|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:30 pm |
  |
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
They've also got the autogestion people beat on response time, since decisions can be handled quickly without the need to consult every member of the workforce.
|
In all fairness, big decisions like that would be left to the group handling high-level duties (so, a hierarchy, when everyone's supposed to be equal. Imagine that). For anything else, people would be expected to make their own decisions based on what they needed. |
So it's management by the workforce, except not.
It's distressing that such a statement makes it sound like a better concept than I originally thought.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
 |
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:31 pm |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| spinach wrote: |
Skill isn't bullshit. Level of skill, especially as related to certain tasks, is bullshit. |
And these are not the same thing, how? |
One assumes practice and inclination, the other assumes tasks themselves have a worth that isn't arbitrary.
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In autogestion, if you want to make more, the company has to make more -- your paycheck is a direct reflection of how well you've done, not just at working hard, but working smart. That's getting the kind of money you deserve. |
No, that's getting the kind of money you want. I'm guessing these raises will be applied via majority vote? What's to stop the majority from taking it to unreasonable levels? |
How is it getting the kind of money you want and not deserve? If the company isn't bringing in money it's because something isn't working, and if that something doesn't get fixed you'll see your pay drop. If the money comes in, the system works and everyone pulls from it. I'll come back to this later re: its difference from oppressive systems.
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Tell me, Diaz -- how is an employee-owned business in any way forced? Cuba is not a free country, Diaz, I will tell you that straight off, but man I'm not even talking about Cuba. |
I never said an employee-owned business was forced labor. Hell I defended autogestion a few posts up. It's just your idea that people of all skill levels should receive the same pay: the only way people would settle for that is if they had no choice. A.K.A. force. I used Cuba because that's the nearest thing to what you're proposing. Doctors and other professionals settling for less pay than they deserve, for the good of the state and whatnot. Newsflash: they don't like it. |
See, that's different. Here, there's a definite hierarchy pushing people to work certain roles. The janitors are only janitors, the managers are only managers, one is still rated higher than another but doesn't see an increase. This doesn't work, it is supremely unnatural and absolutely crushing -- after all, if I can make the same doing an easy job as a hard one, say, cleaning floors vs. brain surgery -- why would I do more?
Here's where I come back around to an earlier point -- when the money comes in, everyone pulls. The important thing here is that everyone involved owns the joint. They are equal partners, they share in important decision-making, building the systems etc. The guy cleaning the floors is as important as the salespeople because [1] no one wants to work in filth [2] it's important to health and [3] no customer wants to buy from filth. Not only that -- the guy cleaning floors personally brought in customers, himself, or he helped develop the product or service being sold. The people are separated from the tasks. Now, some may be more inclined to certain tasks, but if others are neglected, money won't come in. There is no hierarchy, just a web, as seen in ecology. I'll repeat here that everyone owns the place, because it needs repeating. Everyone owns the place. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
GcDiaz
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Clinton, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:34 pm |
|
|
I still don't see any real-life examples, Popeye.
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz
Let's bring sexy back!
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:36 pm |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Please point me to examples where this has worked out for any complicated job. Cleaning a kitchen or filtering water doesn't count. Constructing a highway would - as long as we're not talking about a dirt and cobblestone highway. |
http://www.mcc.es/ |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
GcDiaz
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Clinton, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:40 pm |
|
|
| spinach wrote: |
How is it getting the kind of money you want and not deserve? If the company isn't bringing in money it's because something isn't working, and if that something doesn't get fixed you'll see your pay drop. If the money comes in, the system works and everyone pulls from it. I'll come back to this later re: its difference from oppressive systems.
|
What, you never saw Congress vote itself a raise before? But it's the bolded section that concerns me. Everyone gets to share the profits. How much of it? Does it all get distributed? Is the company to begin every fiscal year with no reserves whatsoever? Who is going to make that decision?
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz
Let's bring sexy back!
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:46 pm |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| laying off sections of the workforce |
Instead, they get paid less. Shrinking the numerator instead of the denominator.
On that piece you bolded from me, that's exactly what corporations do. They sell products or services to make money. It works. If they aren't making their customers happy, they make less money. Customers are the life of every business, and it is no different here. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:48 pm |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
They've also got the autogestion people beat on response time, since decisions can be handled quickly without the need to consult every member of the workforce.
|
In all fairness, big decisions like that would be left to the group handling high-level duties (so, a hierarchy, when everyone's supposed to be equal. Imagine that). For anything else, people would be expected to make their own decisions based on what they needed. |
Hierarchy is a structure. Structure is not hierarchy. Remember -- webs, as in nature, all things return to soil etc. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
GcDiaz
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Clinton, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:56 pm |
|
|
| spinach wrote: |
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
They've also got the autogestion people beat on response time, since decisions can be handled quickly without the need to consult every member of the workforce.
|
In all fairness, big decisions like that would be left to the group handling high-level duties (so, a hierarchy, when everyone's supposed to be equal. Imagine that). For anything else, people would be expected to make their own decisions based on what they needed. |
Hierarchy is a structure. Structure is not hierarchy. Remember -- webs, as in nature, all things return to soil etc. |
Looks like a hierarchy to me:
But in regards to remuneration and wages, which is what you should be debating, I can only find the following:
Remuneration policy
Since the remuneration policy is intrinsically linked to the economic-financial situation of the co-operative, during the recession annual dividends in some companies were actually negative.
There were also many years when either one or both extra wage packets were capitalised.
Wage solidarity
Wages should be sufficient, comparable with those of other salaried workers in the region and in keeping with the means of the co-operative.
Payment should correspond to an internal framework based on solidarity, reflected in a smaller difference between the top and bottom of the pay scale than is commonly seen in the business market.
Wages and work hours should also be comparable throughout the Corporation as a whole.
Again with the bolded section: wages to be comparable to other non-coop jobs in the region? So automatically a janitor at the coop will make what a janitor anywhere else would be making? Same for an executive? that doesn't seem equal to me.
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz
Let's bring sexy back!
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:59 pm |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| spinach wrote: |
How is it getting the kind of money you want and not deserve? If the company isn't bringing in money it's because something isn't working, and if that something doesn't get fixed you'll see your pay drop. If the money comes in, the system works and everyone pulls from it. I'll come back to this later re: its difference from oppressive systems.
|
What, you never saw Congress vote itself a raise before? But it's the bolded section that concerns me. Everyone gets to share the profits. How much of it? Does it all get distributed? Is the company to begin every fiscal year with no reserves whatsoever? Who is going to make that decision? |
Congress votes its raises from our taxes. We don't give them our money willingly in exchange for any product or service. It's taken, not given. There's a difference.
But man, just try running a business without operating funds and see how it works out. Goddamn, give people some credit here.
Alright, [quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogestion]work from here[/quote] and see where it takes you. I won't go sharing my reading list just yet. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
GcDiaz
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Clinton, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:07 pm |
|
|
| spinach wrote: |
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| spinach wrote: |
How is it getting the kind of money you want and not deserve? If the company isn't bringing in money it's because something isn't working, and if that something doesn't get fixed you'll see your pay drop. If the money comes in, the system works and everyone pulls from it. I'll come back to this later re: its difference from oppressive systems.
|
What, you never saw Congress vote itself a raise before? But it's the bolded section that concerns me. Everyone gets to share the profits. How much of it? Does it all get distributed? Is the company to begin every fiscal year with no reserves whatsoever? Who is going to make that decision? |
Congress votes its raises from our taxes. We don't give them our money willingly in exchange for any product or service. It's taken, not given. There's a difference.
But man, just try running a business without operating funds and see how it works out. Goddamn, give people some credit here.
Alright, work from here and see where it takes you. I won't go sharing my reading list just yet. |
Fixed the link for ya. :-)
This is what I read initially. This is also the third time I say that autogestion CAN work, long as people are paid what they should be and everyone's on the same page.
Hate to be a bother, but where are your real-life examples? Do you work at Mondragon? Can you be more specific than the usual website selljob?
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz
Let's bring sexy back!
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:07 pm |
|
|
| spinach wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Please point me to examples where this has worked out for any complicated job. Cleaning a kitchen or filtering water doesn't count. Constructing a highway would - as long as we're not talking about a dirt and cobblestone highway. |
http://www.mcc.es/ |
Honestly this is a better example than I would have thought possible. Though it's more believable in light of the idea that there can be hierarchical managment in place.
| spinach wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| laying off sections of the workforce |
Instead, they get paid less. Shrinking the numerator instead of the denominator. |
But a corporation can amputate the foot to save the leg. You can't just pay people less and expect to get out of a rut, not if the reduction is enough that they can't live or pay rent on what you're paying them. You'd be crippling your entire work force. A corporation can reduce its workforce and maintain standards of living for its workforce. If such a decision was left to the work force it'd be like some twisted Survivor caricature.
| spinach wrote: |
| On that piece you bolded from me, that's exactly what corporations do. They sell products or services to make money. It works. If they aren't making their customers happy, they make less money. Customers are the life of every business, and it is no different here. |
But corporations are willing to make that money without regard to the workers. Exporting jobs oversees can see the products made at a fraction of the price and undercut the competition. To compete an autogestion company would have to drive its workforce to starvation. A corporation can merge with other companies to see itself through hard times or improve its standing in the market. Autogestion companies are faced with each worker having less of a say in the way the company is run in the envent of a merger.
Both Autogestion and traditional capitalism are directed toward making profits. From a common sense standpoint though it would seem to me that traditional capitalism is just better at maximizing those profits. I'm afraid I have no research to back that theory up though.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
CubaLibre
the road lawyer
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:07 pm |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
As far as "freedom from," that's a distinction that only makes sense if you can define from what, and, more importantly, by who. If you say "the State" you already lose the game. |
From being fucked with, by whoever. Long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone but you, it's all good. Hey, a man can dream. |
Ah, the harm principle. A classic.
What if the fact that gay marriages are taking place in my country harms my religious and moral sensibilities? |
Tough shit. My definition of harm involves actual harm, something that truly intrudes on your ability to live, love, and pursue happiness. Not some shit you can just ignore if you've got a drop of sense. |
Exactly. So your principle is meaningless, because everyone will define real harm differently. Who's to say one person's definition is better than another's? By a vote? But rights are supposed to be countermajoritarian. And around and around we go.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
GcDiaz
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Clinton, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:10 pm |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
But a corporation can amputate the foot to save the leg. You can't just pay people less and expect to get out of a rut, not if the reduction is enough that they can't live or pay rent on what you're paying them. You'd be crippling your entire work force. A corporation can reduce its workforce and maintain standards of living for its workforce. If such a decision was left to the work force it'd be like some twisted Survivor caricature.
|
Apparently Mondragon has a program where in case of economic downturn, the company will make loans to its employees, which CAN be forgiven, or have their interest subsidized up to 100%.
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz
Let's bring sexy back!
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
GcDiaz
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Clinton, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:11 pm |
|
|
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
As far as "freedom from," that's a distinction that only makes sense if you can define from what, and, more importantly, by who. If you say "the State" you already lose the game. |
From being fucked with, by whoever. Long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone but you, it's all good. Hey, a man can dream. |
Ah, the harm principle. A classic.
What if the fact that gay marriages are taking place in my country harms my religious and moral sensibilities? |
Tough shit. My definition of harm involves actual harm, something that truly intrudes on your ability to live, love, and pursue happiness. Not some shit you can just ignore if you've got a drop of sense. |
Exactly. So your principle is meaningless, because everyone will define real harm differently. Who's to say one person's definition is better than another's? By a vote? But rights are supposed to be countermajoritarian. And around and around we go. |
Hey, a man can dream.
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz
Let's bring sexy back!
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:17 pm |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
But a corporation can amputate the foot to save the leg. You can't just pay people less and expect to get out of a rut, not if the reduction is enough that they can't live or pay rent on what you're paying them. You'd be crippling your entire work force. A corporation can reduce its workforce and maintain standards of living for its workforce. If such a decision was left to the work force it'd be like some twisted Survivor caricature.
|
Apparently Mondragon has a program where in case of economic downturn, the company will make loans to its employees, which CAN be forgiven, or have their interest subsidized up to 100%. |
That sounds wonderful. If you've got the money and aren't in danger of going under, or if you don't have to face dropping stock prices and need to keep up profitability to promote investment.
Now that I think about it, are autogestion companies publicly traded? Or is it just considered that the workers each own a share of it? Do stockholders have any say in the way it's run? Maybe we should just leave the stock example out of this.
Still, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for laying off sections of the workforce. Sometimes the market just can't sustain the size your company has risen to. If that's the case then the loans are just going to bleed the company dry of whatever operating funds it has left.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:36 pm |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| spinach wrote: |
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
They've also got the autogestion people beat on response time, since decisions can be handled quickly without the need to consult every member of the workforce.
|
In all fairness, big decisions like that would be left to the group handling high-level duties (so, a hierarchy, when everyone's supposed to be equal. Imagine that). For anything else, people would be expected to make their own decisions based on what they needed. |
Hierarchy is a structure. Structure is not hierarchy. Remember -- webs, as in nature, all things return to soil etc. |
Looks like a hierarchy to me:
But in regards to remuneration and wages, which is what you should be debating, I can only find the following:
Remuneration policy
Since the remuneration policy is intrinsically linked to the economic-financial situation of the co-operative, during the recession annual dividends in some companies were actually negative.
There were also many years when either one or both extra wage packets were capitalised.
Wage solidarity
Wages should be sufficient, comparable with those of other salaried workers in the region and in keeping with the means of the co-operative.
Payment should correspond to an internal framework based on solidarity, reflected in a smaller difference between the top and bottom of the pay scale than is commonly seen in the business market.
Wages and work hours should also be comparable throughout the Corporation as a whole.
Again with the bolded section: wages to be comparable to other non-coop jobs in the region? So automatically a janitor at the coop will make what a janitor anywhere else would be making? Same for an executive? that doesn't seem equal to me. |
I like that you're reading. A snapshot of order slowly melting into chaos is what that is. Try something pre- or post-industrial -- and with post, make sure it's from someone who has made money doing something other than selling the text you'd read -- and we'll pick this up again, forming our own conclusions. I'll probably talk about small businesses networked through outsourcing to form larger industries and distributed infrastructure support. I might say "free the grid" a lot.
Really, you'll have to zoom out a whole lot or look elsewhere. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:45 pm |
|
|
Y'know, for the record, that was one hell of a douchebag post.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
GcDiaz
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Clinton, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:47 pm |
|
|
spinach: I only used the information you provided.
Furthermore, 4 requests for real-life examples of the organization YOU say works, and still no satisfactory reply. Use whatever language you want, man. Your actions are just weak.
Kinda reminds of the guy from Good Will Hunting, retreating into his academic cocoon.
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz
Let's bring sexy back!
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:58 pm |
|
|
This post was bullshit.
Last edited by spinach on Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:10 pm |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Y'know, for the record, that was one hell of a douchebag post. |
You're right. I'm a little off.
Okay, yeah. I've worked mostly in entertainment -- board and card games, film, a few other things -- and these concepts have worked out for me. I've also put it to work in education -- rather than teaching, facilitating an environment for students to come to their own conclusions -- it worked out okay, and should someone make the oversight of letting a college drop-out teach high school kids, I'd like to try it again. When I want to do something, I find others with a similar goal and work with them. This has worked well for everything from the card games I mentioned earlier to odd jobs like helping people move as an excuse to see another part of town. I've got something else going right now, but I'm keeping a lid on it for a little while. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
GcDiaz
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Clinton, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:14 pm |
|
|
| spinach wrote: |
| I don't work at Mondragon. I will tell you that I don't go hungry. That's all I will tell you today. |
You should always stand by your words. But save it. I no longer care.
_________________
Steam/PSN/Xbawks: GcDiaz
Let's bring sexy back!
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:22 pm |
|
|
| spinach wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Y'know, for the record, that was one hell of a douchebag post. |
You're right. I'm a little off.
Okay, yeah. I've worked mostly in entertainment -- board and card games, film, a few other things -- and these concepts have worked out for me. I've also put it to work in education -- rather than teaching, facilitating an environment for students to come to their own conclusions -- it worked out okay, and should someone make the oversight of letting a college drop-out teach high school kids, I'd like to try it again. When I want to do something, I find others with a similar goal and work with them. This has worked well for everything from the card games I mentioned earlier to odd jobs like helping people move as an excuse to see another part of town. I've got something else going right now, but I'm keeping a lid on it for a little while. |
It doesn't really suprise me that it's worked in small doses. Communal managment is easier when there are less members to consult. And the less competition involved the less pressure there is to maximize your profits.
I do admit that I am puzzled as to how Mondragon works. So I guess the idea isn't without merit even at the macro scale. I'm a little too busy/lazy right now to really do the proper research to learn how it works though.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:26 pm |
|
|
| GcDiaz wrote: |
| spinach wrote: |
| I don't work at Mondragon. I will tell you that I don't go hungry. That's all I will tell you today. |
You should always stand by your words. But save it. I no longer care. |
No, dude. I was a dick. A man admits his faults and corrects them. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:50 pm |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| spinach wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Y'know, for the record, that was one hell of a douchebag post. |
You're right. I'm a little off.
Okay, yeah. I've worked mostly in entertainment -- board and card games, film, a few other things -- and these concepts have worked out for me. I've also put it to work in education -- rather than teaching, facilitating an environment for students to come to their own conclusions -- it worked out okay, and should someone make the oversight of letting a college drop-out teach high school kids, I'd like to try it again. When I want to do something, I find others with a similar goal and work with them. This has worked well for everything from the card games I mentioned earlier to odd jobs like helping people move as an excuse to see another part of town. I've got something else going right now, but I'm keeping a lid on it for a little while. |
It doesn't really suprise me that it's worked in small doses. Communal managment is easier when there are less members to consult. And the less competition involved the less pressure there is to maximize your profits.
I do admit that I am puzzled as to how Mondragon works. So I guess the idea isn't without merit even at the macro scale. I'm a little too busy/lazy right now to really do the proper research to learn how it works though. |
I'm not sure it would work with rigid large groups. A bunch of smaller groups working in concert might. The formation of the Internet is sort of an example of a bunch of companies and individuals volunteering time, effort and funds into a common goal. Of course, only a few companies own the connections that form the backbone, but that's something else to tackle. When information is shared, the best solutions to problems of infrastructure will form from a sort of natural selection. From there, smaller groups can implement the solution -- anyone can set up a web server which anyone else can access. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:24 am |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
| Talbain wrote: |
| If history were to teach me something, it's that people are remarkably resilient. |
This does not exclude them from being susceptible. Hey, they kept falling for the same bullshit (extremes) constantly. There's no reason they couldn't again. Especially if it's of no benefit for said extremes for them to appreciate otherwise. |
I'm not going to deny this. Yes, people can be stupid, but they do learn, whether it's slowly or quickly. The problem is that our system is set to learn either too quickly or too slowly. There's no oversight of whether teaching kids calculus in middle school is any more or less useful than teaching them calculus in high school. There's just no research, to a large extent, on whether one type of implanted information creates a more functional society or a less functional society. It's almost entirely speculative, because there's basically so much information now that even if you could make a statement that the extremes are causing the problems, there's probably a counter-argument to that as well. More importantly, even if they taught both sides of the argument, you can't be sure the people you're teaching give much of a shit. America's been a growing apathetic state, from what I can tell, for some time now.
| Quote: |
| In other words, why would the state benefit from educating you more than it has to? |
Because we assume that by teaching more there's a better chance of a person finding something they're good at and thus becoming a focused member of society via implanting a variety of possibilities.
| Quote: |
America not taking things at face value?
What's the Bible again? |
And while 90% of people believe that there's a God in some form, very few believe the Earth began 6000 years ago. That could be from the implantation of America's "education," but I basically consider any history past a certain point to be moot for purposes of being educated about what's actually happening today. I'd almost go so far as to call it a "three generation rule," which is that if it happened more than three generations ago, it's not going to be in the general population's mind. I sort of hate history in that regard because people constrain themselves to believing it, especially considering it's made by the most fallible beings we know of, ourselves.
Even if you knew what happened during ancient Rome, you'll never have an accurate picture because so much of its history is speculative. The further you go back the more vague history becomes, because people of the current generation simply lose that history. A solution to this would simply be to keep passing down the lessons of those past histories, rather than passing down the history itself, but people don't seem very interested in morality these days, assuming that the information itself will somehow bring them some enlightenment or truth--it hasn't yet, I don't feel it ever will. In that manner, I thought the ancient Chinese historians had a very interesting idea about history because they were interested in the morality of history. While this was heavily influenced by their Confucian ideology, their written history showed that they were interested in actively learning from their history. Maybe the wrong lessons, but they were attempting to learn something and it reflected in their writing.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
CubaLibre
the road lawyer
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:38 am |
|
|
| Talbain wrote: |
| America's been a growing apathetic state, from what I can tell, for some time now. |
More time, money, and research is spent per capita on education now than 10 years ago, and then than 10 years before that, et cetera. And yet people keep growing more apathetic. Why not choose the Occam's Razor solution and conclude that instead of more time, money and research making nationalized mandatory schooling less effective, it's actually making it more effective, and that making people apathetic is its purpose?
_________________
Let's Play, starring me. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:55 am |
|
|
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Talbain wrote: |
| America's been a growing apathetic state, from what I can tell, for some time now. |
More time, money, and research is spent per capita on education now than 10 years ago, and then than 10 years before that, et cetera. And yet people keep growing more apathetic. Why not choose the Occam's Razor solution and conclude that instead of more time, money and research making nationalized mandatory schooling less effective, it's actually making it more effective, and that making people apathetic is its purpose? |
Because I've never heard a teacher say that their purpose is to make students apathetic towards education. Thus I believe it's something aside from education that's making them as such. Were I to guess, I would say it's complacent lifestyle (which is only incidentally affected by education), not education that is making people more apathetic.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:00 am |
|
|
| Since when do teachers have ultimate say in the education system? Most of them get into it out of idealism that is gradually worn down over the years. Even the best and most fiery become effective within a horribly ineffective system rather than have it altered in any meaningful way. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
CubaLibre
the road lawyer
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:28 am |
|
|
| Talbain wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Talbain wrote: |
| America's been a growing apathetic state, from what I can tell, for some time now. |
More time, money, and research is spent per capita on education now than 10 years ago, and then than 10 years before that, et cetera. And yet people keep growing more apathetic. Why not choose the Occam's Razor solution and conclude that instead of more time, money and research making nationalized mandatory schooling less effective, it's actually making it more effective, and that making people apathetic is its purpose? |
Because I've never heard a teacher say that their purpose is to make students apathetic towards education. |
Greatest trick the devil ever pulled, and all that. The genius of schooling is that it is the system which teaches the lessons; the "lessons" ostensibly taught by the teachers are at most a lazy nod to liberalism. But because of those nods, people can continue to mistake the purpose of schooling as education. Including teachers.
I mean, do you know any teachers? Do you know how demoralized they are, as a class? They will freely admit that very little learning goes on in their classrooms, and that they are lucky to "reach" one student in twenty. The most honest will come right out and say that they are glorified babysitters (though I would say prison guards). Did you know that 50% of new teachers quit teaching within 3 years? The system breaks them. Any education that happens in schools happens in spite of the system, not because of it; it takes phenomenal amounts of energy to fight or sabotage the system while simultaneously actually educating kids. This is why "good teachers" seem so rare; they are those few people who have this energy. Most of them burn out quickly (how many of the "good teachers" are young, and how many of the old teachers are dispirited, bland tools of the administration)? A few truly extraordinary ones maintain this fight for many years. Most of them are marginalized or altogether forced out by the system, eventually.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:38 am |
|
|
| Best teacher I ever had was this old dude who obviously had the energy. Acclaimed guy, won some national award and all that. My High School was brand new at the time. You'd think they'd want to hang on to people like that. His last year at the school was the year I graduated, and by that point he'd been marginalized to only teaching gym and being an assistant with the football team. It was a fucking joke. I probably got three A's throughout the entirety of high school, and two of them were in math classes taught by him. Math also happens to be my worst area and the subject I have the least interest in. Go figure. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:45 am |
|
|
| negativedge wrote: |
| Since when do teachers have ultimate say in the education system? |
I don't recall saying they did. But they do control their classrooms.
| Quote: |
| Most of them get into it out of idealism that is gradually worn down over the years. Even the best and most fiery become effective within a horribly ineffective system rather than have it altered in any meaningful way. |
I don't recall stating that altering the system was the solution.
Edit: Cuba, I'm on the road to becoming a teacher (mostly as a result of my own teachers). I'm distinctly aware of the problems, but because changing the system is so difficult and because teaching is so haphazard, I would argue that it's the infusion of learning that needs to change. That's my conclusion. Essentially education today is a joke and I know that it's unlikely to change, because education is ultimately an individual process (an individual must become interested in something to truly become educated about it). Learning is the only thing I've ever thought of infusing into students and learning contains a set of values, since I believe that values are the only thing schooling gives you aside from social context to express those values.
Edit edit: Also, I was extremely lucky, as my Latin teacher, Choir teacher and Theater Tech teachers all infused learning, helping me acquire values I felt I would have not otherwise understood. A good teacher to me, is one that is much like a parent.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:06 am |
|
|
| Schooling should ideally teach people how to learn, how to think for themselves, and how to express that thought process in a meaningful way. Of course, those are pretty much the things our education system doesn't want to teach kids. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
extrabastardformula
millmuck holecutter
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Location: The Nearest Faraway Place
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:18 am |
|
|
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Did you know that 50% of new teachers quit teaching within 3 years? The system breaks them. |
The existence of the Teach For America program skews this greatly along with the NCLB blacklist.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Max Cola
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Location: a shotgun shack
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:38 am |
|
|
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| I mean, do you know any teachers? Do you know how demoralized they are, as a class? They will freely admit that very little learning goes on in their classrooms, and that they are lucky to "reach" one student in twenty. The most honest will come right out and say that they are glorified babysitters (though I would say prison guards). Did you know that 50% of new teachers quit teaching within 3 years? The system breaks them. Any education that happens in schools happens in spite of the system, not because of it; it takes phenomenal amounts of energy to fight or sabotage the system while simultaneously actually educating kids. This is why "good teachers" seem so rare; they are those few people who have this energy. Most of them burn out quickly (how many of the "good teachers" are young, and how many of the old teachers are dispirited, bland tools of the administration)? A few truly extraordinary ones maintain this fight for many years. Most of them are marginalized or altogether forced out by the system, eventually. |
Most of my favorite high school teachers became favorites in my mind because of their honesty related to their jobs (hating uncooperative, whining, unmotivated students, hating the obstructive system), and their insistence on acting like people instead of walking textbooks.
Notably, they also loved their subjects and had a genuine enthusiasm for them. I would actually hang around after class and have long, interesting conversations with a few of these people.
They simultaneously made me NOT want to become a teacher, EVER, and at the same time want to become one just so I could share that same love and interest with others. Sadly the education system seems to facilitate the former attitude instead of the latter.
_________________
Everybody hurts sometimes |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:46 am |
|
|
My best teacher was the one who constantly went on tangents outside of the curriculum, funnily enough.
Not that the French system was anywhere as dreadful as I understood the British and American ones used to be when I was in secondary school. I don't know how much it's changed since.
_________________
      |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Max Cola
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Location: a shotgun shack
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:50 am |
|
|
Most of the teachers I liked best were prone to do that as well, Dracko. Personal anecdotes, interesting stories and tidbits of information they'd heard. Often things with little to no relevance to what the class was actually about. Again, things like this made me appreciate them, that they were showing themselves to be actual human beings rather than people just doing their jobs.
I think you learn more from the lives and experiences of others than from books and curricula.
_________________
Everybody hurts sometimes |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:38 am |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
| My best teacher was the one who constantly went on tangents outside of the curriculum, funnily enough. |
This is more what I'm interested in. I feel that people trying to teach are probably not doing their job, since teaching is just making something a book articulates much better into bite-sized bits the stupid can consume. Though maybe that's the fate of a consumer-driven society.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
CubaLibre
the road lawyer
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:51 am |
|
|
| extrabastardformula wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Did you know that 50% of new teachers quit teaching within 3 years? The system breaks them. |
The existence of the Teach For America program skews this greatly along with the NCLB blacklist. |
Well sure. Why do you think those programs exist?
Anyway, I agree with what everyone is saying and am glad we're all, uh, on board.
I submit that one problem is that people are paid to teach - that they can get teaching certifications and purport to be "teaching experts" or "teaching professionals." Socrates had a name for people that took money to teach: sophists. (It was the technical definition of the term, actually. It was Socrates via Plato that added all the negative connotations to the word.) Teaching is a function of everyone in your community; that's why it flows so much more easily from individuation rather than process.
Another way to put it is, that while teaching is certainly a skill of some sort, it cannot substitute for a genuine knowledge of (and therefore love for) a subject matter. Not all scientists can teach but it should be obvious that only a scientist (in the sense of someone who enthusiastically loves science, not in the sense of someone with a Ph.D in scientific academia) can teach science. One of the easiest ways to note the total failure of public schools to educate is the fact that millions of intelligent 14-18 year olds sit in laboratories every day and have never made a discovery of note. Obviously it's facetious to think that any "science" is being done in these classrooms.
You can replace the word "science," of course, with any you like.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dark Age Iron Savior
king of finders
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Location: Spacecraft, Juanelia Country
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:27 am |
|
|
posting to keep from having three ridiculous posts in a row
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
sawtooth
heh
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: flashback
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:02 am |
|
|
| Dark Age Iron Savior wrote: |
| posting to keep from having three ridiculous posts in a row |
haha
my oldest sister is going into education and she's thinking of going to new orleans because apparently they're basically rebuilding the whole public school system from ground up after Katrina and they're more willing to experiment (more charter schools etc). which is cool
_________________
( ( |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:09 am |
|
|
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Another way to put it is, that while teaching is certainly a skill of some sort, it cannot substitute for a genuine knowledge of (and therefore love for) a subject matter. |
I largely disagree with this. In advanced collegiate courses, yes, of course, because it is generally assumed the student body has a specific skill set in place. The classroom at that point is less about learning and more about...you know, getting work done. Creating, discovering, etc. In public schools, the most important things you can teach is not the subject matter--regardless of what it is, the majority of the subjects are not genuinely interested in it--but basic skill sets that allow individualism to flourish. Teach kids how to think and learn on their own, how to ask and propose intelligent questions, how to develop and deliver useful arguments, how to explore their interests, etc, etc, etc. No kid cares about your degrees or what papers you have published. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
