“…for energy is the lifeblood of this society and when the chips are down he who controls the energy supply controls Planet. In former times the energy monopoly was called ‘The Power Company’; we intend to give this name an entirely new meaning.”
My sister was a schoolteacher in Alaska. They pay a premium, but it’s still not a life that most Americans are cut out for, including me. That means the schools have to choose between giving these kids subpar teachers who are happy to live up there, or miserable teachers who are only doing it for the money. Or, we can hire foreign teachers who are qualified AND are happy to teach up there.
> foreign teachers who are qualified AND are happy to teach up there
But are they? Or are they just willing and here for the money and foot in the immigration door? Sincere question, though I have negative views of the whole H1B thing in general (not a US national, though).
At a general level, it is a simple fact that there are more qualified/happy candidates globally than there are just in the United States. For the second part, no, I assume that money/opportunity are WHY they’re happy to teach up there. If that’s the motivation that keeps qualified teachers from turning to alcoholism or suicide, that’s a good thing for the kids.
Same issue as rural doctors, to be honest. It's hard to pay an American with a medical degree enough to live and work in that environment, so if we want to keep rural hospitals (and independent practices) staffed, we need to allow immigrants to do the work.
The alternative isn't that rural communities get doctors born in the US, it's that they get no doctors.
the schools have to choose between giving these kids subpar teachers who are happy to live up there, or miserable teachers who are only doing it for the money.
1) Why is that the dichotomy?
2) Do you say the same thing about well-paid oilfield workers living in RVs, away from their families and social networks?
3) Do you think the foreign workers are happy to be in Alaska for the sake of the Alaskan experience?
For some reason, people are convinced that teacher salaries have to be suppressed, lest the "wrong people" take the jobs. As if stressing about making rent is a critical signal of virtue, exclusively for teaching.
1) because there aren’t enough teachers in-state + coming out of the lower 48 to meet demand.
2) Pay alone can’t make people happy, which is why there’s a very high alcoholism/suicide rate among oil workers, despite it typically being a more temporary gig than teaching and paying considerably more. I also hold teachers to a different standard for on-the-job demeanor than oil workers.
3) Per my brother in law, they’re happy to be in Alaska for the American experience.
4) Foreign teachers in Alaska aren’t suppressing wages. That would be true for free market jobs where schools can simply decide not to teach students if it’s not profitable, but teaching isn’t like that.
2) Pay attracts workers. "Happiness" is a separate and personal issue.
3) Anecdata.
4) The fact is that far higher wages would attract American teachers for short periods. It is a free market, until exploitable labor is introduced. Foreign teachers absolutely are suppressing wages, as evidenced by the fact that the wages aren't high enough to attract American teachers.
> The index is intended to follow the all of the largest large-cap U.S. equities, not pick and choose which ones to invest in.
This particular piece is incorrect. S&P has preexisting rules to pick and choose which large-cap equities to follow. They had a discussion about whether to drop those rules in order to become a more accurate benchmark, and they chose to stick with what they had been doing.
Regardless of what they say they were doing (or what they’re trying to do), the fact that they changed nothing means that what they had been doing is the same as what they are doing now, ie, picking and choosing stocks at the risk of diminishing their benchmark capabilities.
Since Bari Weiss took over CBS News, there’s been a number of controversies involving corporate interference to nix or promote politically-charged stories. Most recently, at 60 minutes, a lot of senior journalists were fired. The touchpoint seems to have been that they pushed for journalistic independence and maintaining the long-form “gather all the facts” investigative journalism that the show was known for, while corporate leadership was pushing for them to “get with the new way of doing things.”
They aren’t. The US built monitoring infrastructure there because it’s our project, and that’s where the science needs to happen.
It’s the same reason that many more countries than just Argentina built the Pierre Auger observatory, or that the Vatican built the Pope Scope in Arizona.
> If these rules go into effect, is it not true that individuals, state governments, and non-governmental organizations could still fund scientific research that the federal government won't fund?
This administration’s actions towards Harvard and other schools would suggest not. If a state or university is doing verboten research, the federal government can make them stop. Previously, that didn’t happen - it was unthinkable. Now, it’s forever on the table.
It means I'm in the tax bracket that gets to pick up the slack for people who make way more than me but don't pay their fair share.
I want a competent government who directs the funds in an appropriate way. Not one who sets up a shush fund, using my (tax) money, to pay their private army of thugs.
The good news is that people have looked into it! And not just in a modern-slop-journalism kind of way, but in a serious, rigorous kind of way. And many of the resulting scientific papers are published online and available for you to read!
In American English, “race and religion” is an old-timey expression that’s typically used as a broad identifier in a melting-pot context, eg. “We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions…” ~FDR
— CEO Nwabudike Morgan, The Centauri Monopoly
reply