Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Because I don't think that parents should be encouraged to kick out kids without understanding the impact.  This is how the baby boomer problem we have happens.

Except, you know, this would just result in parents having kids and not giving them an education, which has a statistical tendency to turn them into criminals or people who pop out a lot of kids and then don't give them an education. It's not that I disagree with your goals, here, but the methodology is terrible. That simple isn't the way things work. If you want the results you state, the incentives your proposing aren't going to cut it, and would, in fact, exacerbate the problem.

The percentages I'm talking would not be detrimental to people forcing them to withdraw their kids.  I'm talking about enough to care, but not enough to hinder.

Maybe an answer would be to legally require schooling for children, but also that the parents spend (N x child per year) amount of time helping at the school in some way (school concessions, hall monitor, teacher assistance, etc.)  It would get the parent's involved in the school.  They could see what is happening and also possibly reduce the cost to run the school.  It sounds like "community service" but really it's something they should be doing anyway.  It couldn't hurt to have a few more adults around some schools.  It shouldn't take more than a school day of time per child.  Should be something parents can do on a day off work or at an after school activity if possible.

[Leafsnail]

Ah, USUSUSUSUKUSUSUSUSUK. I'm starting to see a pattern, there. Also, the UK universities listed here don't accept all students. They get to pick the cream of the crop.

Well yeah, I'm currently in the process of applying to Cambridge University, so I know.  Note that they pick based on merit rather than money, though (having mostly state funded universities doesn't mean they can't be meritocratic).

[Phmcw]

Because I don't think that parents should be encouraged to kick out kids without understanding the impact.  This is how the baby boomer problem we have happens.

Except, you know, this would just result in parents having kids and not giving them an education, which has a statistical tendency to turn them into criminals or people who pop out a lot of kids and then don't give them an education. It's not that I disagree with your goals, here, but the methodology is terrible. That simple isn't the way things work. If you want the results you state, the incentives your proposing aren't going to cut it, and would, in fact, exacerbate the problem.

The percentages I'm talking would not be detrimental to people forcing them to withdraw their kids.  I'm talking about enough to care, but not enough to hinder.  Maybe an answer would be to legally require schooling for children, but also that the parents spend (N x child per year) amount of time helping at the school in some way (school concessions, hall monitor, teacher assistance, etc.)  It would get the parent's involved in the school.  They could see what is happening and also possibly reduce the cost to run the school.  It sounds like "community service" but really it's something they should be doing anyway.  It couldn't hurt to have a few more adults around some schools.  It shouldn't take more than a school day of time per child.  Should be something parents can do on a day off work or at an after school activity if possible.

But... the baby boomer generation has been highly productive. We are in trouble now, but because they are going to stop working.
Or is it different in the US?

[MonkeyHead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig27w_YIx0s&feature=fvst

The west is quite literally pissing into the wind educationally speaking unless it plays to its strengths here. What you consider to be its strengths is up to you however...

[Andir]

But... the baby boomer generation has been highly productive. We are in trouble now, but because they are going to stop working.
Or is it different in the US?

Same problem.  They are not working now, their children have to cover the Social Security costs for them, they are collecting more medicare/medicaid than prior years and based on the current Social Security setup (your child pays for your care) it's a bad situation for the current taxpayer.  Basically their (grand)children have to pay more than they did into the system to cover their costs which will never be recovered.

[Phmcw]

But... the baby boomer generation has been highly productive. We are in trouble now, but because they are going to stop working.
Or is it different in the US?

Same problem.  They are not working now, their children have to cover the Social Security costs for them, they are collecting more medicare/medicaid than prior years and based on the current Social Security setup (your child pays for your care) it's a bad situation for the current taxpayer.  Basically their (grand)children have to pay more than they did into the system to cover their costs which will never be recovered.

So... you need more children by couple (or more immigration) to have a working force big enough to pay for the retirement of the parents.

[Andir]

But... the baby boomer generation has been highly productive. We are in trouble now, but because they are going to stop working.
Or is it different in the US?

Same problem.  They are not working now, their children have to cover the Social Security costs for them, they are collecting more medicare/medicaid than prior years and based on the current Social Security setup (your child pays for your care) it's a bad situation for the current taxpayer.  Basically their (grand)children have to pay more than they did into the system to cover their costs which will never be recovered.

So... you need more children by couple (or more immigration) to have a working force big enough to pay for the retirement of the parents.

Yep, but if you continue that trend you'll run into population issues.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think that rather than systematically lower testing standards needed for drugs (which I agree is a bad idea. These things need time and work, and are done for a reason), there should be a higher degree of ease and economic aid for pharma companies to run larger trials for products, particularily in phase III. Maybe on a loan basis, I don't know.

In particular cases it might not be a bad idea to speed up things, though. In particular, I am thinking of the approval of the first AIDS drugs, which was sped up because it was a very deadly disease with no other existant treatment at the time.

[Andir]

After listening to a disclaimer for a depression drug the other day, I'm not sure I want things "sped up."    I swear, the symptoms they listed would put some depression patients over the edge.

[G-Flex]

The drug approval process does not need to be any faster or less thorough than it already is, considering how often it seems that a new drug is released only for us to find out months or years later that there's something disastrously wrong with it. Pharmaceutical companies have enough power as it is, and I would much rather have slightly slower progress if that progress is safer. Granted, I feel that way about progress in most fields.

[ChairmanPoo]

After listening to a disclaimer for a depression drug the other day, I'm not sure I want things "sped up."    I swear, the symptoms they listed would put some depression patients over the edge.

Then again, this is true of any drug.

Anyway, the "FDA Fast Track" (which already exists, for the record) is meant mostly for products aimed at conditions with no existing treatment. In that context, I think it's understandable if concerns for the effects long-term are less important (such as the AIDS example mentioned above)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But... the baby boomer generation has been highly productive. We are in trouble now, but because they are going to stop working.
Or is it different in the US?

Same problem.  They are not working now, their children have to cover the Social Security costs for them, they are collecting more medicare/medicaid than prior years and based on the current Social Security setup (your child pays for your care) it's a bad situation for the current taxpayer.  Basically their (grand)children have to pay more than they did into the system to cover their costs which will never be recovered.

So... you need more children by couple (or more immigration) to have a working force big enough to pay for the retirement of the parents.

Yep, but if you continue that trend you'll run into population issues.

There's just no way to get enough population growth to use that as a solution to the Social Security issue. 60% of the USA's population are Baby Boomers, and they're all going to be dying in about a 20 year time period. The only viable solution I can see is to change the Social Security system so that you pay into your personal social security instead of into a collective that is redistributed to you, which is what got us into this situation.

[G-Flex]

Regarding social security: How much does revenue depend on a person's income? Does a richer person pay the same percentage of their income as a poorer person? I'm not sure how that works, but it could be very relevant to the situation.

[Nadaka]

Regarding social security: How much does revenue depend on a person's income? Does a richer person pay the same percentage of their income as a poorer person? I'm not sure how that works, but it could be very relevant to the situation.

"Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program limits the amount of earnings subject to taxation for a given year. The same annual limit also applies when those earnings are used in a benefit computation. This limit generally increases with increases in the national average wage index. We call this annual limit the contribution and benefit base, or taxable maximum. For earnings in 2011, this base is $106,800. "

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

[Phmcw]

There's just no way to get enough population growth to use that as a solution to the Social Security issue. 60% of the USA's population are Baby Boomers, and they're all going to be dying in about a 20 year time period. The only viable solution I can see is to change the Social Security system so that you pay into your personal social security instead of into a collective that is redistributed to you, which is what got us into this situation.

How does it solve anything? And how would you manage the inflation?