The Decaying Evolution of Education...

[philosophygirl78]

There's a funny thing about competence in most professions, especially technical ones. While it can command a higher salary, it doesn't always. The problem often is that those who control the salaries (or rewards) are not knowledgable enough to be able to differentiate between those with true competence or skills and those without.

Often the rewards go to those who spend their time talking about the work instead of actually doing the work.

If they were all knowledgeable enough, that would make the existence of large cap companies non existent. The scale-ability of management and operations is one of the reasons a corporation can grow.... Otherwise, its all small businesses (which I would not be opposed to btw).

You may have a heart of the matter point there Mr. Wagner....

 

[LizzieMaine]

The fetishization of "growth" is another habit society is going to need to grow out of, so to speak.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

There's a funny thing about competence in most professions, especially technical ones. While it can command a higher salary, it doesn't always. The problem often is that those who control the salaries (or rewards) are not knowledgable enough to be able to differentiate between those with true competence or skills and those without.

That's because most corporate leadership are MBAs (glorified cost accountants) who are not grounded in any particular business or industry.

 

[JimWagner]

That's because most corporate leadership are MBAs (glorified cost accountants) who are not grounded in any particular business or industry.

Sort of like all the teachers who have degrees in Education and not the subjects they are teaching.

 

[tonyb]

Much of my working life has been spent in small and smallish businesses, where it is apparent who does the real work that keeps the place running, and who doesn't, no matter the titles. I prefer it that way.

 

[MikeKardec]

The fetishization of "growth" is another habit society is going to need to grow out of, so to speak.

Coming up with a functioning theory of ... I'll say economics but that my be too technical or particular ... that allows both the adherents and forces of capitalism (which has kept changing over the last 400 years so it is adaptable to some extent) and socialism (which capitalism needs a certain amount of just as socialism needs capitalism to create the wealth that is shared to whatever extent) to be balanced in some acceptable way is the great challenge of the future. If we could just get over fighting for a world where 'business, red in tooth and claw' or 'equality through force' dominates we might just make some progress in that direction. There are limits to growth, it's sad because we mustn't loose the optimism that goes with it so it will take some great minds to work it out ... I fear the old vision of economic right and left will have to try to kill one and other off one more time before we can be smart enough to give it a go, however.

Whatever it is everyone must realize that it's safer if the new idea is allowed to be convincing enough to not require violence ... though that won't satisfy some who actually want revenge more than change. That's the trick, the patience and confidence to be willing to convince rather than coerce.

 

[Fading Fast]

Coming up with a functioning theory of ... I'll say economics but that my be too technical or particular ... that allows both the adherents and forces of capitalism (which has kept changing over the last 400 years so it is adaptable to some extent) and socialism (which capitalism needs a certain amount of just as socialism needs capitalism to create the wealth that is shared to whatever extent) to be balanced in some acceptable way is the great challenge of the future. ....

In a way, isn't that what we have today. Elements of capitalism - somewhat free markets (some mainly free, some heavily regulated), private ownership of means of production, competition, etc. - but with elements of socialism - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, public schools, subsidized student loans, Head Start, plus a progressive income tax, etc. Our system is a mishmash of the two with our politics basically a tug of war pulling the center a little bit one way and then a little bit the other.

Maybe there will be a breakout one way or another - Sanders to the far left, Trump to Pluto - but so far, we seem to just fight about the balance.

 

[MikeKardec]

In a way, isn't that what we have today. Elements of capitalism - somewhat free markets (some mainly free, some heavily regulated), private ownership of means of production, competition, etc. - but with elements of socialism - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, public schools, subsidized student loans, Head Start, plus a progressive income tax, etc. Our system is a mishmash of the two with our politics basically a tug of war pulling the center a little bit one way and then a little bit the other.

Maybe there will be a breakout one way or another - Sanders to the far left, Trump to Pluto - but so far, we seem to just fight about the balance.

It is ...but I meant something beyond that that still balanced but did not overly antagonize those forces. Something that allowed an economy to function and progress without so much emphasis on growth.

Far too many of our past theories for all sorts of things, environmentalism for one, seem to end in standing room only ... maintaining prosperity through growth is another. I see capitalism as not a system but an evolving concept that continually morphs (as you say, today it includes socialist programs and in the future in may include more or less), it started by being all about monopolies granted by royalty, it will become something else in the future. Contemporary European socialism is sort of the same. Hard core communism was a system, ridged, the end of history in its own mind, softened only by corruption ... but that doesn't mean it didn't contain valuable and positive lessons, many of them included in that European socialism. I'd say that there's some other worthwhile differences in the more wild west attitude of American labor unions. My Dad, who was intimately familiar with both movements thought that the power of American labor was the thing that made communism in the US unusable and impossible ... basically, labor proved it could get there without resorting to communism. I'm not thinking there is some sort of middle way, I'm thinking that all these ideas are hundreds of years old and have either played their part of are now bankrupt of ideas. Time to start inventing new things. I lean toward self correcting systems that are as simple as possible and have lots of checks and balances and don't require ideology or force ... those are indications of the wrong theory or implantation. But that takes the fun out of it for some people.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The irony of course being that the CPUSA played a key role in the rise of the CIO unions in the thirties, and remained a key player in those unions until they were politically purged in the late forties.

American communism has never operated along the same lines as Russian or European communism, even when it was part of the Comintern -- especially during the Browder era it was moving on an increasingly independent course, and it's no coincidence that this period marked the greatest extent of its American popularity. What the Browder-era CPUSA called "Communism" prefigured modern European social democracy far more than it did any form of Stalinism, even though the Party always paid lip service to the USSR. Even the purge of the Browderites by the Fosterites in the postwar era didn't really change that. What did change was the Party's willingness to adapt itself to American realities, which is something Browder excelled at thruout his time at its head.

 

[MikeKardec]

The irony of course being that the CPUSA played a key role in the rise of the CIO unions in the thirties, and remained a key player in those unions until they were politically purged in the late forties.

One of my most amusing experiences was watching a number of Australian film crew friends, who somehow assumed no American could really know about or deal with "real" labor unions try to deal with the bewildering array of American entertainment unions and locals and all. I think they'd been told that our form of capitalism is so dog eat dog that we actually have no unions ... and then they discovered they couldn't even touch the gear of a different department without permission, which they weren't about to get. Well, they discovered we have unions and that (in that one business at least) it's quite a complete ecology. Much more complicated than their single shop, everyone drivers their own truck, situation. Maybe the wondered what all us Yanks were doing making films down there in the 90s and 00s!

I couldn't be happier with the WGA (no one will pay you all they owe without their clout) and find that most of the film oriented unions do a very good job creating a pay structure that doesn't penalize smaller productions ... these days. That's a newish development, however, in the 1980s it was like the unions were trying to kill off independent film

 

[LizzieMaine]

I couldn't be happier with the WGA (no one will pay you all they owe without their clout) and find that most of the film oriented unions do a very good job creating a pay structure that doesn't penalize smaller productions ... these days. That's a newish development, however, in the 1980s it was like the unions were trying to kill off independent film

Most of the independent films that film around here -- and there's a surprising number, apparently looking for "unspoiled natural beauty" -- still use non-union crews. And you can tell.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Here's an out there idea... How about we restructure the current "Profit over People" philosophy to include a somewhat fair human condition factor? Like allow philosophers and ethics professionals to reintegrate into government and the legal system.

 

[sheeplady]

I've encountered the notion overseas (more than once, and among some well-read current events people) that we have no social welfare programs in the U.S. Zero.

I remember one young man, who said that in Ireland the impression of the vast majority of people was that if you lost your job or became disabled there was no help from the U.S. government and this explained the homeless problem in the US. He was shocked to hear about unemployment, disability, and food stamps.

It really was an eye opener and made me much more critical about what I heard about other social systems in foreign countries.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've encountered the notion overseas (more than once, and among some well-read current events people) that we have no social welfare programs in the U.S. Zero.

I remember one young man, who said that in Ireland the impression of the vast majority of people was that if you lost your job or became disabled there was no help from the U.S. government and this explained the homeless problem in the US. He was shocked to hear about unemployment, disability, and food stamps.

It really was an eye opener and made me much more critical about what I heard about other social systems in foreign countries.

Sort of the way most Americans think Canadians have to wait six months to get a Band-Aid.

 

[Fading Fast]

Sort of the way most Americans think Canadians have to wait six months to get a Band-Aid.

They have Band-aids? Kidding aside, living in NYC, I know a lot of people from other countries come to NYC for medical care and I've been told it is because we have treatments, resources, equipment not available in their country. Since I don't live in these other countries, I don't know, does this happen in reverse? I know some American's have gone abroad for treatments not approved by the FDA, but those seem less main stream; whereas the people from other countries coming here, seem (anecdotally from people I've talked with - I have no study to point to) to be coming for treatments that are reasonably mainstream here.

Another way of asking this is, as an American, I see non-Americans coming to the US to avail themselves of American medical facilities because they don't have or don't have access to these in their country. But since I don't live abroad, I don't know if the same happen in reverse - do many Americans go abroad for treatments not available or ones they can't get access to in the US?

 

[philosophygirl78]

There will always be better treatment with private healthcare plans, while private healthcare plans exist at all... Its the nature of business. And as wrong and unethical and disgusting as it is, Medicine IS a Business First.

I worked in Healthcare Administration (Asset Management and Leasing), back int he early 2000's, and I can state from personal experience, overseeing 3 hospitals, that over 80% of revenue and profit originate from Radiation / Oncology departments. It is reality. And that was back then... I can imagine now.

 

[HudsonHawk]

They have Band-aids? Kidding aside, living in NYC, I know a lot of people from other countries come to NYC for medical care and I've been told it is because we have treatments, resources, equipment not available in their country. Since I don't live in these other countries, I don't know, does this happen in reverse? I know some American's have gone abroad for treatments not approved by the FDA, but those seem less main stream; whereas the people from other countries coming here, seem (anecdotally from people I've talked with - I have no study to point to) to be coming for treatments that are reasonably mainstream here.

I see a lot of that here in Houston as well, where there are world renown medical facilities and the two feuding pioneering heart surgeons (well, not feuding so much anymore since one of them died). Lots of people come here from all over the world for specialized heart or cancer treatments in particular. Most do it to see a particular specialist, but many because they say they can't get such specialized treatment where they live, or it would take a very long time to get such treatment.

Another way of asking this is, as an American, I see non-Americans coming to the US to avail themselves of American medical facilities because they don't have or don't have access to these in their country. But since I don't live abroad, I don't know if the same happen in reverse - do many Americans go abroad for treatments not available or ones they can't get access to in the US?

Most Americans I know who've lived abroad or traveled abroad for medical care say it's simply much cheaper and easier to get basic care. If you get sick and need antibiotics, are pregnant, or even if you need an appendectomy, abroad is much easier on the time and on the wallet. But if you need a liver transplant, it's another story.

 

[LizzieMaine]

They have Band-aids? Kidding aside, living in NYC, I know a lot of people from other countries come to NYC for medical care and I've been told it is because we have treatments, resources, equipment not available in their country. Since I don't live in these other countries, I don't know, does this happen in reverse? I know some American's have gone abroad for treatments not approved by the FDA, but those seem less main stream; whereas the people from other countries coming here, seem (anecdotally from people I've talked with - I have no study to point to) to be coming for treatments that are reasonably mainstream here.

You're talking to someone who had to do it. Twelve years ago I needed a serious surgical procedure, and since I had no insurance it would have cost me upwards of thirty thousand dollars to have it done here. I had it done in Canada for less than half of that, and have no complaints whatsoever about the quality of care.

 

[sheeplady]

My family has experienced Healthcare here (major) and abroad. I also have studied the Healthcare treatment I've gotten here in two cases- treatment for cancer and to prevent premature birth extensively in various European countries.

Our interactions in the German Healthcare system for my husband's broken foot were seamless (except for them figuring out how to take money, they don't often take cash.) It cost less for him at an urgent care, xrays, crutches, and boot in Germany without insurance than it cost us in copays here for followup. In Germany they recommended we submit to our insurance.... the German xrays cost less than our xray copay in the states.

As far as prematurity, I took a drug approved that year for US use. It had been investigated in northern Europe and was so successful they stopped the study. It needed to be retested here. Babies are saved at around the same number of weeks premature, with similar survival rates. We have a much higher rate of premature births compared to most of Europe. There are less planned inductions and inductions for going overdue in Germany to prevent prematurity, as they induce for being overdue at 41 weeks rather than 39 or 40 as in the US. (Dating a pregnancy sometimes is not exact.) I've found evidence that you must wait until you've lost two babies via prematurity (baby born live after 21 weeks and dies) in the UK before they will test the mother for treatable conditions, but I've heard of women who've lost 3 babies in the US who can't get tested. I got treated for my first without having lost a child; I've heard of women in the UK being treated for their first pregnancy too.

As far as cancer treatment, most "common" cancers have a treatment protocol that is standard globally, with tweaks. Traveling to a "specialized" center is only necessary if you're looking for non-conventional treatment. That said, even protocols differ in the US. For breast cancer I got ACT chemo, which is the protocol on the east coast. On the west coast, I would have gotten CT, no A. It's all in where your oncologist is trained. They are doing the first large study on ACT versus CT, but that won't be done for at least another 10 to 20 years.

 

[kaiser]

My family has experienced Healthcare here (major) and abroad. I also have studied the Healthcare treatment I've gotten here in two cases- treatment for cancer and to prevent premature birth extensively in various European countries.

Our interactions in the German Healthcare system for my husband's broken foot were seamless (except for them figuring out how to take money, they don't often take cash.) It cost less for him at an urgent care, xrays, crutches, and boot in Germany without insurance than it cost us in copays here for followup. In Germany they recommended we submit to our insurance.... the German xrays cost less than our xray copay in the states.

As far as prematurity, I took a drug approved that year for US use. It had been investigated in northern Europe and was so successful they stopped the study. It needed to be retested here. Babies are saved at around the same number of weeks premature, with similar survival rates. We have a much higher rate of premature births compared to most of Europe. There are less planned inductions and inductions for going overdue in Germany to prevent prematurity, as they induce for being overdue at 41 weeks rather than 39 or 40 as in the US. (Dating a pregnancy sometimes is not exact.) I've found evidence that you must wait until you've lost two babies via prematurity (baby born live after 21 weeks and dies) in the UK before they will test the mother for treatable conditions, but I've heard of women who've lost 3 babies in the US who can't get tested. I got treated for my first without having lost a child; I've heard of women in the UK being treated for their first pregnancy too.

As far as cancer treatment, most "common" cancers have a treatment protocol that is standard globally, with tweaks. Traveling to a "specialized" center is only necessary if you're looking for non-conventional treatment. That said, even protocols differ in the US. For breast cancer I got ACT chemo, which is the protocol on the east coast. On the west coast, I would have gotten CT, no A. It's all in where your oncologist is trained. They are doing the first large study on ACT versus CT, but that won't be done for at least another 10 to 20 years.

I can second your praise of the German health care system. It works very well here even if many people complain about it. It is much worse and much more expensive elsewhere in the world. My wife got sick in Las Vegas years ago and we had to go to an emergency room in one of the local hospitals. The first question that we were asked was how were we going to pay the bill, credit card, or cash.