| |
| ▲ | nradov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Education is part of it. But a lot of the social capital which makes societies prosperous is separate from what we usually consider to be education. On an individual behavior level that includes things like knowing how to show up for work on time, sober, and properly dressed, and follow management instructions without arguing or taking things personally. These are skills that people in the middle and upper classes take for granted but they forget that there are a large number of fellow citizens in the economically disconnected underclass who never had a good opportunity to learn those basics. As a society we've never done a good job of lifting those people up. | | |
| ▲ | rightbyte an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > On an individual behavior level that includes things like knowing how to show up for work on time, sober, and properly dressed, and follow management instructions without arguing or taking things personally. These are skills that people in the middle and upper classes take for granted I don't see your point. Those rules does not apply to the upper class and middle class workers have way more leeway regarding that than the lower class. | |
| ▲ | jrjeksjd8d 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The existence of an upper class necessitates the existence of a lower class. You can't just pull everyone up to be above average. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What's your point? I didn't make any claims about averages. We could do a lot more to improve opportunities and social mobility for people caught in the permanent underclass. | | |
| ▲ | Ferret7446 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But we have. The underclass today has much better lives in many aspects than the highest class from many decades ago. The absolute level of wealth has increased, it's simply that the delta between the high and the low is widening. Would you rather live equally in poverty or live comfortably with others who are way more wealthy than you? Surprisingly people do seem to prefer the former, though I'd prefer the latter |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I mean an unreasonable amount of it went to administrators. But the goal and the intent was certainly there. This is wrong. The increase in administrator pay began well after the crises cited in OP. You could cite spending on the sciences (and thus Silicon Valley), but the spending by the US did not accrue to administrators; and further, federal money primarily goes to grants and loans, but GP is citing a time over which there were relatively low increases in tuition. Edit: Not at home, but even a cursory serious search will turn up reports like this one that indicate the lack of clarity in the popular uprising against money "[going] to administrators" https://www.investigativeeconomics.org/p/who-to-believe-on-u... | | |
| ▲ | malcolmgreaves 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | For universities, yes. But not for primary education. Administrative bloat is the worst in K-12. | | |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > For universities, yes. But not for primary education. Administrative bloat is the worst in K-12. First, where is your data? Second, this discussion is clearly about post-secondary education ("the idea is more money could've been invested into bringing the bottom rungs of American society up and created a more skilled and educated workforce in the process.") |
|
|
|
