It does amuse me , the discussion starts on rational , Nick says sweat shops are a way out of poverty , Pitt posts a Youtube to dispute it
And Soccer player posts an excerpt from some college paper as if that is supposed to trump all other logic .
Pittbulll, given quantities of observed data, it is possible to see trends, and from those trends draw conclusions. From those conclusions, it is possible to make predictions. In the social sciences, it is not always possible (or desirable) to verify those predictions through experimentation.
You can call this “opinion” if you wish but you should know there is a vast difference between the above and someone just spouting off ideas.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
There is nothing that make Americans superior to any other nationality
[/quote]
That is a great point. The fact that you don’t see the world through red, white, and blue-tinted glasses sometimes makes a conversation with you more reasonable than one with someone who does. My question is, if we acknowledge that Americans aren’t superior to people of any other nationality, what makes some Americans superior to others?
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
Pittbulll, given quantities of observed data, it is possible to see trends, and from those trends draw conclusions. From those conclusions, it is possible to make predictions. In the social sciences, it is not always possible (or desirable) to verify those predictions through experimentation.
You can call this “opinion” if you wish but you should know there is a vast difference between the above and someone just spouting off ideas.[/quote]
with out reading the whole paper of economics of poverty , did it distinguish between descending or ascending ?
I know it looks like ancient history , but my father quit school in the 4th grade to go work in the Coal mines of PA with his father to help support the family at the end of the Depression
The paper mentions the trend that as families increase in wealth, children are less likely to work. That is an irrefutable fact
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
The paper mentions the trend that as families increase in wealth, children are less likely to work. That is an irrefutable fact[/quote]
what if the wealth does not increase or even worse it declines
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
Pittbulll, jjackrash,
It would not return in the US because as has been said multiple times in this thread, the opportunity cost is too high. No parent would think their child would be better off in a factory than at school. The economic circumstances are such in the US that the additional income from a child worker is never the better proposition for a family.
It is obvious.
Furthermore, ^all this is not evening taking into account societal mores: even if child labor were legal (which won’t happen because the majority of people are against it), nobody would do it because of how it would be viewed.
[/quote]
You are stating your opinion just as I am .
You think that with out a Gov that in 1 or 2 generations we would even have schools ?
There is nothing that make Americans superior to any other nationality
[/quote]
What do you mean without a government? Anarchy?
[/quote]
yes
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
There is nothing that make Americans superior to any other nationality
[/quote]
That is a great point. The fact that you don’t see the world through red, white, and blue-tinted glasses sometimes makes a conversation with you more reasonable than one with someone who does. My question is, if we acknowledge that Americans aren’t superior to people of any other nationality, what makes some Americans superior to others?[/quote]
We agree on this point I like to call it a star spangled erection 
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
The paper mentions the trend that as families increase in wealth, children are less likely to work. That is an irrefutable fact[/quote]
the only fact there is the paper stated an opinion
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[Emphasis mine.]
Exactly.
Because, over the course of that long term, the kids who would otherwise have been languishing in sweat shops have been in school.
Which means that, once the sweat shop jobs actually disappear, they will be disappearing from a society that has already discarded of much of its dependence on them.
School a generation of kids and see how bent out of shape they are when they grow up to find that the horrendous, penny-paying labor they and their families would otherwise have been seeking (had they not been schooled) has dried up and died.[/quote]
How do we achieve the wealth that allows for luxuries(like children being full-time students) without first going through the “penny-paying labor” phase?
You can plop all the schoolhouses and teachers you want in Pakistan, you can pass a $35/hour minimum wage there, but all that will happen is the exit of whatever companies they do have there(I don’t even know if any big companies use Pakistan to produce anything).
The idea that schooling creates anything is dangerous. Schooling is a luxury. Schooling can’t create anything except workers. Innovation doesn’t come from schooling. Innovation comes from great minds, who may or may not have much of it. A society needs those great minds to generate the ideas that allow for luxuries. Telling those great minds that lesser minds(backed by guns) will decide what to do with their creations(and profits) is not a recipe for advancement.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
The paper mentions the trend that as families increase in wealth, children are less likely to work. That is an irrefutable fact[/quote]
the only fact there is the paper stated an opinion
[/quote]
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
That is a fact. In the data amassed by the researchers, the wealthier the family, the less likely the children were to work.
Not up for debate. If you have a set of points …(-3,9), (-2,4), (-1,1), (0,0), (1,1), (2,4), (3,9)… stating that the relationship is f(x)=x^2 is not an opinion.
If you have a fair die, saying that in one roll your chance of rolling a 3 is 1/6 is not a matter of opinion
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
The paper mentions the trend that as families increase in wealth, children are less likely to work. That is an irrefutable fact[/quote]
what if the wealth does not increase or even worse it declines
[/quote]
poorer families are more likely to have children work. The personal example you provided does not contradict this. You even emphasized the depression in order to bring into context the economic situation of your family
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
Pittbulll, jjackrash,
It would not return in the US because as has been said multiple times in this thread, the opportunity cost is too high. No parent would think their child would be better off in a factory than at school. The economic circumstances are such in the US that the additional income from a child worker is never the better proposition for a family.
It is obvious.
Furthermore, ^all this is not evening taking into account societal mores: even if child labor were legal (which won’t happen because the majority of people are against it), nobody would do it because of how it would be viewed.
[/quote]
You are stating your opinion just as I am .
You think that with out a Gov that in 1 or 2 generations we would even have schools ?
There is nothing that make Americans superior to any other nationality
[/quote]
What do you mean without a government? Anarchy?
[/quote]
yes
[/quote]
This is ludicrous.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[Emphasis mine.]
Exactly.
Because, over the course of that long term, the kids who would otherwise have been languishing in sweat shops have been in school.
Which means that, once the sweat shop jobs actually disappear, they will be disappearing from a society that has already discarded of much of its dependence on them.
School a generation of kids and see how bent out of shape they are when they grow up to find that the horrendous, penny-paying labor they and their families would otherwise have been seeking (had they not been schooled) has dried up and died.[/quote]
Innovation comes from great minds, who may or may not have much of it. A society needs those great minds to generate the ideas that allow for luxuries.
[/quote]
This is silly, great minds do require education as well.
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[Emphasis mine.]
Exactly.
Because, over the course of that long term, the kids who would otherwise have been languishing in sweat shops have been in school.
Which means that, once the sweat shop jobs actually disappear, they will be disappearing from a society that has already discarded of much of its dependence on them.
School a generation of kids and see how bent out of shape they are when they grow up to find that the horrendous, penny-paying labor they and their families would otherwise have been seeking (had they not been schooled) has dried up and died.[/quote]
Innovation comes from great minds, who may or may not have much of it. A society needs those great minds to generate the ideas that allow for luxuries.
[/quote]
This is silly, great minds do require education as well.[/quote]
You have this all figured out. Now go write your thesis and become a great innovator.
Leave us clueless old plebes to our walkers and diapers.
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
This is silly, great minds do require education as well.[/quote]
Education does not create those minds. Wealth has to be generated before any type of public education(this is certainly what was being talked about) can exist.
*If public education wasn’t what was being talked about, then how is the education provided before the wealth is generated?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[Emphasis mine.]
Exactly.
Because, over the course of that long term, the kids who would otherwise have been languishing in sweat shops have been in school.
Which means that, once the sweat shop jobs actually disappear, they will be disappearing from a society that has already discarded of much of its dependence on them.
School a generation of kids and see how bent out of shape they are when they grow up to find that the horrendous, penny-paying labor they and their families would otherwise have been seeking (had they not been schooled) has dried up and died.[/quote]
Innovation comes from great minds, who may or may not have much of it. A society needs those great minds to generate the ideas that allow for luxuries.
[/quote]
This is silly, great minds do require education as well.[/quote]
You have this all figured out. Now go write your thesis and become a great innovator.
Leave us clueless old plebes to our walkers and diapers.
[/quote]
Don’t condescend–obviously I do not have it “all figured out”. Why the hostility?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
This is silly, great minds do require education as well.[/quote]
Education does not create those minds. Wealth has to be generated before any type of public education(this is certainly what was being talked about) can exist.
*If public education wasn’t what was being talked about, then how is the education provided before the wealth is generated? [/quote]
I disagree with your first statement. At the very least, if education doesn’t create the minds it is at least an essential input. If not then why are the great innovators products of first world education? Even Ramanujan, often brought up as the archetypal natural genius, received significant amounts of formal schooling.
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
This is silly, great minds do require education as well.[/quote]
Education does not create those minds. Wealth has to be generated before any type of public education(this is certainly what was being talked about) can exist.
*If public education wasn’t what was being talked about, then how is the education provided before the wealth is generated? [/quote]
I disagree with your first statement. At the very least, if education doesn’t create the minds it is at least an essential input. If not then why are the great innovators products of first world education? Even Ramanujan, often brought up as the archetypal natural genius, received significant amounts of formal schooling.[/quote]
Obviously, a great mind needs exposure to things. A great mind in some type of vacuum will produce nothing of value. Like I said, unless I totally misunderstood what was said, public, formal education was what was brought up. That type of education can not exist before innovation.
Your question about the great innovators being part of the first world is pretty easy to answer, I believe. Some guy creating the most advanced _________ in Zimbabwe won’t get much credit, because __________ far more advanced already exist. That’s kind of like asking why the printing press came before computers. Third world states also tend to be the most oppressive, therefore, they also present the least motivation to create.
Nick: Attendant to more education are less crime, more skilled labor, higher wages, more wealth, fewer abortions, longer life expectancy, less Islamic fundamentalism (in a place like Pakistan). The evidence to support this is very easy to find.
As far as great innovations go, people love to choose a few anecdotes and try to end the argument there. A couple of geniuses who dropped out of college do not make up for the fact that we are all availing ourselves, on a nearly minute-by-minute basis, of luxuries provided to us by a society that long ago settled, correctly, the debate about the importance of the universal opportunity to learn, think and create.
Bill Gates, to take one of the most banal and rote examples, would not likely have done what he did if he had been put, from the age of 6, to illiterate mechanical labor.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Nick: Attendant to more education are less crime, more skilled labor, higher wages, more wealth, fewer abortions, longer life expectancy, less Islamic fundamentalism (in a place like Pakistan). The evidence to support this is very easy to find.
As far as great innovations go, people love to choose a few anecdotes and try to end the argument there. A couple of geniuses who dropped out of college do not make up for the fact that we are all availing ourselves, on a nearly minute-by-minute basis, of luxuries provided to us by a society that long ago settled, correctly, the debate about the importance of the universal opportunity to learn, think and create.
Bill Gates, to take one of the most banal and rote examples, would not likely have done what he did if he had been put, from the age of 6, to illiterate mechanical labor.[/quote]
I don’t know that we’re disagreeing with each other. There is no way to socialize education without the income created by work. You can not drop a socialized education system in to the middle of a third-world society and expect that to advance it. For one, there will be no money with which to fund it.
To a point(which only the market can BEST decide), work is too essential to give up for class time. At some point, however, prior innovation creates a need for some education just to maintain what already exists. The same kind of mind that once created the wheel will continue to create more advanced technology…unless it has no reason to do so.
You can probably swap “more education” and “less crime, more skilled labor, higher wages, more wealth, fewer abortions, longer life expectancy, less Islamic fundamentalism (in a place like Pakistan)” and come up with the same result(i.e. you could probably say, “an area with higher wages produces more educated children”).