Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Alun wrote:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:


In article , Alun
writes:


(N2EY) wrote in
:


In article , Alun
writes:


snip

I think reliance on oil is too strong. More needs to be done on other
sources of energy. Fat chance with oilmen in control, not that much
was ever done before.

And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a
major factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the
opposition in 2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this
year.



Agreed up to a certain point. I think that Mr Nader will find that he
gets far fewer votes this time. The Democratic primaries have shown
that people are focussed on getting the oilmen out of the White House.
That and the fact that they saw what happened last time are likely to
decimate his support.


Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary
than ever.

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10
times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be
more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is
fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Grants and

scholarships would make more sense than tax breaks for the rich.


snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

I dunno, Alun. It might soon be hard to convince a lot of people
to go
drastically into debt just to have their field be decimated upon
graduation.


Agreed. The only solution to that appears to be more money in grant form
rather than loan form. At least it can be targeted at particular subjects,
like EE and Comp Sci for example.


Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Well, the tech help I've gotten surely doesn't speak English very
well! 8^)



Indians in India use English mostly to communicate with eachother, as they
have a proliferation of different languages. Just because they are fluent
doesn't necessarily mean it's English as you know it, or even as I know it.

(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.


Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

That's true, and ironically that's probably due to the huge number of poor
people there. Basic food and services are likely to be provided to the
Indian middle classes by people who are far poorer than we can really
imagine.


Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that there
would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be tarriffed/taxed
at will - and they were! This was done both as a source of income and
to protect local industry from destructive foreign competition. It is
my understanding that we still have some forms of this in place, in
the form of such things as limits on the number of cars that may be
imported without special taxes. These import quotas caused several
carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build assembly plants here in the USA.
Some cars are even built here and shipped *back to Japan*, because by
doing so they count against the import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Forgive me for saying this as a foreigner, but there seems to be no limit
to the level of greed exhibited by corporate America. As you say, it will
lead to big trouble in the long run. Look at what happened to the stock
market in the '20s.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a
major factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the
opposition in 2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this
year.

I heard the Green party has something to say about all this.

I betcha there were a LOT of resignations from that party when they saw
what happened in 2000.

At any
rate, they aren't backing Ralph. His support this year is likely to be
down in the noise. Without a party backing him, he's just another
Harold Stassen.

I hope so.

Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more
necessary than ever.

If the cost continues at double digit increases every year, and
the
graduate stands a pretty good chance of his/her entire field being made
redundant, the necessity of the education is going to go away. Granted
the would-be student is flippin burgers, but their job won't be made
irrelevant.

That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting
defaults on student and other loans.

The problem with that is that I don't think you can write off student loans
through bankruptcy. So, you may not get graduates going intentionally
bankrupt, but the inability to pay it off may lead more people into
bankruptcy. They may then still owe the loan, but it won't get paid back.


Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage"

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10
times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be
more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is
fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the
weekends,
summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that $3000/year
tuition. If a
kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours per
year, there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5 an
hour and put in the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only about
1/6 of the tuition.

That's just not right.

73 de Jim, N2EY



No argument there. Back home in the UK they used to give everyone grants.
They were means tested, and of course if your parents were middle income
you would be the poorest student in college. However, now they are phasing
out grants and bringing in loans. This is also a big mistake.

Our governments need to invest more in putting people through higher
education. It doesn't really matter whether they do it by giving money to
the colleges or to the students, provided the former results in lower fees,
but they need to do it. An educated workforce is the most important thing
they could be putting their money into.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

True. We could just sit on our fat asses and let the world implode.
Then we'd have lots of dxpeditions cleverly disguised as UN peace
missions with 400,000 qso's per foray.

In article , Alun
writes:

That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting
defaults on student and other loans.

The problem with that is that I don't think you can write off student loans
through bankruptcy.

I'm not sure if you can or cannot. Anybody know for sure?

So, you may not get graduates going intentionally
bankrupt, but the inability to pay it off may lead more people into
bankruptcy. They may then still owe the loan, but it won't get paid back.

Either way spells trouble.

Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage"

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10
times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be
more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is
fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the
weekends,
summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that $3000/year
tuition. If a
kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours per
year, there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5 an
hour and put in the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only about
1/6 of the tuition.

That's just not right.

No argument there. Back home in the UK they used to give everyone grants.
They were means tested, and of course if your parents were middle income
you would be the poorest student in college.

Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart enough to get
in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones paid their way and the
rest got various forms of help but did not have to start out their professional
lives way in debt.

However, now they are phasing
out grants and bringing in loans. This is also a big mistake.

Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job
situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time.

The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college cost so
much?"

Here in Radnor Township, we spend a bit over $10,000 per year per student in
the public schools. And that's one of the highest outlays in the commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, if not the whole country. Why should a year of college tuition
cost more than that? The college school day and school year are shorter, the
classes bigger, and the college students pretty much provide their own supplies
and/or pay lab fees. College students also usually provide their own
transportation, don't need special ed services, etc.

So why does college cost so much?

Our governments need to invest more in putting people through higher
education. It doesn't really matter whether they do it by giving money to
the colleges or to the students, provided the former results in lower fees,
but they need to do it. An educated workforce is the most important thing
they could be putting their money into.

I agree 100%. It's an investment in the future.

Public education (meaning universally-available, publicly funded education) was
recognized as a necessary function of government from the very beginning of
this country. Nowadays that means either college or some form of
post-high-school specialized training.

Money well spent.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(William) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

True. We could just sit on our fat asses and let the world implode.
Then we'd have lots of dxpeditions cleverly disguised as UN peace
missions with 400,000 qso's per foray.


As opposed to dxpeditions disguised as invasions?

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting
defaults on student and other loans.

The problem with that is that I don't think you can write off student
loans through bankruptcy.

I'm not sure if you can or cannot. Anybody know for sure?

So, you may not get graduates going intentionally
bankrupt, but the inability to pay it off may lead more people into
bankruptcy. They may then still owe the loan, but it won't get paid
back.

Either way spells trouble.

Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage"

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10
times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006
be more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is
fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the
weekends, summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that
$3000/year
tuition. If a
kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours
per year, there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5
an hour and put in the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only
about 1/6 of the tuition.

That's just not right.

No argument there. Back home in the UK they used to give everyone
grants. They were means tested, and of course if your parents were
middle income you would be the poorest student in college.

Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart
enough to get in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones
paid their way and the rest got various forms of help but did not have
to start out their professional lives way in debt.


Correct

However, now they are phasing out grants and bringing in loans. This
is also a big mistake.

Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job
situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time.


True.

I'm not sure whether those couple of IFs hold true in the UK as I'm not
there. An engineer's starting salary over there would not have been enough
to pay back a loan when I graduated (it was barely enough to live on), but
I think things have improved since then.

As for the US, the problem is more the size of the fees rather than the
size of the paychecks. That and finding a job.

The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college
cost so much?"

Here in Radnor Township, we spend a bit over $10,000 per year per
student in the public schools. And that's one of the highest outlays in
the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if not the whole country. Why should
a year of college tuition cost more than that? The college school day
and school year are shorter, the classes bigger, and the college
students pretty much provide their own supplies and/or pay lab fees.
College students also usually provide their own transportation, don't
need special ed services, etc.

So why does college cost so much?

I don't know. It's a puzzle. I don't think it's big salaries.


Our governments need to invest more in putting people through higher
education. It doesn't really matter whether they do it by giving money
to the colleges or to the students, provided the former results in
lower fees, but they need to do it. An educated workforce is the most
important thing they could be putting their money into.

I agree 100%. It's an investment in the future.

Public education (meaning universally-available, publicly funded
education) was recognized as a necessary function of government from
the very beginning of this country. Nowadays that means either college
or some form of post-high-school specialized training.

Money well spent.

73 de Jim, N2EY




73 de Alun, N3KIP

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
. com:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

We had good teachers in that....

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

That's true, and ironically that's probably due to the huge number of poor
people there. Basic food and services are likely to be provided to the
Indian middle classes by people who are far poorer than we can really
imagine.

That's true but there are other factors to consider: the budget deficit, the
trade deficit and the strong dollar.

The figures for the January trade deficit came out recently. The highest in US
history, something like 46 billion in one month. Much of that is with East
Asian countires like China, Japan, and maybe India. But particularly China.

Imports are inexpensive in part because these countries keep their currencies
low relative to the dollar. Because of the trade deficit, lots of dollars wind
up there, but they don't use those dollars to buy US products. Instead, they
buy US investments - both government securities and private-sector companies.

IOW we export money and jobs, and they use the money to finance our debt and
buy up the USA a little at a time.

Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that there
would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be tarriffed/taxed
at will - and they were! This was done both as a source of income and
to protect local industry from destructive foreign competition. It is
my understanding that we still have some forms of this in place, in
the form of such things as limits on the number of cars that may be
imported without special taxes. These import quotas caused several
carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build assembly plants here in the USA.
Some cars are even built here and shipped *back to Japan*, because by
doing so they count against the import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.


Forgive me for saying this as a foreigner, but there seems to be no limit
to the level of greed exhibited by corporate America.

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much profit is
OK and how much is greed?

As you say, it will
lead to big trouble in the long run. Look at what happened to the stock
market in the '20s.

And in 2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

I dunno, Alun. It might soon be hard to convince a lot of people
to go
drastically into debt just to have their field be decimated upon
graduation.


Agreed. The only solution to that appears to be more money in grant form
rather than loan form. At least it can be targeted at particular subjects,
like EE and Comp Sci for example.

I agree with grants, but they should be targeted at occupations where there's a
shortage, not a glut, of trained workers.

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Well, the tech help I've gotten surely doesn't speak English very
well! 8^)

Indians in India use English mostly to communicate with eachother, as they
have a proliferation of different languages. Just because they are fluent
doesn't necessarily mean it's English as you know it, or even as I know it.

From a purely numerical standpoint, it could be claimed that *their* usage is
standard and *we* all have accents...

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart
enough to get in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones
paid their way and the rest got various forms of help but did not have
to start out their professional lives way in debt.

Correct

That's a good thing!

However, now they are phasing out grants and bringing in loans. This
is also a big mistake.

Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job
situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time.

True.

I'm not sure whether those couple of IFs hold true in the UK as I'm not
there. An engineer's starting salary over there would not have been enough
to pay back a loan when I graduated (it was barely enough to live on), but
I think things have improved since then.

If that's the case, then I share your opinion that loans aren't a good idea at
all.

As for the US, the problem is more the size of the fees rather than the
size of the paychecks. That and finding a job.

Exactly.

The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college
cost so much?"

Here in Radnor Township, we spend a bit over $10,000 per year per
student in the public schools. And that's one of the highest outlays in
the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if not the whole country. Why should
a year of college tuition cost more than that? The college school day
and school year are shorter, the classes bigger, and the college
students pretty much provide their own supplies and/or pay lab fees.
College students also usually provide their own transportation, don't
need special ed services, etc.

So why does college cost so much?

I don't know. It's a puzzle. I don't think it's big salaries.

Some years back the local paper did a series of stories on my alma mater and
the tuition explosion. Two things were obvious cost-increasers: big jump in the
number and ratio of nonteaching administrators, and a building boom.

Still, the local school district built a new elementary school a few years ago
without breaking the bank. We're not top-heavy with administration by any
means, either.

I would think that primary and secondary education are actually more complex
and costly than college, for a number of factors ranging from classroom hours
to diversity of student needs.

Our governments need to invest more in putting people through higher
education. It doesn't really matter whether they do it by giving money
to the colleges or to the students, provided the former results in
lower fees, but they need to do it. An educated workforce is the most
important thing they could be putting their money into.

I agree 100%. It's an investment in the future.

Public education (meaning universally-available, publicly funded
education) was recognized as a necessary function of government from
the very beginning of this country. Nowadays that means either college
or some form of post-high-school specialized training.

Money well spent.

Responsibility to the next generation. What a concept.

73 de Jim, N2EY