13 ms·

Damn. We might actually have to start investing equally in US children of all socioeconomic classes to ensure we have enough entrepreneurs and bright minds to

Damn. We might actually have to start investing equally in US children of all socioeconomic classes to ensure we have enough entrepreneurs and bright minds to compete in the global economy. EDIT: WOW, didn't think such an obvious comment would be so controversial (points are swinging up and down cyclically). Do ya'll think we are extremely efficient at turning potential into value from all of our current citizens? Do you NOT want to do anything but fail if Trump severely fucks up immigration and our economy? Or does it hurt your feelings to think that everything you've achieved in life wasn't 100% through your own hard work? I'm confused.

mtanski 9y ago
Unlikely to happen. based on both, our history of good intentions and poor execution, and the current secretary of education who's working on funneling more folks into religious schools.
sundvor 9y ago
That's a solid upvote from me. But then again I had the good luck to be born in Norway, a country where education, health care and all is truly an equal opportunity (ie disregarding family wealth) prospect.
landryraccoon 9y ago
Who's "We"? From the context it seems clear you must be talking about US citizens and not non-American HN readers, but aside from that it's not clear. Do you mean Donald Trump, the US Federal Government, individual states, parents of children, or someone else?
meetri 9y ago
I don't see a problem with this. Growing up poor and being an african american, if I wasn't a self taught software engineer, I would probably be in jail or dead with the rest of my siblings. Growing up poor and having to attend local schools are a complete utter joke in this country. Only thing they prepare us for is gangs and jail. Looks like a lot would have to be done for this to change. And given what's going in trump's america, i doubt things will ever change. :(
- nnfy 9y ago
  I'm sure you had it worse, but public schools in non poor areas are pretty shitty too, unless you are in honors/ap courses. And this problem with our schools existed long before trump, and not to sound conspiritorial, but the both GOP and neoliberals like Hillary both seem to have interests in keeping public schools underperforming. And it isn't a funding problem, either. We spend more per capita on education than most, if not all, other countries.
  - Retric 9y ago
    That somewhat depends on what you consider education spending. We waste ridiculous amounts of money doing things only tangentially related to education. Median teacher salary in the US public schools = $57,200. And 50.4 million students attend public elementary and secondary schools combine. Teacher student ratio is nominally 16.1 so ~3.5k* per student. However, the total spending per student is actually ~$12.7k core and 15.5k w/ indirect support. This gap covers support staff, buildings, equipment, trips, testing, etc but most other school systems do that stuff for far less money. https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf has PPP numbers for this stuff. But, it assumes each country is using the same metrics. *Note that's just salary benefits get complicated to calculate.
    - cakedoggie 9y ago
      What a strange comment. Of course the costs of an education don't just include the teachers salary.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Yea, it might not have been clear. I just mean there is a sliding scale where you can include a school nurse as education spending or healthcare spending and countries don't always slice stuff the same way. Is reduced cost lunches welfare or education, how about subsidized school supplies?
      - CountSessine 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lazaroclapp 9y ago
The U.S. should be doing their very best to have the strongest possible education system for all its citizens (and non-citizens living in the country long term). As should any reasonable country. But the fact remains that, unless you are counting with excellent execution in that regard from the U.S. and abysmal negligence from the rest of the world, you simply can't extract the same talent from a population of 400 million than from one of 7 billion. The U.S. benefits enormously from immigration, in ways many don't even perceive. If the flow of minds into the country is ever truly stopped, no amount of improvement in the internal education pipeline will be enough to maintain the U.S. dominant position in science and technology. Now, you might be ok with a broader geographical distribution of this type of talent, or argue that it will happen eventually no matter what. I hear you, on both counts. But, as a non-U.S. citizen, I am actually pretty surprised that the country would chose to forgo the advantage it enjoys by being a preferred immigration destination for so many skilled people... It also seems to be done due to nothing but rank xenophobia. I mean, what is the excuse here? "They are stealing our jobs!"? This is literally a visa where the requirement is to create jobs for American citizens, and most of these tech firms will do so by exporting goods mostly to foreign markets (the market for most tech startups is not over 50% local to the U.S.) and/or creating local technology and expertise. Hell, once profitable, you can and should tax these companies to help provide for that very same education you want for American citizens! As well as UBI for those whose jobs are being displaced by automation. Startup visas are as win-win as it possibly gets. Final point: The party and particular administration that seems to be most against immigration also seems to be the one most against science or robust public education. The foreseeable end result is grim, even if these policies last only 4 years: a "lost half-decade" in which the best domestic talent is under-nourished and the best foreign talent goes elsewhere.
- nnfy 9y ago
  Our domestic talent pool has been decades on the decline for lack of support, uncorrelated with which side of the party aisle the current administration has been.
- KGIII 9y ago
  The complaints that I read are often that they aren't actually jobs that couldn't be fulfilled here, with local talent. There have been many claims of training your replacement. If you're training them, it seems most probable that you're able to do the job. There is only a small subset that seems to just be bigoted. And, yes, they do exist. I am pretty sure they are low in number. Most of the complaints are about things like body shops but there have even been complaints involving Disney. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you can train your replacement, we probably didn't need a replacement. It's not like they move them up the ladder. They lay them off and pay the people with visas very little money, comparatively. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think, if true, they have a legitimate complaint. Most of them seem to agree that it should be bringing in experts and not lower paid people that need to be trained by the people they are replacing. So, what do you think? Would you agree that there are legitimate concerns? Many of these complaints do not, to me, appear xenophobic or racist.
davidw 9y ago
No reason you can't both invest in kids, and welcome people.
- convolvatron 9y ago
  you can, and you should. but it seems like the us has it made right now, a substantial amount of talent from overseas and abysmal investment in the native populace. if you want to keep underinvesting in education, and keep a strong presence in new technologies/science/commerce...why would you turn off the magic spigot? even if you started trying to right the ship of education, there's no way you could compensate for the talent thats coming in across the border, particularly in the short term.
  - davidw 9y ago
    > abysmal investment in the native populace. Yes, that's absolutely true. I'm not much of an expert in that policy area, although it does seem the Bureau of Indian Affairs isn't working out well in some ways.
- tonmoy 9y ago
  Somehow it is ending up being neither
sumedh 9y ago
> We might actually have to start investing equally in US children Who is we?
anigbrowl 9y ago
didn't think such an obvious comment would be so controversial There's a lot of implicit assumptions in your original comment, and immigration policy is a politically extremely loaded subject, so people are almost inevitably going to project additional inferences onto your remarks inssofar as they seem to resemble well-known political arguments.
gigatexal 9y ago
Yep. We would have had many fewer startups that became unicorns without immigrants. And without America being a place that is open and hospitable to entrepreneurs we will lose our edge.

mtanski 9y ago

Unlikely to happen. based on both, our history of good intentions and poor execution, and the current secretary of education who's working on funneling more folks into religious schools.

sundvor 9y ago

That's a solid upvote from me. But then again I had the good luck to be born in Norway, a country where education, health care and all is truly an equal opportunity (ie disregarding family wealth) prospect.

landryraccoon 9y ago

Who's "We"? From the context it seems clear you must be talking about US citizens and not non-American HN readers, but aside from that it's not clear. Do you mean Donald Trump, the US Federal Government, individual states, parents of children, or someone else?

meetri 9y ago

I don't see a problem with this. Growing up poor and being an african american, if I wasn't a self taught software engineer, I would probably be in jail or dead with the rest of my siblings. Growing up poor and having to attend local schools are a complete utter joke in this country. Only thing they prepare us for is gangs and jail. Looks like a lot would have to be done for this to change. And given what's going in trump's america, i doubt things will ever change. :(

nnfy 9y ago
I'm sure you had it worse, but public schools in non poor areas are pretty shitty too, unless you are in honors/ap courses. And this problem with our schools existed long before trump, and not to sound conspiritorial, but the both GOP and neoliberals like Hillary both seem to have interests in keeping public schools underperforming. And it isn't a funding problem, either. We spend more per capita on education than most, if not all, other countries.
- Retric 9y ago
  That somewhat depends on what you consider education spending. We waste ridiculous amounts of money doing things only tangentially related to education. Median teacher salary in the US public schools = $57,200. And 50.4 million students attend public elementary and secondary schools combine. Teacher student ratio is nominally 16.1 so ~3.5k* per student. However, the total spending per student is actually ~$12.7k core and 15.5k w/ indirect support. This gap covers support staff, buildings, equipment, trips, testing, etc but most other school systems do that stuff for far less money. https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf has PPP numbers for this stuff. But, it assumes each country is using the same metrics. *Note that's just salary benefits get complicated to calculate.
  - cakedoggie 9y ago
    What a strange comment. Of course the costs of an education don't just include the teachers salary.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Yea, it might not have been clear. I just mean there is a sliding scale where you can include a school nurse as education spending or healthcare spending and countries don't always slice stuff the same way. Is reduced cost lunches welfare or education, how about subsidized school supplies?
    - CountSessine 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lazaroclapp 9y ago

The U.S. should be doing their very best to have the strongest possible education system for all its citizens (and non-citizens living in the country long term). As should any reasonable country. But the fact remains that, unless you are counting with excellent execution in that regard from the U.S. and abysmal negligence from the rest of the world, you simply can't extract the same talent from a population of 400 million than from one of 7 billion. The U.S. benefits enormously from immigration, in ways many don't even perceive. If the flow of minds into the country is ever truly stopped, no amount of improvement in the internal education pipeline will be enough to maintain the U.S. dominant position in science and technology. Now, you might be ok with a broader geographical distribution of this type of talent, or argue that it will happen eventually no matter what. I hear you, on both counts. But, as a non-U.S. citizen, I am actually pretty surprised that the country would chose to forgo the advantage it enjoys by being a preferred immigration destination for so many skilled people... It also seems to be done due to nothing but rank xenophobia. I mean, what is the excuse here? "They are stealing our jobs!"? This is literally a visa where the requirement is to create jobs for American citizens, and most of these tech firms will do so by exporting goods mostly to foreign markets (the market for most tech startups is not over 50% local to the U.S.) and/or creating local technology and expertise. Hell, once profitable, you can and should tax these companies to help provide for that very same education you want for American citizens! As well as UBI for those whose jobs are being displaced by automation. Startup visas are as win-win as it possibly gets. Final point: The party and particular administration that seems to be most against immigration also seems to be the one most against science or robust public education. The foreseeable end result is grim, even if these policies last only 4 years: a "lost half-decade" in which the best domestic talent is under-nourished and the best foreign talent goes elsewhere.

nnfy 9y ago
Our domestic talent pool has been decades on the decline for lack of support, uncorrelated with which side of the party aisle the current administration has been.
KGIII 9y ago
The complaints that I read are often that they aren't actually jobs that couldn't be fulfilled here, with local talent. There have been many claims of training your replacement. If you're training them, it seems most probable that you're able to do the job. There is only a small subset that seems to just be bigoted. And, yes, they do exist. I am pretty sure they are low in number. Most of the complaints are about things like body shops but there have even been complaints involving Disney. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you can train your replacement, we probably didn't need a replacement. It's not like they move them up the ladder. They lay them off and pay the people with visas very little money, comparatively. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think, if true, they have a legitimate complaint. Most of them seem to agree that it should be bringing in experts and not lower paid people that need to be trained by the people they are replacing. So, what do you think? Would you agree that there are legitimate concerns? Many of these complaints do not, to me, appear xenophobic or racist.

davidw 9y ago

No reason you can't both invest in kids, and welcome people.

convolvatron 9y ago
you can, and you should. but it seems like the us has it made right now, a substantial amount of talent from overseas and abysmal investment in the native populace. if you want to keep underinvesting in education, and keep a strong presence in new technologies/science/commerce...why would you turn off the magic spigot? even if you started trying to right the ship of education, there's no way you could compensate for the talent thats coming in across the border, particularly in the short term.
- davidw 9y ago
  > abysmal investment in the native populace. Yes, that's absolutely true. I'm not much of an expert in that policy area, although it does seem the Bureau of Indian Affairs isn't working out well in some ways.
tonmoy 9y ago
Somehow it is ending up being neither

sumedh 9y ago

> We might actually have to start investing equally in US children Who is we?

anigbrowl 9y ago

didn't think such an obvious comment would be so controversial There's a lot of implicit assumptions in your original comment, and immigration policy is a politically extremely loaded subject, so people are almost inevitably going to project additional inferences onto your remarks inssofar as they seem to resemble well-known political arguments.

gigatexal 9y ago

Yep. We would have had many fewer startups that became unicorns without immigrants. And without America being a place that is open and hospitable to entrepreneurs we will lose our edge.