Jump to content

OldGimletEye

Members
  • Content count

    8,791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OldGimletEye

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Straight Outta Flea Bottom

Recent Profile Visitors

19,475 profile views
  1. There is no doubt, I think, that firms are less willing today to do training today than they were in the past. And then they cry about a "skills gap"* and yet offer up no solutions on how to solve it. * a good part, in recent years, was bullshit by the way.
  2. I think one of the things I think is a problem is that these kids go off to college, then amass a substantial debt, and then can't find a job, or at least one relatively quickly, because the "Entry Level Job" seemingly now means "Entry Level, but with three years experience". And then you have some "career expert" knucklehead suggesting people get internships, even if that means it is an unpaid internship. Well, that doesn't really work, if you don't come from a wealthy background, where not working for money is not really an option. I guess what I'm getting at here is I'd like to explore someway of getting students real world work experience fairly quickly into their college careers, maybe after their second year or something. And then maybe they can finish up their college degrees while employed or earning experience, even if that would take longer than the traditional four years. It just seems that employers are demanding more of recent college graduates then they did say a few generations ago. And I think something needs to be done to fix this.
  3. While I'd certainly be amenable to more public investment in education, I tend to think we need to have a broader conversation about how we actually do education, beyond high school, in the US. And in my view, I think we need to think of models of education and training that go beyond the traditional college degree. This is something I think that needs to be discussed more whenever the issue of "free college" comes up.
  4. Keep in mind I went at about 280-290 lbs back in the day.
  5. Not while drinking beer at the same time. LOL.
  6. Even in my first two years of college my major was pretty much beer and John Madden Football. But by my third year, I started to "grow up", so to speak.
  7. I agree with this. Whenever I talk to somebody or read somebody's opinion in the papers, the only thing I really care about, ultimately, is does the person have clue to what they are talking about and not what school they went to. I didn't go to elite schools. In fact me getting in college in the first place was pretty much a fluke, as I wasn't that good of a high school student, my only talent being I was pretty good at running down and tackling people. I didn't take my education seriously until about my third year as an undergraduate. I had to do a lot of catch up. I got into a fairly decent master's program, eventually, but again, I think it wouldn't be considered "top tier." And yet despite having basically gone to little ol' "cow college", I know enough to know when certain professors at elite universities have screwed the pooch. Something I have ranted about before. I've also corrected people that went to elite schools. It's not enough for them to say, "but I went to an Ivy League School!, so I'm correct". LOL, no. It doesn't work that way. I've never looked at my degrees as the end of my education, but only a begging. I'm pretty much committed to life long learning, but a lot of that need not take place in a formal classroom environment, in my opinion. Which now gets me into your comment that not everyone is cut out for college. In a nutshell, I agree. Right now, there is a lot of talk about providing everyone with a free college education. And while, I do in fact believe that being committed to life long learning and expanding one's skill sets is important, particularly if they want a fairly lucrative career, or a route out of poverty, I do wonder in fact if talk about free college for everyone is framing the problem correctly. Perhaps, we ought to de-emphasize the traditional college degree as an indicator of being "sufficiently intelligent" to do a job. I'm a pretty big fan of CLEP test, as it seems to me that is a much cheaper way for a student to demonstrate their basic competency with particular subject matter, rather than paying $1000 per credit hour or whatever. I guess what I'm getting at is that I would like to see an expanded system of test that allow people to demonstrate their competency in particular areas, rather than necessarily having to compete a traditional 4 year degree or whatever. I have no problem, obviously, with the state spending more money to help people continue their education. But the problem is that the supply of reputable colleges is limited. It's not a secret that the real price of a college education has significantly increased since the 1970s. In short, if you are going to give people more money to get an education beyond their high school years, you need to figure out a way to increase the supply of education. It seems to me that a way out of this is to de-emphasize the traditional four year degree and to put more emphasis on skills based testing, community colleges, and apprenticeship programs and so forth.
  8. OldGimletEye

    US Politics: compromising positions

    The thing with Brown becoming VP. Supposing the Democrats win the election and he becomes VP? Then who in the hell would end up being his replacement? Probably a Republican. He might be the last Democrat that can win a Senate race in Ohio.
  9. OldGimletEye

    US Politics: compromising positions

    Even better, there is evidence that it may have actually harmed growth. Since Kansas obviously doesn't have it's own Central Bank, when aggregate demand declined as a result of the cuts, it had no way to offset it by lowering the interest rate (well it would it would have been hard for even the FED to have done so at the time). And then add in hysteresis effects from things like not investing in education and roads and so forth.
  10. OldGimletEye

    US Politics: compromising positions

    Except of course when they always say "Social Security and Medicare" as if the future funding problems of Social Security are of the same magnitude as Medicare, which they are not. But, to hear them tell it, they are. Anybody that talks about fiscal deficits and then follows it up with "Social Security And Medicare" is being full of shit. And of course when they speak of "Social Security and Medicare" it is usually followed up with a suggestion we cut them because of the deficit. And then there is Mitch McConnell running around saying the recent spike in deficit spending is because you guessed it "Social Security and Medicare", suggesting we need to cut it, like Republicans always do because they are oh so worried about the defecit, when it was actually due to the Republican Party's corporate tax bill. The funding issues with Social Security(which is an easy fix) and Medicare are future events, so it was complete horseshit on McConnell's part to suggest they were the cause of the current spike in the deficit.
  11. OldGimletEye

    US Politics: compromising positions

    All I can say is that I'm glad that the "Brownback Boom" was kept in Kansas and wasn't inflicted on the rest of the nation. We already had the "Bush Boom" and "Bullish on Bush" inflicted upon us.
  12. OldGimletEye

    US Politics: compromising positions

    What they were seeing was Herbert Hoover and FDR all over again. And that scared the shit out of them.
  13. OldGimletEye

    US Politics: compromising positions

    Look I don't believe in "anything goesism". And I'm willing to be critical of some left wing ideas, like the belief that a lot of these proposals can be simply paid for by running the money printing press. I believe that is a mistake both theoretically and empirically. That said, a lot of the stuff coming out isn't crazy. There are good reasons to think they will work. But, you know, they will always seem "radical" if you are not willing to go out and make the argument.
  14. OldGimletEye

    US Politics: compromising positions

    After LBJ pretty much smashed Goldwater in the 1964 election, movement conservatives had a choice to make. They could moderate or keep pressing for their point of view. And it seems to me, they chose the second option and were largely successful. They had managed to push politics to the right. Old New Deal type democrats were basically on the run. And as a response, Democrats tried the triangulate thing. And how did that work out? I'd say it largely backfired. Republicans didn't see that as attempt to move to the center in good faith. Instead, Republicans moved to the right, always trying out to conservative one another, and probably pushing things to the right again. At the time the Democrats tried to triangulate Puke Gingrich declared his side must go on permanent offense. And then Obama pretty much tried work with Republicans, after the disastrous presidency of Bush, and Republicans didn't want anything to do with it. You'd think after the disastrous presidency of Bush, Republicans might rethink their whole approach, just a little. But, they weren't having any of that. So, I just think the strategy of triangulation isn't a good one and it is for suckers. Time I think to get tougher on the conservatism.
  15. OldGimletEye

    US Politics: compromising positions

    Yeah, this is pretty much a disaster. Watch us pass something like the New Green Deal, only to have it struck down by some Federalist Society, right wing kook of a judge, who thinks Lochner was all that and a bag of chips.
×