The Role of Education In Assigning Value to Societal Labor Sectors

[philosophygirl78]

Stemming from the Decaying Education Thread.... this too can be a very open ended topic, so rather than explain its significance, I'll attempt to steer and narrow it to a feasible grasp for discussion.

In past time monarchies, class distinction and such following regard was based on monetary and social status... One of the defining moments of a democracy was the preach towards equality for all; opportunity for all; etc... While such opportunities have existed and perhaps still do for a movement between classes and financial reward, the assignment that follows 'quantity' is still alive and well....

Most social constructs adhere to the idea that the garbageman is somehow inferior or not as valuable as the stock manager and therefore should not be compensated the same...

Pause... Yes... a million different directions so I will phrase it in a simple question to start:

What role or responsibility does the Education Establishment have in bringing 'human value' paramount to monetary assignation? Should there be this distinction?

 

[GHT]

A good argument for discussion, can you expand on what you mean by:
"While such opportunities have existed and perhaps still do for a movement between classes and financial reward, the assignment that follows 'quantity' is still alive and well...."

 

[philosophygirl78]

A good argument for discussion, can you expand on what you mean by:
"While such opportunities have existed and perhaps still do for a movement between classes and financial reward, the assignment that follows 'quantity' is still alive and well...."

Yes, what I mean by assignment of quantity refers to the collateral for work performed. Not so much the '#' or amount, but the designation that goes along with the amount.

ex: a garbageman makes $8.00 an hour and a stock manager makes $800.00 an hour. The social construct follows that the stock manager is somehow more valuable than the garbageman.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

In past time monarchies, class distinction and such following regard was based on monetary and social status..

It still is & in replublics too.


.

One of the defining moments of a democracy was the preach towards equality for all; opportunity for all; etc.

I'm not so sure. True equality for all is rather utopian. Democracy as we know it, implies that all voter's votes are of equal value but not that all voters are equal.
Likewise under the banner of western democracies, we are, in theory at least, all equal in the eyes of the law but practice shows this not to be the case.
It can best be summed up by this well known misquote " We are all equal but some are more equal than others."

What role or responsibility does the Education Establishment have in bringing 'human value' paramount to monetary assignation?

None what so ever. The education system is a reflection of our society & it's values. The education establishment encourages those who are capable of achieving a certain academic level, to aim for what society considers the more highly valued career choices, whilst those that don't make the grade will be 'redirected' in the expectation that they will find employment in what the education establishment clearly considers, the more menial jobs.

Should there be this distinction?

No there shouldn't be. When someone works for an employer he is basically selling 8 hours of his life a day & unfortnately, some lives come cheaper than others.
Disparity in wages is a tool education uses to goad on it's disciples, work hard & do well at school & you'll get a good well payed job, if not, you'll end up as a road sweeper or garbage collector !

 

[LizzieMaine]

In a society such as the one in which we live, labor is the only thing the worker has to sell. And it doesn't matter if that labor is mental or physical -- whether you dig a ditch or program a computer, you're still a worker selling your labor for wages because you possess no other value to society than the surplus value your wage labor generates. That's the cold hard truth that concepts of "social prestige" and "social mobility" were developed to obscure.

Any of us who think we're special, indispensable, or somehow otherwise exempt from this need to ask ourselves what would happen if someone came along who was willing to do the same quality of work that we do for less money. Your relative value as an individual to the system of which you are a part depends not only on your own skills or your own merit but on your willingness to undercut someone else. The entire substructure that supports capitalist society was built and is maintained by the lowest bidders.

You might get more for each hour of labor that you sell than the person next to you, but that doesn't mean you're any less harnessed to the system than that other person is. It's all an illusion designed to make you think if you just pull a little harder, you're actually going to get a chance to eat the carrot that the driver of the cart is dangling on a pole in front of you. Or that wearing a nicely oiled and polished harness makes you less of a donkey than all the other donkeys hitched to the same cart.
​

 

[dh66]

ex: a garbageman makes $8.00 an hour and a stock manager makes $800.00 an hour. The social construct follows that the stock manager is somehow more valuable than the garbageman.

It is a foolish notion to think $$$ earned = value as a person. If this is what's being taught in schools, then it is doing a great disservice to those being taught. There are plenty enough well educated people in high earning jobs who are there only because of circumstance of birth, and plenty at the other end of the spectrum for the same reason. The "land of opportunity" is as big an American myth as Washington cutting down the cherry tree. But as Lean-n-Mean pointed out, the truth is that schools are simply a tool of the system, and the system would be shooting itself in the foot if too much of the truth were let out.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 

[philosophygirl78]

It still is & in replublics too.


.

I'm not so sure. True equality for all is rather utopian. Democracy as we know it, implies that all voter's votes are of equal value but not that all voters are equal.
Likewise under the banner of western democracies, we are, in theory at least, all equal in the eyes of the law but practice shows this not to be the case.
It can best be summed up by this well known misquote " We are all equal but some are more equal than others."




None what so ever. The education system is a reflection of our society & it's values. The education establishment encourages those who are capable of achieving a certain academic level, to aim for what society considers the more highly valued career choices, whilst those that don't make the grade will be 'redirected' in the expectation that they will find employment in what the education establishment clearly considers, the more menial jobs.




No there shouldn't be. When someone works for an employer he is basically selling 8 hours of his life a day & unfortnately, some lives come cheaper than others.
Disparity in wages is a tool education uses to goad on it's disciples, work hard & do well at school & you'll get a good well payed job, if not, you'll end up as a road sweeper or garbage collector !

oh @Lean'n'mean ...

 

[philosophygirl78]

I suppose it would be prudent to establish that I am aiming at ethical philosophy here... Not necessarily what IS, which we all know, but perhaps if what could be or should be even, would be more conducive to a global society that can evolve out of stereotypes and misshapen constructs of acceptable norms.

Money does implicate worth of an individual. It does, in almost every way... But should it? And how does the education system not hold at least some responsibility in identifying this fallacy?

 

[JimWagner]

I'd suggest that educational institutions need look no further than themselves to understand the issues you are referring to. Look at how scholorships are assigned, who has the free rides and who doesn't. Which departments within the large universities have and control the most dollars. (Answer - the athletic department, and even then only in a couple of sports. The rest of the sports struggle.) Look at how compensation and tenure are doled out. What role does bringing in grants and funds have in that. Look at how university administrators are compensated.

Before the educational system tries to tell the rest of us how we should understand and conduct ourselves it should learn to conduct itself a little better.

 

[philosophygirl78]

I'd suggest that educational institutions need look no further than themselves to understand the issues you are referring to. Look at how scholorships are assigned, who has the free rides and who doesn't. Which departments within the large universities have and control the most dollars. (Answer - the athletic department, and even then only in a couple of sports. The rest of the sports struggle.) Look at how compensation and tenure are doled out. What role does bringing in grants and funds have in that. Look at how university administrators are compensated.

Before the educational system tries to tell the rest of us how we should understand and conduct ourselves it should learn to conduct itself a little better.

I can agree with all of that. So then where does that leave the guidance of society? To government? Or to Media? There is a serious disconnect and disorganization in terms of the value of people and humanity in general... If not the education system, then where should we rest our steer of evolution onto?

Maybe a revolution and revamping of the education sector would serve purpose, but perhaps you are right in that they are already to ingrained into other pockets and ties to simply focus on humane ethics....

 

[LizzieMaine]

If "top colleges" had any integrity at all they'd admit that their football and basketball programs are simply professional minor-league feeder systems for the NFL and NBA, and would operate them as such. They're no more "non profit amateur athletic programs" than the International League or the Pacific Coast League are for Major League Baseball.

As far as assigning human value, I suggest that has to come out of ourselves rather than any currently existing institution, because all those institutions are thoroughly invested in maintaining the status quo. We, as people, have to collectively reject the whole idea of a system based on getting up the ladder before somebody pushes you off, and it's not organized education that'll accomplish that. It's people from all walks of life getting fed up and saying "enough is enough. We've been lied to, we've been suckered, we've been conned for too long." Until that happens, you're just slapping more bondo on a rusted-out car.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

that I am aiming at ethical philosophy here.

Is that like ethical consumerism ?

Not necessarily what IS, which we all know, but perhaps if what could be or should be even, would be more conducive to a global society that can evolve out of stereotypes and misshapen constructs of acceptable norms.

Could you stick to English please

 

[philosophygirl78]

Is that like ethical consumerism ?



Could you stick to English please

Ok ok, Moral Philosophy... Better?

In plain English: It is ignorant, manipulative and arrogant for society to treat the garbageman different than the stock manager. It is a failure of society. It is very real and if we hope to move toward a positive trend in evolution, we need to eliminate such primitive notions. I will go as far as to say something like bullying makes more sense than designating value or status based on the type of labor performed....

 

[JimWagner]

As far as assigning human value, I suggest that has to come out of ourselves rather than any currently existing institution, .....

And that is the essence of the whole problem. There are almost an unlimited number of people as well as institutions (educational and religious) and businesses lined up to tell us exactly what we are supposed to think, how we are supposed to act, what our places are and are not. In other words, they all want to control us for their own ends. Cloaking that control in high sounding philosophy is more subtle than pointing a gun at us, but the end game is exactly the same.

To quote the AI, Whopper, in the movie War Games, "Interesting game. The only winning move is to not play."

 

[philosophygirl78]

Self Responsibility is important, and what gives rise to leaders and artists and other 'uniques'.... But, there always has been and still is authoritarian command over the designations and assignations we are discussing. To assume everyone should take that self-responsibility would mean an Anarchist society.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Self Responsibility is important, and what gives rise to leaders and artists and other 'uniques'.

I think talent & independant thought are more important.

To assume everyone should take that self-responsibility would mean an Anarchist society.

You mean if everyone assumed their own responsibilities......yeah, bring it on, Anarchy forever !

 

[LizzieMaine]

There isn't a person here who doesn't acknowledge some superior authority in their own lives -- the faith in the "power in the individual" is every bit as much a pie in the sky religious belief as any other. The world is full of "self made men" who worship their creator.

I don't have a problem acknowledging the need for authority as the expression of the collective will of society, because no individual ever accomplished anything exclusively *as* an individual -- all human accomplishments result from the individual's interaction with the social order, and either the collective contribution to or the collective recognition of that interaction. What I do believe is that in a healthy society that collective effort will be directed to securing the greatest good for the greatest number. I don't believe that we currently live in anything remotely resembling a healthy society, and it's going to take an enormous realignment of thought and attitude before we do.

Where past efforts have failed is in trying to force that realignment all at once. It won't happen until enough people finally realize the futility of the current system and realign their views for themselves. It took centuries, and plenty of false starts and failed efforts, to finally rid the world of feudalism, but it happened because people finally evolved beyond it. We still haven't rid the world of slavery, but eventually that will happen. A hundred years ago it was common for American children to work for pennies an hour in factories and mines. Now, any decent person finds that notion appalling, even though too many people are still willing for somebody else's children on the other side of the world to do such work if it means they themselves can save ten dollars on some piece of disposable consumer garbage. Eventually we'll evolve enough to realize that those children are no less precious than our own and that whole system will be abolished.

And the same fate awaits the current system of consumption-driven capitalism -- not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually we'll have to evolve beyond our preoccupation with "prestige" and "status" if we intend to survive as a civilization.

 

[philosophygirl78]

I think talent & independant thought are more important.




You mean if everyone assumed their own responsibilities......yeah, bring it on, Anarchy forever !

The definition of responsibility must originate from 'somewhere',,, where is that somewhere?

 

[philosophygirl78]

I think talent & independant thought are more important.




You mean if everyone assumed their own responsibilities......yeah, bring it on, Anarchy forever !

The definition of responsibility must originate from 'somewhere',,, where is that somewhere?

 

[Fading Fast]

If "top colleges" had any integrity at all they'd admit that their football and basketball programs are simply professional minor-league feeder systems for the NFL and NBA, and would operate them as such. They're no more "non profit amateur athletic programs" than the International League or the Pacific Coast League are for Major League Baseball.
...

Could not agree more. I am amazed that more "liberals" aren't with me on this one as I want the players (uh, "students") to be able to negotiate salaries as, just like NFL players, they deserve their cut and would clearly be making a lot of money if allowed. Maybe it is not so bad (but still wrong) for those that go on to the pros, but many (most) do not and it is a shame that they can't earn some of the money that the schools now keep all for themselves. These are, as Lizzie says, professional minor-league feeder systems; thus, the players should get paid that way.