Sredeerb.

[agamemnus]

I'm trying to put things in perspective for you. 241,000 jobs are a drop in the bucket. Less then a tenth of one percent of our population.

And I showed why that is a completely ridiculous number to look at. You are comparing a rate of one thing to a total of another thing. It's not even apples to oranges, it's falling apples to oranges.

And the assumption is that those people with H1-B visas have cost Americans jobs. I wonder how more likely firms will outsource the entire project/program/location OVERSEAS to take advantage of cheaper labor. By along knowledge workers to come here it may actually prevent the loss of entire company locations in the states.

I don't agree at all. As I said, tech companies have tried to do this in the early 2000s. Those who did are already overseas. Those who didn't could not because of whatever barriers, like communication or cultural barriers, or even the time difference. Those companies who could not go overseas are breaking through those barriers by importing workers at what they perceive is a cheaper cost. If they could not do this, the only other alternative would be to hire American workers. QED.

In addition if these folks came over here permanently these are EXACTLY the type of people we want immigrating. We typically don't want poor, unskilled and possibly criminal people coming into our country. We do want highly skilled workers coming over and becoming productively employed.

I agree, but not at the expense of other workers, and certainly not in this case. The requirements of the H1-B visa creates an unfair playing field by taking away the power of the employee to dictate terms.

[Lewkowski]

I don't agree at all. As I said, tech companies have tried to do this in the early 2000s. Those who did are already overseas. Those who didn't could not because of whatever barriers, like communication or cultural barriers, or even the time difference. Those companies who could not go overseas are breaking through those barriers by importing workers at what they perceive is a cheaper cost. If they could not do this, the only other alternative would be to hire American workers. QED.

It is not a one time on or off switch. If it becomes more expensive to operate in America (due to your view that we should restrict these visas) then it becomes more attractive to go overseas.

I agree, but not at the expense of other workers, and certainly not in this case. The requirements of the H1-B visa creates an unfair playing field by taking away the power of the employee to dictate terms.

It is a global economy. Just like I have no problem with an American going overseas and getting a job why would I have a problem with someone overseas coming here and getting a job? We export, we import we buy things from other countries they buy things from us. We travel there they travel here, it is an interconnected global economy.

And ultimately its not companies vs. workers its workers in one industry vs. consumers. The lower costs of doing stuff = greater savings for consumers. Just like its fantastic when the assembly line came about because it passed on cost savings to us.

Two things will happen if you restrict these visas.

A. More companies will be more likely to go overseas with that portion of their operation. (IT, programming, whatever).

B. If they choose not to go overseas then they pass along the rising labor costs to the consumer.

[Nessus]

If an MP decided to break with his national party and vote for a resolution committing Finnish troops to Iraq and make national headlines with his support for going to war, doesn't it seem likely his party would eventually kick him off their ballot?

With your use of eventually, there is but the answer you wish.

[agamemnus]

It is not a one time on or off switch. If it becomes more expensive to operate in America (due to your view that we should restrict these visas) then it becomes more attractive to go overseas.

In the same way, it also opens up the possibility of hiring someone who is already in the country.

It is a global economy. Just like I have no problem with an American going overseas and getting a job why would I have a problem with someone overseas coming here and getting a job? We export, we import we buy things from other countries they buy things from us. We travel there they travel here, it is an interconnected global economy.

And ultimately its not companies vs. workers its workers in one industry vs. consumers. The lower costs of doing stuff = greater savings for consumers. Just like its fantastic when the assembly line came about because it passed on cost savings to us.

There are barriers to labor shifting between countries (immigration barriers, cultural barriers), which means that some companies where labor cannot move in easily hire already-existing labor. Making labor movement easier increases wealth in the short term. Given the entirety of the current US economy, we see that wealth is stratifying in capital-holders because loans are still very hard for anyone to get. Thus the increased wealth does not benefit most of the population in the medium term, and it can be argued that wealth in the country itself decreases in the long term -- rich people can move out (and pay less taxes), and everyone else stays there with their lower wages.

Two things will happen if you restrict these visas.

A. More companies will be more likely to go overseas with that portion of their operation. (IT, programming, whatever).

B. If they choose not to go overseas then they pass along the rising labor costs to the consumer.

That's a very simplistic view.

A) Some will try, but some will hire from within.
B) The profit of the companies will fall, also. How much of the labor cost that is passed on depends on the competition in an industry/market. If that market has a high competition, the companies involved will eat the cost.

[GGT]

No... in the "parenting" case, no test, just a more active system of checking that these/the parent(s) are not having babies they can't afford at all. If that's the case, as I said you fine them and/or take the children away until they can care for the children themselves.

What of the parents who breed children they "can afford" but land on hard times later in life? Once kids become adults but can't find a job, are you gonna fine the parents for breeding unproductive people? If someone's child breeds while a teenager, do you fine the parents AND take the child away from the teen?

In the "voter eligibility" case, again no. It wouldn't be a test, but a demonstration of your willingness to live in an individualistic society that, at the same time, operates for the greater good.

That's still a voter test. Your train of thought:

Problem: Too many breeders sucking safety nets, welfare and tax-funded programs.
Solution: Ministry of Reproductive Hygiene will Monitor and Limit breeding, removing children from poor families as needed.
Department of Family Economics will place children in Foster Homes, in cooperation with the National Council of Productive Citizens.

Problem: Too many poor people vote for social programs to help poor people and breeders.
Solution: Board of Voter Standards and Registration will conduct evaluations and maintain records of eligible voters, rescinding registration as needed.



Then you have the nerve to say it's all about an Individualistic Society that operates for the Greater Good? Dude.

3) It's a completely different issue with the elderly. That is a slowly rising figure compared to the poor and uneducated who are BREEDING LIKE RABBITS.

Not according to projected costs for Medicare and Social Security for the retired and elderly. 80 million Baby Boomers flooding those programs over the next decades won't be a slow tsunami. We'll actually need those young bunnies to hop into the work force and feed retirement nests, so to speak. Unless, of course, you plan another government agency to evaluate Productive Value vs Economic Drain of the ageing and elderly.

[agamemnus]

What of the parents who breed children they "can afford" but land on hard times later in life? Once kids become adults but can't find a job, are you gonna fine the parents for breeding unproductive people? If someone's child breeds while a teenager, do you fine the parents AND take the child away from the teen?

1) No.
2) No, you don't fine the parents. You fine the teen... maybe you can do some nice wage garnishing for the teen if she doesn't have the money or her parents don't pay.

That's still a voter test. Your train of thought:

Problem: Too many breeders sucking safety nets, welfare and tax-funded programs.
Solution: Ministry of Reproductive Hygiene will Monitor and Limit breeding, removing children from poor families as needed.
Department of Family Economics will place children in Foster Homes, in cooperation with the National Council of Productive Citizens.

Problem: Too many poor people vote for social programs to help poor people and breeders.
Solution: Board of Voter Standards and Registration will conduct evaluations and maintain records of eligible voters, rescinding registration as needed.

Lolz.

Then you have the nerve to say it's all about an Individualistic Society that operates for the Greater Good? Dude.

Exactly. The two are not incompatible. The current state is where you have people who do not believe in society's greater good, but only their own baby-greed.

Not according to projected costs for Medicare and Social Security for the retired and elderly. 80 million Baby Boomers flooding those programs over the next decades won't be a slow tsunami. We'll actually need those young bunnies to hop into the work force and feed retirement nests, so to speak. Unless, of course, you plan another government agency to evaluate Productive Value vs Economic Drain of the ageing and elderly.

Raise the retirement age, then. The drain on babies in the long-run is far higher, especially considering that those people who had multiple children they couldn't afford would be in a much better financial situation, and not living off the government, if they didn't have so many children. (Their financial situation would be better because they would have learned not to suck on the government's money-tit-lulz, and work for themselves.)

[GGT]

Why stop there, aggie? Why not mandatory sterilization by the state.....y'know, for the Greater Good.

[agamemnus]

[Lewkowski]

Why stop there, aggie? Why not mandatory sterilization by the state.....y'know, for the Greater Good.

That would be a terrible violation of freedom. However if you already have one child. And you are still on welfare. I do support some form of sterilization (temporary kind, honestly haven't thought about it too hard but I'm sure something would fit) to be a requirement to continue sucking up resources from the tax payers. This doesn't violate anyone's freedoms because you are free NOT to continue abusing the tax payers with reckless irresponsibility.

[GGT]

That would be a terrible violation of freedom. However if you already have one child. And you are still on welfare. I do support some form of sterilization (temporary kind, honestly haven't thought about it too hard but I'm sure something would fit) to be a requirement to continue sucking up resources from the tax payers. This doesn't violate anyone's freedoms because you are free NOT to continue abusing the tax payers with reckless irresponsibility.

Right, it's not violation of freedom to force women to undergo insertion of an IUD or hormonal implant. As long as it's temporary. That'd be a responsible use of gummint authority.

[GGT]

1)The drain on babies in the long-run is far higher, especially considering that those people who had multiple children they couldn't afford would be in a much better financial situation, and not living off the government, if they didn't have so many children. (Their financial situation would be better because they would have learned not to suck on the government's money-tit-lulz, and work for themselves.)

Adding this for your lulz enjoyment:

With the threat of a government shutdown again rumbling on the horizon, federal workers may be looking nervously at their bank accounts.
But what about members of Congress?
The Senate, led by Democratic sponsor Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, has already unanimously passed a stand-alone bill to prohibit members of Congress from getting a paycheck in the event of a shutdown.
But that bill won’t become law unless it is passed independently by the House.
Today the House GOP said that their soon-to-be-approved budget bill (dubbed the "Prevention of Government Shutdown Act") would include the same language to eliminate paychecks for members of Congress during a shutdown.
But that budget bill – which has already been rejected by the Senate once – has virtually no chance of passing the upper chamber, meaning that the language about members' salaries will still not become law.
What’s more, GOP leaders refuse to bring the “clean” – or unattached – Senate-passed salary language up for a vote on the House floor.
(Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., introduced legislation akin to Boxer's in the House in February.)
Why?
There are a variety of reasons, but one that is mentioned constantly is that many newer members of Congress quit their jobs to run for office.
Quite frankly, they say they need the money.
As freshman Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) told constituents last week: "I guarantee most of you, I have more debt than all of you. With six kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I'm living high off the hog, I've got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now."
Financial disclosure data show that, generally, members of the Senate have much deeper pockets than their House colleagues. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the median estimated net worth of a member of the United States House in 2009 was about $732,000. Compare that to the median net worth for a United States senator for the same year: A bit more than $2.4 million.
Members of Congress who do not hold leadership roles make an annual salary of $174,000.

Breeders in congress takin' home tax-funded salaries and makin' laws for their paychecks.

[agamemnus]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ellor_resigns/ :

Embattled NYC school chancellor resigns
Associated Press / April 8, 2011
NEW YORK — The city’s school chancellor resigned yesterday after three difficult months on the job, a defeat for Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his decision to install a publishing executive with no experience as an educator to lead the nation’s largest public school system.

In her brief stint as chancellor, Cathie Black had faced heckling by parents, the departure of several deputy chancellors, and scorn over her joke that school overcrowding could be fixed with birth control.

I doubt it's a joke. She just tried damage control but failed. Another example of why no politician will touch the subject until it's too late.

[GGT]

School overcrowding could be fixed with more money, too. There's very little that can't be improved with just mo' money.

[Loki]

Most recent research shows that class size doesn't really have much of an effect on educational outcomes.

[Ominous Gamer]

Where are you pulling that information from? and what type of research did they perform, on what type of class reductions? There are several different ways to measure education outcomes, and several different ways to reduce a pupil/teacher ratio. Also curious what recent means to you since educational outcome could mean a study thats lasted 12+ years.

Indiana started their project back in 84, smaller classes performed better in reading and (slightly) better in math.
Tennessee's Project STAR started in 85 and is showing students in smaller classes performing better in SATs and curriculum-based tests. With huge immediate gains for minority students. As a side effect, they also showed the uselessness of teacher aides. This project only reduced the sizes of classes till the 3rd grade, but studies were done that showed the students from the smaller classes continued to outperform the students from the original larger classes, up through 8th grade.
North Carolina's Burke County started their initiative in 95. The students performed better in smaller classes on both the reading and math tests (mirroring Indiana). Research also showed the smaller classes were able to devote more time to educational teaching (can't argue against that).
Wisconsin started theirs in 97, smaller classes again performed better on basic skills tests, and again, the achievement gap between whites and minorities was reduced.

Florida just started their reductions, once the initial freakout over not having enough space died down, I haven't heard many complaints.

[Nessus]

Most recent research shows that class size doesn't really have much of an effect on educational outcomes.

Can I see a cite? Some of my colleagues might be interested.

[Khendraja'aro]

Can I see a cite? Some of my colleagues might be interested.

I actually heard that one during my psychology lectures as well.

edit: Now, that I've taken a short look into the matter, it seems that it's not as clear-cut as Loki and me had heard:

http://bildungswissenschaften.uni-sa...KG_Artikel.pdf

Summary
At 20,068 pupils from 1,050 third primary school classes the question was examined
whether the class size had an influence on the school achievement. No significant difference
between the achievement scores of small and larger classes in a German and a mathematics
test was found. After the homogenization of the age composition the original picture changes:
Within the subscores ”text understanding” and “language view/orthography” there were significant differences in each case between the smallest class size (to 15 pupils) and the next
higher (to 20 pupils). In both cases the smaller classes are also the better.

[Ominous Gamer]

15 and 20 pupils in a class? Wow, in Florida I think the max limit for the lower grades 20, and that threw everyone through a loop trying to figure out how they could pull it off.

[Loki]

Can I see a cite? Some of my colleagues might be interested.

I only have secondary citations:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/ed...n/22class.html
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...und-the-world/
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-petho...l-class-sizes/

As the third piece points out, the cost to having smaller class sizes is having more bad teachers. Good teachers have a substantively larger effect on educational outcomes than class size. If forced to choose between the two (and we usually do), the former is the better use of resources.

[agamemnus]

That's a much better theory -- tradeoffs -- than saying that just class size doesn't affect student performance... which it does. Even with good teachers, a class size of 40 is impossible to handle in more hands-on classes like foreign language, or art... versus something like English or (even more so) mathematics. It was common in my high school to have higher amounts of students in math and English, and this was the case in my university too -- more basic courses like statistics had an enormous amount of people.
Any such tests would have to take the course type into consideration.

PS: in America, I'd say high-school class sizes of 15 or less are fairly rare... when I was there, the general size was 20-35 per class. In elementary or middle school you're looking at about 30-40 per teacher.

PPS: I don't believe those OECD numbers. They're too low.

[Nessus]

I cede to your use of 'we'.

[Loki]

That's a much better theory -- tradeoffs -- than saying that just class size doesn't affect student performance... which it does. Even with good teachers, a class size of 40 is impossible to handle in more hands-on classes like foreign language, or art... versus something like English or (even more so) mathematics.

As Khen's link points out, it only affects certain parts of student performance in limited ways. And even that has a minimal substantive effect.

[agamemnus]

No, you just can't make that kind of generalization without giving a range. How about a class size of 900 versus 5? You can say that the effect is small within a certain range, that you could.. perhaps.

[Loki]

No, you just can't make that kind of generalization without giving a range. How about a class size of 900 versus 5? You can say that the effect is small within a certain range, that you could.. perhaps.

Those numbers are quite likely outside of the sample of nearly all studies on this subject. I should add that if you have 900 students, you'd need 180 teachers to teach them (if the class size is 5). Given finite education budgets, what do you think would be the caliber of these teachers? If you had a choice between one world-class teacher and 180 people who've never had a job (and probably have no formal education, or you wouldn't be able to hire so many of them), which do you think would produce the better outcome?

[agamemnus]

The latter. With 900 students for one teacher, it would be like there was no teacher -- self-schooling. With 180 random teachers at least you'd have some benefit.

Anyway, you missed my pointz...

It might be the comparison you want to make, but it isn't the comparison you're actually making when you say "it [class size] only affects certain parts of student performance in limited ways. And even that has a minimal substantive effect." That text right there means that a teacher with 5 students is virtually the same thing as THE SAME TEACHER with 900 students... it says nothing about varying the quality versus the quantity of teachers on a limited budget.

[Loki]

When I said it didn't matter, I was clearly referring to the range of class sizes that we actually see in most schools. And the point is that it doesn't really make all that much of a difference if a class has 20 students or 40. The differences that are observed are minor and inconsistent.

[Ominous Gamer]

And the point is that it doesn't really make all that much of a difference if a class has 20 students or 40.

you have no research to base this statement off of. Even the links you provided to justify your first claim, which relate class size across cultures and countries don't go to 40 students, much less make a distinction between doubling a class size.
At best, you've shown the immediate and common effect of filling a void created by a mass increase in available positions. This is common, and it effects most industries and businesses that experience it (ie, opening new stores in new regions).

Yes, teachers need better training and resources, but this isn't a long term comparison between good teachers and lower class sizes (Florida took 8 years to reach its class size restrictions to avoid this influx of poorly trained educators and unprepared classroom housing). You could easily end up with both, settling for one is stupid.

You've complained about discipline problems before, you should at least be able see the difference you're going to get between between 20 and 40 students in that regard. In younger grades the disruptions don't even have to be tied to mal intent.

[Khendraja'aro]

Actually, Ominous, there are several studies regarding this exact effect - which is no wonder, since it's one area of massive interest to administrators: How many teachers do I need for a cost-effective learning environment?

The result of all those studies tells us that there is NO clear-cut result like "smaller classes equal better results". There's only: Under certain circumstances, smaller classes yield better results. Those circumstances being either time-limited (like: only during the first years in school), dependent on the composition of the class and other factors - some of those being things you can't influence.

And, Ominous, if the discipline problems increased with class size, the effectiveness of larger classes would decrease in a similar manner since discipline actually does influence learning effects. Since we can't actually see such a decrease, it only stands to reason that discipline problems do not suffer a similar relationship. Which only makes sense: If you are able to control a class of 20 pupils, you will also be able to do that with 40 pupils.

It's a multifactorial problem, as is the case with many problems you wish to solve: Parts of the problems are codependent on other parts of the problem. You cannot turn one screw and expect it to have a direct linear result towards a solution. In this instance, reducing class sizes most likely won't yield any measurable result. You'll also need to change the way of teaching to make use of reduced class sizes. Because if your teaching methods are not dependent on the amount of people, you won't see any difference. I mean, just look at some professors' preferred way of teaching: Standing in front of students and lecturing them. That method would be one of those where the number of students makes almost no difference, as long as they keep quiet and everyone can hear and see the professor.

And then there's something like Finland where they have relatively large class sizes but put two teachers in one class. (Nessus may correct me if I remembered that one in the wrong way)

[Ominous Gamer]

I totally agree, under certain circumstances, smaller classes yield better results. Which is why I took offense to Loki's overly general assumption that 20 students = 40 students. Thats why I asked him for a citation for his initial claim, and provided several that countered his claim; including the Tennessee study that showed the smaller classroom effect bleeding up through 8th grade.

Another reason I challenged that 40 students claim is that I think classrooms have a point where they reach critical mass. Yeah, make small cuts (small class = upto 15, large class =16 - 20), and you're see small results. But doubling, the class size? I haven't seen anything thats anyone posted yet that goes into something that drastic. Since a lot of these studies focus on the smaller grades, its not necessary to make it only a discipline problem, but one of simply the capacity of the expected behavior of the children. Everything from attention spans, noise control, restroom requests, etc. Once it becomes a discipline problem, I still think there is a point where there are simply to many kids, american schools already have a discipline problem, so its not about controlling 20 kids meaning being able to control 40 kids. Its about containment and guidance, and I think for each student you have to address, you're that much more likely to lose someone else.

But thank you for bringing up that this is a multifactorial problem. Thats one of the points I was trying to make. Thats why I mentioned how one of the studies ruled out the influence of teacher aides, and how Florida took 8 years to fully enact its classroom reduction, so that new teachers could be fully trained into styles more efficient in smaller more focused groups. It ties back to the point the last education thread (about private schools being better) was making, to many uncontrollable variables to simply say that smaller classes don't make a difference (or vice versa). Again, I was focusing on schooling in age ranges where the students haven't yet learned to the skills for propelling their own education.

Your Finland example is one of the reasons I bulked at Loki's link comparing class sizes across countries. Different cultures put a different empathize on group and self advancement. Over here, its about one's self. I think large groups that were determined, focused, and disciplined enough that they advanced together...that would be amazing, but thats a social problem that America needs to fix and is outside the influence of a simple school.