I have said before that I think that as a culture we place way too much of an emphasis on college. We have record high numbers of students enrolling in 4 year colleges to earn degrees. Paying massive sums of money ... that is to say going into massive debt by taking out loans in order to pay the massive sums of money .... and walking out with pieces of worthless paper for the most part.
Part of this is because at the age that most people go to college (just out of high school) they have no clue what to do. They either choose to study a particular degree program because they think it's interesting, or it will be easy, or that they'll get rich. While many things may be interesting if you are going to college and paying to study something you should make sure that what your studying will pay off .... can you USE that to get a job? If you're pursuing something in college because 'it will be easy' you are definitely setting up to go for all the wrong reasons and should really just not spend the money. And chances are that if you're going to study something just because you think it will make you rich ... you're likely to find that 1-you hate it, and 2-there are a million other people doing the same thing. Meaning that there are going to be a lot of other students ... just like you ... looking for the 10 or so of those jobs that are going to be available when you graduate.
What are you going to DO with the degree when you graduate? What does a degree in Art Appreciation or Women's Studies prepare you to do as a career? Conversely if you're going for a career as a journalist (for example) do you really NEED a degree .... what is a college going to teach you that you can't learn at a Tech school ... or better yet by working? Is it going to teach you how to write? I would hope you learned that before high school ... or teach you how to think? How to ask people questions ... or how to manipulate peoples answers? How to report the facts .... or how to manipulate people's opinions?
In MOST cases college degrees are pointless really. The only reason that an entry level accounting position (for example) requires one is because there are thousands of applicants that have one ... and the only reason that thousands of applicants have one is because we have spent the better part of 40 years telling kids they had to get one. Over half the kids enrolled at most colleges have no business being there ... they are either studying something that will not prepare them for any kind of career or studying something they could just have easily (and probably more effectively) learned on the job.
All the while we have, as a culture, turned away from the trades. Treated trades workers as a lesser class of job. The type of job to be done by those too dumb to do a real job ... too low tech to be really useful. Construction, Plumbing, Electricians, Mechanics, Welders .... the economy and society NEED these people to function and yet fewer and fewer people are interested in these fields.
In a very real sense these are the spark plug jobs of the economy ... they aren't the fuel, they aren't the power of the machine, but in a very real sense without them the whole thing simply won't work. They may not steer it, they may not invent it, but they build it, they make it work, and they fix it when it breaks. These shouldn't be 'last resort' jobs ... they should be jobs that people are proud to take. They take skill and dedication to master and they can be just as rewarding as any other career out there. No they aren't for everyone, but the kid that likes to tinker on his car and work on engines shouldn't feel ashamed to become a mechanic ... he should be proud that he can take on a trade doing something that he enjoys and is good at rather than trying to force himself through college and onto a career path just because people have told him his whole life that that's what he is supposed to do.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Thursday, February 16, 2017
What is a 'Right'
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is and isn't a 'Right'. Specifically there are a lot of people saying that insurance or health care is a right and should therefore be provided by the government in some form or fashion. But that's not what 'rights' are.
It is not the government's job to 'provide' you your Rights .... in fact your Rights do not come from government in the first place. Your 'Rights' are natural, the Constitution does not grant us rights it protects our natural rights from government interference. It binds the government and forbids it from certain actions.
The Right to Free Speech - I've discussed this one before. The protects the citizen speaker from prosecution BY THE GOVERNMENT for speaking against the government. It does not protect the speaker from the repercussions of what they say by other private citizens (provided those citizens don't cause harm). If I walk into a business and start spouting off about how the business owner is a bad person and no one should shop there because their prices are higher than I think they should be. The business is well within it's rights to remove me (even force-ably as once they ask me to leave I'm trespassing on private property if I stay) and can call the police to have me removed (due to the trespassing mentioned previously) and they are not violating my right to free speech.
Students at a college or university certainly have the Right to protest a speaker, though once they start becoming violent and creating a hazardous situation they have exited the realm of free speech. Students in such situations, however, would be better served to welcome the free flow and discussion of ideas, and particularly ideas that they may currently disagree with. This is part of learning - accepting the fact that you do not know everything. There are many in this country now, however, that dislike the idea of free speech or who support free speech .... as long as they approve of the speech. (That is to say they think that's what they want until someone else has the power and no longer approves of their speech)
Likewise, the right to free speech does not mean that the government or any individual has to GIVE me the means of expressing that speech. No one has to provide a microphone, megaphone, or stage for me. No one has to listen to me and are free to ignore me as they please. Even the government doesn't have to listen they just aren't allowed to punish me for expressing my opinion.
The Right to Bare Arms - I've also talked about this one I believe. I have the right to own weapons to protect myself, my property, and others, from all threats including the government itself. The government can not take that away (though many in the government would love to do so) but neither the government nor any other citizen has to GIVE me the weapons in question. It's up to ME to obtain them, maintain them, and be able to use them.
The 'Right' to Health Care (or Health Insurance) - I put this one in quotes as it is technically not protected directly in the Constitution, but I will agree that it is not the governments job to prevent or stop anyone from receiving health care or health insurance. But it's also not the government's job to PROVIDE health care or health insurance either, just as the government does not provide Weapons for the Right to Bare Arms or the stage for the Right to Free Speech. The only way for them to do so would be to FORCE another citizen to provide it ... no 'Right' can include the compulsion of another person to provide services to another. None of us has a 'Right' to the life or services of another human period.
I suspect by now that you've probably noticed a trend in the conversation.....
The 'Right' to Immigration - This just flat doesn't exist. Every country has the right to control its boarders. Including, but not limited to the ability to CLOSE THEM to immigration completely. However, no one wants to do that in the US. Neither side of the argument wants to stop immigrants from being able to come to this country and live and work for a better life. What many of us want, however, is an end to ILLEGAL immigration. Which is to say that we want ALL people from outside this country that wish to come here and live and work to go through the properly defined legal procedures and checks to make sure that they would be a solid citizen, a positive addition to the country.
I highlight the 'all' above because there is a perception in the media that Mexican or Hispanic illegals are the only ones anyone is concerned about. And owing to conditions in Mexico and Central and South America, that is a large percentage of the illegal population in the US, but they are not all by any means and all illegal immigration needs to be addressed. We will not stop all illegal immigration, but we need to find a much better means of dealing with it, and giving amnesty is not the answer.
There is no easy answer to such a question, there never is. No matter what the press will be full of heart wrenching stories of families being broken up, or loved ones being left out and facing hardships. Some will even be true while others nothing more than attempts to sway public opinion through emotion rather than rational application of law / logic.
Decisions, however, should rarely be made on emotion, and law is rarely a good one size fits all solution. (Zero tolerance = zero thought). Each case is decision that should be approached with logic and thought on its own. Those who want to come here, who want to work and be responsible for their own future should be welcomed, if they originally came here illegally that needs to be considered and they should not be placed (as they currently often are) in front of people who have shown the respect to the laws of this land and followed the proper legal channels.
No one has the Right to just go and live in whatever country they want. Don't believe me? Try going into Iran illegally. Heck try France or Italy, and try to live there as an illegal immigrant and see how that works for you. While many of these countries are welcoming of foreign visitors, most of them have strict immigration policies with very definite penalties for people that over stay their visa or cross the boarder illegally. Borders and laws are what defines a Country, do away with our borders and we'll very quickly find that we no longer have a country .... part of having a border means controlling it ... part of controlling it is defining who is allowed to cross that border, when, and for how long.
I personally am sick of being called 'anti-immigration' because I believe that we need to find a way to curtail ILLEGAL immigration. I'm sick of being called a 'racist' because I believe that as a country we need to exercise control over our border. I am sick of being called 'hate filled' because I don't believe that people who have broken our laws should be subject to the penalties of breaking those laws. .... That is how we ended up with the President we did, because I'm not alone, and while I didn't vote for him, a lot of people fed up with the idea that if you aren't 'pro-illegal-immigration' you're 'anti-immigration' or 'racist' or worse.
In the end, the media is to blame. They play their game of manipulation pitting friend against friend over the stupidest of differences and the masses dance to their tune every day.
It is not the government's job to 'provide' you your Rights .... in fact your Rights do not come from government in the first place. Your 'Rights' are natural, the Constitution does not grant us rights it protects our natural rights from government interference. It binds the government and forbids it from certain actions.
The Right to Free Speech - I've discussed this one before. The protects the citizen speaker from prosecution BY THE GOVERNMENT for speaking against the government. It does not protect the speaker from the repercussions of what they say by other private citizens (provided those citizens don't cause harm). If I walk into a business and start spouting off about how the business owner is a bad person and no one should shop there because their prices are higher than I think they should be. The business is well within it's rights to remove me (even force-ably as once they ask me to leave I'm trespassing on private property if I stay) and can call the police to have me removed (due to the trespassing mentioned previously) and they are not violating my right to free speech.
Students at a college or university certainly have the Right to protest a speaker, though once they start becoming violent and creating a hazardous situation they have exited the realm of free speech. Students in such situations, however, would be better served to welcome the free flow and discussion of ideas, and particularly ideas that they may currently disagree with. This is part of learning - accepting the fact that you do not know everything. There are many in this country now, however, that dislike the idea of free speech or who support free speech .... as long as they approve of the speech. (That is to say they think that's what they want until someone else has the power and no longer approves of their speech)
Likewise, the right to free speech does not mean that the government or any individual has to GIVE me the means of expressing that speech. No one has to provide a microphone, megaphone, or stage for me. No one has to listen to me and are free to ignore me as they please. Even the government doesn't have to listen they just aren't allowed to punish me for expressing my opinion.
The Right to Bare Arms - I've also talked about this one I believe. I have the right to own weapons to protect myself, my property, and others, from all threats including the government itself. The government can not take that away (though many in the government would love to do so) but neither the government nor any other citizen has to GIVE me the weapons in question. It's up to ME to obtain them, maintain them, and be able to use them.
The 'Right' to Health Care (or Health Insurance) - I put this one in quotes as it is technically not protected directly in the Constitution, but I will agree that it is not the governments job to prevent or stop anyone from receiving health care or health insurance. But it's also not the government's job to PROVIDE health care or health insurance either, just as the government does not provide Weapons for the Right to Bare Arms or the stage for the Right to Free Speech. The only way for them to do so would be to FORCE another citizen to provide it ... no 'Right' can include the compulsion of another person to provide services to another. None of us has a 'Right' to the life or services of another human period.
I suspect by now that you've probably noticed a trend in the conversation.....
The 'Right' to Immigration - This just flat doesn't exist. Every country has the right to control its boarders. Including, but not limited to the ability to CLOSE THEM to immigration completely. However, no one wants to do that in the US. Neither side of the argument wants to stop immigrants from being able to come to this country and live and work for a better life. What many of us want, however, is an end to ILLEGAL immigration. Which is to say that we want ALL people from outside this country that wish to come here and live and work to go through the properly defined legal procedures and checks to make sure that they would be a solid citizen, a positive addition to the country.
I highlight the 'all' above because there is a perception in the media that Mexican or Hispanic illegals are the only ones anyone is concerned about. And owing to conditions in Mexico and Central and South America, that is a large percentage of the illegal population in the US, but they are not all by any means and all illegal immigration needs to be addressed. We will not stop all illegal immigration, but we need to find a much better means of dealing with it, and giving amnesty is not the answer.
There is no easy answer to such a question, there never is. No matter what the press will be full of heart wrenching stories of families being broken up, or loved ones being left out and facing hardships. Some will even be true while others nothing more than attempts to sway public opinion through emotion rather than rational application of law / logic.
Decisions, however, should rarely be made on emotion, and law is rarely a good one size fits all solution. (Zero tolerance = zero thought). Each case is decision that should be approached with logic and thought on its own. Those who want to come here, who want to work and be responsible for their own future should be welcomed, if they originally came here illegally that needs to be considered and they should not be placed (as they currently often are) in front of people who have shown the respect to the laws of this land and followed the proper legal channels.
No one has the Right to just go and live in whatever country they want. Don't believe me? Try going into Iran illegally. Heck try France or Italy, and try to live there as an illegal immigrant and see how that works for you. While many of these countries are welcoming of foreign visitors, most of them have strict immigration policies with very definite penalties for people that over stay their visa or cross the boarder illegally. Borders and laws are what defines a Country, do away with our borders and we'll very quickly find that we no longer have a country .... part of having a border means controlling it ... part of controlling it is defining who is allowed to cross that border, when, and for how long.
I personally am sick of being called 'anti-immigration' because I believe that we need to find a way to curtail ILLEGAL immigration. I'm sick of being called a 'racist' because I believe that as a country we need to exercise control over our border. I am sick of being called 'hate filled' because I don't believe that people who have broken our laws should be subject to the penalties of breaking those laws. .... That is how we ended up with the President we did, because I'm not alone, and while I didn't vote for him, a lot of people fed up with the idea that if you aren't 'pro-illegal-immigration' you're 'anti-immigration' or 'racist' or worse.
In the end, the media is to blame. They play their game of manipulation pitting friend against friend over the stupidest of differences and the masses dance to their tune every day.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
A Fool and His Money
To a degree this belongs over at my Gaming Corner but I'll write a post over there that's more related to gaming later. In this case my rant is more about people so I'll Ramble here on the Path. Recently I picked up Total War: Warhammer on Steam (I'll leave the game details and such to the Game Corner Post later) and having been a fan of the Total War series for a while and a long time fan of the Games Workshop tabletop games I had been looking forward to this incarnation of the series. I was happy with the game play but I noticed a concerted effort on the part of players to stack the ratings for the game negative.
The complaint by the people throwing negative reviews up like they were candy, however, wasn't because the game was buggy, or that it was a bad game in any real fashion. Rather the complaint was about the DLC. Now, I've been gaming a long time and I've seen this change over the years. In general it's a good thing, yes I think there are some companies that take the DLC stuff too far, and I often think stuff is over priced for what it is, but I understand a fundamental aspect of the seller/buyer relationship. If I don't like the price, I don't buy.
One of the DLC for the game is a blood and gore pack, to add ... you guessed it ... blood and gore to the battles of the game. It is priced at $2.99. Now it's more than I'm going to pay for it, but then again I don't have a burning desire to see blood and gore in the game. It's a strategy game, not an action game, most of the time I'm zoomed out at a level to give me a birds eye view of the battle field paying attention to multiple enemy units and managing my own. I don't care about the fine details of the fight, that's largely irrelevant. I can see if the unit is doing well, or dying pathetically with the information already given from the game.
In reading over the reviews (on the main game) a person was giving a negative review to the over all game because of the greed of the developers in charging for this option that should have been included free in the base game. In his complaint he said that he had already bought the Blood and Gore DLC but wanted to express his displeasure that they were so greedy and didn't include it.
Here is where the title of the post comes from. Businesses price their products at a point that they believe people will pay the price. In this case this reviewer has proven them right, he bought the DLC (as did a lot of other players) showing the company that people are willing to pay extra for that content. As a developer if you are shown that people are willing to pay extra for something, why on earth would you not charge for it.
He can get on forums, post reviews, and tell the company as many ways as he likes that 'charging for this is unacceptable' but if he backs that up by buying the product they are not going to change what they are doing, there is no reason to.
Now if he had said everything that he said but had not bought the product, and refused to pay extra for the content that he claims should be part of the base game, and enough other people did the same, then the developers would have learned that the market is not willing to pay extra for that extra content and either they include it in the next game (and likely make it a free DLC) or they don't offer it at all on the next game if it increases development costs significantly.
The lesson is 'Don't piss and moan about the price of something but then pay the price anyway.' Either a product or service is worth the price to you and you pay it and obtain the product or service offered, or it isn't and you shouldn't pay the price. The seller can not FORCE you to buy it, yes they can not lower their price, but you still have the option to not pay it. In most cases they will eventually lower the price or offer the item at a discount for a limited time (aka put it on sale) and you can decide if you want it at that reduced price or not.
Like voting (see the previous ramble) buying an item tells the seller that your are willing to pay THAT amount for THAT product (or service) ... because that is what you just did. You can grumble and complain all you want, but at the end of the day YOU were willing to pay that price.
I know that when I buy games when they release that I'm going to pay more for that game than I would if I waited to buy the game later. The games that I choose to do that on are the games that I am willing to pay that premium to have the game sooner rather than wait to get it later. If I buy DLC for a game it is because the DLC adds something that I want in the game, if I don't feel that it is something that the game needs, or if I think the price for what the DLC adds is too high ... I don't buy it. It really is that simple.
The complaint by the people throwing negative reviews up like they were candy, however, wasn't because the game was buggy, or that it was a bad game in any real fashion. Rather the complaint was about the DLC. Now, I've been gaming a long time and I've seen this change over the years. In general it's a good thing, yes I think there are some companies that take the DLC stuff too far, and I often think stuff is over priced for what it is, but I understand a fundamental aspect of the seller/buyer relationship. If I don't like the price, I don't buy.
One of the DLC for the game is a blood and gore pack, to add ... you guessed it ... blood and gore to the battles of the game. It is priced at $2.99. Now it's more than I'm going to pay for it, but then again I don't have a burning desire to see blood and gore in the game. It's a strategy game, not an action game, most of the time I'm zoomed out at a level to give me a birds eye view of the battle field paying attention to multiple enemy units and managing my own. I don't care about the fine details of the fight, that's largely irrelevant. I can see if the unit is doing well, or dying pathetically with the information already given from the game.
In reading over the reviews (on the main game) a person was giving a negative review to the over all game because of the greed of the developers in charging for this option that should have been included free in the base game. In his complaint he said that he had already bought the Blood and Gore DLC but wanted to express his displeasure that they were so greedy and didn't include it.
Here is where the title of the post comes from. Businesses price their products at a point that they believe people will pay the price. In this case this reviewer has proven them right, he bought the DLC (as did a lot of other players) showing the company that people are willing to pay extra for that content. As a developer if you are shown that people are willing to pay extra for something, why on earth would you not charge for it.
He can get on forums, post reviews, and tell the company as many ways as he likes that 'charging for this is unacceptable' but if he backs that up by buying the product they are not going to change what they are doing, there is no reason to.
Now if he had said everything that he said but had not bought the product, and refused to pay extra for the content that he claims should be part of the base game, and enough other people did the same, then the developers would have learned that the market is not willing to pay extra for that extra content and either they include it in the next game (and likely make it a free DLC) or they don't offer it at all on the next game if it increases development costs significantly.
The lesson is 'Don't piss and moan about the price of something but then pay the price anyway.' Either a product or service is worth the price to you and you pay it and obtain the product or service offered, or it isn't and you shouldn't pay the price. The seller can not FORCE you to buy it, yes they can not lower their price, but you still have the option to not pay it. In most cases they will eventually lower the price or offer the item at a discount for a limited time (aka put it on sale) and you can decide if you want it at that reduced price or not.
Like voting (see the previous ramble) buying an item tells the seller that your are willing to pay THAT amount for THAT product (or service) ... because that is what you just did. You can grumble and complain all you want, but at the end of the day YOU were willing to pay that price.
I know that when I buy games when they release that I'm going to pay more for that game than I would if I waited to buy the game later. The games that I choose to do that on are the games that I am willing to pay that premium to have the game sooner rather than wait to get it later. If I buy DLC for a game it is because the DLC adds something that I want in the game, if I don't feel that it is something that the game needs, or if I think the price for what the DLC adds is too high ... I don't buy it. It really is that simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
