catz's comments

> I'd also point out that Japan and South Korea also have an extremely competitive and intensive educational

Just a few interesting stuff (partially relevant to the discussion).

The Russian Federation has a higher average performance in mathematics than the USA (TIMMS study 2007 on Grade 4 and 8 - it is available here: http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/mathreport.html). This is interesting since the USA would probably have more money to spend on education (since it is a lot more affluent). Hungary also have a higher standard than the USA at grade 8.

It would be interesting to see what these poorer countries do to get their educational standard above that of the USA.

Whether or not you feel what I said was interesting or relevant is completely up to you.

I will just mention that for the parent post, at least 20 people found it interesting or to the point (since it has a moderation of 21).

In any case, it is still more on topic point (emigration visas) than your discussion about my post.

EDIT: I find your posts a little bit harsh. Why not tone it down to at least leave a semblance of civility? (This is after all not Digg or Reddit).

> How are H1B visas an alternative? I don't see any reason to believe that if H1Bs were less restrictive then we'd see H1B holders leaving their jobs to create start-ups.

A lot of people start startups while they are working. This simply makes sense, because getting capital for a start-up is fairly difficult.

A lot of people also try a startup and if it fails, re-enter the job market (after 6 months for example) and start again when they get a new idea.

A general visa that would allow a person to move from employment to starting his own company back to employment would be much more useful than just allowing people to either work or only have a founder's visa.

Also, how many start-ups where founded when a group of employees broke away from an employer and started their own thing? Neither a founders visa or H1B would make provision for such a situation.

> Comments of the form "the article is loosely related to one of my pet issues, so I'm going to say my schpiel" are not interesting.

That may be true. But I see little use in commenting on something that is not relation to any issue that I am interested in. If the comment is out of line then that is what the moderation is for (either flag it or downmod it then).

> but I think your last sentence assumes that being Mexican and being an engineer is exclusive, which it obviously isn't.

No it doesn't. I am sure that there are Mexicans from the whole spectrum of the population (doctors, engineers, manual labourers, etc...).

With highly skilled visas you can assure that you only get immigrants from a certain section of the population (Engineers).

> Downvote for the "Mexicans" reference. Perhaps saying, "There are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. Would 1 million engineers and scientists be a bad thing?"

Saying there are over 5 million Mexicans in the USA is a completely factual statement. It is true that you have much higher immigration (both legal and illegal) from neighbouring countries than parts of the rest of the world.

> And, 1 million engineers and scientists would depress salaries in the US.

Maybe. But either companies move to where the engineers are (outsourcing, new companies) or the engineers move to where the companies are. In the latter case they still pay tax for the US.

And American engineers will have a depressed salary in any case.

Interesting idea. I seem to not be able to access the site ( SeekingArrangement.com). Not that I have enough money in any case...

There is a simple alternative – remove the stupid restrictions on H1B visas. The restriction that if you loose/quit your job that you have to be out of the country in 60 days is bad for three reasons.

The first reason is that the employer knows his worker is dependent on him – he can thus get away with a lower salary, etc... The second reason it is bad is that you cannot quit and start a start-up – if you do not have a sponsoring company you must be out of the country in 60 days.

The third reason is that it deters people from going to the USA. I really want to go to California next year – but with that Visa system it is not going to happen (probably going to London). Compare the US system and the UK's General Highly skilled Visas (e.g. http://www.workpermit.com/uk/uk-immigration-tier-system/tier...) – it is really no fuss and valid for a time period.

There are already more than 5 million Mexicans in the US. Would 1 million engineers and scientists really be a bad thing?

I agree with you that it tastes nice. However, either your bananas taste different or your pawpaws taste different - it doesn't taste like a banana at all!

I can not believe that there are so many workers from Haiti and Al Salvador. I would have thought that they would cut down on semi-skilled labour.

Or (if I remember the book correctly) nuclear power.

> . or for that matter how would we go about to teach the animals how to reproduce? Are they to live among animals or similar character while they are young?

Most lower animals are ruled by instinct. A bird never 'learns' from his parents how to make a nest.

For interest sake, this was done for a while with a completely different species. Domesticated cows were implanted with fertilized Buffalo eggs (this was because Buffalo's carried Bovine TB and a TB free Buffalo is worth a lot more $$).

> To make matters worse, almost half of Russia’s treated tubercular cases over the past decade have been the variant known as extreme drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB). This can not be right. XDR (Extreme Drug Resistant TB) is fairly rare (definitely not 75,000 a year). Multiple Drug Resistant TB (MDR TB) is a lot more common. Most people with XDR TB die in a month.

>Russia’s patterns of death from injury and violence (by whatever provenance) are so extreme and brutal that they invite comparison only with the most tormented spots on the face of the planet today. The five places estimated to be roughly in the same league as Russia as of 2002 were Angola, Burundi, Congo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

Congo? Which one?

Russia's murder rate (while appalling) is below Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica and Venezuela:.

I did not read the whole article - just scanned through it (it is long). Firstly, it Focusses on a reactor in Finland and most of those costs are very recent.

Your stats of the above is probably based on this part:

> In October 2007, Moody’s Investor Services piled on with a report projecting that new reactors would cost $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt to build, or up to $12 billion per unit. This figure, which was based on actual bids for new reactors in the United States, caused considerable sticker shock.

Current prices for nuclear reactors shot up extremely over the past 5 years. This is because nuclear power became an option for a lot of countries (with global warming fears). The problem with this is that it increased costs significantly.

Being a very specialized field, construction of new nuclear power stations can not just be increased as demand increases. As a good example - there is only one company that can forge a reactor vessel in one step - and it has a backlog of more than 5 years.

See this for an example: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=ho...

This is so true. France produces 70%+ of its electricity from Nuclear Power stations. There has not been a major disaster with that.

And, looking at France's economy, it does not seem infeasible.

> The excellent Wikipedia section you linked to makes it crystal clear that the CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown

Where?

Here are a few quotes:

> Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.

> Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University, in an opinion piece for CNN, calls for “getting rid” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that “pressure banks into subprime lending.”[60]

> asked if the CRA provided the “fuel” for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior

> CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown that started in 2007.

Uhm... You know that it was "strengthened" (Expanded) by Clinton twice?

> more by clever quips than by

I dislike superficial things such as that. The whole smooth talking and celebrity thing is not for me. But in all fairness, the president that is the most like that is Barrack Obama.

One thing that was good about Bush was that he was not very charismatic. This allowed people to judge him by his actions (and no cult of celebrity existed around him).

The cult of personality that you build around a lot of politicians (esp. Obama) will be bad for you in the long run.

> and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about

Here is a quote from WP:

> While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan.

I would not be surprised if he did not know what was happening. The CIA did a lot of things that would fall into a “morally grey area” during the cold war. A lot of these things needed to be done.

> Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things.

Admittedly he did better than Al Gore, but what did he really accomplish? His habitat for Humanity project is for me stupid.

Why would you get foreign volunteers to build a house in a country with high unemployment? The economic effects was not thought through well – it would disadvantage labourers in the country.

> and hurt the United States in a lot of ways

During the 8 years that Reagan was president the US economy grew by over 30%. This is an amazing feat.

> while Jimmy Carter went on to do a lot of good

Really? Do you think Carter was a good president?

I wonder who created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Rela...)

which had a pretty big hand in the sub-prime meltdown.

> > push to eliminate US nuclear weapons

> I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing.

Really? What about: "Obama Calls for Nuclear Free World, Says U.S. Will Lead" (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200904/200904060...)

Search Google news for US nuclear weapons.

> > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession

> What's the problem with that? Be specific.

Uhm... Spending huge amounts of money that the USA doesn't have isn't such a good idea?

> > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton

> 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later?

When Clinton left office there was a recession (in 2000 and 2001). It was called the dot com bubble.

Oh. Also take into account that the Democrats controlled Congress the past few years. So maybe it is the Democrat's fault for the current mess?

> > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan

> Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response.

Didn't Obama want to cut ballistic missile defence?

> people that stand to benefit most from the voucher program do not pay enough property taxes to cover the cost of private schools

How do you know how much tax they pay? I can bet you that most people pay more taxes than the value of the voucher program. Why not then abolish the education part of taxation completely and let everyone else decide where to school their children with private money? Or would that lose its coercive effect that you desire?

> My whole argument is that we shouldn't force people to pay for religions they don't subscribe to.

What if a tax payer opposes not sending children to schools of their choice? If 10% of the tax payers are of a certain religion then logic dictates that about 10% of children's parents would belong to that religion.

Religious people can choose religious schools, secular people can choose secular schools or (what happens more often) they choose the same private school and religious people choose religious classes.

> I never said that the state should force parents to raise their kids secularly.

What you said was “I am against someone imposing their religion on others--even their own children.”. The only way you would be able to accomplish that is with state interference (i.e. policing parents to ensure that they do not impart any religion on their children).

> I am not trying to impose my beliefs on anybody, and I am not asking anybody for money to help me impose my beliefs.

If you tax the public and use that money to provide education that fits your specified view (e.g. totally secular/irreligious) then you are imposing your beliefs on someone else.

That is because if a parent wants their children to have a religious education, they would have to pay double for it (once through taxation and once through school fees). The only thing that these vouchers do is preventing parents from paying double for their children's school fees.

> or affiliated with specialized approaches to educational philosophy (e.g., Montessori or Waldorf).

That is true. Private schools can sidestep disastrous education philosophies that the government introduces through the public school system.

A good example is my country's experiments in [Outcome Based Education](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education#OBE_aro...) (South Africa).

It destroyed a fairly good (under the circumstances) education system in less than 5 years. People who now receive matriculation cannot spell, construct sentences or even do basic mathematics.

I was involved in engineering education in 2007. The standards were dropped and even then the failure rates were astonishing (60%+ for single subjects). It is incredibly sad that a country's future was gambled on a failed education philosophy (which was chosen because it is politically acceptable).