Lack of understanding as a debate tactic

[Coriolis]

It has more to do with the intention vehind in establishing education, and how that intention shaped people's ideas of education/success. The government intentionally down played modest lifestyles. Then spent years conditioning people into thinking college is the only viable option. Which changed people's perspective on success over time. It wasn't about supporting your family, but about making money and living in luxury. This meant aiming for a job that paid a LOT to compensate for that choice. So to show their success, people flaunt their wealth in public. This degraded the value of family, and happiness as well. This is why many rich people are narcissistic too. All to justify that money makes them happy, but does not.

Wealth and material goods have been linked with success throughout human history. In the US, Corporations have been a much stronger influence in this area than the government. The connection between consumerism/materialism and corporate profits is readily apparent. Frugal or savvy consumers contribute less to the bottom line. College is viewed as more widely essential because these same businesses now require a college education for jobs that don't really need that kind of preparation, and in previous generations would have been done by a high school graduate with some experience and on the job training.

 

[Lark]

Wealth and material goods have been linked with success throughout human history. In the US, Corporations have been a much stronger influence in this area than the government. The connection between consumerism/materialism and corporate profits is readily apparent. Frugal or savvy consumers contribute less to the bottom line. College is viewed as more widely essential because these same businesses now require a college education for jobs that don't really need that kind of preparation, and in previous generations would have been done by a high school graduate with some experience and on the job training.

This is yet another thing I think a universal basic income and stakeholder grants/baby bonds would resolve, in part by people having greater choice as to whether they want to invest in qualifications or not.

Plus, it could turn the labour market on its head and workplaces may have to make themselves appealing instead of vice versa.

Choice and personal responsibility are simply not available to most people in the economy as it is at present and that's kind of a big deal as those things are supposedly the cornerstone of the whole thing.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

And we actually have members here who have posted "I'm usually right"

Why don't you get a degree which teaches you how to be right, instead of some art degree, man, so you wouldn't have to be quite as sorry

 

[Jaguar]

Why don't you get a degree which teaches you how to be right

I'm not interested in being right. I'm interested in what is true. That's why we have a fucked up legal system and medical establishment in my country - the quest to be "right" frequently results in the covering up of what is true. Stop acting like a troll.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I'm not interested in being right. I'm interested in what is true. That's why we have a fucked up legal system and medical establishment in my country - the quest to be "right" frequently results in the covering up of what is true. Stop acting like a troll.

We have in common that we're interested about the truth. Then there's some secondary "funnies" or what you will. I'm happy about my country how the segregation of the church and state have progressed. But it isn't all glory. The church in here has become the spokeperson about some secular ideas. So how does our church work as an "idea factory" of religious ideas if it's just a mouthpiece for the liberal. It's not the perfect world.