Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 665

I propose we cut spending to education and use that money to fund start-up businesses.

Everyone should have three chances to start their own business, free of cost.

Our population is becoming over-educated, to the point where many of us spend our prime working years learning, only to come out and manage a restaurant with a degree. Being over-qualified for a job leads to depression.

[edit note: I'm Canadian, but would like to hear yanks ideas too]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5074

When you say "free of cost", what do you mean? No application fees/license fees/etc., or someone else footing the bill for the initial setup, location, purchase of stock, etc.?

Seems to me that an argument could be made that part of "entrepeneurship" is finding the means to start one's own business, or at least get a loan.

That's not to say that there aren't excessive barriers to starting a business-I think there are too many. I don't think cutting education funds to remove them is necessary, though. If we just maker it easier to start businesses, we can encourage entrepeneurs while still encouraging them to become well-educated.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 181

I agree - but how about funding for a business OR funding for a degree course. Its probably easier to do something like a tax free first year for each business / owner rather than funding. Anyway seems like a good idea.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7686

quote:

---

Our population is becoming over-educated, to the point where many of us spend our prime working years learning, only to come out and manage a restaurant with a degree. Being over-qualified for a job leads to depression.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7686

Maybe I'll expand on that last point.

No, that is a silly conclusion. The problem with job trends is that people are finding their human functions replaced by computers and technology, and those functons which are not being replaced are being outsourced to labour/environmentally flexible countries which then subverts local buisness oppportunites because local buisness cannot compete.

The cause of depression is not a glut of education. It is the slowdown of economic activity due to a dearth of liquid assets on a societal scale. Nobody has no money, in common speak.

Now education can provide the intellectual capitial to power an economy when other areas grow weak. Funding buisness initiatives should be offensive to both conservative and liberal perspectives because
a) Good buisness initiatives often succeed via the private sector. Bad buisness initiatives shouldn't be subsidized. Programs like this already exist and you often read about them in jthe papers under the headline "Scandal".
b) Social initiatives often require compulsory investment in order to survive and provide for the needs of the society. Education is an essential social initiative with benefits that extend past its material aspects. Education also is an investment which pays off in social dividends in that an educated society is, by far, a healthier and more affluent society than those that are not. In Canada, the citizens affect global culture vastly out of proportion to their population because Candians are better educated. Candians are highly valued on the global market because of their perspectives and skillsets and, therefore, though the Canadian market has a glut of people over educated, the rest of the world will gladly employ you (as I can testify).

What has happened in Canada as of late is that many professionals have returned back from the once lucrative US labour market because of the dollar's downfall and because America has gotten stupid. That's a glut domestically. Internationally, there is work. Eventually that work will return home.

Cutting education is kicking your children in the genitials, and that helps cause depression, not remedy it.

ps I assume you are speaki ng of economic depression and not psychological depression?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 665

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thimbles worth of opinion
Maybe I'll expand on that last point.

No, that is a silly conclusion. The problem with job trends is that people are finding their human functions replaced by computers and technology, and those functons which are not being replaced are being outsourced to labour/environmentally flexible countries which then subverts local buisness oppportunites because local buisness cannot compete.

This has been happening for hundreds of years and really only affects the zero-low skill workforce, not those with high educations.

The cause of depression is not a glut of education. It is the slowdown of economic activity due to a dearth of liquid assets on a societal scale. Nobody has no money, in common speak.

Dearth of liquid assets? Credit cards and double household incomes have seen a ridiculous saturation of assets. From a new Chevy every 5 years to widescreen TVs accessible to even the lower middle class (so long as they're not addicted to drugs/alcohol).

Now education can provide the intellectual capital to power an economy when other areas grow weak. Funding buisness initiatives should be offensive to both conservative and liberal perspectives because

American and Canadian schools spend 13 years with children and have very little to show for it. We could greatly improve the efficiency of our elementary and high schools without spending a dime.

a) Good buisness initiatives often succeed via the private sector. Bad buisness initiatives shouldn't be subsidized. Programs like this already exist and you often read about them in jthe papers under the headline "Scandal".
b) Social initiatives often require compulsory investment in order to survive and provide for the needs of the society.

This is true. I am not suggesting that businesses be free to run, simply free to start up (with only three chances to weed out the idiots). It currently costs $5000-$30,000 just to open a small business with 0 employees.


Cutting education is kicking your children in the genitials, and that helps cause depression, not remedy it.

ps I assume you are speaki ng of economic depression and not psychological depression?

---

Last edited by Jeitarium on 02-09-2005 at 04:25 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15994

Minor quibble, twot - I thought the common form of reference for the citizenry of Canada was canadians - not candians. I realize you guys loved john, but he is gone, man.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7686

quote:

---

This has been happening for hundreds of years and really only affects the zero-low skill workforce, not those with high educations.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7686

quote:

---

I realize you guys loved john, but he is gone, man.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 665

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thimbles worth of opinion

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8663

Most states grant public schools a figure that turns out to be, what, about $2,000 per student per year? That's $24k for their entire education. Starting a small business, in your estimation, costs between $5,000-$30,000. Assuming that averages out to $17,500 per start... the government will end up paying up to $52,500 per person during the course of their three chances? I don't suspect you wish to completely end public education, but even if you did, you wouldn't have nearly enough to replace one initiative with the other.

Though I suppose that none of this is relavent to the fact that, even without considering costs, your small business initiative is a horrible idea... maybe only slightly less worse than the idea of cutting funding for public education.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 665

I don't think any 4th graders will be starting their own business.

I was refurring to post-secondary students, which cost between $25,000-$50,000 per year, per student.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8663

Oh, is this a Canadian thing?

We pay for most of our own college here (and it's between $20-40k per year, less than half that at a public university in your home state, though I imagine the state subsidises the difference in those instances). This wouldn't be a redirection of funds for us, since the government isn't paying for our post-secondary education.

Also, it's still a REALLY BAD idea.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 665

Why?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beatrice, Nebraska
Posts: 18523

Because it's usually a bad idea to slash the education budget? We're stupid enough already? Yupela as.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

The pinnacle of Failbot technology.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged