The market only favors people of great knowledge when such knowledge is sufficiently marketable. If biologists are not in demand, they don't get jobs.
Results 1 to 20 of 20
all this knowledge wasted
so far in my life i have met many people, and so far what struck me was the sheer number of verry intelligent, cleaver people left behind by the dominating establishement beccause their knowledge where not officially reconized by the governement.
i have met tunisian certified biologist working in a supermarket, former pilot of the iraqi air force working at a burger king, chinese engineer ending up landlord, all of those people where not incompetent, but the current system refused them to practice their job or to use their knowledge. And its not just for immigrant, some people born here end up without a proper job even after year of scolarship.
all those people, all this rich deposit of wasted knowledge should be used to build our future, dont quite know well how exactly, but maybe one day, me or someone else will figure this out.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
The market only favors people of great knowledge when such knowledge is sufficiently marketable. If biologists are not in demand, they don't get jobs.
YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS
its goes beyond that. where i live, we need more medic, and despite the fact that hundred of foreing medics come here every year we do refuse them the right to practice most of the time. Worse we force them to pay shitload of money to jusst study their file!
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Welcme to capitalism?
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
If you go for a job interview you'll find that they value your personality (or whatever one you portray) over qualifications. There are lots of jobs better qualified people lose out to those who can really clinch an interview.
The majority of human knowledge is prefaced on context. Knowing what species of butterfly dominated the Great Plains in 1902 may be valuable in one context, but will be absolutely useless in another. Plus, much of the markets themselves operate on their own kind of knowledge which is incomplete and generated by its participants (great and small). As such, the biologist who languishes in obscurity in a grocery store may have to find something that no other biologist has yet found, and make that finding itself valuable to others. The soldier who works below his capacity as a burger flipper may have to reinvent his skill set to take advantage of both his military background and whatever technical (depends on MOS) he received. The market itself cannot provide automatic employment. The market itself cannot automatically know the particular state(s) of every participant. But the market can provide a means to broadcast the vital information to others, and in a manner advantageous to the given person.
there is no need for a market to send information these day, we live in a society of informationa and multimedia, blog, chatroom, web 2.00, the people dont really need the market to transmit information these day. By refusing this biologist accademic background you refuse him the possibility to do something else that could be related to this particular background. I mean, this guy was really good in math, he a biologist for god sake! he could learn children to teach math or biology without any problem.
BUT since his stuff is not reconized, he have to go back to school, university, bla bla bla bla. the guy dont have the money and time to go thru this, he getting relatively old and he have to feed his family.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Most people with practical university degrees that are without a proper job are usually immigrants without a perfect pronounciation, that are held out of the jobmarket by xenophobic bosses.
Most bosses here would probably chose the norwegian chemist, if they had to choose between a norwegain and a russian chemist.
That was the case; no longer so. I've heard of a newly opened McDonalds in Cork (Ireland) saying that most of the applications it received for jobs were from Irish people with degrees.
The market doesn't start or end at a bank, a firm, or a McDs/Wal*mart. It starts with human interactions where values are being achieved (or are being sought after).
A human animal isn't a static being, its capacities are largely self-oriented, thus its capacity to achieve novel or unique actions originate as such. Others come only in play as they themselves seek to achieve novel or unique actions as well. As such, to assert in any social system a magical mechanism for which everyone can achieve these actions without analysis or effort is a joke. Even Lenin himself acknowledged a need to observe human beings to figure out what is to be done (even though I sharply disagree with him on the how).
Then maybe he needs to find another way to angle his skill set. A biologist may not need to work in the academic sphere. He may in fact be worth while in computer hardware design as it's becoming a hard fact to accept that we're at the physical limit of classical storage mechanisms, and quantum based mechanisms are still potentially decades off from useful breakthoughs. In sharp constrast, many biological storage systems (DNA or peptide storage) are very much a practical reality of the laboratory today. Just that field alone could wind up hiring thousands of professionals such as himself for decades, and accordingly improve their condition (both material and mental).
Capitalism (which canonly be protected by statist fascism) would kill science, that's why it's not applied to it. Right now, over 60% of Astronomers work with the University system and the number is probably higher if you include government scientists at NASA.
Astronomers with "only" undergraduate degrees are often not as marketable as some idiot with a "business" degree, and usually end up teaching high school classes or tutoring or something.
In my state some science teachers from HS have other jobs like working at K-mart part time. What message does that send out to students who want to pursue science - get a degree in chemistry to work at K-Mart?
So, yes, what can benefit humanity takes a back seat to what is marketable, because what is "marketable" is mostly arbitrary and has been established by capitalist coercion and indoctrination. It's no different than having a dictator decide how resources are distributed. This is why work should be done in a community and people should receive according to their 'contributions to the public good.'
Yet throughout human history the majority of scientists have been in the private sector. Only in the last two centuries has there been a shift toward public funding of said scientists.
Actually, an Astronomer is truly more marketable than an MBA fucktard, why? Because an Astronomer knows mathematics and some statistics. An MBA barely gets past Business Calculus. You'll find that even people with a minor in Mathematics will get hired more often than an MBA as well as many business firms are beginning to realize the idiocy of these degrees (as a business is no more a science than oil painting).
Get a degree in chemistry, work at K-mart, save the money, get a guardian angel, setup a company, get venture capital, and finally go public (and possibly retire).
Humanity isn't a thing onto itself. It is the snapshot of all living human beings. As such each human being has its own interests and goals at heart. What you value isn't what I value. What my mother values isn't what you value. To assert some secular version of a higher ideal or heaven is nonsense for the fact that all humans live apart both mentally and physically (there is no higher ideals than those that each human being can enjoy and there is no happiness greater than what one can experience in one's own skin).
Now, if you got proof of a hive mind for me, I'm all ears. Otherwise, stop with the higher ideal claptrap. At least the local Democratic Socialists at my university don't pull that crap with me.
Throughout history the majority of 'scientists' have been in the education system which has typically been public. The scientific revolution also came from men who were highly educated.
Even Alexander the Great ordered his men to help collect specimens all around the world for the scientist, and Darwin obviously benefited from government expiditions as well.
Nothing came from any 'private sector' but from the fact that science has always been free and open and to some degree protected by the state.
This is asinine. There has always been government sponsorship of scientist.
Most people who work in businesses have degrees in business or economics or another social science. Most business math requires nothing beyond pre-algebra. The specialized math that is required in business can be garnered from people who've studied statistics or economics.
Plus, people would generally want to do what they're interested in, so it makes sense to hire a business oriented person over a science oriented person.
You've got statistics to back this up?
Instead of having the chemist work at k-mart he should be given the resources he needs to do chemistry.
lol. You probably should be out playing world of war craft or something, instead of discussing serious issues.
Nope. Most of the schools up until the 19th century were private. Public education prior to this period was sporadic in adoption.
Non-sequitur.
Darwin got his specimens himself, and he did it for free. Sorry.
Citations?
Again, citations?
Bullshit. For the simple fact that those in the social sciences that are hired, are largely people with degrees specifically in psychology (which is heavily dependent on the study of Statistics to analyze experiments).
A business degree doesn't make a person automatically better. In fact, many firms will not hire someone with an MBA alone. They will require a degree minor or major in another field to complement their business dexterity.
You first.
Only when he has a good idea.
Actually, I'm largely programming right now while finishing up my audio book of Mises' Human Action. I don't like MMOs as they're boring. Although I love FPSes. TF2 > everything else, nuff said.
I think thats where I fail
Ditto, I'm not a glib tongue at all. >_>I think thats where I fail
Even in the US there existed many public schools that were set up by the government. The government has always played a role in funding education. In the US and other countries as well.
Science has also received public funding. It isn't a 'non-sequitor," it's a fact.
Darwin was aboard a ship that was built for the navy. The societies were not "private enterprise" and they weren't even necessarily capitalist. Science benefited from the imperial expansion of the European countries.
It is a simple fact of history that science and math has benefited enormously from the expansion of civilization and from greater acess to education. Any history of mathematics or science will cover this.
"Business" isn't part of the social sciences. So far you have not provided any evidence whatsoever that companies would rather have people from astronomy than business as managers.
My statistics that most Astronomers work in jobs in government (i.e., education) comes from the American Astronomical Society. The rest usually end up as teachers etc.
What language do you program in and what does the program do?
Me too. I can never hold onto jobs.If you go for a job interview you'll find that they value your personality (or whatever one you portray) over qualifications. There are lots of jobs better qualified people lose out to those who can really clinch an interview.
I think thats where I fail
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin
All their knowledge is fluff.
Things get thrown off--but the central core of knowledge goes movs on. If the people you mentioned were "serious" they would be in the mainstream.
But these guys--not so much--these guys know things but nothing essential to the core of human knowledge--they NEED to be where they are to let the real intellectuals proceed.
Natural selection--at its best.
Ahh, ic, what we really need is new cell phones.
Really? Let me ask you how much funding goes into research for getting rid of hunger, or third world deseases, next how much funding goes into weapons, and technology for the rich. The market (which decides what is mainstream) has nothing to do with being "serious", it has to do with being profitable, which is why we need newer cell phones but not clean water in the third world.
arn't you a christian?
