On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have viable career paths that are NOT being selected because the income simply won't be enough. We miss out on a lot of talented and motivated individuals that would love to get into a particular field, but it just doesn't pay as well. Teachers and corrections officers come to mind. The career I'm in was not my first choice, but it pays better than what I wanted to do.
Idk, I've never made enough money to live on and at this point never expect to. I'd rather do something I'm passionate about while I die under capitalism, than sit here feeling useless while I die under capitalism. Shit is depressing and unsustainable.
Fully agree with this. Anything in the arts immediately comes to mind. Not just performing arts either - history, literature, and philosophy fields have a lot more uncertainty with income than others.
This is one of the reasons why I favor UBI and universal health care. I think there's a growing deficit in overall creativity, leisure, and social engagement that the arts and other so-called lower-income jobs provide to society. And its not that people care more about money. You just dont have the option to pursue these jobs when your income level affects life or death decisions for you and your loves ones.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
I had a friend as a kid who made straight A’s the first semester in school every year, then straight F’s to the last semester where he’d pick it up just enough to pass. I remember a teacher laughing at him because his cousin blacked his eye while he was fighting his mother, “Oh, you mean a girl did that?”
Once he got to high school he couldn’t pass the 9th grade because the strategy of passing the first and last semester didn’t work anymore. He dropped out and got his GED. He took the test one time, scored 90% higher than average.
He slept in class every day because he spent his nights prepared to fight his dad when his dad attacked his mom.
I remember in middle school when the regular teacher was out long term for surgery, he handed a test to the substitute and she cried and apologized for not paying closer attention to him. She worked with him after that and he passed her class.
The last time I seen him, he was strung out on heroin and doing nothing. We went to school together from the 3rd grade until he dropped out and I only ever seen two teachers really try to help him. Police came to the school one time to photograph his bruise covered body and nothing ever came of it.
He used to write stories and give them to me on the bus. I asked him if he kept writing. He told me he hadn’t since his early 20s.
I can’t stand to think about how many kids out there have so much potential, only they’re stranded on an island with nowhere to put it.
Fuck man, that's so sad. You tell it really well, too. I can't imagine hanging on if the adults in your life kept letting you down that consistently. Poor guy... And like you said, he's just one person. 0 doubt there are others out there there who've got it way worse (not that it's a contest).
Reminds us to try and be kind when we come across someone who's struggling. We don't know their story but guaranteed they have one.
Damn, this was so hard to read and felt so close to me...
I used to be the kid that got the best grades and didn't care to study in the last semester too. I had severe family problems, and my father also tried to attack my mom.
I grew up left behind and with no one to ever support or guide me. I ended up isolating myself from society to such a degree that my life went downhill and I messed up everything to become a disfunctional adult who can't evem get a job. I didn't get into drugs, but isolation and depression did a similar thing to me... I ended up losing all my dreams, stopping doing all tbe things i was good at, and kinda losing even my cognition with time.
I can't express in words how painful reading about your friend's story was to me. I feel so sorry for him.
I was a "gifted program" kid with problems at home and undiagnosed adhd. I went from A's to failing and dropping out and nobody cared. Nobody wanted to know what was wrong. All they wanted to do was punish me.
Honestly, it's not just capitalism. Education is anywhere from free to really cheap in Germany, and we still don't get many people from poorer families into uni.
I see the main problem here as a sort of class divide between people with university degrees and people without.
For example: if you work in a public library and don't have a uni degree you will never get more money than salary level 9 (4k/mo) just having a degree and not doing any more/different work more or less instantly puts you on 12 or higher (6k+)
This I think understandably makes people without uni degrees kind of resentful of those who do have them. And if you grow up resenting a certain group of people you are much less likely to join them.
So, no. "Just" getting rid of the cost won't magically get these people into higher education.
Education is anywhere from free to really cheap in Germany, and we still don't get many people from poorer families into uni.
I am not German myself, but I am familiar with the system. Please correct me if things have evolved, but...
I thought the post-elementary education system in Germany was a tiered system. University admission requires completing the Abitur exams, but one can only feasibly do this if they've attended Gymnasium, or the "highest" tier of high school. It may be possible to do if one gets very high marks in Realschule (mid tier), along with Abitur preparation courses, but it's virtually impossible if one attends Hauptschule (lowest tier). These schools are not intended to provide university preparation, but instead provide a general education to prepare students for trades/vocational careers.
Whether a child attends Hauptschule, Realschule, or Gymnasium is decided at 9 or 10 years old, and is dependent on performance in elementary classes and teacher recommendations.
And when one considers that a child's educational performance is directly related to both familial socioeconomic status and parental educational attainment, it's not surprising that poorer people are less likely to attend or complete university.
Capitalists' dominant position within the class hierarchy necessitates exploitation of the working class, and this is maintained by fomenting division. This tiered system is just one manifestation of how society can be stratefied and divided.
It is absolutely possible to get to university after only finishing Hauptschule. You just need to go to BOS after finishing your apprenticeship and then you can achieve a fachgebundene Hochschulreife (maybe even allgemeine, im not sure) and attend University. Few people do it, because the desire is not there, or maybe not the tenacity to study further after already having trained for a job. Also you get Kindergeld and Bafög while studying.
And when one considers that a child's educational performance is directly related to both familial socioeconomic status and parental educational attainment,
This is true and criticized by PISA every time.
I think it has a lot to do with how much the parents value education. east asian immigrants are famous for how much emphasis they place on education and as a result get into university. The only thing that would help immediately (i.e. does not require behavioral change for a large portion of the population) would be to separate kids more from their families via Ganztagsschulen, to weaken this influence.
Do you know Aladin El-Mafaalani? I think this Interview (in german) with Jung&Naiv is totally worth to watch for everyone that is just slightly interested in that topic of the german educational system, its flaws and how to improve it.
Not being able to afford education isn't limited to the cost of the education either. If I have to take time to study it means I have to spend every hour of every day either working, in class, studying or working on school projects to also afford to eat and have shelter, and even then I think I'd have to choose between the two.
Not that I think capitalism is good, but how exactly does any other system solve it? And I'm talking about real-world systems, not the idealized ones. Because the made-up unrealistic fable of capitalism has no problem with this either.
Centrally controlled education. We need 500 doctors this year, assign the seats, nobody else can get it. Also, doctors have the same lifestyle as any other professional.
Anyone can study anything for free, sure, great. How long so you let people study to become doctors for? How do you ration enrollment? (We don't have infinite teachers), how do you decide who gets to practice? Lots of filter classes? If the country has 1000 doctor vacancies a year, do you produce 3000 doctors? For the 2000 who don't get to practice, do they maintain their license? Etc... this will increase supply, good thing, which will reduce pay, and reduce student demand. How long do you take to find the equilibrium?
You take Doctor 101 and get a C-, well the number of students who graded A-B filled the Doctor 102 class. Study up, and either retake the class or take a test to prove you know the information. You scored high enough on your test? Rad, welcome to the class. This is actually what we do anyway so, you're overthinking things there.
Number of jobs is a weird limitation for gatekeeping professionals. If we only need X amount of doctors, then we're an entirely healthy world with zero illness and no room for new minds to create entirely new methods and further our understanding of medicine? I want anyone driven enough to practice medicine to do so, it's the only way we'll have enough doctors to fix the massive healthcare deficit we're experiencing. Especially through the above grading methods I suggested.
As for the pay decreases, hard to say really without doing it. If an employer believes your education is less valuable because more people can achieve the same, they're a shitty place to work and they'll get what they pay for. There's also the possibility of those doctors being more affordable actually expanding the availability of healthcare overall.
I get why it's worth questioning, but it's broken now so why can't we try to fix it? What if the fix works? Awesome right?
What if the fix doesn't work? Good thing the current broken system could act as a fallback, right?
“No system is perfect” motherfucker we can see how free/cheap higher education works in several european countries and yeah, they use grades to select students, same way U.S. schools do.
Also, how is the free market any better than your first strawman concept? Only instead of the gubmint telling you you can’t go, it’s exceeding expensive educational facilities and the circumstances of your birth.
The need for doctors is usually a supply/demand situation, but even then it can be predicted ahead of time, so the universities can open for more students in advance.
There's never a perfect balance, so certain jobs can also advertised in other countries, creating a sort of job import and export.
I mean that if your argument is communism, let's talk about the real world one, not the ideal one that doesn't exist and will never actually be put into practice. Because comparing a real, existing system against an idea is unfair. So either let's compare real communism with real capitalism, or let's compare the idea of capitalism with the idea of communism.
As I said, capitalism sucks, but I'm tired of people making comparisons between the real, actually used capitalism and some made up version of communism.
I think about this all the time with everything from professions to entertainment. I watch a lot of F1 and those guys are always called the best/most talented drivers in the world, and all I can think of is how the most talented driver in the world is probably a poor kid in India or China who’s starving to death that will never have the chance to develop that talent let alone drive a car.
We are missing out on so many brilliant minds because capitalism requires them to be at the bottom. Meritocracy isn’t real and never will be.
Just watched a Bad Sports episode where a champion race driver couldn't break into the sport without become a drug trafficker to pay for it. So yeah that's already happened, just in Florida.
Justice in general doesn't exist in nature. That is a human construct. You will have more inner peace the fast you accept this reality. What we can do is do our best with the resources we have, and be grateful if we were lucky. Our call for justice is because we are in a privilege position.
Even the people that can afford it no longer want to work in the industry because capitalism has made them entirely profit oriented and very unrewarding to be a part of, both financially and spiritually.
Nah, it's Capitalism as well. Capitalism depends on the global orphan crushing machine, not just insular countries. There are many, many Einstein level talents that have died without access to necessary education to fully take advantage of their talents simply to keep the orphan crushing machine going.
This is way more the problem than people missing out on going to medical school when they really wanted to.
Most people who are in the United States and want to go to a high paying career, can take out student loans and achieve something close, assuming good grades. Not that there aren't problems with that scenario, but everyone wants kids to get high paying jobs, society is organized around helping those kids.
Meanwhile, some people would be great authors or philosophers or artists if they didn't have to spend time making the money to survive. Those are valid goals that are being oppressed by the system.
And in the same way the global system is oppressing billions of people who are born as the rural poor and just not able to do much beyond subsistence farming.
I don't think the comment was necessarily to dunk on Ethiopia per se as much as to make a point.
E.g.
The person who worked out at least a theoretical model for faster than light travel was Mexican. So we are obviously not dealing with this situation in which the most intellectual necessarily are born into western society.
So is in Czechia, public universities are free unless you repeat a year (and even then it is not very expensive and IIRC you pay a single fee, 2500$ Bachelor's, 3200$ Master's, and 20$ (yes 20) Doctor's, all per year - taken from my university). Textbooks are freely available in 99% of cases, the rest costs about 20$ printed but can be obtained for free in electronicformat, IIRC legally.
The quality is not perfect all the time, some curriculums are outdated or taught in strange ways, but it's ever-changing.
Of course, dorms and food are not free. But there are programs to at least partially accommodate that.
Norway is actually a good example of this -- where pro-social regulatory policies (i.e. beneficial not from the perspective of capital, but from the perspective of actual societal conditions) are used to help mitigate some of the BS that capitalism produces.
Regardless... Yeah, it's a problem with capitalism. It's a problem that stems from the literal core of the 'system': utilizing 'capital' to find opportunities for the creation and extraction of 'surplus' from labor and its products.
It's great that regulation is able to reign in, in some cases, the deeply criminal BS that such a system naturally produces... But it seems like a huge overreach to assume this is possible "globally" (as it would need to be for a blanket statement like that to be true).
' Deregulated capitalism' is capitalism so it's 100% a problem with capitalism. And running things for profit with private ownership is the basic definition of capitalism...... so it sure doesn't sound like Norway's free education is 'for profit' unless I'm grossly misunderstanding.
The line between "well-regulated capitalism" and "socialism" is entirely subjective. One man's big government job killing mandate is another's sensible growth-oriented reform.
This is one reason why I advocate for free and open source software, this same exact reason. So many poor people/kids can't afford to pay for software they need that could help them achieve something.
The last barrier we have to destroy is the formal certification institutions such as colleges and universities. Their careers are not equivalent to knowledge a lot of occasions, even Musk said that in the past. Its more like a social club to meet people...
I feel like its almost a lottery in canada, I know a few people on their 4th-5th round of applications years after getting a university degree. These are good candidates too, 90-something average, volunteer... and then we wonder why theres a huge shortage of family doctors and wait times.
Yeah we need to increase the size of our medical schools, but investing in education isn't a political priority. The "Why should I pay for sometimes education?" group is loud. "Who cares if it improves the country, I want lower taxes!"
I thought capitalism had something to do with capitalists owning the means of production and alienating labor from their work. Where I live most universities are public entities.
You probably live in a social democracy, universities being public means there's some flavor of socialism (as in social democracy, not communism) in your country, with a regulated free market and capitalism.
Not everyone can be doctors or engineers or lawyers. We need operational personnel that work in retail, in construction, plumbers, electricians, etc. But this is not bad at all, we all need better work conditions. Since the beginning of humanity wealth has been inherited.
You can still gate these professions like we do today by selecting the bests based on grades (and remove that bullshit nepotism in the US universities). However, if you remove the financial barrier, people that come from poor backgrounds have a chance to try their luck on an education of their choosing and excel at it if they have the skills to do it.
Lots of people still like trade jobs for various reasons, and that will still be true if we remove the financial barrier.
That's an America problem, not a capitalism problem. Free, or at least highly subsidised, higher education isn't exactly limited to communist countries.
Capitalism can keep people from studying because they need to work instead, or maybe they were in a low-income area and didn't get the chance to go to a good school to get the grades or knowledge they needed before higher education, etc.
Capitalism effects every facet of our lives, even in developed countries where we try to spend money to counter it's damages.
Even just free higher education is not enough under capitalism. You need to live somewhere and eat something while you learn. Also reminds me about one comment I wrote. Here's copy-pasta:
American "left": maybe we shold do some student debth relif? Just a tini-tiny. If you don't mind.
Rest of the world right: universal education, more funding!
Rest of the world center: universal education, state must provide students with everything(including housing and food) so they don't worry about anything else other than learning, state must provide teachers with everything(including decent salary) so they don't wory about anything else other than teaching, state must provide universities with all necessary equipment, buildings must be maintained in good condition(so ceiling wouldn't fall on students' and teachers' heads)!
Capitalism is a method for the control of information. If information were given freely, like as in an actually civilized society not full of fucking barbarians, the world would be a much better place.
I feel that innovation flow through me when I go down to the supermarket to pick from my selection of 27 brands of cola based soda, and 39 varieties of plain salted chips.
This is a super important point. As fucking brutal as capitalism is, any move backward will only make things worse. The only thing we can see with any clarity in the past is the church anyway (which was like a thousand year nightmare) since they took the evidence for everything else and won't let anyone see it.
There's a few problems with this. Two I can identify right off the bat:
Just because you're passionate about something doesn't mean you're good at it. I don't want the William Hung of medicine doing my surgery.
By artificially limiting the supply of doctors you are increasing demand and salaries (I agree this seems morally wrong a priori/prima facie, especially for something like health care that is a public good). However when the salaries drop then you reduce incentive for smart people going into the field, which has already been happening in medicine for decades. The top of the class that would've become the brilliant physician in the 20th century is your 21st century finance bro. AKA brain drain. (See also point 1.)
I do agree that it is wrong for people to be unable to pursue careers due to the misfortune of their station of birth. I don't know how to fix it other than funding public education.
Jup it is just an American/British thing that you can only study if you have the money. In Germany it is all about your grades and even then you can just wait until you study medicine.
Also there are Stipendia, if you are really good and passionate.
It's ironic that capitalism is missing out on more efficient workers who could maximize production and profit because of this. Who knows where we would be if we actually helped people pursue their goals regardless of current income?
People with more education draw higher salaries. That only works because employers make a higher profit with better educated people. Which means that for profit-maximization, you want to have a pool of potential employees that is maximally well-educated on the expense of someone else. Note the push for more STEM graduates.
You'd think businesses would be all for tax-funded education for everyone.
One can argue that we have two kinds of capitalism. And that would be true for the classic, theoretical capitalism.
However, the modern one favors short term profit and stock prices. Which do not care if economies collapse in 20 years due to global warming, as long as the profit is good now.
Why should they care? In 20 or 30 years most of stockholders would be dead anyways. And not being hypocritical here, I probably do the same in their positions, as most of the people.
Interesting point. This is consistent with a "Corporate Feudalism" chart I saw recently (and am still digesting/making up my mind on), which puts central bank heads, and then major bank heads at the top two places in the power hierarchy. Corporate CEOs (who might see benefit from a more educated work force) are in 3rd place. World leaders are 4th.
That only works because employers make a higher profit with better educated people.
Only to a certain degree. Exxon's been happy to lay off engineers and programmers by the thousands with the downturn in energy markets. However, they've always got a door open for entry level rig workers and cargo ship deck hands, as these jobs are higher risk and lower reward.
Educated professionals have their place, but sometimes you just need someone to turn a wrench. And because these low-skill jobs are more fungible, the businesses have an easier time swapping out younger and less experienced workers for their more expensive veteran peers.
This is what ultimately keeps labor rates in low-skill industries down. As jobs become more formulaic - more assembly-line driven - the wages commanded by the people doing that labor falls, in an unregulated labor market. Education-added-value has far less to do with it than the fungibility of the person doing the job.
Development is what increases education abilities, not necessarily wealth or Capitalism. It's correct that a side-effect of Capitalism is development, but it's also true that a side-effect of Capitalism is increased wealth concentration and disparity, rather than equitable distribution of resources.
The fact that education increases in spite of Capitalism, rather than because of it, shouldn't be a point in Capitalism's favor.
As soon as the selection criteria for access to higher education is less than meritocratic, it undermines the maximization of Economic outcomes because it reduces the chances for the best people for a job to end up in that job (you get maximum Economic productvity if all over the Economy the best person for a job is the one doing the job).
So even by Rightwing principles of better life by more money making, paid-for Education actually detracts from from it because it leads to less money being made (as people who would otherwise be the most capable for certain highly specialized positions are locked from reaching them due to not being able to afford the right education for it).
What paid gor Education does achieve, and really well, is making sure children with high-middle class and upper class parents inherit their priviledges, no matter how inept they are.
It's basically Feudalism extended to cover the Burgeousie, which is why you see this kind of thing deeply entrenched in countries with barelly reformed monarchic systems such as the UK.
More than this. People from different countries with qualifications are often denied to transfer their qualifications. We are missing out in more than one area here.
Why would the elite class want the plebs to learn medicine or law?
Just you try and open a state law school or med school in these times. It might work out but private interests are going to fight it with full force. It'll be a constant corporate media backlash about the state doesn't need any more lawyers and how much tax money it will cost.
Fighting stuff like this is why they buy tv stations and newspapers
There's actually a lot of new med schools, both MD and DO, as well as a steady stream of foreign medical graduates every year. The problem is not the number of schools, at least in medicine, but the number of ACGME residency spots that remain artificially limited in the desirable (read: high paying) specialties. Tons of family medicine spots go unmatched every year but nobody wants to pay for 8+ years of post secondary education to make less than 6 figures.
There are also tons of law schools but most graduates take jobs that don't require JDs. It's actually kind of a joke now, even if you make T14 it's not a guarantee of landing a big firm partner track gig. It's not the education that's being limited since they're more than happy to take your money in exchange for a paper diploma; it's the actual desirable job placements. Which is the same in almost every field (academics stuck in post docs or non tenure track adjunct faculty, finance guys not making it to managing director, etc.)
Have to ensure the only ones who can make it to the "big leagues" see unbridled late Stage Capitalism as a perfect system cause THEY made it (on their parents dime.)
If you let people into the upper echelon IN SPITE Of the system working against them they may point out they're an exception to the rule.
Is it capitalism, or is it the way non-profits budget in order to stay non-profiting when there's some windfall revenue? Seriously stupid if anyone doesn't know: schools will burn money and hire excess staff JUST to keep from having a profit at the end of the year - and then the next year they need to either hit the same numbers or get rid of people and programs. Tuition can only go to the moon as long as every penny of unspent money must be both spent this year and replaced again next year.
We can also say this is a failure of culture too. Let's take a look at doctors: why do they need so much education in the form we do it now? You, dear reader, could almost certainly do a doctor's job after a couple years of apprenticeship, even if you aren't very bright.
Not that I'm anti education, i think everyone should have a broad education that is at the very least more comprehensive then what we currently have in America.
I kind of get the point you're trying to make but I very much disagree. This line of thinking is one of the reasons US healthcare is so hellbent on pushing PAs and NPs to fill the doctor gap. And it's not working because there is no substitute for a well trained doctor or specialist.