Ted Cruz

[albrecht]

I'm aware of that.  Universities are going to set the number of students in any discipline based on some combination of  government funding based on their expectations of immediate and future job needs, student demand and availability of educators. 

With some exceptions though I don't think governments need to set these requirements and based on the experience here in B.C when they cut the number of medical doctor placements a number of years ago based on the now largely discredited theory that the higher the number of medical doctors the higher the amount of health care spending,  and ended up having to recruit several thousand foreign medical doctors, that this might well fail as much as it succeeds.

I think governments should just make all information widely available to high school students and then with a combination of trusting the students to make decisions for themselves and having job counselors guide them with their decisions, leave the decisions to the students.  Of course, given what I wrote about availability of educators there would likely always be short term under supply and over supply in some areas.

Similarly, in British Columbia we have a surplus of recent graduates with education degrees because they had either been told or had misinformed themselves that there was going to be a large upsurge in demand here for school teachers.  One way or another this was likely an example of the information problem or a problem of predicting future job needs than that there was a sudden upsurge of those with undergraduate degrees becoming fascinated with education irrespective of market demand.

I don't know how many students take black studies or even what is taught in black studies to offer any opinion on it.

Here, especially for undergrad, since the student pays for the education (or their parents, loans, etc) you can often, particularly in certain schools "do" any major you want. Assuming that you pay and maintain certain grades etc. Especially in things like the humanities or more 'nebulous' fields ("hard" sciences etc usually have more exactly standards- not necessarily to weed out but just because certain things can be more easily quantified and determined than, say, how "good" your poetry is, which is more subjective.) But there could be, almost, be an unlimited number of English majors. But, aside from education, IF they were determined to use that skill for "English" jobs- teaching (low paid unless you at least get an MBA and even then not as many jobs,) editting/reporting (most news agencies going online etc,) or becoming an author (a very risky proposition and often involves luck,) etc? However there are many jobs that the degree can prepare you for and the ability to write, argue, etc is useful even if you are not an "academic" or using the degree per se. Maybe you are writing corporate press releases or working in some diplomatic capacity but not producing sonnets.
But IF the government is out-right paying the for the education, past the fundamental liberal education to 18, than I think it makes sense that there should be some kind of standards (maintain a certain G.P.A., pass certain tests, get into programs on merit not race or some "issue," etc.) And/or even some determination/cap on the higher education major or post-grad/post-doc stuff. Because I'm not sure, especially in precious times of limited budgets, an unlimited number of "black studies" or "gender studies" majors or even some worthwhile majors. But, it is likely (some new technology or development could, of course, make it not true) that we will likely need doctors or structural engineers.

[starrmtn001]

an oldie, but a goodie:

At first, I thought it was popcorn.  Now, I'm wonder whether it's a "rock" that didn't go down.

[MV/Liberace!]

[136 or 142]

I assumed that he only ran for his U.S Senate seat in order to raise his profile and give himself a platform to run for President.  So, hopefully he won't seek reelection in 2018.

[albrecht]

I assumed that he only ran for his U.S Senate seat in order to raise his profile and give himself a platform to run for President.  So, hopefully he won't seek reelection in 2018.

No, I don't mind him in the Senate. We need someone who will say "no" to the various government-expanding policies and powers, gun grabs, Political Parties's establishment wing, and weirdo social engineering programs. As President, not so much. If it came down to Billary or him, sure, but otherwise anybody but, basically.

[21st Century Man]

No, I don't mind him in the Senate. We need someone who will say "no" to the various government-expanding policies and powers, gun grabs, Political Parties's establishment wing, and weirdo social engineering programs. As President, not so much. If it came down to Billary or him, sure, but otherwise anybody but, basically.

He should have sat for 3 terms in the Senate before running for President.  My guess is he is in for the long haul so long as the people in Texas continue to support him.  We need him in the Senate as well as others like Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

[albrecht]

He should have sat for 3 terms in the Senate before running for President.  My guess is he is in for the long haul so long as the people in Texas continue to support him.  We need him in the Senate as well as others like Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

Agreed. And, though like sausage making not for the faint of heart, his legal skills and knowledge of parliamentary procedure is very useful. And he has, and why many hate him, stood up for things, or against things, and used the legal/procedural things to do so when needed. I'm not sure that personality or acumen is suitable for President, but, in any event too soon. There can be very good legislators (ignore, for sake of argument, the "politics" or "values") but aren't as good as President. Different jobs.

[The General]

Wow that is quite the photoshop job.
I have no idea why any Republican would support Ted at this point, seeing how he has absolutely zero chance of winning in the general election.  I believe Trump would soundly defeat Hillary, but I really pine for a Trump vs. Sanders election.  That would be the ultimate popcorn worthy debate.

[21st Century Man]

Wow that is quite the photoshop job.
I have no idea why any Republican would support Ted at this point, seeing how he has absolutely zero chance of winning in the general election.  I believe Trump would soundly defeat Hillary, but I really pine for a Trump vs. Sanders election.  That would be the ultimate popcorn worthy debate.

I'll be quite honest.  I've never liked Donald Trump.  I've always thought he was full of himself with no humility whatsoever.  I can't stand people who think they are the shit.  A little self-deprecation goes a long way with me.  Will I vote for him in November if he is the nominee?  I guess so but I think I will be sick and tired of him in very short order.

[The General]

I'll be quite honest.  I've never liked Donald Trump.  I've always thought he was full of himself with no humility whatsoever.  I can't stand people who think they are the shit.  A little self-deprecation goes a long way with me.  Will I vote for him in November if he is the nominee?  I guess so but I think I will be sick and tired of him in very short order.

He's definitely a megalomaniac. 
I think you have to be to run for president. 
The others just pretend not to be.

[21st Century Man]

He's definitely a megalomaniac. 
I think you have to be to run for president. 
The others just pretend not to be.

Egomaniac for sure.

[The General]

Egomaniac for sure.

Even somebody like Bernie has to think pretty highly of himself to think he's got what it takes.

[21st Century Man]

Even somebody like Bernie has to think pretty highly of himself to think he's got what it takes.

True.  Self confidence is no doubt a key.  The thing about Trump is he takes it to an extreme.  I'm not sure he can take advice from people around him.

[albrecht]

Even somebody like Bernie has to think pretty highly of himself to think he's got what it takes.

Especially Bernie, that almost takes Manson-like self-assurance. Its not like he could even buy his adherents a cup of a coffee, much less show them some mansions or businesses!

[popple]

https://youtu.be/P6g6Emv3Oc0

[mikuthing01]

maple syrup rain

[MV/Liberace!]

maple syrup rain

heh heh heh, nice.

[VtaGeezer]

Especially Bernie, that almost takes Manson-like self-assurance. Its not like he could even buy his adherents a cup of a coffee, much less show them some mansions or businesses!

"Manson-like"??  Really?  Bernie Sanders???  Is there anyone upon whom you won't cast your dark suspicion?

[21st Century Man]

One thing that Cruz did that I thought was ridiculous was his enforcement of a law to ban the sale of dildos in Texas.  How people choose to spend their money and what they do in private is none of the government's business.

[Catsmile]

One thing that Cruz did that I thought was ridiculous was his enforcement of a law to ban the sale of dildos in Texas.  How people choose to spend their money and what they do in private is none of the government's business.

The one thing he did that I thought was ridiculous... was run for POTUS.

He made voting for the devil seem like a good choice.

[West of the Rockies]

Carly took a little tumble...

I hope she drops the creepy singing thing.  She just seems so damn angry all the time.

[albrecht]

"Manson-like"??  Really?  Bernie Sanders???  Is there anyone upon whom you won't cast your dark suspicion?

No. I'm always suspect of government and politicians. And have "dark suspicions." (Thank you, it is a good line.) Why people will spend untold amount of money, even their own, (or, maybe worse, take it from others to do so or people/groups so willing give) for positions where the salary is far less than the money it took to get it? Because they just like "public service." Yeah. Right. Some supposed "socialist" is taking people's money, apparently hard workers or leftists who, like him, never even had a job, in a contest in which he cannot win? I assume he will give it back, lest his supporters need to shower, shave, and apply for a job? At least with Trump, though I still harbor some "dark suspicions" you know, most likely, suspicions aside, that he is in it for his own gain and ego and along with it, if what he says is true, benefits the country. Others, like this character Obama or Billary who were in it for, sure, their ego, but also to profit or to undermine the country, sorry fundamentally transform, due to a big grudge against it, or as a case of entitlement.

[136 or 142]

Carly took a little tumble...

I hope she drops the creepy singing thing.  She just seems so damn angry all the time.

I think we can all hope that she is ok.

[136 or 142]

Here, especially for undergrad, since the student pays for the education (or their parents, loans, etc) you can often, particularly in certain schools "do" any major you want. Assuming that you pay and maintain certain grades etc. Especially in things like the humanities or more 'nebulous' fields ("hard" sciences etc usually have more exactly standards- not necessarily to weed out but just because certain things can be more easily quantified and determined than, say, how "good" your poetry is, which is more subjective.) But there could be, almost, be an unlimited number of English majors. But, aside from education, IF they were determined to use that skill for "English" jobs- teaching (low paid unless you at least get an MBA and even then not as many jobs,) editting/reporting (most news agencies going online etc,) or becoming an author (a very risky proposition and often involves luck,) etc? However there are many jobs that the degree can prepare you for and the ability to write, argue, etc is useful even if you are not an "academic" or using the degree per se. Maybe you are writing corporate press releases or working in some diplomatic capacity but not producing sonnets.
But IF the government is out-right paying the for the education, past the fundamental liberal education to 18, than I think it makes sense that there should be some kind of standards (maintain a certain G.P.A., pass certain tests, get into programs on merit not race or some "issue," etc.) And/or even some determination/cap on the higher education major or post-grad/post-doc stuff. Because I'm not sure, especially in precious times of limited budgets, an unlimited number of "black studies" or "gender studies" majors or even some worthwhile majors. But, it is likely (some new technology or development could, of course, make it not true) that we will likely need doctors or structural engineers.

1.Where did I ever say that maintaining a certain G.P.A wouldn't be required to remain in the institution?   But, that should be up to the university to decide and not the government.

2.This is a series of graphs that show the changing nature of work and jobs over the last 100 years or so.  It's interesting to see how much it's changed over time.  Of course, there have been the usual jobs like retail/restaurant staff, but truck drivers/bus drivers/taxi drivers could well disappear over the next 20/30 years (or shorter) and, of course, farming has all but disappeared whereas 100 or so years ago roughly 30-40% were employed as farmers/farm laborers and manufacturing has, as you lament, declined significantly. 

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/2006/03/art3full.pdf

I should note though that as much as you blame free trade and globalization/offshoring, something like 2/3 of all manufacturing (and resource) jobs have disappeared as a result of technological innovation.  Of course, I don't deny that some of that is due to globalization and the resulting need for American manufacturers to replace labor with cheaper capital.  (The economic definition of capital, not the financial definition.)

Medical doctors will likely always be needed but largely as a cost saving measure there is already a large move to replace doctors who treat the simpler medical conditions (which are something like 80% of all physical medical problems) with nurse practitioners or with more highly trained paramedics.

In regards to engineers, I don't doubt there will always be a need, but is there a shortage of engineers right now? And if so is there  a shortage of university students to meet that demand in the not to distant future.

I think you are making of mistake of confusing aggregate demand with marginal demand.  I'm not trying to appear to be an annoying know-it-all  here by using the technical terms, since I'm not even an economist but I find that the technical terminology is usual the most precise and I'm pretty sure Albrecht knows what that means.  For those who don't all it means is that I think Albrecht is confusing the total number of engineers that are employed and needed in the economy (aggregate demand) with the total number of engineers that are  needed (marginal demand).  I don't doubt that there are a lot of engineers employed, but, refer back to the questions I asked above.

Predictions for future jobs in the next 10 years:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3046277/the-new-rules-of-work/the-top-jobs-in-10-years-might-not-be-what-you-expect

[VtaGeezer]

I think we can all hope that she is ok.

I saw one video showing that she was back up immediately showing no signs of wear injury.  It's odd how most outlets seem to want to give an impression that it was more serious.

[albrecht]

1.Where did I ever say that maintaining a certain G.P.A wouldn't be required to remain in the institution?   But, that should be up to the university to decide and not the government.

2.This is a series of graphs that show the changing nature of work and jobs over the last 100 years or so.  It's interesting to see how much it's changed over time.  Of course, there have been the usual jobs like retail/restaurant staff, but truck drivers/bus drivers/taxi drivers could well disappear over the next 20/30 years (or shorter) and, of course, farming has all but disappeared whereas 100 or so years ago roughly 30-40% were employed as farmers/farm laborers and manufacturing has, as you lament, declined significantly. 

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/2006/03/art3full.pdf

I should note though that as much as you blame free trade and globalization/offshoring, something like 2/3 of all manufacturing (and resource) jobs have disappeared as a result of technological innovation.  Of course, I don't deny that some of that is due to globalization and the resulting need for American manufacturers to replace labor with cheaper capital.  (The economic definition of capital, not the financial definition.)

Medical doctors will likely always be needed but largely as a cost saving measure there is already a large move to replace doctors who treat the simpler medical conditions (which are something like 80% of all physical medical problems) with nurse practitioners or with more highly trained paramedics.

In regards to engineers, I don't doubt there will always be a need, but is there a shortage of engineers right now? And if so is there  a shortage of university students to meet that demand in the not to distant future.

I think you are making of mistake of confusing aggregate demand with marginal demand.  I'm not trying to appear to be an annoying know-it-all  here by using the technical terms, since I'm not even an economist but I find that the technical terminology is usual the most precise and I'm pretty sure Albrecht knows what that means.  For those who don't all it means is that I think Albrecht is confusing the total number of engineers that are employed and needed in the economy (aggregate demand) with the total number of engineers that are  needed (marginal demand).  I don't doubt that there are a lot of engineers employed, but, refer back to the questions I asked above.

Predictions for future jobs in the next 10 years:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3046277/the-new-rules-of-work/the-top-jobs-in-10-years-might-not-be-what-you-expect

Firstly I don't blame trade, obviously trade is a great thing. Free trade, among willing participants by mutual agreement, and benefit. What I don't like is unfair trade and "globalism" of ceding national, and personal, sovereignty to national, and worse, international organizations and the centralization/globalization of command-and-control. And regulatory agencies that have far more impact than even the people you vote for (assuming, for sake of argument, that your vote matters.) I challenge you to pick a subject and see if there is a regulation about it (again, for now I will stick with US and not the EU, WTO, etc and future TPP, and other "trade" stuff.)
https://www.federalregister.gov/
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR
Pick a subject, say even your favorite cheese, and see what pops up!
There also is a national security concern. Hopefully there won't be more wars but there are some things, food, certain production facilities, power production, etc that are inherently a security issue. You think a "great idea" if all our machines have a built-in back door by China if the event of a war (or even trade/currency war happens?) And, what is wrong with, a country deciding, for whatever reason, even tourism or just societal stability with subsidizing certain sectors? It is not my place to say? Why should should international body demand it bad? To each their own. If not competitive then that country will suffer the market, or, it could be that it works in tourism or, due to quality, even purchases of goods?

[GuerrillaUnReal]

[136 or 142]

Firstly I don't blame trade, obviously trade is a great thing. Free trade, among willing participants by mutual agreement, and benefit. What I don't like is unfair trade and "globalism" of ceding national, and personal, sovereignty to national, and worse, international organizations and the centralization/globalization of command-and-control. And regulatory agencies that have far more impact than even the people you vote for (assuming, for sake of argument, that your vote matters.) I challenge you to pick a subject and see if there is a regulation about it (again, for now I will stick with US and not the EU, WTO, etc and future TPP, and other "trade" stuff.)
https://www.federalregister.gov/
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR
Pick a subject, say even your favorite cheese, and see what pops up!
There also is a national security concern. Hopefully there won't be more wars but there are some things, food, certain production facilities, power production, etc that are inherently a security issue. You think a "great idea" if all our machines have a built-in back door by China if the event of a war (or even trade/currency war happens?) And, what is wrong with, a country deciding, for whatever reason, even tourism or just societal stability with subsidizing certain sectors? It is not my place to say? Why should should international body demand it bad? To each their own. If not competitive then that country will suffer the market, or, it could be that it works in tourism or, due to quality, even purchases of goods?

1.I'm pretty sure the U.S requires that all sensitive components of military equipment are made in the United States.

2.A nation can trade with other nations, but if a nation wishes to engage in more certain trade without having to worry about arbitrary tariffs or other barriers suddenly being put up, then they negotiate free trade agreements and pretty much by definition that involves giving up a certain amount of sovereignty.

[FightTheFuture]

Cruz is a patient man. I don`t know how he does it. God bless him. Here he actually attempts to communicate with a small band of rude, obnoxious, lowbrow, Drumpf mouth-breathers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrFaceZdGkA

[MV/Liberace!]

Cruz is a patient man. I don`t know how he does it. God bless him. Here he actually attempts to communicate with a small band of rude, obnoxious, lowbrow, Drumpf mouth-breathers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrFaceZdGkA

heh heh, i have to say, that was indeed a collection of mouth breathers.  i don't know why cruz was wasting his time with them.

"indiana don't want yeewww."  derp.