Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Education In America

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    A national plan. When it comes to jobs, our economy, the only plan or goal that America has is concentrated on the maximization of profits, and that is all that is important. In anyway that they can get away with. When gov't allowed offshoring to slave labor, with no thought what that would do to American society, that became the plan. We no longer see our economy as the engine that keeps people employed, as to stay off of welfare. But we once did. As we also once saw our industry as a essential national asset, for the sake and health of America. But there was a change in economic philosophy in the 1980s, which moved to what is called neoliberalism today.

    The change in philosophy has affected the population here in dire ways. It is hard for me to understand why any nation does not structure its economy to provide for jobs, which provides the needed resources so people have sufficient resources since they are essential to all people. We used to view our economy in this manner, which is the sane way to look at an economy. But that changed, when the GOP came back into power and begin to dismantle the economic model that was structured to provide for the population.
    In many areas we agree but this section of your post demonstrates an area where we differ greatly. The characterization of the 1980's as "The Decade of Greed" was a democrat party talking point pushed by their willing accomplices in the MSM in attempt to destroy public perception of the booming Reagan economy. Yet attempts to destroy the Reagan legacy failed so miserably that liberals now attempt to re-characterize Reaganomics as 'increasing taxes 11 times conceding Reagans success while trying to justify their own economic vision.

    While liberals and conservatives join in their Reagan lovefest you see the devil in disguise. Your belief is that Reagan inspired changes to the corporate atmosphere which turned civic minded CEOs into greedy profit mongers.

    What I disagree about is that any change took place in the 1980s. The purpose of business has never been to employ people and keep our nation healthy. The purpose of a business is to earn profits. This is, has always been, and always will be.

    I am not certain what about the 40s thru 70s you think was so wonderful. Is it the high tax rates you like? Nobody paid the personal 90% tax rate or did businesses fork out 50% of their profits. The amount of available deductions made taxable income a mere fraction of actual profits. You could deduct all business meals and travel costs for both you and your spouse. You could deduct all forms of interest payments. A corporation could loan or provide almost anything to an employee from cars and apartments to three-martini lunches and expense accounts. Corporate abuse of the tax code was commonplace and all based on greed . . . no different from today.

    Your insistence that this FDR inspired utopia once existed is nave at best. There have been good companies and bad companies throughout this nations history. Some care about employees more than others. This reality has never changed not even in the 1980s.



    ?


    • #77
      Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
      I find this discussion very interested and would like to contribute a couple thoughts. Reading the links about the German vocational system I have learned details I had otherwise been unaware of. Germans have a great deal to be proud of, after all, the term 'German engineering' has been code for 'the best' as long as I can remember.

      As described, the German dual system assists the placement of workers into 335 specific regulated trades per individual choice. The organizations such as the Federal Institute for Vocational Education in partnership with corporations institute the constant changes in educational training needed due to changing markets and technology. This all sounds brilliant and utopian - but maybe not a fit in the U.S.

      The party in power could not keep their grubby hands off of such organizations and use them in attempt to social engineer a future they desire. The reasons for great resistance to such a unifying organization extends beyond ideology. More importantly resistance to federal regulation of educational training is due to the great socioeconomic differences from one section of this nation to another. I own a small business and employ certified welders and machinists. My company serves what we call the 'tri-state' area of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Upper Michigan. At 437,000 sq km we serve only 5.5% of the contiguous 48 state landmass . . . or 125% the size of Germany. The great size and diversity across the United States negates even the most successful formulas for things like education and health care proven successful in much smaller European nations. Wages, cost of living, and general employee and customer expectations differ greatly from one section of this country to another. No matter how hard they try - no government agency can change that.

      One other problem in comparison to Germany. Only 29% of immigrants (25+ years of age) in the U.S. have college degrees compared to 45% of German immigrants. Only 13% of Hispanic immigrants, our fastest growing population, have a college degree. Despite all of the recent criticism of Chancellor Merkel, Germany still has a much more selective immigration system than the U.S. All of this contributes to the education of a general population.

      Well, wages, cost of living and customer expectations vary also here, the key difference between the economic models is something else : Stakeholder capitalism vs. Shareholder capitalism. Stakeholder Systems see all players in the economic circle as letigimate stakeholders and the goal of economic policy as balancing out and moderating the predictable differences and conflicts between them, as the base for sustainable economic success. For that reason stakeholder capitalists are also very much into long-term planning and strategies ( industry, finance, but also the apprenticeship system, that companies and unions run together, under supervision of the governement).
      The roots of stakeholder capitalism, today also known as the "social market economy" go, where Germany is concerned, back to the medieval cities, that already practized a form of it :

      http://www.britainforward.org/eurozone.html




      Quote : /


      German Mittelstand are for the most part managed by their owners; they grow long-term and they don't have to please the financial community.

      Keeping community roots strong is also common to Mittelstand, and co-operative labour-management relations add to the community spirit. And this works across the generations as apprenticeship schemes ensure a continuing flow of expertise. German universities work hand in glove with researchers at local firms. Suppliers cluster round big manufacturers. Owner-managers rub shoulders with workers. And there is an underlying sense, tradition and history of teamwork and social responsibility.

      Germany's large manufacturers too VW, Siemens, BMW surely feel market pressures, but they, unlike a growing number of their American counterparts, still invest quite profitably at home. In large part, that is due to Germany's system of Mitbestimmung, or co-determination, which places an equal number of union and management members on corporate boards. The German metal workers union, IG Metall, has been working with automakers to train workers, for instance, to mass-produce electric cars. "Our goal is to retain high-value-added manufacturing in Germany," says Martin Allespach, the union's policy director.

      Indeed, this concept of Mitbestimmung is an important element in German industrial relations. Mit means 'with', and Bestimmung literally means 'giving voice'. In practice it can be translated into English as 'co-determination'. And who are the parties involved? This question can best be answered with an Anglo-American concept often voiced but rarely practiced: co-determination among stakeholders.

      The idea is that all those involved in the fate of a business, workers, managements, shareholders, even the community especially if it's a one-industry town, all should to some extent be involved in decision-making since their livelihoods depend on it.

      This is not flower-power cooperative, nor is it bosses patronizing the unwashed masses. The motive behind Mitbestimmung reflects another German characteristic: Ordnung. Germans don't like disorder. And unresolved conflict, whether in a workplace or a community or a nation, is disorderly, not conducive to smooth and efficient operation

      ?


      • #78
        Originally posted by Voland View Post


        Well, wages, cost of living and customer expectations vary also here, the key difference between the economic models is something else : Stakeholder capitalism vs. Shareholder capitalism. Stakeholder Systems see all players in the economic circle as letigimate stakeholders and the goal of economic policy as balancing out and moderating the predictable differences and conflicts between them, as the base for sustainable economic success. For that reason stakeholder capitalists are also very much into long-term planning and strategies ( industry, finance, but also the apprenticeship system, that companies and unions run together, under supervision of the governement).
        The roots of stakeholder capitalism, today also known as the "social market economy" go, where Germany is concerned, back to the medieval cities, that already practized a form of it :

        http://www.britainforward.org/eurozone.html




        Quote : /


        German Mittelstand are for the most part managed by their owners; they grow long-term and they don't have to please the financial community.

        Keeping community roots strong is also common to Mittelstand, and co-operative labour-management relations add to the community spirit. And this works across the generations as apprenticeship schemes ensure a continuing flow of expertise. German universities work hand in glove with researchers at local firms. Suppliers cluster round big manufacturers. Owner-managers rub shoulders with workers. And there is an underlying sense, tradition and history of teamwork and social responsibility.

        Germany's large manufacturers too – VW, Siemens, BMW – surely feel market pressures, but they, unlike a growing number of their American counterparts, still invest quite profitably at home. In large part, that is due to Germany's system of Mitbestimmung, or co-determination, which places an equal number of union and management members on corporate boards. The German metal workers union, IG Metall, has been working with automakers to train workers, for instance, to mass-produce electric cars. "Our goal is to retain high-value-added manufacturing in Germany," says Martin Allespach, the union's policy director.

        Indeed, this concept of Mitbestimmung is an important element in German industrial relations. Mit means 'with', and Bestimmung literally means 'giving voice'. In practice it can be translated into English as 'co-determination'. And who are the parties involved? This question can best be answered with an Anglo-American concept often voiced but rarely practiced: co-determination among stakeholders.

        The idea is that all those involved in the fate of a business, workers, managements, shareholders, even the community especially if it's a one-industry town, all should to some extent be involved in decision-making since their livelihoods depend on it.

        This is not flower-power cooperative, nor is it bosses patronizing the unwashed masses. The motive behind Mitbestimmung reflects another German characteristic: Ordnung. Germans don't like disorder. And unresolved conflict, whether in a workplace or a community or a nation, is disorderly, not conducive to smooth and efficient operation
        In our country, universities consider corporations pariahs.

        ?


        • #79
          Originally posted by Voland View Post
          Well, wages, cost of living and customer expectations vary also here, the key difference between the economic models is something else : Stakeholder capitalism vs. Shareholder capitalism.
          The question is; can you really consider employees 'stakeholders'? After all, if the company fails employees can collect unemployment for a period of time while searching for another job. Shareholders, on the other hand, can lose their homes, retirement funds, and entire savings. If I am a major shareholder risking my entire future betting on a companies success I would find it difficult to equally share my decision making powers with individuals who can simply walk away and find another job.

          Now, it could be that average German tradespersons simply have a much better attitude than average Americans - I really do not know. But with many private sector union workers I have dealt with through the years I find many have the "us versus them" attitude - the employee vs the company. If my life savings is on the line I do not want to share decision making power with employees who view my corporation as the enemy.

          Originally posted by Voland View Post
          This is not flower-power cooperative, nor is it bosses patronizing the unwashed masses. The motive behind Mitbestimmung reflects another German characteristic: Ordnung. Germans don't like disorder. And unresolved conflict, whether in a workplace or a community or a nation, is disorderly, not conducive to smooth and efficient operation
          And this I believe defines our stark cultural difference. The very founding of this country was based on an American aversion to order. Conflict and chaos are the unfortunate byproducts of liberty and rugged individualism. Order and stability are not conducive to imagination and enjoyment.

          By the way, I am 75% German. Both sides of my family escaped Germany pre WWI. Personally I am a very logical person who leans toward order and stability. My words are not an evaluation but simply an explanation of why the German system likely would not work here.

          ?


          • #80
            Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
            The question is; can you really consider employees 'stakeholders'? After all, if the company fails employees can collect unemployment for a period of time while searching for another job. Shareholders, on the other hand, can lose their homes, retirement funds, and entire savings. If I am a major shareholder risking my entire future betting on a companies success I would find it difficult to equally share my decision making powers with individuals who can simply walk away and find another job.

            Now, it could be that average German tradespersons simply have a much better attitude than average Americans - I really do not know. But with many private sector union workers I have dealt with through the years I find many have the "us versus them" attitude - the employee vs the company. If my life savings is on the line I do not want to share decision making power with employees who view my corporation as the enemy.


            And this I believe defines our stark cultural difference. The very founding of this country was based on an American aversion to order. Conflict and chaos are the unfortunate byproducts of liberty and rugged individualism. Order and stability are not conducive to imagination and enjoyment.

            By the way, I am 75% German. Both sides of my family escaped Germany pre WWI. Personally I am a very logical person who leans toward order and stability. My words are not an evaluation but simply an explanation of why the German system likely would not work here.
            Ispent 32 years teaching in American schools. A few months ago I saw Michael Moore's latest movie. His picture of European schools looked very attractive. Here in America we have gone overboard teaching to the test. Every thing is scripted no room for creative teaching. All in the name of accountability.

            ?


            • #81
              Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
              The question is; can you really consider employees 'stakeholders'? After all, if the company fails employees can collect unemployment for a period of time while searching for another job. Shareholders, on the other hand, can lose their homes, retirement funds, and entire savings. If I am a major shareholder risking my entire future betting on a companies success I would find it difficult to equally share my decision making powers with individuals who can simply walk away and find another job.
              Sorry to cherry pick this small part but I can't disagree strongly enough. You say employees can walk away and then claim that shareholders are somehow locked in and unable to do anything about their fate.
              A shareholder is infinitely better placed to sell his shares from a failing company than someone who's worked for a company for years or decades and to say shareholders are more stakeholders than the people actually doing the work and making the money in the first place is simply baffling. A company can exist with shareholders but it can't exist without any staff.

              Selling shares is a simple matter changing jobs usually requires family upheaval and problems they are not in any way comparable and claiming that staff can get unemployment benefit is missing the fact that shareholders usually have jobs and very few people rely on purely share profits as an income whereas the people working full time obviously don't have time to have back-up incomes.

              ?


              • #82
                Taxpayer-Backed School Holds Lesson On How To Stop White People


                BLAKE NEFF

                Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/23/ta...#ixzz4ICn3DPUH

                ?


                • #83
                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                  Sorry to cherry pick this small part but I can't disagree strongly enough. You say employees can walk away and then claim that shareholders are somehow locked in and unable to do anything about their fate.
                  A shareholder is infinitely better placed to sell his shares from a failing company than someone who's worked for a company for years or decades and to say shareholders are more stakeholders than the people actually doing the work and making the money in the first place is simply baffling. A company can exist with shareholders but it can't exist without any staff.

                  Selling shares is a simple matter changing jobs usually requires family upheaval and problems they are not in any way comparable and claiming that staff can get unemployment benefit is missing the fact that shareholders usually have jobs and very few people rely on purely share profits as an income whereas the people working full time obviously don't have time to have back-up incomes.
                  I would not consider your disagreement cherry picking at all - as I believe this is a very key aspect of my point. People so often think in terms of giant corporations when in reality somewhere around 80% of the private sector workforce is employed by small businesses. My business began as a sole proprietorship but I soon after incorporated. All corporations have officers and shareholders. Shareholders of small businesses - corporations with less than 500 employees - are quite likely working full time for that business and dedicating their lives to its success. In pure numbers there are many more of this type of shareholder than the more anonymous investment shareholder you are referring to. This distinction is important to make because every time the federal government lays down new regulations intended to punch big corporate greed between the eyes they usually only manage to rip the shirts off the backs of small business shareholders.

                  In relationship to higher education, college and vocational, I was only suggesting that American culture may make emulating the German system undesirable.

                  ?


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                    The question is; can you really consider employees 'stakeholders'? After all, if the company fails employees can collect unemployment for a period of time while searching for another job. Shareholders, on the other hand, can lose their homes, retirement funds, and entire savings. If I am a major shareholder risking my entire future betting on a companies success I would find it difficult to equally share my decision making powers with individuals who can simply walk away and find another job.

                    Now, it could be that average German tradespersons simply have a much better attitude than average Americans - I really do not know. But with many private sector union workers I have dealt with through the years I find many have the "us versus them" attitude - the employee vs the company. If my life savings is on the line I do not want to share decision making power with employees who view my corporation as the enemy.


                    And this I believe defines our stark cultural difference. The very founding of this country was based on an American aversion to order. Conflict and chaos are the unfortunate byproducts of liberty and rugged individualism. Order and stability are not conducive to imagination and enjoyment.

                    By the way, I am 75% German. Both sides of my family escaped Germany pre WWI. Personally I am a very logical person who leans toward order and stability. My words are not an evaluation but simply an explanation of why the German system likely would not work here.



                    1. Well, it is also in the article : Stakeholders under the german system are ALL players in the economic circle, explicitly INCLUDING the workers (and/or their representatives, union or not).. The idea is to establish a "community of responsibility" between workers and businesses, management and labour, both are reffered to as "social partners". Workers are involved in management ( co-determination) and all sides seek to ensure the companies long-term prosperity. It is not beyond german unions to accept pay-cuts or zero-rounds in return for job guarantees during downturns, yet they also expect to share the profits when things are up. Workers representatives sit on the board of directors and and have insight in the books, but that also means they have a realistic view of the financial and economical state of things and share responsibility for their own jobs. That is why the workers themselves will constantly come up with ideas of their own, how to improve products, workplace and/or productivity.
                    For the companies on the other hand workers are an asset that they have often heavily invested in ( apprenticeships) and that have built up knowledge and experience in the company. Loosing that experience due to simply laying them off because of cost calculations ( outsourcing ? ) would be like loosing their own competitive edge for many businesses. At least in a skills, innovation and quality based economy built around long-term goals.
                    And by the way : I have never said that it would be something that the US would or could easily emulate (completely different economic mindset), I brought it up in response to a post making unfounded claims (not from you). Here is a pretty good and easily readable summary :


                    http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/euro...egy-for-europe



                    Quote : /



                    The focus of the German growth model is the company, the lever for economic performance and place of social integration. Comprising a "community of responsibility" made up of employers, who count on qualified labour and employees, who are aware that the financial strength of the production tool is the safest guarantee against the dangers of unemployment, German businesses focus on long term strategies....................





                    2. Germans would not surprisingly disagree with some of that. Their love for order is not just a cliche and it is a heritage of a long history where order was lacking, and not just in economics, often with terrible consequences. That is also why german economic policy uses a pretty non-translatable term "Ordnungspolitik", to describe the idea of establishing "order" and to promote stability and predictability in markets and economics, the corresponding economic theory is called "ordoliberalism" ( nothing to do with american liberalism) :

                    http://letstalkbooksandpolitics.blog...iberalism.html


                    Quote : / "[Our program] consists of measures and institutions which impart to competition the framework, rules, and machinery of impartial supervision which a competitive system needs as much as any game or match if it is not to degenerate into a vulgar brawl. A genuine, equitable, and smoothly functioning competitive system can not in fact survive without a judicious moral and legal framework and without regular supervision of the conditions under which competition can take place pursuant to real efficiency principles. This presupposes mature economic discernment on the part of all responsible bodies and individuals and a strong impartial state."
                    Last edited by Voland; 08-24-2016, 10:22 AM.

                    ?


                    • #85
                      Professors Ban Students From Debating Climate Change in University of Colorado Course

                      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016...lorado-course/

                      ?


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        Professors Ban Students From Debating Climate Change in University of Colorado Course

                        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016...lorado-course/
                        So interesting. My daughter started college this week. She has 5 classes, 4 of which she loves and is excited about. Though there is 1 class that she has no idea what it is. After 2 classes, still doesn't know what it is. Wanted to drop or change it, but her advisor told her it's mandatory so she might as well get it out of the way now. The course is Digital Humanities.

                        After this info, I'm going to research the course. Hope her school doesn't have the same attitude towards the course as the professor in the article.

                        I will say though, I have no problem with her learning about the health effects from all dangerous emissions, as they do exist, but I would not appreciate her being taught that there are no other statistics, studies, alternate options, or necessity for these emissions. Nor would I appreciate her being taught that assumption or a view is fact.
                        Last edited by msc; 09-02-2016, 06:16 AM.

                        ?


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by msc View Post

                          So interesting. My daughter started college this week. She has 5 classes, 4 of which she loves and is excited about. Though there is 1 class that she has no idea what it is. After 2 classes, still doesn't know what it is. Wanted to drop or change it, but her advisor told her it's mandatory so she might as well get it out of the way now. The course is Digital Humanities.

                          After this info, I'm going to research the course. Hope her school doesn't have the same attitude towards the course as the professor in the article.

                          I will say though, I have no problem with her learning about the health effects from all dangerous emissions, as they do exist, but I would not appreciate her being taught that there are no other statistics, studies, alternate options, or necessity for these emissions. Nor would I appreciate her being taught that assumption or a view is fact.
                          Years ago I was taking a grad course. We were all adult students we were used to the professors telling us how much better we were than the day students. But in this class the teacher dumped on us. Some of my fellow students complained that the teacher didn't value our opinions. I came down on the teachers side. I said not one of us has taken the introductory lasses we were supposed to take before this class so our opinions are really not worth anything. I would say this is also true for an 18 year old freshman. My advice would be to keep your mouth shut and learn something. Or better still transfer to a bible college.

                          ?


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by redrover View Post
                            Years ago I was taking a grad course. We were all adult students we were used to the professors telling us how much better we were than the day students. But in this class the teacher dumped on us. Some of my fellow students complained that the teacher didn't value our opinions. I came down on the teachers side. I said not one of us has taken the introductory lasses we were supposed to take before this class so our opinions are really not worth anything. I would say this is also true for an 18 year old freshman. My advice would be to keep your mouth shut and learn something. Or better still transfer to a bible college.
                            Wow, that was harsh. I didn't say anything about opposing the course. I don't even know what it is. Not even sure climate change is a part or relevant part of this course. It just seemed to correlate somewhat.

                            Additionally I wasn't asking for, nor am I interested in your unsolicited advice about how to interact with my child.

                            Perhaps in this instance you should have heeded your own advice and understood that your opinion has no value as you too are speaking about something you don't know about, and kept YOUR mouth shut. Don't mean to seem harsh, but just using your words.
                            Last edited by msc; 09-03-2016, 09:10 AM.

                            ?


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              Professors Ban Students From Debating Climate Change in University of Colorado Course

                              http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016...lorado-course/
                              LOL. Looks like colleges are becoming institutions for indoctrination, instead of what they are supposed to be. I remember a Philosophy of Religion course that I took, because I really like the Prof who taught the Introduction to Philosophy course I had taken the previous semester. Being in the South, in the middle of the Bible Belt, in the early 70s, we had several fundamentalist Christians in the class, and of course they always wanted to argue in support of their belief system, when we were on a topic that didn't jive with their beliefs. At that time, in that era, these arguments, or questioning were of course welcomed, for that is what a higher education had a place for. But we were not being indoctrinated, and so therein is the difference.

                              For the Prof to have told these kids to drop out and go to a bible college, sounds like something the intolerant modern liberal would say. Modern Liberalism isn't the right term to use for the liberals today. They are just as bad as the intolerance you see in fundamentalist religion, like radical Islam. These liberals today are an insult, and an aberration. I am tired of them hijacking that noble term, and we need to come up with another term to apply to them.
                              Last edited by Blue Doggy; 09-03-2016, 12:18 PM.

                              ?


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                                LOL. Looks like colleges are becoming institutions for indoctrination, instead of what they are supposed to be. I remember a Philosophy of Religion course that I took, because I really like the Prof who taught the Introduction to Philosophy course I had taken the previous semester. Being in the South, in the middle of the Bible Belt, in the early 70s, we had several fundamentalist Christians in the class, and of course they always wanted to argue in support of their belief system, when we were on a topic that didn't jive with their beliefs. At that time, in that era, these arguments, or questioning were of course welcomed, for that is what a higher education had a place for. But we were not being indoctrinated, and so therein is the difference.

                                For the Prof to have told these kids to drop out and go to a bible college, sounds like something the intolerant modern liberal would say. Modern Liberalism isn't the right term to use for the liberals today. They are just as bad as the intolerance you see in fundamentalist religion, like radical Islam. These liberals today are an insult, and an aberration. I am tired of them hijacking that noble term, and we need to come up with another term to apply to them.
                                I have another term, but think it would be inappropriate to use on broadcast television.

                                And yes. It is never beneficial for an educator to force students to refrain from voicing their understanding of information. What's to learn when you're told, "because I said so". I do remember a history class, where we were only given facts; dates, names and events; to learn, study, memorize and be tested on; but during the class, we discussed and debated, freely asking questions and sharing opinions. We were never told that we were wrong, but were offered the other side of the argument, unless we got a name or date wrong.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X