Young adults have a right to be up in arms


CDNBear
+3
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Its a possibility. The government already keeps tuition fairly low compared to the actual cost. Post-secondary funding isnt just for the student. It's also an investment in the society. Generally the better educated a population is the better off the country is.

That's why I think higher education should be free, to those that meet the requirements.
 
SLM
+3
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That's why I think higher education should be free, to those that meet the requirements.

Absolutely. I think the ones that meet the requirements,in other words have excelled thus far in life, are more likely to do well after graduating too. This is, I think, the way you build up a society because it creates a strong base. I can also see it having a trickle down effect as well, the stronger the base the more likely society as a whole might eventually be able to make all education free. That should be the ideal goal anyway, in my opinion. But just like an individual has to earn their individual opportunities by working for them, I think society as a whole needs to earn them as well.
 
CDNBear
+2
#33
Furthermore, those that don't get the grades to go on to post secondary education, should be guided to trades, or other forms of further education, that will meet the demands of society. All free.
 
SLM
+1
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Furthermore, those that don't get the grades to go on to post secondary education, should be guided to trades, or other forms of further education, that will meet the demands of society. All free.

Yes, we can't forget that trades or other occupations that don't really require a degree still require training and education. I'm mean, when all is said and done, we still need people to work as cashier's at the grocery store. But if we can work smart at building a better society, perhaps they will actually be able to live off what they earn there. I know right now, that's not doable for most and that's with legislated minimum wages.

Everybody always says we need to make education a priority but no one ever does. But that's how you build a better world.
 
skookumchuck
+3
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Yup. That's the attitude right there: "When I was young I started out with nothing..." What these students are saying is, "I wish I could start out with nothing."

In the time since the 60's the ratio of the median income of a family to the cost of an education has grown from about 2:1, to about 1:2. The cost of education has been increasing at a much higher rate than inflation since the 60's, and the educational requirements of most jobs has been growing in the meanwhile. We aren't even talking about houses, so what are you on about?

Students are demanding reasonable tuition, and your interpretation is that they want any living they want? Pay closer attention, please. I left the country and went to a university that cost 1/10th the price of the universities I went to in Canada. These are not unreasonable demands, but your attitude is.

Just what allowed you to leave the country for schooling? Where did that money come from, did you have to work as well. Tell you what Mr Arrogance, if i was 20 years old i could do the same again right here and now where tuition is much higher than paybec. They wish they could start out with nothing? What are you on?

Want an example? If i was physically healthy i could make a decent living working a nearby gold claim that costs me 40 bucks a year to keep. Or i could do a number of other things that would allow me to save money for schooling, as long as i was prepared once again to sacrifice. Now heaven forbid the little sweeties would get their hands dirty because the city jobs are minimum wage. Live in parent's basement or get a camp job, suck it up buttercup, life is tough, even tougher if you are a whining wimp.
I would trade with them in a heartbeat, they can have my paid for home and acreage and OAP, i just want their youth
 
gerryh
+5
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Furthermore, those that don't get the grades to go on to post secondary education, should be guided to trades, or other forms of further education, that will meet the demands of society. All free.


I think you need to rethink this Bear. What needs to be done is for society to stop pushing University as the be all and end all. Stop having the attitude that the "smart ones" go to University and the "dumb ones" go to trade schools. I'll tell you right now, it takes a hell of a lot of smarts, hard work, AND education to become a good auto mechanic these days. Welding is a lot more than arc welding 2 pieces of steel together, plumbing is more complicated than gluing abs.

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Yes, we can't forget that trades or other occupations that don't really require a degree still require training and education.

A hell of alot more training and education than the dummies with the degrees realize.
 
taxslave
+2
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

What a steaming reeking pile of dung this premise is!
In the early 60's i spent two fekking years working in the north to save money for my tuition at a trade school, i stayed there for months at a time also when others were "going to the city" every couple weeks to party and blow money. I had enough by then to go to university, barely, but did not want that.
When i decided to have a home i went to a rural area which was cheaper and lived like a mole in a hastily erected basement while i built the upper floor, had a wife and two kids by that time also. I had to learn carpentry the hard way and used to drive into town to a subdivision where the builders would tell me how to do something on their coffee break if i brought donuts. I know it sounds like 10 miles to school uphill both ways but this is the simple truth.
I got caught in the mortgage spiral when i was building in 1980 which nearly doubled my payments so i worked two jobs and toughed it out.
Nothing has changed regarding the ratio of annual wage to the coat of an ordinary home unless these poor entitled dip****s insist on a job and home in just the right area of a major city. Twas the same back then, too expensive for a middle income wage earner.
I have immediate family currently working in the boonies for the same reason. One nephew in particular is making over a hundred grand a year in the bush and saving 30 of it towards an education, another had the...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Most of us went into the new subdivisions at NIGHT to get a better price on lumber. LOL I worked for a building contractor for a while to gain skills.

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Yup. That's the attitude right there: "When I was young I started out with nothing..." What these students are saying is, "I wish I could start out with nothing."

In the time since the 60's the ratio of the median income of a family to the cost of an education has grown from about 2:1, to about 1:2. The cost of education has been increasing at a much higher rate than inflation since the 60's, and the educational requirements of most jobs has been growing in the meanwhile. We aren't even talking about houses, so what are you on about?

Students are demanding reasonable tuition, and your interpretation is that they want any living they want? Pay closer attention, please. I left the country and went to a university that cost 1/10th the price of the universities I went to in Canada. These are not unreasonable demands, but your attitude is.

Not so. Skukumchuck's attitude is not unreasonable. It is the gimme attitude of kids that is unreasonable. Most of these kids could find decent paying camp jobs to finance their education if they were not so lazy. Last year BC had trouble getting enough tree planter to get the necessary amount of trees in the ground. Anyone with a bit of ambition can make over $300/day doing this. Also have to wonder about their parents money skills as well. Granted not everyone is rich but with a little planning and not too much bad luck almost every family can squirrel away a few bucks. My parents did without lots of luxuries to build a mortgage free house and put some money aside for school. I did it for my son and am now doing it for my granddaughter by putting my volunteer firefighter practice pay in an RESP. It is not much money and most people could blow it in a weekend but in 16 years it adds up.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I think you need to rethink this Bear. What needs to be done is for society to stop pushing University as the be all and end all. Stop having the attitude that the "smart ones" go to University and the "dumb ones" go to trade schools. I'll tell you right now, it takes a hell of a lot of smarts, hard work, AND education to become a good auto mechanic these days. Welding is a lot more than arc welding 2 pieces of steel together, plumbing is more complicated than gluing abs.



A hell of alot more training and education than the dummies with the degrees realize.

Excellent point. A friend that is a GM service manager told the local high school auto mechanics class that without a B average they would not make it as a mechanic these days.
 
gerryh
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post


Excellent point. A friend that is a GM service manager told the local high school auto mechanics class that without a B average they would not make it as a mechanic these days.


Yup, it may have been an "engineer" that designed that automobile, but it's the mechanic that has to keep it running and fix the engineers screw ups.
 
SLM
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

A hell of alot more training and education than the dummies with the degrees realize.

Oh absolutely, I know it does. Didn't intend to imply otherwise, if that's how it came across. Higher education, in my opinion, is anything post-secondary.
 
damngrumpy
#40
Just because Quebec may be the cheapest for education does not mean
we have to make it more expensive. Every time politicians are involved
they tell us the resources belong to all of us, ya right. If the resources really
belonged to Canadians, we would be charging a lot more and using the
money to invest in education. yes education would no longer be an expense.
It would become an investment.
Students would receive post secondary education with little or no cost providing
they maintained their average mark average or better. Upon completion of the
education they received, they would then work for the country for an agreed
upon time period at two thirds their income, until a portion was saved in order
to pay for the intake of the next group of students.
Yes there is a lot of things to figure out but there must be a method of finalizing
it. We cannot expect young people to go into huge debt, and be loyal to the
country and give them nothing in return. I do not support the violent group but
I do support the concept that the students are speaking up for themselves.
We are going to hear a lot more from young people on various issues. We want
these people to opt in and when they do we don't like their message. The
current crop of politicians are pushing today's young people right into the arms
of Mulcair and the NDP. No I don't blame these kids and I support them for
standing up for their interests. I do not support violence and most of them don't
either. Seniors stand up for their rights, business stands up for its rights and so
does labour, why not young adults.
 
Spade
#41
The basis of student unrest, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, is the collapse of cultural and religious definition in the West. Even though the voices of dissent are ambiguous, with spokesmen unable to define precisely what they oppose, it is this very uncertainty that that lies at the centre of this malaise. It is that uncertainty itself that paradoxically has become the enemy.

Our myths and shibboleths are laid bare –exposed as empty promises and prohibitions. Competing faiths and religious doctrines simply accentuate the fact that clerics are propping up houses of cards. That Nothing dwells within.

Elections are shunned; choices blur becoming indistinguishable one from the other. Even when one governing party is replaced by another, the interests of the elites are entrenched, those of the majority ignored. Laws areseen to control rather than benefit. And, laws become tools of the establishment to deny the pleasures andpursuits of youth.

Seen everywhere are the excesses of a materialistic society that hurtles to environmental chaos, preferring to blind itself to its inevitable fate arguing any action would disturb its shabby entitlement.

So, what do youth do? Give in to that same pursuit of the material and demand their share immediately. Perfectly understandable.
 
CDNBear
+1
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I think you need to rethink this Bear. What needs to be done is for society to stop pushing University as the be all and end all. Stop having the attitude that the "smart ones" go to University and the "dumb ones" go to trade schools. I'll tell you right now, it takes a hell of a lot of smarts, hard work, AND education to become a good auto mechanic these days. Welding is a lot more than arc welding 2 pieces of steel together, plumbing is more complicated than gluing abs.

No doubt.

But you don't need the same over all education in higher mathematics or sciences to to turn a wrench.

The trades focus on specific elements of math, science, or what have you, that pertain to the trade. I know some trig and some metallurgical science, but I'm a fabricator, not just a welder. And what I know pertains specifically to the metals I specialize in. Furthermore, I may know how to get metal to do what I want or need it to do. But I don't fully grasp the whole of the science behind it like say Dex would.

I bet I know some of what Tonington knows about Salmonoids. But I wouldn't get the grades needed to take the same courses he did, or work in the field he does. But I could land a job as a fishing guide.

Which is my point.
 
Machjo
+1
#43
This is where some kind of peace corps could come in handy. I wonder how many of those students would be willing to sing a contract whereby the government pays for their tuition in exchange for service to the province or country in return.
 
CDNBear
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

This is where some kind of peace corps could come in handy. I wonder how many of those students would be willing to sing a contract whereby the government pays for their tuition in exchange for service to the province or country in return.

Or a tour in the Armed Forces. With a clause exempting you from combat if you so wish.
 
Machjo
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Or a tour in the Armed Forces. With a clause exempting you from combat if you so wish.

Honestly, I disagree with the notion of conscientious objection since sometimes conscription could be necesary in extreme cases. At least in the case of a peace corps they would not be required to sign such a non-combat agreement. On the one hand, they would not be trained for any combat role. On the other hand, in the event of a national emergency, they could still be transfered to military service if necessary since there would be no such contract.

The type of contract you're proposing could tie the government's hands in a serious way in the event of a national emergency.
 
CDNBear
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The type of contract you're proposing could tie the government's hands in a serious way in the event of a national emergency.

How's that?
 
Machjo
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

How's that?

OK, I guess not that many people would necessarily sign up for a peace corps, so there would always be planty of others to conscript. But for the sake of argument, let's say we're in a recession, resulting in many more choosing to join that peace corps, and many of them among more able-bodied Canadians? You're right, it's not likely to be a major issue, but still, it's always better to play it safe, not to mention that as soon as tehre should be fear of conscription, suddenly every man and his dog might want to join the peace corps just to sign that contract. So it's probably best not to have such a contract.
 
CDNBear
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

OK, I guess not that many people would necessarily sign up for a peace corps, so there would always be planty of others to conscript.

Conscription is forced enlistment. How about voluntary service, and a GI Bill, with a non combat clause?
 
Machjo
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Conscription is forced enlistment. How about voluntary service, and a GI Bill, with a non combat clause?

It just seems contradictory. How useful is a serviceman who can't be forced to fight? I suppse you could try to blackmail him by giving him the choice between mine clearing and combat service. Seeing the first option is more dangerous, I suppose it would be a good way to test his sincerity in avoiding a combat role I suppose!
 
CDNBear
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

It just seems contradictory. How useful is a serviceman who can't be forced to fight? I suppse you could try to blackmail him by giving him the choice between mine clearing and combat service. Seeing the first option is more dangerous, I suppose it would be a good way to test his sincerity in avoiding a combat role I suppose!

There vast segment of the Armed Forces whose MOS is non combat in theory, such as WFE techs.

FORCES.CA - Water, Fuels and Environmental Technician (external - login to view)

There are also special services that do not necessarily require combat ready Troops to do. Such as DART.
 
SLM
+2
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Conscription is forced enlistment. How about voluntary service, and a GI Bill, with a non combat clause?

I'm not so sure about that. I don't agree with conscription either, don't get me wrong. But I think if you're going to volunteer to serve, then you volunteer to serve, period. If non-combat is the only choice for some (and it's a very valid choice), then they don't volunteer.

I also, at times, think that some nations that have some sort of mandatory service requirement, not necessarily armed forces but some sort of service requirement, are definitely onto something. There's value in learning to be of service to the collective whole of society. Just a random thought.
 
Machjo
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

There vast segment of the Armed Forces whose MOS is non combat in theory, such as WFE techs.

FORCES.CA - Water, Fuels and Environmental Technician (external - login to view)

There are also special services that do not necessarily require combat ready Troops to do. Such as DART.

Perhaps, but with all the equipment, salaries, training, etc. it can be expensive especially for an organization that guarantees employment for all.

for thzat kind of organization, you'd want:

1. salaries to be low enough to discourage sign-ups, since it would be intended more as a last resort for students graduating from high school in recessions and who feel uncomfortable borrowing for university for example.

2. Training and equipment costs might be unavoidable for them to do the work they need to do, but you might want it targetted more towards civilian purposes to contribute to the development of the economy, so it could include uran infrastructure construction and such too which the military doesn't do.

Sure the militaryu is an option too, but it is more specialized and so probably not ideal as an organizaiton which guarantees employment.

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I'm not so sure about that. I don't agree with conscription either, don't get me wrong. But I think if you're going to volunteer to serve, then you volunteer to serve, period. If non-combat is the only choice for some (and it's a very valid choice), then they don't volunteer.

I also, at times, think that some nations that have some sort of mandatory service requirement, not necessarily armed forces but some sort of service requirement, are definitely onto something. There's value in learning to be of service to the collective whole of society. Just a random thought.

West Germany did offer the option of military service or civilian service, though I believe civilian service was of a longer duration.
 
SLM
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

West Germany did offer the option of military service or civilian service, though I believe civilian service was of a longer duration.

Yep, I don't think that's a bad idea at all. Especially in today's world, my own generation has seen many 'career' changes in our lifetimes, the generation coming up has it worse. Which makes that often singular decision upon graduation from high school all the more important to get 'right'. I think service of some kind, military or civilian, would not only give a young adult the time that is perhaps necessary to really contemplate that choice but would give them a sense of purpose while they were doing so.
 
Machjo
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Yep, I don't think that's a bad idea at all. Especially in today's world, my own generation has seen many 'career' changes in our lifetimes, the generation coming up has it worse. Which makes that often singular decision upon graduation from high school all the more important to get 'right'. I think service of some kind, military or civilian, would not only give a young adult the time that is perhaps necessary to really contemplate that choice but would give them a sense of purpose while they were doing so.

But I think Germany provides free education too, if not in university, then at least in some trade or professional school.

So the mentality was different (i.e. each individual is responsible for the development of not just himself but of the country). Canada is far more individualistic.
 
SLM
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But I think Germany provides free education too, if not in university, then at least in some trade or professional school.

I'm a proponent of free education, I just don't think we can snap our fingers and make that a reality all of a sudden. Like I mentioned earlier, we have to build up to that and we need a solid plan to do so. Start small and aim high.

What we have is clearly not working because it keeps creating bigger and bigger divides.

Quote:

So the mentality was different (i.e. each individual is responsible for the development of not just himself but of the country). Canada is far more individualistic.

There are many who just want what they want and don't care about the rest, sure. But I'm not certain that it's really the majority of people that think that way. I think the majority care a lot about the collective, but we're just too damned busy trying to make both ends meet in the middle that we just don't have the time, or the energy, to really step up and do something about it. And so any kind of change ends up getting relegated to the more extreme or fringe aspects of the political spectrum and gets tied in with the more extreme rhetoric, thus change never really comes.
 
CDNBear
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Perhaps, but with all the equipment, salaries, training, etc. it can be expensive especially for an organization that guarantees employment for all.

The Armed Forces guarantees employment for all?

Quote:

1. salaries to be low enough to discourage sign-ups, since it would be intended more as a last resort for students graduating from high school in recessions and who feel uncomfortable borrowing for university for example.

The salary is low. But the bulk of your necessities are provided.

Quote:

2. Training and equipment costs might be unavoidable for them to do the work they need to do, but you might want it targetted more towards civilian purposes to contribute to the development of the economy, so it could include uran infrastructure construction and such too which the military doesn't do.

It doesn't?

FORCES.CA - Construction Technician (external - login to view)

Quote:

Sure the militaryu is an option too, but it is more specialized and so probably not ideal as an organizaiton which guarantees employment.

There is no employment guarantee in the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Forces are an extremely diversified organization.
 
Machjo
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

The Armed Forces guarantees employment for all?

The salary is low. But the bulk of your necessities are provided.

It doesn't?

FORCES.CA - Construction Technician (external - login to view)

There is no employment guarantee in the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Forces are an extremely diversified organization.

What I meant was that it would be inapporpriate for an organization like the armed forces to guarantee employment for all, for various reasons, though the main one being the high salaries. Too many people would be willing to join, even among those not suited for the military. While the military is diversified to a degree, it's still specialized enough that it does not deal with all aspects of government services, such as education, health care, etc.

For an organization guaranteeing employment for all who wish to join, you'd want to offer salaries far lower than the private sector so as to discourage people joining it, the intention of course being that people would join it as a last resort. Secondly, since you might be dealing with people of a wide range of skills, abilities, intelligence, etc. to limit yourself to trades and professions which require more physical strength, etc. could be limiting, especially among those who are hard of hearing, with poor eyesight, out of shape, etc. in which case we may need to find them other types of work the military cannot provide. This could include everything from teaching and health care for the more capable to infrastructure construction, administration, tree planting, etc. etc. etc. for whatever might be needed.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

It doesn't?

FORCES.CA - Construction Technician (external - login to view)

But then the military would need to be significantly redefined, whereby it would no longer be limited to work done on base, but also in civilian projects. Also, seeing that it's first and foremost supposed to be a fighting force, would you really want it to have to be bogged down by various civilian employment and training programmes, etc.?
 
mentalfloss
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Quebec is already the most heavily taxed province, you can only milk so much. These students are delusional, greedy and plain out of touch with reality. Their current tuition is the lowest in the country, I have zero sympathy for them.

It's not really delusional if the people in the province can afford the higher tax and think it's worth it. I'm not saying I agree with that policy, but just because it's the highest taxed province doesn't mean they can't afford higher taxes.

It's still the most feasible option if they truly want to keep tuition low.
 
CDNBear
+1
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

What I meant was that it would be inapporpriate for an organization like the armed forces to guarantee employment for all, for various reasons, though the main one being the high salaries. Too many people would be willing to join, even among those not suited for the military.

It wouldn't have to offer employment for all, not even the Peace Corp offers placement for all. There are requirements that have to be met.

What high salaries are you referring to?

The pay is low. A GI bill would be applied to education only. But you still have to meet requirements to make it through basic and serve.

Quote:

While the military is diversified to a degree, it's still specialized enough that it does not deal with all aspects of government services, such as education, health care, etc.

Medical services...

FORCES.CA - Medical Officer (external - login to view)

Paid Education...

FORCES.CA - Paid Education (external - login to view)

Education in the field...

Operation ATTENTION (external - login to view)

Quote:

For an organization guaranteeing employment for all who wish to join, you'd want to offer salaries far lower than the private sector so as to discourage people joining it, the intention of course being that people would join it as a last resort.

The salaries are low. Why does it have to be a last resort?

Quote:

Secondly, since you might be dealing with people of a wide range of skills, abilities, intelligence, etc. to limit yourself to trades and professions which require more physical strength, etc. could be limiting, especially among those who are hard of hearing, with poor eyesight, out of shape, etc. in which case we may need to find them other types of work the military cannot provide.

Nor can the Peace Corp.

Quote:

This could include everything from teaching and health care for the more capable to infrastructure construction, administration, tree planting, etc. etc. etc. for whatever might be needed.

Again, the Forces already do much of that.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But then the military would need to be significantly redefined, whereby it would no longer be limited to work done on base, but also in civilian projects.

No it wouldn't. Those programs go beyond bases.

Quote:

Also, seeing that it's first and foremost supposed to be a fighting force, would you really want it to have to be bogged down by various civilian employment and training programmes, etc.?

Why would it be bogged down? They already do it.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#60
Way back when, If my application for employment hadn't been accepted when it was in 08/'60 the army recruiting trailer was scheduled to come to town later that week..................?
 

Similar Threads

3
Sesame Street for adults
by Praxius | Sep 24th, 2010
37
Adults' Capacity to Discipline Children
by FiveParadox | Apr 24th, 2006
no new posts