(09-14-2019 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-14-2019 04:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not sure where we had the MW discussion, but I wanted to let people know this anecdote.

I used to have a 50% interest in a food processing company. I sold my interest to the other main stockholder long ago. I was talking to his widow, who runs the company now.

She complained about the difficulty of getting and keeping good help. I jokingly said the $15 MW would take care of that. She said they were already offering more than that, and she cannot get most of her hires to even show up for work the first day, much less come back the second day.

What’s the problem, I asked.

“Nobody wants to work hard. They’ve never had to work hard before. They want to sit around in air conditioning and get paid for it.”

The work involves working in the heat, and occasionally lifting boxes of up to 60 pounds.

We hear a bunch about a “living wage”. Maybe those wanting a living wage should be prepared to work for it.

What wage has she been offering? Most of the guys I work with that do work hard and are willing to break their backs get paid closer to $40 an hour because that is what it will take to get someone to bust their ass.

But there definitely is a shortage of people willing to do hard manual labor for low pay.

(09-17-2019 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  U S Citizenship test

I imagine all of us here could ace this test, but I bet there are a lot of voters who could not pass it. I would think that number would only go up if the Democrats were to get the voting age lowered to 16, or lower. I wonder why the Democrats want a more ignorant electorate.



Really, I don't.

(09-17-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  U S Citizenship test

I imagine all of us here could ace this test, but I bet there are a lot of voters who could not pass it. I would think that number would only go up if the Democrats were to get the voting age lowered to 16, or lower. I wonder why the Democrats want a more ignorant electorate.



Really, I don't.

My guess is you would actually have an increase in passing rate if you decreased the voting age - most 16 year olds have just taken american history and government courses.

(09-17-2019 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  U S Citizenship test

I imagine all of us here could ace this test, but I bet there are a lot of voters who could not pass it. I would think that number would only go up if the Democrats were to get the voting age lowered to 16, or lower. I wonder why the Democrats want a more ignorant electorate.



Really, I don't.

My guess is you would actually have an increase in passing rate if you decreased the voting age - most 16 year olds have just taken american history and government courses.

So they forget them as they get older? Is that why the passing rate would go down at 18?

It might be fresher on their minds, true, if they are among those who are still in school. Just because you are 16 does not mean you have applied yourself in school.

(09-17-2019 12:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  U S Citizenship test

I imagine all of us here could ace this test, but I bet there are a lot of voters who could not pass it. I would think that number would only go up if the Democrats were to get the voting age lowered to 16, or lower. I wonder why the Democrats want a more ignorant electorate.



Really, I don't.

My guess is you would actually have an increase in passing rate if you decreased the voting age - most 16 year olds have just taken american history and government courses.

So they forget them as they get older? Is that why the passing rate would go down at 18?

It might be fresher on their minds, true, if they are among those who are still in school. Just because you are 16 does not mean you have applied yourself in school.

Yes, people do forget as they get older. And it’s not that the passing rate at 18 goes down, it’s that the passing rate as you get further away from taking courses on the topic goes down. I would expect the passing rate of 16-18 year olds to be much higher than the passing rate of say, 50-52 year olds, simply because those high schoolers have had less time to forget the responses. Those tests are testing factoids, not critical thinking skills.

It’s the same way that I would expect 16-18 year olds to score better on the SAT than 50-52 year olds.

(09-17-2019 01:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 12:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  U S Citizenship test

I imagine all of us here could ace this test, but I bet there are a lot of voters who could not pass it. I would think that number would only go up if the Democrats were to get the voting age lowered to 16, or lower. I wonder why the Democrats want a more ignorant electorate.



Really, I don't.

My guess is you would actually have an increase in passing rate if you decreased the voting age - most 16 year olds have just taken american history and government courses.

So they forget them as they get older? Is that why the passing rate would go down at 18?

It might be fresher on their minds, true, if they are among those who are still in school. Just because you are 16 does not mean you have applied yourself in school.

Yes, people do forget as they get older. And it’s not that the passing rate at 18 goes down, it’s that the passing rate as you get further away from taking courses on the topic goes down. I would expect the passing rate of 16-18 year olds to be much higher than the passing rate of say, 50-52 year olds, simply because those high schoolers have had less time to forget the responses. Those tests are testing factoids, not critical thinking skills.

It’s the same way that I would expect 16-18 year olds to score better on the SAT than 50-52 year olds.

Good points...if you are arguing for a 25 year maximum age for office holders. But there is something to be said for experience, discussion, and further study. I know much more about how the government is run now than I did at either 16 or 18. Have you learned nothing since school, only forgotten stuff? How dreary your life must be. Stuck at 16 but with no memory.

I knew how to answer "Checks and Balances' on a quiz when I was 16, but it took many years and many discussions like this one to reach the understanding of it I have now. Could I be that rara avis that gets wiser as I get older? Like a wise old Owl? Unlike you, who has regressed since he was 18?

No wonder HS seniors and college freshmen think they are smarter than their elders. I'll add you to the list. that think that.

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

(09-17-2019 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

I'd also add that 16-18 year olds mostly learn what our system of government is SUPPOSED to do... while 20+ (and especially 50+) have learned what it REALLY does or how people exploit it.

Many young people are idealists. By the time you reach 50, you also learn the risk of unintended consequences. You've usually been around long enough to see great ideas turn into cesspools.

Older people tend to look at what could go wrong while younger people tend to think only of the potential for good.

Youthful optimism is a great thing, perhaps the greatest of things, but should always be tempered by the wisdom of experience.



I will throw one thought in that just sort of came to me....
I do find it odd that the left is simultaneously arguing to lower some ages, but raise others... It seems they want more people to vote, but not live on their own/take care of themselves. I'm sure there are reasons beyond the political, but I just found that thought interesting. The argument is that they're better informed etc etc than they were 20 years ago, but they're less able to live on their own.

(09-17-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

I'd also add that 16-18 year olds mostly learn what our system of government is SUPPOSED to do... while 20+ (and especially 50+) have learned what it REALLY does or how people exploit it.

Many young people are idealists. By the time you reach 50, you also learn the risk of unintended consequences. You've usually been around long enough to see great ideas turn into cesspools.

Older people tend to look at what could go wrong while younger people tend to think only of the potential for good.

Youthful optimism is a great thing, perhaps the greatest of things, but should always be tempered by the wisdom of experience.



I will throw one thought in that just sort of came to me....
I do find it odd that the left is simultaneously arguing to lower some ages, but raise others... It seems they want more people to vote, but not live on their own/take care of themselves. I'm sure there are reasons beyond the political, but I just found that thought interesting. The argument is that they're better informed etc etc than they were 20 years ago, but they're less able to live on their own.

I'd agree with everything you said about knowledge of government, but OO's point, which you're responding to, is in no way germane to the citizenship test, which doesn't ask questions like that. Unless someone thinks questions like "What is Benjamin Franklin famous for?" or "Name one of the authors of the Federalist Papers." fit that bill...

Seriously, the citizenship test is basically a US history quiz, which will be a lot easier for high schoolers to answer.

https://my.uscis.gov/en/prep/test/civics/view

And to your last comment - I agree that young people are better informed than years past because of how accessible information is, but are also less able to live on their own. Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult. You can't easily put yourself through secondary school with a part-time job in 2019 like you could in the mid to late 1900s. Do you think that, overall, that assessment isn't correct?

(09-17-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

I'd also add that 16-18 year olds mostly learn what our system of government is SUPPOSED to do... while 20+ (and especially 50+) have learned what it REALLY does or how people exploit it.

Many young people are idealists. By the time you reach 50, you also learn the risk of unintended consequences. You've usually been around long enough to see great ideas turn into cesspools.

Older people tend to look at what could go wrong while younger people tend to think only of the potential for good.

Youthful optimism is a great thing, perhaps the greatest of things, but should always be tempered by the wisdom of experience.



I will throw one thought in that just sort of came to me....
I do find it odd that the left is simultaneously arguing to lower some ages, but raise others... It seems they want more people to vote, but not live on their own/take care of themselves. I'm sure there are reasons beyond the political, but I just found that thought interesting. The argument is that they're better informed etc etc than they were 20 years ago, but they're less able to live on their own.

I'd agree with everything you said about knowledge of government, but OO's point, which you're responding to, is in no way germane to the citizenship test, which doesn't ask questions like that. Unless someone thinks questions like "What is Benjamin Franklin famous for?" or "Name one of the authors of the Federalist Papers." fit that bill...

Seriously, the citizenship test is basically a US history quiz, which will be a lot easier for high schoolers to answer.

https://my.uscis.gov/en/prep/test/civics/view

And to your last comment - I agree that young people are better informed than years past because of how accessible information is, but are also less able to live on their own. Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult. You can't easily put yourself through secondary school with a part-time job in 2019 like you could in the mid to late 1900s. Do you think that, overall, that assessment isn't correct?

(09-17-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

I'd also add that 16-18 year olds mostly learn what our system of government is SUPPOSED to do... while 20+ (and especially 50+) have learned what it REALLY does or how people exploit it.

Many young people are idealists. By the time you reach 50, you also learn the risk of unintended consequences. You've usually been around long enough to see great ideas turn into cesspools.

Older people tend to look at what could go wrong while younger people tend to think only of the potential for good.

Youthful optimism is a great thing, perhaps the greatest of things, but should always be tempered by the wisdom of experience.



I will throw one thought in that just sort of came to me....
I do find it odd that the left is simultaneously arguing to lower some ages, but raise others... It seems they want more people to vote, but not live on their own/take care of themselves. I'm sure there are reasons beyond the political, but I just found that thought interesting. The argument is that they're better informed etc etc than they were 20 years ago, but they're less able to live on their own.

I'd agree with everything you said about knowledge of government, but OO's point, which you're responding to, is in no way germane to the citizenship test, which doesn't ask questions like that. Unless someone thinks questions like "What is Benjamin Franklin famous for?" or "Name one of the authors of the Federalist Papers." fit that bill...

Seriously, the citizenship test is basically a US history quiz, which will be a lot easier for high schoolers to answer.

https://my.uscis.gov/en/prep/test/civics/view

And to your last comment - I agree that young people are better informed than years past because of how accessible information is, but are also less able to live on their own. Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult. You can't easily put yourself through secondary school with a part-time job in 2019 like you could in the mid to late 1900s. Do you think that, overall, that assessment isn't correct?

(09-17-2019 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

I'd also add that 16-18 year olds mostly learn what our system of government is SUPPOSED to do... while 20+ (and especially 50+) have learned what it REALLY does or how people exploit it.

Many young people are idealists. By the time you reach 50, you also learn the risk of unintended consequences. You've usually been around long enough to see great ideas turn into cesspools.

Older people tend to look at what could go wrong while younger people tend to think only of the potential for good.

Youthful optimism is a great thing, perhaps the greatest of things, but should always be tempered by the wisdom of experience.



I will throw one thought in that just sort of came to me....
I do find it odd that the left is simultaneously arguing to lower some ages, but raise others... It seems they want more people to vote, but not live on their own/take care of themselves. I'm sure there are reasons beyond the political, but I just found that thought interesting. The argument is that they're better informed etc etc than they were 20 years ago, but they're less able to live on their own.

I'd agree with everything you said about knowledge of government, but OO's point, which you're responding to, is in no way germane to the citizenship test, which doesn't ask questions like that. Unless someone thinks questions like "What is Benjamin Franklin famous for?" or "Name one of the authors of the Federalist Papers." fit that bill...

Seriously, the citizenship test is basically a US history quiz, which will be a lot easier for high schoolers to answer.

https://my.uscis.gov/en/prep/test/civics/view

And to your last comment - I agree that young people are better informed than years past because of how accessible information is, but are also less able to live on their own. Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult. You can't easily put yourself through secondary school with a part-time job in 2019 like you could in the mid to late 1900s. Do you think that, overall, that assessment isn't correct?

Yes.

In the mid to late 1900's, more families were intact and there was less need of people to put themselves through secondary school with a part time job, like my dad did in the 0's but I did not have to do in the 60's.

But go ahead and give me a citation on it.

Stagnant wages? Cite something.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/average-salary-information-for-us-workers-2060808

"Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013."

I think we are in agreement that the Citizenship test is just a regurgitation of factoids. It's a simple test. What bothers me is that so many natural born Americans could not pass it. Not everybody is a straight A high school grad. I don't understand why you think 16-18 YOs will forget it what they had to learn by the time they are old enough to buy a gun (21, under the new proposals). So we have the strange juxtaposition of 18 YOs knowing more about the Second Amendment but 21 YOs being mature enough to own a gun. Both Democratic positions.

Sometimes, Lad, I wonder if you take your positions just to be opposite mine.

(09-17-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

I'd also add that 16-18 year olds mostly learn what our system of government is SUPPOSED to do... while 20+ (and especially 50+) have learned what it REALLY does or how people exploit it.

Many young people are idealists. By the time you reach 50, you also learn the risk of unintended consequences. You've usually been around long enough to see great ideas turn into cesspools.

Older people tend to look at what could go wrong while younger people tend to think only of the potential for good.

Youthful optimism is a great thing, perhaps the greatest of things, but should always be tempered by the wisdom of experience.



I will throw one thought in that just sort of came to me....
I do find it odd that the left is simultaneously arguing to lower some ages, but raise others... It seems they want more people to vote, but not live on their own/take care of themselves. I'm sure there are reasons beyond the political, but I just found that thought interesting. The argument is that they're better informed etc etc than they were 20 years ago, but they're less able to live on their own.

I'd agree with everything you said about knowledge of government, but OO's point, which you're responding to, is in no way germane to the citizenship test, which doesn't ask questions like that. Unless someone thinks questions like "What is Benjamin Franklin famous for?" or "Name one of the authors of the Federalist Papers." fit that bill...

Seriously, the citizenship test is basically a US history quiz, which will be a lot easier for high schoolers to answer.

https://my.uscis.gov/en/prep/test/civics/view

And to your last comment - I agree that young people are better informed than years past because of how accessible information is, but are also less able to live on their own. Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult. You can't easily put yourself through secondary school with a part-time job in 2019 like you could in the mid to late 1900s. Do you think that, overall, that assessment isn't correct?

Interesting you use the goal of secondary school --- the cost of university education has increased in the last 20 years at a rate probably 10x the generalized cost of living.

Very convenient benchmark.

Want to hazard a guess that has driven that far more than general cost of living increase? I have one really good candidate.

As for the backside of the question posited, with all respect, one of the absolute *best* methods to gain that education and overcome that gap has been for close to 60 years and continues to be service in the armed forces. Not to mention very specific and highly valuable technical training.

As to your generalized point, yes -- but you also forget that a degree in underwater basket weaving doesnt gain one much in today's very specialized and technically oriented workplace. Bummer.

I think to some extent a good amount of the issues you complain about can actually be written down to at least some extent to very poor education choices on where to shovel 40 - 240k.

So, while part of your complaint is pertinent, there is another part that is fairly self-inflicted.

(09-17-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

I'd also add that 16-18 year olds mostly learn what our system of government is SUPPOSED to do... while 20+ (and especially 50+) have learned what it REALLY does or how people exploit it.

Many young people are idealists. By the time you reach 50, you also learn the risk of unintended consequences. You've usually been around long enough to see great ideas turn into cesspools.

Older people tend to look at what could go wrong while younger people tend to think only of the potential for good.

Youthful optimism is a great thing, perhaps the greatest of things, but should always be tempered by the wisdom of experience.



I will throw one thought in that just sort of came to me....
I do find it odd that the left is simultaneously arguing to lower some ages, but raise others... It seems they want more people to vote, but not live on their own/take care of themselves. I'm sure there are reasons beyond the political, but I just found that thought interesting. The argument is that they're better informed etc etc than they were 20 years ago, but they're less able to live on their own.

I'd agree with everything you said about knowledge of government, but OO's point, which you're responding to, is in no way germane to the citizenship test, which doesn't ask questions like that. Unless someone thinks questions like "What is Benjamin Franklin famous for?" or "Name one of the authors of the Federalist Papers." fit that bill...

Seriously, the citizenship test is basically a US history quiz, which will be a lot easier for high schoolers to answer.

https://my.uscis.gov/en/prep/test/civics/view

And to your last comment - I agree that young people are better informed than years past because of how accessible information is, but are also less able to live on their own. Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult. You can't easily put yourself through secondary school with a part-time job in 2019 like you could in the mid to late 1900s. Do you think that, overall, that assessment isn't correct?

Quote:

Quote: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/average-salary-information-for-us-workers-2060808

"Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013."

You really want to argue that wages haven't been stagnant for the past few decades?

(09-17-2019 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/average-salary-information-for-us-workers-2060808

"Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013."

You really want to argue that wages haven't been stagnant for the past few decades?

Did you read what I quoted?

I*f wages are growing at 2-3%/year, and inflation is almost zero, what can we conclude?

TMCNN