?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Education Matters - AdrianG [APOD]
July 9th, 2005
07:23 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Education Matters
A CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) article lists a couple of reasons why Toyota is opening a plan in Canada instead of in some proposed locations in the United States. One, free health care in Canada, is not the subject of this post. But the other is.

One of the reasons Toyota opened a plant in Woodstock, Ontario is that residents there are better educated than their counterparts in Mississippi and Alabama, the states that tried to lure Toyota into the US. From the article:
    Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.

    He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.

    "The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

Education matters.

Adrian

Current Mood: disappointeddisappointed

(11 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
From:vyoma
Date:July 10th, 2005 04:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
Florida isn't much better. Heck, I'm hoping to relocate myself to Canada at some point for exactly the same reasons given by Toyota.
[User Picture]
From:adriang
Date:July 10th, 2005 05:39 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not ready to go quite that far. 8-) But, there is a lot of cause for concern to be had around here. After the first three and a half years of King George in office, I just can't understand why so many people voted for him, again. I can understand being fooled by the campaign, the first time; But, after seeing what a loser he was in office, his reelection was incomprehensible to me. I guess all the cover-ups and the loss of our civil rights don't matter to most people.

Adrian
From:vyoma
Date:July 10th, 2005 11:01 am (UTC)
(Link)
Generally, poor education correlates well to flawed reasoning. That's why his reelection is incomprehensible to you, but there are people who are absolutely militant in their support for him. As far as the loss of civil rights goes, someone who hasn't had a good education in other areas aren't likely to understand what their rights were in the first place and won't miss them when they're gone. This is why activist groups often speak of educating people about such things; they haven't been educated about them before.

That's a good part of why I want out. There's a certain vicious cycle about the whole thing. Uneducated people will continue to elect administrations that thus have an interest in keeping people uneducated.
[User Picture]
From:adriang
Date:July 10th, 2005 08:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
    Generally, poor education correlates well to flawed reasoning.

I suspect you're right, although I wish I could see a stronger correlation between education and sound reasoning. Still, in this case, some correlation is better, perhaps, than none at all.
    That's why his reelection is incomprehensible to you, but there are people who are absolutely militant in their support for him.

Yes. And a disturbing number of them are educated. I think there must be things we liberals are doing wrong. While our inarticulate president certainly has a special appeal for the uneducated, it can't be the entire explanation.
    Uneducated people will continue to elect administrations that thus have an interest in keeping people uneducated.

There may be something to this. It does seem to me that our witless fearless leader has deliberately cultivated an image that is designed to appeal to those who are uneducated and who, perhaps, perceive elitism among the educated and resent what they perceive. What they perceive is hard to deal with, because there is some elitism among the educated, and to the extent that some among the educated use their status as an excuse to look down on the uneducated as morally inferior, in some sense, the uneducated are right to resent it.

At the same time, those of us who have spent the time and energy on college degrees really do have some right to hope for better lives as a result of our investments in our own education. Most people, I think, cling to childhood fantasies of being entitled to whatever they want for as long as they can. To the extent that our president is willing to encourage and to capitalize on these self-indulgent fantasies to put himself in office, he truly is a disgrace to his office.

But we liberals have made it easy for him. For too long, we've been reluctant to tell the working class that they have some responsibility for their own success. We've tried to be their friend by focusing on the very real irresponsibility of corporations regarding the treatment of employees. But, insofar as we have been unwilling to combine that with a message that everyone should be willing to work for his own success, we've been enablers for some people's self-indulgent fantasies of entitlement. And now, who is benefiting from what we've helped to enable? We really should have concentrated more on giving people opportunities to succeed and less on propping them up without regard to whether or not they do anything for themselves. Clinton helped move us in this direction, but still, we shouldn't have waited so long.

There's is certainly some truth to what you are saying, but I sure do wish we liberals would learn more from our past. We can't say that we've done no wrong, here.

Adrian
[User Picture]
From:ukelele
Date:July 11th, 2005 12:47 am (UTC)
(Link)
I have a friend who is well-educated (at least, he went to the same college I did, so I look upon his education favorably ;) who is a Bush supporter. His reasons seem to be some mix of "conservative by nature" and "though no likely candidate is well-aligned with his views on his most important issues, Bush was the least badly aligned in the last election".

I do think he is prone both to giving Bush too much of the benefit of the doubt and to seizing upon media which support his point of view while paying inadequate attention to those that don't -- one of the few times I have felt that someone suffered from an engineering-school education and needed more liberal arts in his life, actually. But I cannot at all argue with his tactic of articulating his most important issues and looking for the candidate who matches them least badly.
[User Picture]
From:adriang
Date:July 12th, 2005 02:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
I've seen the same sort of thing. At some point, though, I think we have to start choosing candidates who are the most honorable, even if they aren't as closely aligned with us on issues. I think we have to reject their increasing willingness to lie to us, to casually break their oaths of office, to cover up things of which they'd be ashamed if discovered, and to continually test to see how much they can let their votes be swayed by money without actually getting convicted of taking bribes. While I'm particularly irritated at our president, it's important to remember that 99 senators voted for the so-called "Patriot Act", in spite of all having taken oaths to uphold our Constitution. I think part of what's gotten us into trouble is our focus on issues to the complete exclusion of ethics. Issues are important, but even most of the liberals in the Senate brushed their oaths of office aside and sign away a good chunk of our civil rights. An honorable person could not have vowed to uphold the Constitution and then voted for the so-called "Patriot Act", even if he or she were a conservative. Maybe if we could all favor honorable politicians first, and then pay attention to issues when we are choosing among honorable people we wouldn't be in such trouble, now.

Adrian
From:ex_likefinew83
Date:July 10th, 2005 02:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm hoping to relocate myself to Canada

I believe I comprehend from where you're coming with this wish. Comprehend. Not necessarily fully concur. {But actually, there are few things with which I fully concur. I tend to see so many shades of gray, along the way. But that's another issue}

But would you please relate the *Glories of Canada* to me?
From:vyoma
Date:July 12th, 2005 11:45 am (UTC)
(Link)
Why? It's not a matter of the "glories" of somewhere else, it's a matter of the problems I see here, which I've watched get worse over the last quarter-century. I'm not looking for utopia.
[User Picture]
From:sjcarpediem
Date:July 11th, 2005 02:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm reviewing some of my security policies, switching to a "friends-only" format (and cleaning up inactive accts, too). I've asked ppl who want to remain in this group to let me know; I'll gladly assume you are one such person, but please reply to this so I know for sure (if this takes you a while to get back to and you've already been "removed", I'll be happy to add you back--no offense!).
[User Picture]
From:adriang
Date:July 11th, 2005 05:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
Sure. leave me on.

Adrian
[User Picture]
From:sjcarpediem
Date:July 11th, 2005 05:43 am (UTC)
(Link)
Cool. thanks for getting back to me! :-D
My Resume Powered by LiveJournal.com