Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#181

Post by noobiemcfoob » Thu, May 26, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

nekopa wrote: post #99

Kurtz79 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please give some example how knowledge of programming would help a truck driver, a cook or a welder to be more efficient in their jobs.

I'll give it a try: Truck driver: Knowledge of the travelling salesman problem. Algorithms in general to find optimal routes. A little programming knowledge to help with automating their excel sheets to record expenses. Cook: OOP as it is applied to a kitchen and its staff: are there more efficient ways to divide roles and responsibilities between different jobs in the kitchen, or are the defined roles (line cook, so…

"I think there is a lot programming can teach outside of being able to program a computer."

I've always argued this myself. I find it baffling that it isn't more commonly accepted that programming, Software Engineering more exactly, has so many lessons to apply not just to problems involving computers, but more broadly lessons on how to gather, analyze, understand and utilize the various interactions between data and actions in largely any system.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#182

Post by arcanus » Thu, May 26, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #167

kdamken wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that family structure plays a huge part. Kids are expensive and take a lot of energy. As much as we as a society celebrate single moms, it's a tough gig to work full time and raise your kids alone. I don't think anyone would say it's the ideal family situation. One reason the marriage rate may be is dropping is that it's become fairly disincentivized for men. A lot of younger men (25-35) I know voice co…

> One reason the marriage rate may be is dropping is that it's become fairly disincentivized for men. The business relationship is rather pointless, for both sexes, these days. Marriage once existed so that, traditionally, the woman would stay at home to care for the household and children allowing the man to focus on his career. The idea being that the man would do better with help than he could all on his own, thus…

I largely agree.

> Now that men and women are much more apt to work independently – each working both in and out of the home – there is little need to solidify a legal partnership to protect the partner not collecting the income.

This is often why (anecdotally speaking) I've seen many engagements occur when someone has an opportunity (job,grad school, etc.) outside of the present city they live in. One half of the couple is taking a professional risk (or even, outright sacrifice) by moving to stay with that person.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#183

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, May 26, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

mac01021 wrote: post #171

dragonwriter wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scarcity means that a resource is limited and has an opportunity cost, so, yes, of there is any minimum cost, the resources is scarce.

But people's time is always a limited resource. Even in a utopia where the cost of living comfortably is zero and people are immortal, spending an hour providing a service to another person carries an opportunity cost. So, under this definition there is always, almost tautologically, a scarcity of labor. The word has little meaning, and discussion of whether or not there is such a scarcity becomes irrelevant to decis…

There is not, tautologically, a desire for labor. I do not desire human computation services at all (remember when "computer" was a job description) or the manual transportation of written information.

You could charge me $0 for these services and I still won't buy any. These are actual jobs that have vanished and there is no scarcity of these services.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#184

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, May 26, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #175

yummyfajitas wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is illegal, inconvenient, and low-status to live or try to live, in the US, as the poor in India, or other poorer countries, do; e.g. authorities will evict tenants living in illegal housing (and prosecute their landlords), almost no one brings their small children to work with them, building/labor/etc. standards are much more stringent legally (and culturally). Sure - the net result of this is that American poor…

Sure - the net result of this is that American poor people live in larger and much higher quality homes. Wouldn't that reduce stress? Maybe; except some, small but significant, number of poor people can't even afford homes (at least at some point and for varying lengths of time). And that definitely does not reduce stress (for most of these people). But (most) people care more that their house is small- er or worse –…

But 10% of the population has always been in the bottom 10%. How can you use a constant timeseries to explain a time varying one?

Also, even assuming relative inequality is what matters, why does it matter only within national boundaries? If this were true, couldn't we re-draw boundaries to fix the problem? I.e., we could make NYC into a Luxembourg-like rich nation, West Virginia into an Italy-like poor nation, and solve everything?

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#185

Post by Gravityloss » Thu, May 26, 2016, 8:14 PM UTC

If we turn this around: if we assume that in the global well connected economy, you're paid roughly in proportion to the value you provide, can education increase your ability to provide value?

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#186

Post by sndean » Thu, May 26, 2016, 8:17 PM UTC

throwawaykeno wrote: post #55

sndean wrote: post #27

I saw a study recently [0] that suggested that college acceptance alone, regardless of attendance, was a good predictor of lifetime earnings. E.g., if you're accepted into Harvard, but decide instead to attend a cheap state school (or don't goto any college), you'll end up earning just as much as your identical twin who attended. [0] I'm looking for it now..

> (or don't goto any college) I don't remember that being part of the conclusions. Also, it's hard for me to take that study seriously. Good state schools can be as good as or better than Harvard. Basically I took the conclusion to be "there's a lot of greatness outside of the ivys"

>> (or don't goto any college) > I don't remember that being part of the conclusions.

That's true, it's possible my brain created that part.

> Basically I took the conclusion to be "there's a lot of greatness outside of the ivys"

Yeah. Put that way, it's a lot less interesting. Still, regarding ways to avoid high student debt, it's useful information.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#187

Post by mac01021 » Thu, May 26, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #183

mac01021 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But people's time is always a limited resource. Even in a utopia where the cost of living comfortably is zero and people are immortal, spending an hour providing a service to another person carries an opportunity cost. So, under this definition there is always, almost tautologically, a scarcity of labor. The word has little meaning, and discussion of whether or not there is such a scarcity becomes irrelevant to decis…

There is not, tautologically, a desire for labor. I do not desire human computation services at all (remember when "computer" was a job description) or the manual transportation of written information. You could charge me $0 for these services and I still won't buy any. These are actual jobs that have vanished and there is no scarcity of these services.

You can pretty much automate away specific jobs, like the two you've just mentioned. But there is an infinity of other jobs. And we won't have automated them all away until we arrive at an (impossible?) state of affairs in which there are unlimited, cost-free robots whose physical and intellectual capabilities are on par with humans.

Pick whatever futuristic, heavily-automated world you want to live in: It will still be worth something to you to have someone (for example) spend hours on the web researching a question that you want an answer to (but not badly enough to spend hours yourself).

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#188

Post by dang » Thu, May 26, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

douche wrote: post #104

Kurtz79 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please give some example how knowledge of programming would help a truck driver, a cook or a welder to be more efficient in their jobs.

People have no fucking clue how welding actually works here, do they... There's a difference between slagging shit together with a MIG gun, and stick or TIG welding. Ideally, you would know all the chemistry and physics underlying what you are doing, but the reality is that most people learn rules of thumb and get on with it. Use this type of rod, and this setting on the welder, for plain steel, this combination for…

> People have no fucking clue how welding actually works here, do they...

There's no need to put people down for knowing less than you do. This comment would be much better without the first sentence.

Many people here know stuff that the rest of us don't. The thing to in that case is to teach something.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#189

Post by scalio » Thu, May 26, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

We are told we need knowledge about some things in order to make money and subsequently not to starve. We are supposed to gain this knowledge in school and maybe uni, and then head off to a grand career. I mostly agree with this idea (not so much with its real life implementation).

I get where it's coming from, knowledge is what pushes us forward, after all: mathematical knowledge allows us to play with abstract and complex systems, physical knowledge is the application of some of these abstract systems to physical observation, historical knowledge enables us to reason about our past or our origin. Then there's a massive body of knowledge about human products: literature, visual art and music spanning thousands of years, social and economic systems lasting centuries, the list goes on.

Now that's nice and all, but knowledge needs to be applied to something to be of any use. Which incidentally is the problem we are seeing currently: knowledge is pumped into peoples' heads and is expected to magically produce solutions, while we're not even in agreement over the problems (what are the common goals we are aiming for, as a race?).

No wonder it doesn't work, knowledge needs physical and mental room to grow. That makes a safe and comfortable environment a requirement for any supposedly functional educational system, but also one that is often not satisfied. In other words, the problem is not that education doesn't fix poverty, it's that our shitty politics and social non-systems do not give people enough piece and quiet to explore their knowledge.

Edit to add: It is much more convenient to blame a malfunction on the most obviously failing part rather than recognising that the underlying machinery is not providing the right environment for said part to operate in, wearing it harder than necessary.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#190

Post by nazgul17 » Thu, May 26, 2016, 10:24 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #184

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure - the net result of this is that American poor people live in larger and much higher quality homes. Wouldn't that reduce stress? Maybe; except some, small but significant, number of poor people can't even afford homes (at least at some point and for varying lengths of time). And that definitely does not reduce stress (for most of these people). But (most) people care more that their house is small- er or worse –…

But 10% of the population has always been in the bottom 10%. How can you use a constant timeseries to explain a time varying one? Also, even assuming relative inequality is what matters, why does it matter only within national boundaries? If this were true, couldn't we re-draw boundaries to fix the problem? I.e., we could make NYC into a Luxembourg-like rich nation, West Virginia into an Italy-like poor nation, and s…

> Also, even assuming relative inequality is what matters, why does it matter only within national boundaries? If this were true, couldn't we re-draw boundaries to fix the problem? I.e., we could make NYC into a Luxembourg-like rich nation, West Virginia into an Italy-like poor nation, and solve everything?

I think human emotion is more complicated than that. One's perception of his/her own economical situation can be influenced from what is seen on tv and other country-wide media.