He has stated that he has a minimum wage job. I've yet to see him state that he's gone out and looked for other jobs. Until he states other wise it's safe to assume he hasn't. That still doesn't address the silly assumption you made about him becoming "a doctor".Quote by: truthreality
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
And I have to have a fishing license to fish. Getting a little obsessive eh? I know a guy who had but a high school diploma and died worth $1.4 million (no life insurance ever but what loan companies demanded as term life) after caring for his parents and brother and his own wife and raising 5 kids to adulthood and no health insurance on any until he drew Medicare. All he had to do, at the time of early '60s, was pass the state tests to be a real estate broker. Now you have to take classes and test to get a sales ticket, and more classes and test to get the broker's certificate. He just had to study at home and pass the test.
Personal success is not sourced in the education or advice.
A high school buddy was talking to me 4 months ago and wondered at the world that saw his class' Valedictorian, accepted at U of I Champaign with full scholarships in the early '70s, a homeless bum with not even a car to his name now.
Personal success is personal. Advice offered and taken, can fail to produce as promised. Like letting a pregnant girl take my advice on whether to abort or deliver. I make the decision the karma is as much mine as hers. Do I want that responsibility when I only know of her from her use or abuse of the written word? Do I even pretend to have the BEST answer to her situation?
You've not demonstrated due diligence in evaluating the Void. What I saw just from his text, until otherwise explained, makes me wonder if he can hack the physics/engineering program. I couldn't hack it. Was my initial major and damn near got me drafted to 'Nam for failing one of the math classes instead of dropping it in a timely manner. I commend you on your compassion, but unknowingly forcing a man into an area over his head is NOT compassion and might be seen as tending toward hubris.
Emergency medical technicians. $24,070 to $39,590 http://nremt.org/
Insurance sales agents. $33,330 to $71,620 http://naic.org/
Pharmacy technicians. $23,370 to $34,560 Community colleges or tech school .5 to 2 year to test
Private detectives and investigators $32,630 to $58,130 No training, licensed with the state
Athletic coaches and scouts $18,800 to $14,930 No training or certification required
Pest-control workers $24,960 to $37,850 Some states require an exam
Fitness trainers and aerobics instructors $19,870 to $46,130 No formal training required
Septic tank servicers $26,670 to $42,630 On the job training and strong stomach.
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Jobs-With...urence+Shatkin
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Not a single one of VoidSerpant's posts mentioned implies that he cannot hack physics otherwise he would have said so. (Btw VoidSerpant's profile says he is a physics major). He is right in saying that the amount of hours he works is not compatible with being a college student regardless of major. The advice you are giving regarding careers is incredibly impractical. The jobs you provided don't just fall on people's laps. You are making a lot easier then it sounds. They require tremendous resources such as time that VoidSerpant would have to devote to these careers instead of school. The careers you gave are actual full time career paths. VoidSerpant has not mentioned that he wants to go down any of these paths. Citing extreme cases where college graduates end up homeless is misleading. The chances of VoidSerpant ending up homeless is more if he does not get a college degree. This is not about personal success this is about opportunity and putting one self in the best position.
"Students with a bachelor’s degree in physics often receive some of the top starting salaries after graduating from college. A survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers of starting salaries offered by campus recruiters shows that students graduating with a bachelors in physics can make up to $64,000 per year when starting right out of school. More commonly, the survey found that physics graduates can expect a starting salary between $46,000 and $58,000 per year."
To obtain the range of salary that you have described in the jobs without college degrees it takes years of experience. With a physics degree VoidSerpant can make more then what you presented in his first year of employment.
Actually it's safe that his best option is to take loans and finish his bachelor's degree instead of wasting time working at low paying jobs that provide little experience and little room for advancement. You know as well as I do that my comment on becoming a doctor without going to medical school was sarcastic. Anyways if VoidSerpant wants to he can after completing his bachelors. He can get a masters. He can get an MBA. He can go to law school. All of this is possible with a bachelors.
Because what little political studies I had focused on Southeast Asia. I know mostly of the communist states Vietnam, China, Laos, Cambodia and Russia just because, well, it's Russia. Those are the only examples I know well.
Looking at the Wikipedia article "People's Socialist Republic of Albania", I'm not all that impressed. Albania seemed heavily reliant on foreign aid from Yugoslavia, Russia and China (each in tern). In 1947, money from Yugoslavia accounted for 58% of Albania's state budget.
Wikipedia: "Together with its satellites, the Soviet Union underwrote shortfalls in Albania's balance of payments with long-term grants."
It does say things like healthcare improved in the early 50s. But going from 50 to 150 doctors in a population of 1.2 million doesn't help all that much. Going from 112.2 to 99.5 deaths out of a 1000 isn't exactly groundbreaking and amazing either. Dropping illiteracy from 85% to 31% is significant, and while that's laudable, it's not enough on it's own. There was still restrictions on free thought.
From an economic stand point, Albania was "an economic liability for the Soviet Union". When agriculture didn't help maintain the economy, Albania turned to industry, which caused Albania and the Soviet Union to cut ties. China stepped in, but the aid wasn't as good.
"The low productivity, flawed planning, poor workmanship, and inefficient management at Albanian enterprises became clear when Soviet and East European aid and advisers were withdrawn."
This forced Albania to introduce an austerity program. That is not a vote of confidence for Albania's economic state.
Also, Albania still had land owners, according to wikipedia:
"The few peasants with agricultural machinery were permitted to keep up to 400,000 square metres of land;"
As this is the definition of the bourgeoisie, Albania is just as bad example of communism as China and Russia were. Albania also retained money and wages. I don't see the political system Albania implemented as any different than China and Russia (it even says in the article that Albania adopted a "Stalinist-style centrally planned economy"). Albania just killed a slightly smaller number of people in cultural purges (5000 executed under Hoxha), and wasn't famous for an enormous famine.
This isn't how science works. You don't conduct a test on sixty samples and picks the one that looks the prettiest, that's called "reporting bias". China, Russia, and Albania were all attempts to implement communism and all were about as close to the communist ideal as each other. You can't just choose Albania because it sucked the least. Albania has to have done something different when compared to Russia and China to be a good example.
Lester: Boy, you need something else outside of this.
McNulty: Like what?
Lester: A life, Jimmy. You know what that is? It's the stuff that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come.
I suppose it could be for your own good, but that's not why it should be pushed for. Marxism is collectivist, so it's for the good of all.
Unlike National Socialism, Marxism doesn't look to race, isn't impressed with a notion of genetic inheritance, and has no use for and is even hostile to the idea of human nature rooted in biology as having enduring attributes. There is no place in Marxism for individuality, it being concerned with only groups, their environments in history, and the constant changes these cause in the groups as the groups change their environments, and so themselves. The individual's mind has no innate structure. There marks the fated failure of Marxism for it's wrong assessment of human nature, putting most significance on its not being genetically formed and innate thus closing even the possibility of respect for the individual, as Marxism doesn't postulate much less look for and find individual rights.
"The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." ~ Marx. Contribution to the critique of political economy
Individualism is an overwhelmingly oppressive idea. It allows for the few to exploit the many based on "individual rights" to property. You're not going to get me to believe that Marxism is flawed because it opposes individualism.
Again, using the pilgrims' attempt at "communism" is a mind-numbingly stupid way to criticize Marxism. If you would simply do some research into how Marx wanted to implement communism, you'd understand all of this. The pilgrims couldn't build socialism, let alone achieve communism. They lived in a time where the world was far from being industrialized. There was no significant proletariat that could even exercise a DotP.The Pilgrims put communism into practice did they not? What did they do wrong that it failed. As a Marxist you can't find where they went wrong? When the colony modified its rules which saved it, were the rules THEN more in line with Marxist thought and THAT is what not only saved the colony but led it to thrive?
You're right, I do have trouble finding successful examples of Marxism in practice. As does every orthodox Marxist. This doesn't help your silly cause though.I think you're having trouble finding successful examples of Marxism in practice. Singapore is a big success, eh? Is that joint the Marxist Shangri La?
The bourgeoisie, eh? That's any that doesn't agree with you isn't it? By what standard is a man judged to determine whether he/she is a member of the bourgeoisie?
No, the bourgeoisie is the exploiter class - the class that relies on its property rights to accumulate capital.
Marxism seeks to establish class consciousness in the proletariat. If it hasn't done this, then the revolution has failed.I'd bet socialism won't only be forced on the bourgeoisie but also onto any prole who embraces the revolution with insufficient enthusiasm. You know the type, ordered to shoot a member of the bourgeoisie, and rightly so they need shot, but that prole won't do it, so he is lined up with the bourgeoisie to be shot himself by another prole whose nature has been transformed in an instant.
But there is a significant portion of Marxists that don't want those examples to be repeated. Any sane person wouldn't want those to be repeated in modern society.
Yes, well it was a backwards, feudal country before WWII. Just because Yugoslavia, Russia, and China threw money at it doesn't mean things magically improved. The Albanians used that money to turn it into a somewhat-modern nation.Looking at the Wikipedia article "People's Socialist Republic of Albania", I'm not all that impressed. Albania seemed heavily reliant on foreign aid from Yugoslavia, Russia and China (each in tern). In 1947, money from Yugoslavia accounted for 58% of Albania's state budget.
Wikipedia: "Together with its satellites, the Soviet Union underwrote shortfalls in Albania's balance of payments with long-term grants."
Yet on the whole, it did drastically improve from its previous condition. The Islamic patriarchy was abolished, women's rights dramatically improved, there was a national university, industrial production actually existed, etc.It does say things like healthcare improved in the early 50s. But going from 50 to 150 doctors in a population of 1.2 million doesn't help all that much. Going from 112.2 to 99.5 deaths out of a 1000 isn't exactly groundbreaking and amazing either. Dropping illiteracy from 85% to 31% is significant, and while that's laudable, it's not enough on it's own. There was still restrictions on free thought.
What? The USSR and Albania didn't split because Albania turned to industry. The two split because Khrushchev held anti-socialist positions.From an economic stand point, Albania was "an economic liability for the Soviet Union". When agriculture didn't help maintain the economy, Albania turned to industry, which caused Albania and the Soviet Union to cut ties. China stepped in, but the aid wasn't as good.
"The low productivity, flawed planning, poor workmanship, and inefficient management at Albanian enterprises became clear when Soviet and East European aid and advisers were withdrawn."
This forced Albania to introduce an austerity program. That is not a vote of confidence for Albania's economic state.
I don't recall ever saying that Albania was a good example of socialism. All I said was that it had a better collectivization model than China and Russia.Also, Albania still had land owners, according to wikipedia:
"The few peasants with agricultural machinery were permitted to keep up to 400,000 square metres of land;"
As this is the definition of the bourgeoisie, Albania is just as bad example of communism as China and Russia were. Albania also retained money and wages. I don't see the political system Albania implemented as any different than China and Russia (it even says in the article that Albania adopted a "Stalinist-style centrally planned economy"). Albania just killed a slightly smaller number of people in cultural purges (5000 executed under Hoxha), and wasn't famous for an enormous famine.
This isn't how science works. You don't conduct a test on sixty samples and picks the one that looks the prettiest, that's called "reporting bias". China, Russia, and Albania were all attempts to implement communism and all were about as close to the communist ideal as each other. You can't just choose Albania because it sucked the least. Albania has to have done something different when compared to Russia and China to be a good example.
I don't doubt the potential of a physics degree. Why don't all people take your advice and go after a physics degree? It's not the only path to success. In fact some engineers don't make it in the world as engineers and in my experience of those coming underground to test their knowledge base in a most challenging field some shine, some are a joke, and one, literally, lost his head. The degree does not confirm but an opportunity in the field as an engineer. The knowledge gained from the study can be used whether you've got a sheepskin or not.
A buddy at the mine, on the side, had bought a septic pumping truck and went into the business. Another bought up properties, while working the mine, had 18 last I heard and was buying old Mustangs and converting them to Cobra Gts and more than doubling his money. Theirs lots of stories of the various ways to make a living. That Void should consider himself a failure for not getting a physics degree is... ...well am I a failure for not getting mine and settling for a BA in philosophy? Not having a physics degree is not the end of the world.
Of course the jobs I mentioned call for effort. Do you think an engineer certificate will not also require effort; effort, as in making an effort to capitalize where capitalization is called for?
You didn't notice a tendency to not capitalize in his writings? That indicates nothing to you? Maybe he's a keyboard with the shift screwed up, maybe a lot of things, but I mentioned it and got no response from him. Maybe using an iPhone it's too hard to capitalize. I would prefer it was of those reasons and NOT that he was the type that is satisfied with "just getting by" which such a challenging course as physics certainly has the potential to either change a person's lackadaisical habits to rigorous precision or reject him.
As for me I would have needed another year of schooling to complete the degree and with the ending of the draft, the 2s deferment that based the choice of physics and teaching, was gone and I took a full load of philosophy for a year and a half and got out of college in four years and started making my own experience in the working world, to great effect, with the knowledge I had and damn what it said on that sheep skin. Who'd a thunk a philosopher could afford an airplane, race cars, several parachutes, two wives and 6 kids? I didn't but that's what happened. And I didn't take your advice. How can any live that don't take your advice?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
You are going on a tangent. VoidSerpant is a Physics major so I am talking specifically about him. I am not advising that everyone go for a physics degree. He is a Physics major and he has given no indication that he wishes to change majors. He will be most successful in what he chooses to do and what he is most interested in. Until he indicates otherwise it is safe to assume he likes Physics. Notice how this thread is about his inability to devote time to school due to lack of resources such as time and money. He clearly wants to complete his degree but is restricted by lack of resources. There are solutions to his lack of resources. Loans are one so he can concentrate full time on school.
Certainly a noble vision. Marxism's impracticality does not affect the nobility of its goals.
Nor should you. Whether Marxism can be brought into practice AND show more good for all than any other system is what should matter. When the Pilgrims operated under the principals of collectivism they suffered, and after establishing individual rights and ownership of individuals' efforts resulted in a greater good for all. The greater good for all was clearly NOT achieved by the principals of collectivism but by principals of individualism. It IS the end goal of the greater good for all that concerns you, and NOT the means of its accomplishment, isn't it? Maybe not.Individualism is an overwhelmingly oppressive idea. It allows for the few to exploit the many based on "individual rights" to property. You're not going to get me to believe that Marxism is flawed because it opposes individualism.
I may be mistaken, but in a Marxist society I believe there is to be neither private property nor division of labor. Food is grown for all and distributed equally amongst all. Whoever washes clothes and butchers meat does so for everyone and not just for their own families. Where am I going wrong? These are NOT basic to Marxism?Again, using the pilgrims' attempt at "communism" is a mind-numbingly stupid way to criticize Marxism. If you would simply do some research into how Marx wanted to implement communism, you'd understand all of this. The pilgrims couldn't build socialism, let alone achieve communism. They lived in a time where the world was far from being industrialized. There was no significant proletariat that could even exercise a DotP.
You're right, I do have trouble finding successful examples of Marxism in practice. As does every orthodox Marxist. This doesn't help your silly cause though.But it helps your silly cause more?
I have a hard time in distinguishing good exploitation from bad. Seems your use of it mandates negative connotations exclusively. I think this is due to the nature of the mine environment where I spent 31 years. Might call the mine a case of mutual exploitation. Would you allow that Marxism could appear so?No, the bourgeoisie is the exploiter class - the class that relies on its property rights to accumulate capital.
As I understand your use of class consciousness, does its success hinge on convincing a group that they are being exploited rather than they are exploiting themselves? The revolution depends on shifting the point of view of mutual exploitation to more of a one side being exploited more than the other? If so, then to succeed, there has to be some way to demonstrate an imbalance of exploitation AND that Marxism alone is capable of remedying that imbalance. And there I have a problem because the balance can and has been achieved without the revolution.Marxism seeks to establish class consciousness in the proletariat. If it hasn't done this, then the revolution has failed.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
I'm curious as to why you think a system that provides for a minority of the population (capitalism) is more practical than a system that provides for a vast majority of the people (socialism).
Again, you can't use the pilgrims' attempt at a collectivist society to undermine Marxism. Marxism is a science. Like all other sciences, it changes over time.Nor should you. Whether Marxism can be brought into practice AND show more good for all than any other system is what should matter. When the Pilgrims operated under the principals of collectivism they suffered, and after establishing individual rights and ownership of individuals' efforts resulted in a greater good for all. The greater good for all was clearly NOT achieved by the principals of collectivism but by principals of individualism. It IS the end goal of the greater good for all that concerns you, and NOT the means of its accomplishment, isn't it? Maybe not.
They are part of Marxism. But the pilgrims never went through industrialization. They never went through a dictatorship of the proletariat, since there wasn't a significant proletariat in the 15th century. Go ahead and use this to criticize collectivism, but that doesn't make it alright to use it to criticize Marxism. Of course though, you've never read Marx, so you're at a bit of a disadvantage.I may be mistaken, but in a Marxist society I believe there is to be neither private property nor division of labor. Food is grown for all and distributed equally amongst all. Whoever washes clothes and butchers meat does so for everyone and not just for their own families. Where am I going wrong? These are NOT basic to Marxism?
I did put them into text. I guess you just didn't want to see it.
Human nature isn't to blame for anything. It's a myth spouted by the likes of Social Darwinists.
We've been over this before. It didn't make sense the first time, and it won't make sense this time. A fat cat sitting on top of a pile of money ordering workers around is different from your petty coworker that asked you to work another hour.I have a hard time in distinguishing good exploitation from bad. Seems your use of it mandates negative connotations exclusively. I think this is due to the nature of the mine environment where I spent 31 years. Might call the mine a case of mutual exploitation. Would you allow that Marxism could appear so?
I'll address the rest of this later.
I didn't say that.
Is your understanding of Marx so poor that it cannot explain in the Pilgrim's context the failure of their experiment in socialism?Again, you can't use the pilgrims' attempt at a collectivist society to undermine Marxism. Marxism is a science. Like all other sciences, it changes over time.
Pilgrims came as a proletariat from England to establish socialism free of a revolution. It failed for reason of failing to understand human nature, just as Marxism does for its inability to assess human nature properly.They are part of Marxism. But the pilgrims never went through industrialization. They never went through a dictatorship of the proletariat, since there wasn't a significant proletariat in the 15th century. Go ahead and use this to criticize collectivism, but that doesn't make it alright to use it to criticize Marxism.
Since you're not citing them now, I guess you just don't want me to see them.I did put them into text. I guess you just didn't want to see it.
The Pilgrim experiment showed human nature did it not? Showed that working for self is much more productive than working for the collective.Human nature isn't to blame for anything. It's a myth spouted by the likes of Social Darwinists.
Aye we've been over parts. I was talking of the release of burden for some jobs that a segment of the workers did not want to bear in exchange for being told what to do and going home with little responsibility for the planning and logistics of mining coal and just doing what we were told. We contracted and understood the relationship with the bosses as they understood the relationship between them, the workers, and their bosses. These were contracted and the language put to vote. As before you demonstrate no knowledge of the situational circumstances in existence where I worked for Exxon. You've a better shot with showing the Pilgrims where they went wrong. Not enough bourgeoisie blood spilled there?We've been over this before. It didn't make sense the first time, and it won't make sense this time. A fat cat sitting on top of a pile of money ordering workers around is different from your petty coworker that asked you to work another hour.
Yet I produce more on point Marx than you. If that's a disadvantage then you're king of the bluffers.Of course though, you've never read Marx, so you're at a bit of a disadvantage.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks