aim if concrete enough can involve reaching an actual object, place or state of affairs ~ students that aim to learn will do so in any environment that adequately facilitates the particularities of their sense and sensibilities. If for instance a potential violin player does not get to play a violin at school ~ that student may never as such become a violin player.
Persephone29 wrote:
And they reduce lawsuits, hospital bills and salary expenditures for teachers who can't get through to incorrigible kids and get assaulted when they enforce rules.
Obviously, regarding "standards" of teaching and "incorrigible" students, it is most certainly a matter of ‘peak-down’ and ‘foundation-up’ societal cultivation ~ as in mimicked from authority figures and modelled by youngsters ~ with society having become way too competitive and much too exclusive; rather than being equally as much cooperative and thereby inclusive ~ where basic needs would have been facilitated with appropriate work, pay, care, rest and play, and people would be gratefully motivated and productively encouraged. Also laziness would not be mistaken so much for things like long term demoralisation and exhaustion on account of institutional inertia and ‘glass ceilings’, and things like dehydration, malnutrition and environmental pollution.
Persephone29 wrote:
We are never going to see eye to eye on this. Every baby has the right to be born, they have a right to medical care, food, a roof, etc... They have a right to education until it becomes evident that they either aren't interested or don't value the gift they've been given. Then, I say let evolution take over. The motivated survive, the unmotivated go extinct. It works in nature and when man doesn't interfere, the populations don't grow disproportionate. Man should take a lesson from her: we save everyone and we are overpopulated, we will run out of resources, etc...
The "Survival of the Fittest" ideology is a selective over-exaggeration of what mother nature only to a small degree teaches:
Quote:
Evolution myths: 'Survival of the fittest' justifies 'everyone for themselves'
Life 16 April 2008
By Michael Le Page
The “fittest” can be the most loving and selfless, not the most aggressive and violent. In any case, what happens in nature does not justify people behaving in the same way
The phrase “survival of the fittest“, which was coined not by Darwin but by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, is widely misunderstood.
For starters, there is a lot more to evolution by natural selection than just the survival of the fittest. There must also be a population of replicating entities and variations between them that affect fitness – variation that must be heritable. By itself, survival of the fittest is a dead end. Business people are especially guilty of confusing survival of the fittest with evolution.
What’s more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word “fittest” seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi.
What we see in the wild is not every animal for itself. Cooperation is an incredibly successful survival strategy. Indeed it has been the basis of all the most dramatic steps in the history of life. Complex cells evolved from cooperating simple cells. Multicellular organisms are made up of cooperating complex cells. Superorganisms such as bee or ant colonies consist of cooperating individuals.
Suicidal cells
When cooperation breaks down, the results can be disastrous. When cells in our bodies turn rogue, for instance, the result is cancer. So elaborate mechanisms have evolved to maintain cooperation and suppress selfishness, such as cellular “surveillance” programmes that trigger cell suicide if they start to turn cancerous.
Looked at from this point of view, the concept of the survival of the fittest could be used to justify socialism rather than laissez-faire capitalism. Then again, the success of social insects could be used to argue for totalitarianism. Which illustrates another point: it is nonsense to appeal to the “survival of the fittest” to justify any economic or political ideology, especially on the basis that it is “natural”.
Is cannibalism fine because polar bears do it? Is killing your brother or sister fine because nestlings of many bird species do it? Is murdering your children fine because mice sometimes eat their own pups? Is paedophilia fine because bonobo adults have sex with juveniles?
Powerful grip
Just about every kind of behaviour that most of us regard as “unnatural” turns out to be perfectly natural in some nook or cranny of the animal kingdom. No one can plausibly argue that this justifies humans behaving in the same way.
Yet even though such examples expose the utter absurdity of appealing to what is “natural” to judge right from wrong – the naturalistic fallacy – we seem to have a strange blind spot when it comes to evolution. Survival of the fittest has been claimed to justify all kinds of things, from free markets to eugenics. Such notions still have a powerful grip in some circles.
However, natural selection is simply a description of what happens in the living world. It does not tell us how we should behave.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves/
Here follows a couple of other articles covering actual natural selection from different perspectives, with the first being the longer more informative read of the two in terms of evolutionary biology, and the second being comparatively the much shorter and simpler read ~ which is more sociologically oriented in entrepreneurial terms:
Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-survival-of-the-fittest-is-wrong-5988401
Survival of the Fittest — Wrong!
https://medium.com/@theultrapreneur/survival-of-the-fittest-wrong-d8089ab827e4
By learning to minimise exclusive competition and maximise inclusive cooperation, we will instead be emulating nature and supporting her by instead being a collective coefficient of evolution, and thereby we will exemplify respect for the purpose of life ~ i.e., to make the way better for ourselves and others in a life affirming way.
Persephone29 wrote:
The focus should not be on teachers. If a child wants to learn, they won't stop seeking.
The focus should “include” teachers as also being adequately and appropriately facilitated in ‘their’ employment ~ so that children are too in terms of ‘their’ education and future employment. For too many children though the education system is failing them even if they attend their lessons, do the coursework, pass their grades and get their qualifications, in that the curriculum currently involves for the most part programmed information, as requires only really to be verbally repeated or actionably represented ~ without critical or creative thinking having been much or even at all involved, or as such thereafter not possible with the spirit of inquiry having become a ghost for however many.
Here follows three articles with the first and third being from the USA and the second from the UK as covering the current education problem:
29 Ways The Educational System Is Failing Students
https://medium.com/informed-citizen/29-ways-american-schools-fail-students-b0cf3fc805ba
Our Failing Education System Means It’s Still No Easier To Climb Life’s Ladder
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/27/education-inequality-uk-schools-failure-of-meritocracy
Quote:
Education System Failing
I believe our education system is failing. These days, it appears that it isn't much about learning. It seems to be all about tests, grades, and your school's average grade or percentage.
I believe many students aren't really gaining any knowledge at all. Grades are determining how smart we are or what schools we qualify to enter. Grades shouldn't determine this at all. Everybody is smart in their own way. Some teachers only care about themselves, their reputations and how they look to their school. Also, some teachers move on from lesson to lesson without taking the time to pause and see if their students actually understood what they taught.
Many peers of mine are focused on passing instead of actually learning, because this is how the system is. Education determines how far we'll get in life, but how will it if many aren't actually learning? The grades some students get are from cheating, not from their own logic. This is what I mean when I say grades are becoming more important than our education.
The education system is failing and really needs improvement.
https://www.voicesofyouth.org/blog/education-system-failing
I believe our education system is failing. These days, it appears that it isn't much about learning. It seems to be all about tests, grades, and your school's average grade or percentage.
I believe many students aren't really gaining any knowledge at all. Grades are determining how smart we are or what schools we qualify to enter. Grades shouldn't determine this at all. Everybody is smart in their own way. Some teachers only care about themselves, their reputations and how they look to their school. Also, some teachers move on from lesson to lesson without taking the time to pause and see if their students actually understood what they taught.
Many peers of mine are focused on passing instead of actually learning, because this is how the system is. Education determines how far we'll get in life, but how will it if many aren't actually learning? The grades some students get are from cheating, not from their own logic. This is what I mean when I say grades are becoming more important than our education.
The education system is failing and really needs improvement.
https://www.voicesofyouth.org/blog/education-system-failing
_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong
15 Sep 2019, 10:42 pm
15 Sep 2019, 10:55 pm
