Post Secondary Degrees and Economics

[brihard]

Since most Canadians really are mentally challenged (Education in Fluffology) and rarely are good enough to be in my neck of the labour segment

That's a curious claim, and not one borne out by the facts. Stats Can has some good data on this kind of stuff, feel free to play around with the stats table at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3710019801. This is for the class of 2015. Proportion of postsecondary graduates of all levels (college to postgraduate) by fields:

Business, management and public administration​	22.3%​
Social and behavioural sciences and law​	16.8%​
Health and related fields​	15.6%​
Architecture, engineering, and related technologies​	13.9%​
Education​	6.9%​
Physical and life sciences and technologies​	5.6%​
Humanities​	4.7%​
Visual and performing arts, and communications technologies​	4.3%​
Mathematics, computer and information sciences​	3.8%​
Personal, protective and transportation services​	3.5%​
Agriculture, natural resources and conservation​	2.2%​
Other instructional programs​	0.4%​

Now, I only studied Criminology, so my grasp of basic facts and numbers might not be too sound, but this doesn't seem to line up with most Canadians being the fluffily-educated idiots you seem to surmise.

 

[HiTechComms]

That's a curious claim, and not one borne out by the facts. Stats Can has some good data on this kind of stuff, feel free to play around with the stats table at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3710019801. This is for the class of 2015. Proportion of postsecondary graduates of all levels (college to postgraduate) by fields:

Business, management and public administration​	22.3%​
Social and behavioural sciences and law​	16.8%​
Health and related fields​	15.6%​
Architecture, engineering, and related technologies​	13.9%​
Education​	6.9%​
Physical and life sciences and technologies​	5.6%​
Humanities​	4.7%​
Visual and performing arts, and communications technologies​	4.3%​
Mathematics, computer and information sciences​	3.8%​
Personal, protective and transportation services​	3.5%​
Agriculture, natural resources and conservation​	2.2%​
Other instructional programs​	0.4%​

Now, I only studied Criminology, so my grasp of basic facts and numbers might not be too sound, but this doesn't seem to line up with most Canadians being the fluffily-educated idiots you seem to surmise.

Every single one of these categories has a huge component of Fluff.
When Mathematics, computer and information sciences makes up only 4.3% and Architecture, engineering, and related technologies makes up 13.9% only makes up 18.2% of the total the point of Fluff still stands. This should be way higher, but I don't think that is possible in Canada with the attitude "you can be what ever you want".

I simply picked these as they are hard sciences. I tend to pick out any Public service education as a long term unfunded liability rather then an wealth generating activity.

Last time I was in University it was in 2018 and a lot of it was fluff that was forced onto me. Not sure if you guys ever got a degree but Bachelors degrees are full of "University" mandated Fluff and Farkles.

Far more nuanced then waht I have described but there is a reason my hiring (as some that has a say in hiring) have so little luck actually hiring Canadian born. I have yet to hire a Canadian born woman for any tech position. We have hired a lot of women but they were all foreign born. Heck very few Canadian Born men are hired as well. Simply different values of education and preference, seems Canadian born are eager to pursue "passions" rather then practicality. There is more practicality amongst trades but those tend to be very biased towards men.

If you would like more proof is look at the numbers of COVID related unemployment.

Simply put from my perspective there is far more chaff then wheat. This is my observations as an outsider to the "Canadian culture" and "Canadian experiences"

 

[brihard]

Interesting. You seem to have a view that anything not rooted in hard numbers and math is 'fluff'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be the lowest common denominator. I imagine that you would grudgingly let that extrapolate to things like medicine, biology, anything generally lumped as 'STEM'. Would I correctly surmise that you're much more skeptical towards fields like law, clinical psychology, history, public affairs and policy management, international relations and the sort?

FWIW, my degree - and the courses I have taken and continue to take afterwards - are in no way an 'unfunded' liability. While not in a field you would likely have much respect for, it's been some years now since I made less than six figures, with the various trappings of socioeconomic success attended with that. I'm sure as hell not carrying student loans. I continue to pursue learning in law as a combination of passion and professional/career utility, and I'm very capable of 'paying as I go'.

I would respectfully suggest that while modern society does indeed rest upon a highly technical infrastructure that calls for highly technically minded and educated individuals, such skillsets are not capable of independently reaching the necessary sum total that makes up a functioning human society. You might be surprised at how some of the 'fluffier' learning can shape the thoughts and actions of men and women who do many consequential things (both small and large) in many fields on a daily basis.

Skillsets and educations that do not lend themselves to utility in your specific field or those adjacent to it are not, for that sole reason, necessarily useless. There is brilliance to be found in every field of human endeavour, even if we aren't always able to immediately know what distinguishes it. I've learned over time that my ability to recognize same has increased with my own growing humility, and with every opportunity I have to lean on the abilities of someone who knows things that I don't.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not as much as you think. I work in IT which is considered as one of the most dynamic work sectors and I will tell you that its not changing that much. Ironically its the influx of foreigners/immigrants that is keeping it from changing. Its usually the "liberal" born Canadian that tends to have the "trans, tattoo, piercing, dyed hair" that have these attitudes. Since most Canadians really are mentally challenged (Education in Fluffology) and rarely are good enough to be in my neck of the labour segment the immigrant Sri Lankan's, East Indian, Eastern Europeans, Filipinos, (Asian's), Nigerians, etc, have a far different opinion of not just tattoos but general behavior and outwardly self presentation. This is why our team has less then 20% born Canadians on it, the rest including my self are foreign born.

My question to those that are saying attitudes are changing? Have you actually ever asked any one if attitudes are actually changing or is it just your own projection?

FYI
I have tattoos.

Sorry, a bit off-topic, but ...

Although it's been almost 15 years since I retired from a managerial/executive level in the tech sector, what HiTechComms says resonates perfectly with my recollections both as to the (very minor) issue of tattoos and the much more important issue of native-born Canadians attitudes towards work and education.

Before the pandemic, I used to visit one of our university campuses (and library) regularly: using only visible indicators it seems very apparent that 'minority' students dominate the STEM departments; using audible indicators it appears that many are recent immigrants, maybe first-generation Canadians. (My own close, first-hand, personal experience says that teenagers, newly arrived in Canada, lose their accents in a couple of years at most, while some people who arrived as adults never do.) I'm told by what I consider reliable sources that the Medical School is the same.

Canada (and the USA) outsourced its "Allentown" jobs to Asia in the 1970s and '80s but then it began to import brainpower. For reasons that some sociologists might explain Canadians (and Americans) seemed to decide, en masse, that math, science, engineering and medicine were "tough" . In my last years in the Army (1990s) and then in the private sector (early 2000s) I worked with a lot of really bright, productive young people ~ the youngest were, in the main, "new Canadians" or the children of immigrants. Some got their BScs overseas, most got them here. One of my colleagues was typical of many (maybe even half?) who were approaching my age: BSCEE Iraq; MSC England, PhD Canada. That suggests that the importing of brainpower started in the 1970s.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sorry, a bit off-topic, but ...

Although it's been almost 15 years since I retired from a managerial/executive level in the tech sector, what HiTechComms says resonates perfectly with my recollections both as to the (very minor) issue of tattoos and the much more important issue of native-born Canadians attitudes towards work and education.

Before the pandemic, I used to visit one of our university campuses (and library) regularly: using only visible indicators it seems very apparent that 'minority' students dominate the STEM departments; using audible indicators it appears that many are recent immigrants, maybe first-generation Canadians. (My own close, first-hand, personal experience says that teenagers, newly arrived in Canada, lose their accents in a couple of years at most, while some people who arrived as adults never do.) I'm told by what I consider reliable sources that the Medical School is the same.

Canada (and the USA) outsourced its "Allentown" jobs to Asia in the 1970s and '80s but then it began to import brainpower. For reasons that some sociologists might explain Canadians (and Americans) seemed to decide, en masse, that math, science, engineering and medicine were "tough" . In my last years in the Army (1990s) and then in the private sector (early 2000s) I worked with a lot of really bright, productive young people ~ the youngest were, in the main, "new Canadians" or the children of immigrants. Some got their BScs overseas, most got them here. One of my colleagues was typical of many (maybe even half?) who were approaching my age: BSCEE Iraq; MSC England, PhD Canada. That suggests that the importing of brainpower started in the 1970s.

You could probably add professions like Business (MBA-type), Accounting and Legal to that list.

High Finance? Still a white man's world, and a testosterone fuelled, white collared, red neck rodeo.

For more information watch 'Greed' - the original version and not the namby pamby remake

 

[HiTechComms]

Interesting. You seem to have a view that anything not rooted in hard numbers and math is 'fluff'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be the lowest common denominator. I imagine that you would grudgingly let that extrapolate to things like medicine, biology, anything generally lumped as 'STEM'. Would I correctly surmise that you're much more skeptical towards fields like law, clinical psychology, history, public affairs and policy management, international relations and the sort?

FWIW, my degree - and the courses I have taken and continue to take afterwards - are in no way an 'unfunded' liability. While not in a field you would likely have much respect for, it's been some years now since I made less than six figures, with the various trappings of socioeconomic success attended with that. I'm sure as hell not carrying student loans. I continue to pursue learning in law as a combination of passion and professional/career utility, and I'm very capable of 'paying as I go'.

I would respectfully suggest that while modern society does indeed rest upon a highly technical infrastructure that calls for highly technically minded and educated individuals, such skillsets are not capable of independently reaching the necessary sum total that makes up a functioning human society. You might be surprised at how some of the 'fluffier' learning can shape the thoughts and actions of men and women who do many consequential things (both small and large) in many fields on a daily basis.

Skillsets and educations that do not lend themselves to utility in your specific field or those adjacent to it are not, for that sole reason, necessarily useless. There is brilliance to be found in every field of human endeavour, even if we aren't always able to immediately know what distinguishes it. I've learned over time that my ability to recognize same has increased with my own growing humility, and with every opportunity I have to lean on the abilities of someone who knows things that I don't.

I think I didn't phrase myself more precisely. I am referring to ALL degrees/education.
The 400 year old template of Bachelors has not changed in the West. The idea of Philosophical rounded education worked for a very long time but since the 60-70 it has commercialized. The idea that you need a University degree and that it will give you a great job once you finish is an in-faluable presumption in Western Society.
Its a great big old pyramid scheme. I graduated 20 years ago and I ask my self to this day why in Gods green earth was I forced to take Political, Sociology, Drama, Women's studies as part of my Computer Science Degree? Out of the 4 years at least 1.5 years was wasted on unrelated drivel.
Why couldn't I just take the core courses that I need for computer science and get a job..

Universities commercialized education in the 60s-70's and with Government backed student loans (you cannot default on), bursaries, grants and other plethora of "free money" This doesn't account for the fact Universities are heavily funded by the public purse. So its in the best interest of Academia to keep pushing "you need our brand of education to be successful in life"
Now young people are drowning in student loans and debt, taking them years to graduate and delay entry into the workforce.
With an overabundance of "educated" people the government now has to create jobs to employee these people.
I encourage you to take a look at the specific graduation rates of women and employment of women by the government. In fact take a look at the stats of any university, although they do an excellent job of obfuscating that fact.
Instead of creating a "student" focused education they created "public sector sales" education.
When I finished my Executive education in 2018 I was glad that at least I had the choice of education since I was paying an arm and a leg for it.

The world is changing and Academia being the good old boys club it doesn't want to change. 80 year old professors with tenure-ship that have published 1 paper in their career or haven't published anything relevant in twenty years dominate post secondary, while they abuse their foreign student assistants. Its a joke. World is no longer a general education place, no one in our society can make anything by them selves, everything is specialized and far more intricate yet Academia the supposed bastion of progressiveness is a stale old model that refuses to adapt because its protected by the government.

As for Long term unfunded liabilities, I was referring to public sector jobs. They are service for the public but they add no wealth to the economy. We pay for those services and their liabilities, with out the tax monies there are no public sector jobs. Hence "Long Term Unfunded Liabilities" this is just an Accounting term nothing more. Its not meant to be a deragotory or demeaning term. My favorite quote is:
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
― Winston S. Churchill

Also I hope your not assuming I see little of value of education, actually I see a lot of value in education. I find value in relevant education, and if I am passionate about a subject I should be free to pursue it on my time and not be forced by a system to pay for it. This applies on a macro state where public funds the basic core educational principals such as Math, Sciences, English/French and the rest is chosen by the student. Public should not pay or fund "your passions" because you want to study drama, music, art. Do it on your own dime and money.
Ironically the socialist regimes figured this out before the west did.

I have spent at least 8 years in education activities, after my bachelors I spent time pursuing relevant education. At least I graduated in 4 years where as I cannot say the same for a lot of people. In addition I worked my butt off and had a lot of Scholarships, Bursaries and grants, I finished high school with a 97% average, I attribute this on being poor and being born and raised in a system outside of Canada. This is my success and is not commentary on others.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Its a great big old pyramid scheme. I graduated 20 years ago and I ask my self to this day why in Gods green earth was I forced to take Political, Sociology, Drama, Women's studies as part of my Computer Science Degree? Out of the 4 years at least 1.5 years was wasted on unrelated drivel.
Why couldn't I just take the core courses that I need for computer science and get a job..
...

Just on this one, tiny point:

First, I have a bare-bones, "pass BA," a second class degree (no major) from a second class university which corresponded to my status, in Canada, as a citizen who happened to be a soldier.

Second, since the Signal Corps wanted me to be an officer (I was already an NCO (technician)) they provide me, in Canada, the UK and the USA, with first-class technical training. Although my training was excellent and very advanced I do not regard much of it as "education," some of it (especially advanced maths which, at some level, crosses a very blurry borderline with philosophy) was, but mostly it, all engineering, in fact, is a "craft." You might say the same thing about medicine, too, and even law except that in good law schools they teach you the law and, later, someone else teaches you lawyering.

But, and this is my point: when I was a director I needed to make the transition from engineer/"craftsman"/practitioner to policy guy and I needed to understand the policy and consider the impact of my decision on more than just the CF's radars and radio networks. Policy is the domain of well educated, not just well-trained people and my crummy little "pass BA," all that drivel, stood me in good stead.

 

[blacktriangle]

I think we would do well to push more of our youth into highly-focused, technical educations. Whether these are skilled trades, technical colleges, or university STEM programs would depend on the individual and the profession. We should be looking for the most efficient methods to produce high-quality technical experts. This will benefit government and private sector alike.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . I was referring to public sector jobs. . . . they add no wealth to the economy. . . .

If this is your point of view, why do you want to join the public sector? Is it a passion? But you seem to think less of all those impractical types whose "passion" took them to "fluffy" subjects in uni.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Everyone sneers at the tradesman till the toilet backs up and the lights go out.

 

[ballz]

If this is your point of view, why do you want to join the public sector? Is it a passion? But you seem to think less of all those impractical types whose "passion" took them to "fluffy" subjects in uni.

Public sector jobs are a drain on the economy / wealth, and yes, that includes the military, police, firefighters, etc. I don't know why this is so insulting to some people, it's about as black and white as economics can be.

Firefighters are required because fires happen, not because they (firefighters or fires) create any economic growth ("add wealth to the economy"). The military is required because if you have anything worth holding onto, someone will come an take it, but it doesn't create economic growth. Why is that insulting? They prevent economic destruction, but they do not create economic growth.

And then there's the majority of bureaucratic bloat which neither increases economic growth or prevents economic destruction...

 

[Brash]

Public sector jobs are a drain on the economy / wealth, and yes, that includes the military, police, firefighters, etc. I don't know why this is so insulting to some people, it's about as black and white as economics can be.

If one is solely looking at first-order economic effect, then yes, public service costs money with no return.

If, however, one considers the entirety of the impact of various (if not all) public service elements in terms of economic-sustaining or economic-enabling activities, your statement is absolutely short-sighted and incorrect.

Firefighters are required because fires happen, not because they (firefighters or fires) create any economic growth ("add wealth to the economy").

City A maintains fire services. City B doesn't maintain fire services.
Given the two cities, which would be more likely be selected as the location for new businesses?

The military is required because if you have anything worth holding onto, someone will come an take it, but it doesn't create economic growth.

Where do you believe new businesses would be more likely to locate?
In a stable country? Or one where "something will come and take it"?

If you can't see how your examples actually support the statement that public service supports the economy, then I cannot help you.

 

[mariomike]

Not sure if you guys ever got a degree but Bachelors degrees are full of "University" mandated Fluff and Farkles.

I only got a Diploma. But, these days, new "ambulance drivers" in Ontario have four-year Honours Bachelor of Science degrees. And, it's not "fluff".

SPECIALIST (JOINT) PROGRAM IN PARAMEDICINE (SCIENCE) | UTSC Calendar

utsc.calendar.utoronto.ca

All work has dignity. Including the so-called "McJobs".

And tattoos have no effect - positive or negative - on job performance. I was thinking about the customer service aspect of some jobs. My old-fashioned way of looking at things is over, it’s finished. Not to say it was better or worse than the ways of today. Just different.

 

[Brash]

That could be true or they just might be the lower achievers.

Is that not covered under my statement of "limited in their capacities somehow"?

 

[ballz]

If you can't see how your examples actually support the statement that public service supports the economy, then I cannot help you.

Where did I make an assertion that they don't support the economy?

His statement wasn't about "supporting the economy," it was that they "add no wealth to the economy" and he's entirely correct.

City A maintains fire services. City B doesn't maintain fire services.
Given the two cities, which would be more likely be selected as the location for new businesses?

That depends on how effective and efficient the fire services are, the business operations themselves (i.e. whether they are a higher or low risk for fires), and the risk tolerance of the owner. You know, there are private options as well, and some big operations with enough risk prefer to just have their own firefighting force, and many would be happy to operate in an environment with lower taxes (another drain on their wealth) where they can mitigate the risk as they see fit. Or hell, maybe they just want to pay more in insurance premiums.

Where do you believe new businesses would be more likely to locate?
In a stable country? Or one where "something will come and take it"?

There are lots of businesses operating in unstable places, they mitigate the risk in their own ways such as paying for private security. It shows up as an expense on their income statement, and I assure you they would rather not need it because it doesn't generate wealth.

 

[ballz]

Sorry, a bit off-topic, but ...

Although it's been almost 15 years since I retired from a managerial/executive level in the tech sector, what HiTechComms says resonates perfectly with my recollections both as to the (very minor) issue of tattoos and the much more important issue of native-born Canadians attitudes towards work and education.

Before the pandemic, I used to visit one of our university campuses (and library) regularly: using only visible indicators it seems very apparent that 'minority' students dominate the STEM departments; using audible indicators it appears that many are recent immigrants, maybe first-generation Canadians. (My own close, first-hand, personal experience says that teenagers, newly arrived in Canada, lose their accents in a couple of years at most, while some people who arrived as adults never do.) I'm told by what I consider reliable sources that the Medical School is the same.

Canada (and the USA) outsourced its "Allentown" jobs to Asia in the 1970s and '80s but then it began to import brainpower. For reasons that some sociologists might explain Canadians (and Americans) seemed to decide, en masse, that math, science, engineering and medicine were "tough" . In my last years in the Army (1990s) and then in the private sector (early 2000s) I worked with a lot of really bright, productive young people ~ the youngest were, in the main, "new Canadians" or the children of immigrants. Some got their BScs overseas, most got them here. One of my colleagues was typical of many (maybe even half?) who were approaching my age: BSCEE Iraq; MSC England, PhD Canada. That suggests that the importing of brainpower started in the 1970s.

"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times."

The west is currently in the "good times create weak men" part of the cycle. Immigrants are often coming from hard times, even those who aren't are overcoming the adversity of moving from a completely different country into a new one, starting with a lot less than they might have had, and starting back at the bottom.

 

[mariomike]

City A maintains fire services. City B doesn't maintain fire services.
Given the two cities, which would be more likely be selected as the location for new businesses?

City A?

"If you pick up the telephone receiver in this town you may, or may not, get a dial tone. If you get on a subway you may, or may not, get stuck in a tunnel for an hour. The wall socket in your apartment may, or may not, contain electricity. The city's air may, or may not, be killing you. The only real sure thing in this town is that the firemen come when you pull down the handle on that red box."
Report from Engine Company 82

 

[Good2Golf]

I think I didn't phrase myself more precisely. I am referring to ALL degrees/education.
The 400 year old template of Bachelors has not changed in the West. The idea of Philosophical rounded education worked for a very long time but since the 60-70 it has commercialized. The idea that you need a University degree and that it will give you a great job once you finish is an in-faluable presumption in Western Society.

“Infallible,” but I otherwise note your point, although it is tempered with a near-universal appreciation that undergraduate degrees in the humanities aren’t the best route to making it big on Bay St.

Its a great big old pyramid scheme. I graduated 20 years ago and I ask my self to this day why in Gods green earth was I forced to take Political, Sociology, Drama, Women's studies as part of my Computer Science Degree? Out of the 4 years at least 1.5 years was wasted on unrelated drivel.
Why couldn't I just take the core courses that I need for computer science and get a job..

I graduated more than 20 years ago with a BSc in Computer Science & Physics with a minor in Economics and a fairly strong loading of English, History, Political Science and Psychology electives, and while you personally think your humanities were a forced waste of time and money, I appreciate the value I received from mine. I dare say I use elements of those more than my principal studies’ disciplines. So there you have it...two data points in the larger discussion. Others, like Mr. Campbell, have noted where knowledge and education beyond pure technical functionality has its place...good luck to you when 1s and 0s aren’t the most important issue being discussed.

With an overabundance of "educated" people the government now has to create jobs to employee these people.

Bit of an ironic charge, given the ‘jobs for all’ nature of socialist/communist society of the East, no?

I encourage you to take a look at the specific graduation rates of women and employment of women by the government. In fact take a look at the stats of any university, although they do an excellent job of obfuscating that fact.
Instead of creating a "student" focused education they created "public sector sales" education.

Not far from the population’s gender split ratio and the gender ratio in the public service. So what is the point you want us to infer from your generic used allegation?

When I finished my Executive education in 2018 I was glad that at least I had the choice of education since I was paying an arm and a leg for it.

The world is changing and Academia being the good old boys club it doesn't want to change. 80 year old professors with tenure-ship that have published 1 paper in their career or haven't published anything relevant in twenty years dominate post secondary, while they abuse their foreign student assistants. Its a joke.

Your badly out of date perception of academia? Ruled by 80-year old male single-published tenured profs? Come on. In 2019, 41% of university professors in Canada were women (13% in 1970) [Ref].

World is no longer a general education place, no one in our society can make anything by them selves, everything is specialized and far more intricate yet Academia the supposed bastion of progressiveness is a stale old model that refuses to adapt because its protected by the government.

Any support to the “stale old model” accusation. Stats (as noted above) don’t seem to support your charge.

As for Long term unfunded liabilities, I was referring to public sector jobs. They are service for the public but they add no wealth to the economy. We pay for those services and their liabilities, with out the tax monies there are no public sector jobs. Hence "Long Term Unfunded Liabilities" this is just an Accounting term nothing more.

A few things here indicate you’re throwing out terms, but seem not to appreciate the implications. Your facile explanation of long-term unfunded liability as merely an ‘accounting terms, nothing more’ would seem to indicate a failure to appreciate public-servant pensions, as well as the value they provide to Canada’s economy.

Federal public-servant pensions are only partially-unfunded liabilities.....now, but that is only because the Federal government, under PM Chretien, defunded the PSSA, RCMPPF and the CFPF in 2001 in order to redirect the GoC’s employer-matching contributions in-year to reduce the deficit and make the budget numbers look good in an attempt to hold off calls for significant tax cuts...didn’t work, but the GoC direct contributions to the PS/RCMP/CF Pension Funds we never re-funded into actual investments.

Secondly, you write off public servants (the money spent to pay them) as not adding any wealth to the economy. In your education, you must have missed the part about expenditure multiplication, and the part it plays in contributing to increasing a nation’s GDP. m (the multiplier towards GDP) = 1 / (1 - (MPC+MPI+MPG-(MPCxMPT)-MPM), so one can see that the public servants’ salaries figure positively in three of the five terms, keeping money cycling through the economy...clearly NOT contributing “no wealth.”

"Long Term Unfunded Liabilities" this is just an Accounting term nothing more. Its not meant to be a deragotory or demeaning term. My favorite quote is:
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
― Winston S. Churchill

How do you see that relating uniquely to public servants...especially women public servants, whom you seem to feel are employed primarily because the government takes taxes to fund “public sector sales” educations, and you posit that women are the primary beneficiaries of such misuse of the Government

Also I hope your not assuming I see little of value of education, actually I see a lot of value in education. I find value in relevant education, and if I am passionate about a subject I should be free to pursue it on my time and not be forced by a system to pay for it. This applies on a macro state where public funds the basic core educational principals such as Math, Sciences, English/French and the rest is chosen by the student. Public should not pay or fund "your passions" because you want to study drama, music, art. Do it on your own dime and money.

So History, Economics, Geography, Psychology, others...all unworthy of inclusion in a modern education?

Ironically the socialist regimes figured this out before the west did.

And yet here you are, preferring this system vs the old country’s system, no?

I have spent at least 8 years in education activities, after my bachelors I spent time pursuing relevant education.

Welcome to the club.

At least I graduated in 4 years where as I cannot say the same for a lot of people.

How many people? %? Absolute? Limited to only 4-year degree programs? 3-year? Combined undergrad to post-grad? Are you saying that certain groups of students were lazy?Unmotivated? Incompetent? All of these?

In addition I worked my butt off and had a lot of Scholarships, Bursaries and grants, I finished high school with a 97% average, I attribute this on being poor and being born and raised in a system outside of Canada. This is my success and is not commentary on others.

I had a mid-90s average in high school that I attributed to applying myself and focusing on what I was doing, no matter my background. I wasn’t poor, but I wasn’t rich by any stretch. I am Canadian by birth and was raised in a Canadian system (Ont&BC). It would seem that Canadians by birth can be as successful as naturalized Canadians or residents. Was there a point you were trying to make beyond noting your own experience?

Overall, you seem to have a rather jaded view of any education that doesn’t directly and uniquely contribute to a transactional value to the technical aspects of society.

Regards

 

[HiTechComms]

“Infallible,” but I otherwise note your point, although it is tempered with a near-universal appreciation that undergraduate degrees in the humanities aren’t the best route to making it big on Bay St.


I graduated more than 20 years ago with a BSc in Computer Science & Physics with a minor in Economics and a fairly strong loading of English, History, Political Science and Psychology electives, and while you personally think your humanities were a forced waste of time and money, I appreciate the value I received from mine. I dare say I use elements of those more than my principal studies’ disciplines. So there you have it...two data points in the larger discussion. Others, like Mr. Campbell, have noted where knowledge and education beyond pure technical functionality has its place...good luck to you when 1s and 0s aren’t the most important issue being discussed.


Bit of an ironic charge, given the ‘jobs for all’ nature of socialist/communist society of the East, no?


Not far from the population’s gender split ratio and the gender ratio in the public service. So what is the point you want us to infer from your generic used allegation?


Your badly out of date perception of academia? Ruled by 80-year old male single-published tenured profs? Come on. In 2019, 41% of university professors in Canada were women (13% in 1970) [Ref].


Any support to the “stale old model” accusation. Stats (as noted above) don’t seem to support your charge.


A few things here indicate you’re throwing out terms, but seem not to appreciate the implications. Your facile explanation of long-term unfunded liability as merely an ‘accounting terms, nothing more’ would seem to indicate a failure to appreciate public-servant pensions, as well as the value they provide to Canada’s economy.

Federal public-servant pensions are only partially-unfunded liabilities.....now, but that is only because the Federal government, under PM Chretien, defunded the PSSA, RCMPPF and the CFPF in 2001 in order to redirect the GoC’s employer-matching contributions in-year to reduce the deficit and make the budget numbers look good in an attempt to hold off calls for significant tax cuts...didn’t work, but the GoC direct contributions to the PS/RCMP/CF Pension Funds we never re-funded into actual investments.

Secondly, you write off public servants (the money spent to pay them) as not adding any wealth to the economy. In your education, you must have missed the part about expenditure multiplication, and the part it plays in contributing to increasing a nation’s GDP. m (the multiplier towards GDP) = 1 / (1 - (MPC+MPI+MPG-(MPCxMPT)-MPM), so one can see that the public servants’ salaries figure positively in three of the five terms, keeping money cycling through the economy...clearly NOT contributing “no wealth.”


How do you see that relating uniquely to public servants...especially women public servants, whom you seem to feel are employed primarily because the government takes taxes to fund “public sector sales” educations, and you posit that women are the primary beneficiaries of such misuse of the Government


So History, Economics, Geography, Psychology, others...all unworthy of inclusion in a modern education?


And yet here you are, preferring this system vs the old country’s system, no?

Welcome to the club.


How many people? %? Absolute? Limited to only 4-year degree programs? 3-year? Combined undergrad to post-grad? Are you saying that certain groups of students were lazy?Unmotivated? Incompetent? All of these?


I had a mid-90s average in high school that I attributed to applying myself and focusing on what I was doing, no matter my background. I wasn’t poor, but I wasn’t rich by any stretch. I am Canadian by birth and was raised in a Canadian system (Ont&BC). It would seem that Canadians by birth can be as successful as naturalized Canadians or residents. Was there a point you were trying to make beyond noting your own experience?

Overall, you seem to have a rather jaded view of any education that doesn’t directly and uniquely contribute to a transactional value to the technical aspects of society.

Regards

Boy.. This is a lot to unpack, unfortunately no matter what I write or express it will just become more and more cherry picked sentence by sentence critique this is always the case on internet discussions. Its tiresome and this will be my last attempt.

Both my parents were engineers. Yes socialists figured out quicker on how to achieve equality cause everyone got screwed and treated like crap. Just look at the composition of STEM in Poor countries vs Western countries. Its hilarious the egalitarian western nations have 90%-10% men to women in engineering and 90%-10% women to men in nursing. Yet you go to poorer countries and it looks more like a 50% break.

I am not sure that I am some how insinuating sexism and its not appreciated. Since I was critical of both sexes. To say the government doesn't benefit some one and not back it up is a very ignorant thing to accuse some off.

Demographic Snapshot of Canada’s Public Service, 2018 - Canada.ca

www.canada.ca

Women in Canada embrace higher education: Statcan - Macleans.ca

Young women earn nearly two-thirds of medical degrees

www.macleans.ca

I have seen perpetual students that have been in University for 7 or more years and they had multiple bachelors and tons of public backed debt.

I am not sure why you are trying to conflate economic wealth and value.

Understanding Wealth: How Is It Defined and Measured?

Wealth measures the value of all assets of worth owned by a person, community, company, or country. Here, we discuss how to build and manage wealth.

www.investopedia.com

Economic Value: Definition, Examples, Ways To Estimate

Economic value is the worth of a good or service determined by people's preferences and the trade-offs they choose given their scarce resources.

www.investopedia.com

Public sector jobs do not create wealth. No matter what math you want to throw at me the simple fact is that a Public sector job comes at an expense of the Private sector. Public sector ceases to exist with out Private sector in any successful nation, well unless you want to be the next socialistic experiment.
At no point in time did I say or even imply anything the public sector is somehow a demeaning job, if I did I would kindly ask you to point that out.

Does CAF generate wealth? Nope. Does CAF have Value? Yes. If CAF generated wealth it wouldn't need public funding. Shower thought What if we turned the CAF into a mercenary force and leased out the services to despots, dictators and crackpots? Everyone would get deployed and get COD and Rambo experience.. /sarcasm

Public Jobs no matter what mental gymnastics you attempt are a "long term unfunded liability" because its paid by a system of Collect as you tax. If Tax revenues cease the existing liabilities do not vanish because the public sector has benefits the private sector rarely does that have to be accounted for.

The attack on me by other poster "why are you trying to join the public sector". Why shouldn't I? Should I be free to tell them to get a job in the private sector?

Amy I jaded at Academia, yes I am. I think its vastly over rated and is a scam that lot of people buy into. I see the economic damage and shake my head.

Canadian students owe $28B in government loans, some want feds to stop charging interest - National | Globalnews.ca

With Canadian students collectively owing over $28 billion in student loans to all levels of government, The Canadian Federation of Students wants to have interest charges scrapped.

globalnews.ca

Its even worse in the USA
Academia has also become a Canadian funded foreign educational system. There is so much corruption and what I would considered fraud on the Canadian tax payers by Academic institutions for commercializing foreign student education.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Public sector jobs do not create wealth. No matter what math you want to throw at me the simple fact is that a Public sector job comes at an expense of the Private sector. Public sector ceases to exist with out Private sector in any successful nation, well unless you want to be the next socialistic experiment.
At no point in time did I say or even imply anything the public sector is somehow a demeaning job, if I did I would kindly ask you to point that out.

I do alot of work with various levels of the public sector.

The old argument that the public sector is 'worse' at creating wealth than the private sector is ridiculous, and ignores the important, complex and dynamic interaction between these two sectors in the economy.

If you talk to anyone in a forest company, for example, you'll get a similar discussion about 'corporate office doesn't do anything to generate profit becasue we mill guys are the money makers.' Clearly, the company couldn't be successful without that corporate leadership level, and other structures.
.
Whole sectors of our economy could not operate without the public sector and we'd all be destitiute.... much like some developing countries whose 'civil service' is, ironically, neither.