And why should US companies pay to train people in the US when they can just import skilled labor from other countries like they are doing now? They don't give a shit about American workers. All they care about is their profits.

 

Maybe the government which was unable to fund education because its citizens are reluctant to pay taxes for education, could induce companies to pay for worker training, through tax incentives. .

 

Could be. And I have seen it work; sort of. Back in the mid-90's Microsoft invaded both our local high schools and community college with new computer training programs. In fact they built a brand new $10 million computer lab in our community college and just gave it to them.

But the problem I saw is they were recruiting all our best and brightest students that were foregoing a standard college education and going straight into computer programing. And that was happening all over the country. Only to discover that Microsoft didn't really have that many jobs for them and neither did the overall computer industry. Only the absolute best and brightest were needed for those jobs and about 90% of those students got caught holding the bag. In fact I only knew of one student that actually got a job with Microsoft. And I knew a few others that went into computer programing for companies that were filling the new demand for internet access in our state. And one of them I know quite well actually started his own company and is a multi millionaire now.

The vast majority, however, found there was no job for them and ended up having to go back to school for degrees or other fields where there were job opportunities. And knowing many of those kids it seemed like such a shame because they really did belong in college in the first place because they had talents in many other areas but they got seduced by Microsoft.

On the plus side however once Microsoft was out the door that computer lab was still there and the community college made good use of it teaching skills that were needed in other fields.

 

Why yes, let's let Government train our future work force. They do such a tremendous and efficient job now ..........

As President Reagan said, government is not the answer, it's the problem.....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

WASHINGTON The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year, with parents and private foundations picking up more of the costs, an international survey released Tuesday found.

Despite the spending, U.S. students still trail their rivals on international tests.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — which groups the world's most developed countries — writes in its annual report that brand-new and experienced teachers alike in the United States out-earn most of their counterparts around the globe. But U.S. salaries have not risen at the same pace as other nations.

The findings, part of a 440-page tome of statistics, put the United States' spending on its young people in context.

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.

That sum inched past some developed countries and far surpassed others. Switzerland's total spending per student was $14,922 while Mexico averaged $2,993 in 2010. The average OECD nation spent $9,313 per young person.

As a share of its economy, the United States spent more than the average country in the survey. In 2010, the United States spent 7.3 percent of its gross domestic product on education, compared with the 6.3 percent average of other OECD countries. Denmark topped the list on that measure with 8 percent of its gross domestic product going toward education.

Spending, of course, only tells part of the story and does not guarantee students' success. The United States routinely trails its rival countries in performances on international exams despite being among the heaviest spenders on education.

U.S. fourth-graders are 11th in the world in math in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, a separate measure of nations against each other. U.S. eighth-graders ranked ninth in math, according to those 2011 results.

The Program for International Student Assessment measurement found the United States ranked 31st in math literacy among 15-year-old students and below the international average. The same 2009 tests found the United States ranked 23rd in science among the same students, but posting an average score.

And it's not as though all spending on education is public, the OECD report found. Public spending accounts for just 70 cents of every education dollar in the United States. Parents picked up another 25 cents and private sources paid for the remainder in 2010.

 

Maybe Americans are just stupid. After all, they did elect Trump.

 

The following website shows national test results in Program for International Student Assessment in 2015.

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf

Every single country that out scores the United States in science, reading, and mathematics is a country where the vast majority of students are white and of European descent, or Oriental. In the United States whites and Orientals outscore blacks and Hispanics on the SAT and the ACT.

https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=171

http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm

Comparatively low test scores for American students do not reveal the failure of the U.S. government, but the reality of innate differences in average racial intelligence. If we only looked at PISA scores for American whites and Orientals the United States would score much better.

 

[shootersa] you've confused revolutionaries with reactionaries. You aren't revolting, you're trying to preserve the status quo.

- Bon Zeage

--------

One could argue that shootersa is revolting, but only by using a different definition of "revolting." He does not really want to preserve the status quo. He would like to restore the economic status quo that existed during the 1920's.

 

My God shootersa why do you insist on embarrassing yourself like this?

Parents and private foundations pay more for education in the US than many other developed nations because the other developed nations provide free college educations. And the reason US students consistently lag behind other countries in standardized tests is because other countries have higher standards and national curriculum. While we in the US have "local control" where some US students are learning science and some of our students are being taught the world is only 6,000 years old and the Bible is 100% accurate.

Again one of the demands of conservatives like you.

 

It's actually pretty amusing how the least intelligent don't value education.

 

I'm more interested that the OECD counts as a source for education, but not for healthcare.

 

More like 1820.

 

And it is easy to understand why Trump has said that he loves the poorly educated.

My additional point is that people enjoy what they are good at, and avoid activities where they lack natural ability.

 

At the very least shootersa, like a significant minority of the GOP, would like to scale back the New Deal. Republican dishonesty about the revenue building benefits of tax cuts for the rich are a stealthy way to achieve this.

During the campaign of Barry Goldwater in 1964 Republicans learned that a direct attack on the New Deal was bound to fail. Beginning with the campaign of Ronald Reagan in 1980 Republicans have claimed dishonestly that tax cuts generated so much economic growth that we could have tax cuts and middle class entitlements too.

When Republican tax cuts generate rising national debt Republicans blame the rise on Democrats and claim that we have no choice but to cut middle class entitlements, which they know are popular, even among most registered Republicans.

 

Another segment of our economy that has great potential for jobs is in healthcare. And that is because of all the Baby Boomers aging and needing people to take care of them and their medical needs. But instead of trying to address that very real need Trump and the Republicans are making it worse by trying to cut healthcare insurance and Medicaid. When they could be using that need to assist in job training. And that could include everything from doctors to CNAs which is a huge spectrum.

 

Well, time moves on and so does politics. The TPPA is now a done deal with a slight name change. Without the United States. And the biggest bugbears, ISDS and copyright and patent have been shown the door. Those were the provisions that caused the most angst and concern in many nations. They were all inserted at the behest of the United States, or more correctly, global transnational corporations based there. Oh, and the Entertainment Industry and Big Pharma.

And when, and it is when, the US wants to join, any one nation can prevent our American friends from putting those provisions back. And you bet one will.

And the Paris Agreement on Climate, you're alone in not being part of that.

Appears your Dear Leader has justed thrown America's leadership in progress into the trash.

 

Increasingly employers require new employees to sign an agreement not to take a job with a competitor until they have left the company for a certain amount of time, often six months.

This reduces the employability of those employees, and consequently the incentive of their employers to give them raises.

Who is going to hire those employees but a competitor of their present employer? That is where their experience is.

It is in the interest of employees that their immediate supervisors fear that the next day they will give notice that they have gotten a better paying job somewhere else. The only people likely to give them those better paying jobs are competitors of their present employer.

A reason socialism is becoming more popular in the United States is because employers are becoming more powerful and because they are using their increased power to harm the economic interests of their employees.

Republicans who think college students will support capitalism after they get out into "the real world" do not understand how that real world feels to an increasing number of people who work for others.

Cliches like "Socialism has failed in every country in which it has been tried," and "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," do not resonate for employees whose pay checks buy less every year, even though they know that their companies are profitable.

 

The entire premise of Dog's rant is that employers are increasingly requiring employees to sign what is known as a "non compete" agreement, which stipulates that the employee cannot work for a competitor for some time after they leave.

Dog has made an incorrect statement; Non compete agreements are increasingly difficult to enforce and employers are not using them very much. The courts have consistently held that non compete agreements are counter to most labor laws, and the purpose of non compete agreements (to protect client contact information and relationships, to protect trade secrets and to counter unfair competition) are already addressed in other laws that are much easier to enforce.

Employers don't rely on non compete agreements to keep their workforce in place. Dog's rant about socialism does not follow from his incorrect statement about non compete agreements.

Shooter believes the reason socialism is popular among young adults is that they increasingly expect government to care for them from cradle to grave. They do not have the same attitude about independence and self reliance that earlier generations had.