3 ms·

Wealth in a free market is not "concentrated", it is created. The total wealth in a free market country rises, which can only be explained by wealth being crea

Wealth in a free market is not "concentrated", it is created. The total wealth in a free market country rises, which can only be explained by wealth being created rather than shifted around. > Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy. Educational materials abound in this country, even for free. For example, I took some MIT courses that were on youtube, for free. I found my college textbook "Special Relativity" at a book sale for $.50. SAT prep books are available free at the library, and are often at thrift stores for a couple bucks. It's never been easier to get educated.

kaishiro 2y ago
Speaking as someone who has been both a technical interviewer and an interviewee many times over the past 30 years, I find it a bit disingenuous to compare second hand bookstores to a formal primary or secondary education when it comes to their application in an active job market.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  There's the Khan Academy, too. Apparently a lot of home schoolers rely on it, and it is used by students who need extra help. It's true that what I wrote about is not formal education, but it is education nevertheless and freely available.
zelphirkalt 2y ago
It is not only about learning material being available. It is also about live circumstances of people. Think about when you are doing your learning. When do you have opportunity to learn. Think about what other people might be doing at that time, that prevents them from learning. Think about the mental framework you have, that enables you to learn and that others might not have. Many times when I see some idle shop keeper wasting their time at candy crush on their phone, I think something like: "Oh my, stop wasting your time! You could read something interesting or even learn a whole new subject!" But then I remind myself from what a position I am thinking these thoughts. From what kind of knowledge and background. Could people start using their time better? Sure. But it will be damn hard for them, in contrast to probably many people here, including yourself, and we should not forget that. What's more is, that even if those people learned a lot about some subject, let's say even computer programming, there is no accreditation for them. Where can they go, to claim certificates or whatever, for their new knowledge, to get any chance of employment?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  My friend Eric Engstrom (yes, that guy) got a programming job at Microsoft despite having zero education beyond high school. He became a team leader for DirectX. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, not software. Yet I got jobs as a software developer with zero certifications. At the D Language Foundation, we have never asked any of our participants for there certifications. Some have PhDs, some have high school diplomas. We only care about what they can do. You don't need to have any certifications whatsoever in order to start your own software business and do contract work. You cannot buy an education. It's necessary to put in the work to learn it one way or another. I learned that the hard way in college. No work, no pass.
  - zelphirkalt 2y ago
    While what you say is true, I think it is a failure of generalization. A few special cases show it is possible, but what you don't mention is how extraordinary these cases are and at what time they happened and what background, including ideas, information, location, and motivation the people had. You can very much buy an education in many places. Money from parents pays for the best universities, no, actually schools already, the best teachers, the best atmosphere/setting for learning. While some children work on a farm, rich people's children will already be learning, simply because the parents can afford it. There are many places, where it doesn't work like in your extraordinary examples. Just because something is possible for a few, it doesn't mean, that it is generalizable and that it can be done for everyone.
  - ethanwillis 2y ago
    "One of the important ways we make use of donations is in awarding scholarships to highly skilled students. Each $5 you donate contributes to approximately one hour of work by a talented graduate student" from the dlang website. I think it's good that scholarships are awarded, some money goes to graduate students doing work (even if I think the amount per hour is low), etc. But I can't square your implications that this type of education is equivalent to self-taught when your own foundation seems to put an emphasis on it. Or is it just marketing for an audience that might believe that they're not equivalent? Why is there this focus on people from formal education backgrounds or supporting people through scholarships to get a formal education when describing what a donation would go to? I want to re-iterate. It's not that I believe you can just go sit in a class without focusing and acquire an education. I also don't believe that someone can't learn outside of a formal setting or even that they can't get superior results! But, it seems to me that there's definitely some sort of difference between equally motivated people in a formal setting and in a self taught setting. And it seems to me that even the dlang foundation acknowledges that implicitly. Obviously there are lots of free resources provided by the foundation as well, so I can't argue there's a strong preference. But, if they were equivalent the foundation could just support one of them. And if a choice was to be made wouldn't the freely available resources be a more efficient allocation of donations?

kaishiro 2y ago

Speaking as someone who has been both a technical interviewer and an interviewee many times over the past 30 years, I find it a bit disingenuous to compare second hand bookstores to a formal primary or secondary education when it comes to their application in an active job market.

WalterBright 2y ago
There's the Khan Academy, too. Apparently a lot of home schoolers rely on it, and it is used by students who need extra help. It's true that what I wrote about is not formal education, but it is education nevertheless and freely available.

zelphirkalt 2y ago

It is not only about learning material being available. It is also about live circumstances of people. Think about when you are doing your learning. When do you have opportunity to learn. Think about what other people might be doing at that time, that prevents them from learning. Think about the mental framework you have, that enables you to learn and that others might not have. Many times when I see some idle shop keeper wasting their time at candy crush on their phone, I think something like: "Oh my, stop wasting your time! You could read something interesting or even learn a whole new subject!" But then I remind myself from what a position I am thinking these thoughts. From what kind of knowledge and background. Could people start using their time better? Sure. But it will be damn hard for them, in contrast to probably many people here, including yourself, and we should not forget that. What's more is, that even if those people learned a lot about some subject, let's say even computer programming, there is no accreditation for them. Where can they go, to claim certificates or whatever, for their new knowledge, to get any chance of employment?

WalterBright 2y ago
My friend Eric Engstrom (yes, that guy) got a programming job at Microsoft despite having zero education beyond high school. He became a team leader for DirectX. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, not software. Yet I got jobs as a software developer with zero certifications. At the D Language Foundation, we have never asked any of our participants for there certifications. Some have PhDs, some have high school diplomas. We only care about what they can do. You don't need to have any certifications whatsoever in order to start your own software business and do contract work. You cannot buy an education. It's necessary to put in the work to learn it one way or another. I learned that the hard way in college. No work, no pass.
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  While what you say is true, I think it is a failure of generalization. A few special cases show it is possible, but what you don't mention is how extraordinary these cases are and at what time they happened and what background, including ideas, information, location, and motivation the people had. You can very much buy an education in many places. Money from parents pays for the best universities, no, actually schools already, the best teachers, the best atmosphere/setting for learning. While some children work on a farm, rich people's children will already be learning, simply because the parents can afford it. There are many places, where it doesn't work like in your extraordinary examples. Just because something is possible for a few, it doesn't mean, that it is generalizable and that it can be done for everyone.
- ethanwillis 2y ago
  "One of the important ways we make use of donations is in awarding scholarships to highly skilled students. Each $5 you donate contributes to approximately one hour of work by a talented graduate student" from the dlang website. I think it's good that scholarships are awarded, some money goes to graduate students doing work (even if I think the amount per hour is low), etc. But I can't square your implications that this type of education is equivalent to self-taught when your own foundation seems to put an emphasis on it. Or is it just marketing for an audience that might believe that they're not equivalent? Why is there this focus on people from formal education backgrounds or supporting people through scholarships to get a formal education when describing what a donation would go to? I want to re-iterate. It's not that I believe you can just go sit in a class without focusing and acquire an education. I also don't believe that someone can't learn outside of a formal setting or even that they can't get superior results! But, it seems to me that there's definitely some sort of difference between equally motivated people in a formal setting and in a self taught setting. And it seems to me that even the dlang foundation acknowledges that implicitly. Obviously there are lots of free resources provided by the foundation as well, so I can't argue there's a strong preference. But, if they were equivalent the foundation could just support one of them. And if a choice was to be made wouldn't the freely available resources be a more efficient allocation of donations?