There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald the other day regarding Same Sex classes at school and how both boys and girls are more likely to excel academically if they are taught in sex segregated classes. This may be so (due to lack of distraction by members of the opposite sex), but I think this development is not a good one.
For mine, boys and girls need to be bought into contact a lot earlier than the University or workforce years. Now I am not talking about sexual relations (most boys and girls have that covered during the mid to late teens). I am talking about non-sexual relationships. Viewing girls as collaborators, competitors and friends.
Schools aren’t just for academic performance. The ability to think, time management skills, team building skills and communication with both authority and peers are skills that are taught, often sub consciencely in the school yard. How to make friends and influence people if you will. These are skills that are useful in workplaces. Now as workforces are co-ed, I think the skills taught should be experienced in a similar environment.
For a lot of boys born without a sister, the only exposure they have had with the opposite sex before uni or the workforce is through their mothers, teachers or girlfriends. These three personas of women are important in a male’s life, but for quality relations with women, more variety and exposure to females should be required before they hit adulthood. They need female role models and empathy to the female condition. The only places to pick up these things are in the classroom.
And on the reverse side of things, girls need exposure to boys. They need to be comfortable around men, respond to the verbal jargon.They need to learn how to be competitive without using intimidation. They need to work out why men do the things they do.
If you want to break down barriers to women in the workforce, or lower the rates of sexual harassment, you need adult males who see women as more than sexual objects or mothers.
Understanding women is a life long endeavour, and probably one that I never accomplish, but the goat thinks that the boys get a head start the first time a girl gives you a weird look at school.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Thursday, February 8, 2007
The Goat Vs the Elderly
I always find other peoples perceptions to be quite funny. One perception that particularly confuses me is the common views of old people.
From my perspective, it seems they get a pretty free ride in society. Concession cards that give them cheap travel. Pensions if they have squandered their savings. Cheap medicine, cheap doctors, cheap everything. But every time you point this out to someone, they say, "Hey, they deserve it". My answer, "Why".
As far as I am concerned, the elderly are the leeches of society. They take up the hospital beds; they are a menace on our roads. They seem to believe that they are God’s gift to the world, worthy of political handouts and tax cuts. These old people live in their million dollar houses yet write letters to the editor saying raise pensions should be raised because they are cash poor.
But for mine, the dream is over. I have seen through the looking glass and will not be deceived.
I have seen the elderly do hundreds of things wrong. One of my pet hates is they fact that they don’t cross at the lights. I’ve seen an old guy who could barely walk cross the Pacific Highway almost causing accidents as cars serve to miss the old bugger. I’ve seen an old woman shoplift apples from a fruit store.
And yet still we try to help them, the goat included. I’ve tried to help an old guy get his trolley over the curb only to see the guy turn on me and gave me verbal abuse. Just say "thank you" you old codger.
To be fair there are a lot of elderly people (maybe even the majority) who are worthy of our love and affection. Who give their time to help their families and society. But lets not sugar coat it. Like every other segment of society there are nice old people, but there are an awful lot of dodgy ones as well. I’ve decided that not every old woman is your nana. Not every old guy is a digger who fought in the war.
Some of them are just pests who have survived.
Let the free ride end.
From my perspective, it seems they get a pretty free ride in society. Concession cards that give them cheap travel. Pensions if they have squandered their savings. Cheap medicine, cheap doctors, cheap everything. But every time you point this out to someone, they say, "Hey, they deserve it". My answer, "Why".
As far as I am concerned, the elderly are the leeches of society. They take up the hospital beds; they are a menace on our roads. They seem to believe that they are God’s gift to the world, worthy of political handouts and tax cuts. These old people live in their million dollar houses yet write letters to the editor saying raise pensions should be raised because they are cash poor.
But for mine, the dream is over. I have seen through the looking glass and will not be deceived.
I have seen the elderly do hundreds of things wrong. One of my pet hates is they fact that they don’t cross at the lights. I’ve seen an old guy who could barely walk cross the Pacific Highway almost causing accidents as cars serve to miss the old bugger. I’ve seen an old woman shoplift apples from a fruit store.
And yet still we try to help them, the goat included. I’ve tried to help an old guy get his trolley over the curb only to see the guy turn on me and gave me verbal abuse. Just say "thank you" you old codger.
To be fair there are a lot of elderly people (maybe even the majority) who are worthy of our love and affection. Who give their time to help their families and society. But lets not sugar coat it. Like every other segment of society there are nice old people, but there are an awful lot of dodgy ones as well. I’ve decided that not every old woman is your nana. Not every old guy is a digger who fought in the war.
Some of them are just pests who have survived.
Let the free ride end.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Go with the Flow…not!
Went to a Sydney Festival Event last Friday night (Australia Day). Saw a show called "Flow". According to the spiel on the Festival of Sydney’s Website, it was a "HipHop Dramatic performance" Now I was sceptical when I read that, but hey, we got the tickets free from the Goat-ette’s work (Sorry for the Nickname Babe, LY!) So we decide to rock up for the cultural experience.
Well it was an experience all right. And not a very good one. When we entered the auditorium there was a Dj station in one corner, a ring of sand on the floor and 4 cardboard boxes around the ring. Minimalistic theatre I was thinking. Probably should have walked out at that point J
And then the performers came out. There was a female DJ, (who to be fair wasn’t bad) and an American male who spent around 1 and a half hours rapping a story for us. I have to give him points for energy, but that’s about it.
The rap/story was about 7 people in his neighbourhood (the hood as he calls it) who told some stories about being better people and then died. A cautionary tale if ever I heard one. Just say no to changing the world.
And the rap was also pretty ordinary. He kept breaking into these "Beadycat, beadycat-cat" type space fillers at weird times. Maybe he forgot his words. That is probably why he was performing at a 300-seat auditorium rather than opening for 50 cent.
But it seems everyone else seemed to love the show. When the rapper finished, he got a standing ovation and came out for some curtain calls. Maybe the audience was thinking, "Bloody hell, I spent $25 on this, I might as well look as if I enjoyed it". As for the goat, if I had a tomato I would have thrown it.
Well it was an experience all right. And not a very good one. When we entered the auditorium there was a Dj station in one corner, a ring of sand on the floor and 4 cardboard boxes around the ring. Minimalistic theatre I was thinking. Probably should have walked out at that point J
And then the performers came out. There was a female DJ, (who to be fair wasn’t bad) and an American male who spent around 1 and a half hours rapping a story for us. I have to give him points for energy, but that’s about it.
The rap/story was about 7 people in his neighbourhood (the hood as he calls it) who told some stories about being better people and then died. A cautionary tale if ever I heard one. Just say no to changing the world.
And the rap was also pretty ordinary. He kept breaking into these "Beadycat, beadycat-cat" type space fillers at weird times. Maybe he forgot his words. That is probably why he was performing at a 300-seat auditorium rather than opening for 50 cent.
But it seems everyone else seemed to love the show. When the rapper finished, he got a standing ovation and came out for some curtain calls. Maybe the audience was thinking, "Bloody hell, I spent $25 on this, I might as well look as if I enjoyed it". As for the goat, if I had a tomato I would have thrown it.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Croatia Vs Serb, a taste of things to come in Iraq?
I was at the Medibank International Tennis last Friday night in Sydney. This was the final of the women’s singles. It was a great game with the Belgium player (and adopted Aussie) Kim Clijisters coming from one set down to beat the Serbian Jelena Jankovic in three tension filled sets.
What disappointed me however was the behaviour of the crowd. There were a pack of Serbian supporters at the game and their behaviour, while entertaining to the spectators initially, started to get a little painful. I was a neutral observer at the start of the game but after the crap the Serbian crowd was serving up, I quickly became a Kim fan.
At many stages during the games, the Serbian crowd deliberately made noise when Kim Clijisters was attempting to serve. Bad tennis etiquette in my opinion. And when Clijisters was giving her post game winners speech after playing through countless jeers and boos (her last game in Sydney as she is retiring at the end of the year), the Serbian crowd started chanting support for Jankovic. Rude behaviour from a small but determined partisan crowd.
Then there are the reports of clashes between Serbian and Croat supporters in Melbourne at the Australian Open yesterday. So what is it with Tennis that is fuelling these nationalistic tendencies of the Balkan region?
For the goat, it just appears that sport has become equivalent to war to these countries. I guess this is a good thing (its better than the alternative) Since the Yugoslavia War in 1995 where the Croatian Army kicked the ass of the Serbians in Bosnia, there has been simmering tensions. And I am not surprised. It’s only 10 years ago. Wounds are still trying to heal.
I just wish Australia would not become the playground of choice for these rivalries. Then again, Australians can’t really talk. We had our own tribal issues in Cronulla against the Lebanese last summer. But at least the fight was of a domestic rather than an international flavour. While the media played up the whole Aussie Vs Lebanese angle, the clash was more about outsiders not respecting the members of the Cronulla shire. Someone has to have home field advantage in these clashes. The Croat's and Serb's are both playing away.
These sorts of ethnic/nationalistic conflicts sort of remind me of the Iraq situation where you have these tensions already frayed by a foreign invader (the Coalition of the willing that include Australia). I wonder just what we have helped start. It seems that a breakdown of the nation of Iraq into these separate ethnic groups is almost inevitable. Only history will judge this as a good or bad thing. What is evident is that the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis can’t live together in peace.
The sheer anger and hatred are hard to fathom in a country where the closest Australia comes to ethnic rivalry is good-natured ribbing of the Poms and Kiwi’s. But starting a war with them? No way Jose. If Australia went to war, the two group people I would want to have in the trenches with me are the Stoic Poms and the reliable Kiwi’s. Just don’t mention the cricket!
What disappointed me however was the behaviour of the crowd. There were a pack of Serbian supporters at the game and their behaviour, while entertaining to the spectators initially, started to get a little painful. I was a neutral observer at the start of the game but after the crap the Serbian crowd was serving up, I quickly became a Kim fan.
At many stages during the games, the Serbian crowd deliberately made noise when Kim Clijisters was attempting to serve. Bad tennis etiquette in my opinion. And when Clijisters was giving her post game winners speech after playing through countless jeers and boos (her last game in Sydney as she is retiring at the end of the year), the Serbian crowd started chanting support for Jankovic. Rude behaviour from a small but determined partisan crowd.
Then there are the reports of clashes between Serbian and Croat supporters in Melbourne at the Australian Open yesterday. So what is it with Tennis that is fuelling these nationalistic tendencies of the Balkan region?
For the goat, it just appears that sport has become equivalent to war to these countries. I guess this is a good thing (its better than the alternative) Since the Yugoslavia War in 1995 where the Croatian Army kicked the ass of the Serbians in Bosnia, there has been simmering tensions. And I am not surprised. It’s only 10 years ago. Wounds are still trying to heal.
I just wish Australia would not become the playground of choice for these rivalries. Then again, Australians can’t really talk. We had our own tribal issues in Cronulla against the Lebanese last summer. But at least the fight was of a domestic rather than an international flavour. While the media played up the whole Aussie Vs Lebanese angle, the clash was more about outsiders not respecting the members of the Cronulla shire. Someone has to have home field advantage in these clashes. The Croat's and Serb's are both playing away.
These sorts of ethnic/nationalistic conflicts sort of remind me of the Iraq situation where you have these tensions already frayed by a foreign invader (the Coalition of the willing that include Australia). I wonder just what we have helped start. It seems that a breakdown of the nation of Iraq into these separate ethnic groups is almost inevitable. Only history will judge this as a good or bad thing. What is evident is that the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis can’t live together in peace.
The sheer anger and hatred are hard to fathom in a country where the closest Australia comes to ethnic rivalry is good-natured ribbing of the Poms and Kiwi’s. But starting a war with them? No way Jose. If Australia went to war, the two group people I would want to have in the trenches with me are the Stoic Poms and the reliable Kiwi’s. Just don’t mention the cricket!
Friday, January 12, 2007
Not a drop to drink
I was thinking the other day about water use and how water in the dams in Australia just keep on getting lower. There seems to be a lot of ideas regarding how to fix this situation, recycled water, desalination plants, water restrictions and the like, but no one has really figured out a good solution yet.
Well, here at the goat, we also like putting together solutions. Here is one based on an economic supply and demand theory.
Have a sliding cost scale for water use.
When there are no restrictions, water is cheap, or the standard price. When it hits a certain capacity, it changes to be more expensive depending on the level of the drinking water supply.
The cost of water should be linked to capacity. If the dams are at 35% capacity, the cost per KiloLitre should reflect that. You shouldn’t pay the same price for a finite resource that is in demand as opposed to a resource in surplus.
If the normal price is $1.20 per KL when the dams are at 100%, then they should be higher (1.20+(1.20*0.5) = $1.80 when the dams are at 50% full. As the price is higher, demand will automatically be restricted when the dams are low. People will not like paying the increased water bill and will put themselves on restrictions to keep the water bill reasonable.
Every month the price of water should change depending on this Dam Capacity. This will also ensure there are more funds available for solutions when the water supplies hit crisis point. I don’t think I am the first person to have suggested this idea (Water in Australia is a lot cheaper than other countries), and it is definitely something that should be explored. Unfortunately, it will take an awfully brave politician to take the idea to the public. Increasing the price of water is not a vote winner.
Other alternatives regarding price could be penalties for greater than usual water use. Ie First 100 kL used cost $1.20 a kl, next 200, cost $1.50 etc. That way, heavier users of water will pay higher costs for water.
I also believe that water restrictions should be based on a quota system per residence, rather than a time period. You should get allocated a certain amount of water per quarter and if you go over it (Guys should be checking water meters every quarter anyway through Sydney Water), you get fined. This whole "Can only water your garden only on Wednesday’s and Sunday’s" theory still allows people to use copious amounts of water during those times.
And where is the international trade of drinking water? Oil is ferried between countries, so why isn’t drinking water? We should be able to buy water from countries/states that have a surplus. Obvious there must be safety controls and the like, but this situation won’t be going away anytime too soon. The sooner we start dealing with it the better.
Well, here at the goat, we also like putting together solutions. Here is one based on an economic supply and demand theory.
Have a sliding cost scale for water use.
When there are no restrictions, water is cheap, or the standard price. When it hits a certain capacity, it changes to be more expensive depending on the level of the drinking water supply.
The cost of water should be linked to capacity. If the dams are at 35% capacity, the cost per KiloLitre should reflect that. You shouldn’t pay the same price for a finite resource that is in demand as opposed to a resource in surplus.
If the normal price is $1.20 per KL when the dams are at 100%, then they should be higher (1.20+(1.20*0.5) = $1.80 when the dams are at 50% full. As the price is higher, demand will automatically be restricted when the dams are low. People will not like paying the increased water bill and will put themselves on restrictions to keep the water bill reasonable.
Every month the price of water should change depending on this Dam Capacity. This will also ensure there are more funds available for solutions when the water supplies hit crisis point. I don’t think I am the first person to have suggested this idea (Water in Australia is a lot cheaper than other countries), and it is definitely something that should be explored. Unfortunately, it will take an awfully brave politician to take the idea to the public. Increasing the price of water is not a vote winner.
Other alternatives regarding price could be penalties for greater than usual water use. Ie First 100 kL used cost $1.20 a kl, next 200, cost $1.50 etc. That way, heavier users of water will pay higher costs for water.
I also believe that water restrictions should be based on a quota system per residence, rather than a time period. You should get allocated a certain amount of water per quarter and if you go over it (Guys should be checking water meters every quarter anyway through Sydney Water), you get fined. This whole "Can only water your garden only on Wednesday’s and Sunday’s" theory still allows people to use copious amounts of water during those times.
And where is the international trade of drinking water? Oil is ferried between countries, so why isn’t drinking water? We should be able to buy water from countries/states that have a surplus. Obvious there must be safety controls and the like, but this situation won’t be going away anytime too soon. The sooner we start dealing with it the better.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Twenty20 more like 50:50
I watched the twenty20 international cricket game on Tuesday night. It was between Australia (current world champions in all forms of the game) and England (2nd placed Test team but around 6th in ODI’s and out of form). For those who aren’t familiar with the whole Twenty20 game, it is a cricket game (usual rules) but each team only gets 20 overs to bowl and bat instead of the usual 50 overs that is the norm in International one-day cricket. Basically it is a slog-aphon with teams stacked with power hitters and spin bowlers.
Now I am a cricket fan, but I am not a huge fan of this form of cricket. It appears that the game is heavily favoured to the team batting first. In fact, in Australia this year, there have been 10 games of Twenty20 cricket played between the various State cricket teams. In all ten games, the team batting first has one. In every game. (Stats on the cricket Australia Website – KFC Big Bash Series). That’s crazy stuff. What amuses me is that teams who win the toss are still sending in the opposition. They say that in One-Day cricket, 9 out of 10 times you win the toss, you should bat, and the other time, you should think for a second and then bat. I believe that in the twenty20 version of the game, you shouldn’t think at all, just bat.
The reasons for why the team batting second is doomed to fail are difficult to fathom. Here at the goat, I believe it is the pressure. The team batting first does not have a huge amount of pressure placed on them when they are batting. They can just get on with the business of scoring lots of runs. The team batting second however has to keep an eye on the runs required to win and the overs left remaining. While this is also the case in normal one-day cricket, at least if the team batting second gets a little behind the required run rate, they have a few more overs to address the problem. In Twenty20, they don’t have this luxury. If the run rate gets beyond 12 runs an over in twenty20, its pretty much over red rover.
Now for mine, any sport that is so dependent on the toss of the coin to win is not really a sport at all. Even most card games require a little bit of skill at the end of the day. Any game where Bermuda can beat the whole of the West Indies in a 20/20 game by just batting first (as occurred last year) is dodgy. They should play the games at Sydney’s StarCity casino instead of the SCG.
But the game is not for the purists; it’s for the masses. More specifically the under 25’s and also the female population. These two subsets of society have been notoriously difficult to convert to the game and the cricket mandarins have decided to for go the craft of the game and turn it into a spectacle. You could call it the Marijuana to Test cricket's cocaine. An entry-level drug that will hopefully lead to cricket's pure addiction.
And by any definition you would have to claim it as a success. Tuesday night’s game was watched by over 2,000,000 people in Australia and a full house at the SCG. With stats like that, it is no wonder that the ICC is thinking of a Twenty20 World Cup.
They players also don’t seem overly impressed by the game. Both Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist have publicly expressed that they are sceptical about the long-term future of the game. For mine, I’m with the players.
Now I am a cricket fan, but I am not a huge fan of this form of cricket. It appears that the game is heavily favoured to the team batting first. In fact, in Australia this year, there have been 10 games of Twenty20 cricket played between the various State cricket teams. In all ten games, the team batting first has one. In every game. (Stats on the cricket Australia Website – KFC Big Bash Series). That’s crazy stuff. What amuses me is that teams who win the toss are still sending in the opposition. They say that in One-Day cricket, 9 out of 10 times you win the toss, you should bat, and the other time, you should think for a second and then bat. I believe that in the twenty20 version of the game, you shouldn’t think at all, just bat.
The reasons for why the team batting second is doomed to fail are difficult to fathom. Here at the goat, I believe it is the pressure. The team batting first does not have a huge amount of pressure placed on them when they are batting. They can just get on with the business of scoring lots of runs. The team batting second however has to keep an eye on the runs required to win and the overs left remaining. While this is also the case in normal one-day cricket, at least if the team batting second gets a little behind the required run rate, they have a few more overs to address the problem. In Twenty20, they don’t have this luxury. If the run rate gets beyond 12 runs an over in twenty20, its pretty much over red rover.
Now for mine, any sport that is so dependent on the toss of the coin to win is not really a sport at all. Even most card games require a little bit of skill at the end of the day. Any game where Bermuda can beat the whole of the West Indies in a 20/20 game by just batting first (as occurred last year) is dodgy. They should play the games at Sydney’s StarCity casino instead of the SCG.
But the game is not for the purists; it’s for the masses. More specifically the under 25’s and also the female population. These two subsets of society have been notoriously difficult to convert to the game and the cricket mandarins have decided to for go the craft of the game and turn it into a spectacle. You could call it the Marijuana to Test cricket's cocaine. An entry-level drug that will hopefully lead to cricket's pure addiction.
And by any definition you would have to claim it as a success. Tuesday night’s game was watched by over 2,000,000 people in Australia and a full house at the SCG. With stats like that, it is no wonder that the ICC is thinking of a Twenty20 World Cup.
They players also don’t seem overly impressed by the game. Both Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist have publicly expressed that they are sceptical about the long-term future of the game. For mine, I’m with the players.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
A few Good Tenants
I note with a lack of surprise that rents are set to rise again in 2007 in NSW. This I can understand. As investors turn to the tax benefits of superannuation and the booming share market, there is less money being invested in Property. As there is less money, there is less property available to rent being bought on the market. As the demand for rental property increases, so do rents. Basic Supply and demand curves.
It’s just the amount of the increase that is a little crazy. The Sydney Morning Herald is quoting a source at the Real Estate Institute of NSW who believes rents will increase by 20% this year. 20%! That’s an increase of 1/5. These are crazy figures when you consider inflation is running at 3%.
The worse thing about this claim is that it just appears to be a random belief. There does not seem to be any evidence backing this up.
Here at the goat, we like to get some stats to back up our theories. So I went to the real estate institute of nsw web site. ----------à http://www.reinsw.com.au/
In the news sections, there are a couple of predictions for the year ahead, neither of which quotes a 20% increase in rents. In one article, the institute quotes a BIS Shrapnel report which states a 10% increase each year for the following 3 years. This is a fair enough claim as rents went up last year 9.8% last year (a reasonable figure when you consider CPI was at 2.8%)
So it seems that it is just a pie in the sky claim. Nice. Now I can’t fault the Institute. Basically they are a lobby group for real-estate agents in NSW. No harm in that. But I can’t believe the Sydney Morning Herald reported on it. My issue is that the 20% claim becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Landlords will read the article and say "Rents will increase by 20% this year? Why not?". Not good for the renters out there like myself.
There is a silver lining to this cloud however. A lot of us renters actually have enough cash to buy, but are waiting for the right time to purchase our abode. If it gets to the stage where rents are so high that it makes economical sense to put money to a mortgage instead of rent, these landlords will loose a few good tenants.
It’s just the amount of the increase that is a little crazy. The Sydney Morning Herald is quoting a source at the Real Estate Institute of NSW who believes rents will increase by 20% this year. 20%! That’s an increase of 1/5. These are crazy figures when you consider inflation is running at 3%.
The worse thing about this claim is that it just appears to be a random belief. There does not seem to be any evidence backing this up.
Here at the goat, we like to get some stats to back up our theories. So I went to the real estate institute of nsw web site. ----------à http://www.reinsw.com.au/
In the news sections, there are a couple of predictions for the year ahead, neither of which quotes a 20% increase in rents. In one article, the institute quotes a BIS Shrapnel report which states a 10% increase each year for the following 3 years. This is a fair enough claim as rents went up last year 9.8% last year (a reasonable figure when you consider CPI was at 2.8%)
So it seems that it is just a pie in the sky claim. Nice. Now I can’t fault the Institute. Basically they are a lobby group for real-estate agents in NSW. No harm in that. But I can’t believe the Sydney Morning Herald reported on it. My issue is that the 20% claim becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Landlords will read the article and say "Rents will increase by 20% this year? Why not?". Not good for the renters out there like myself.
There is a silver lining to this cloud however. A lot of us renters actually have enough cash to buy, but are waiting for the right time to purchase our abode. If it gets to the stage where rents are so high that it makes economical sense to put money to a mortgage instead of rent, these landlords will loose a few good tenants.
Friday, January 5, 2007
ROI vs FYI
I was thinking about Higher education today. Another blog was having a discussion about Education being an investment in yourself and that you should expect a return on that investment.
I don’t think I agree with this. If you look at education being an investment, you would select your course based on what would pay the most money a few years after the uni days have finished. We would all be dentists (I think they have the highest starting salary first year out)
Another thing is that for a successful investment, you have to finish the course. If you select the course based on pay, it doesn’t take into account your strengths and weaknesses, not to mention interests. Its not a good thing to find out you can’t stand the sight of blood after Year 2 of medical school.
Also like any investment, you might make the wrong decision. The I.T industry is a good example of this. A lot of people studied I.T in the late 90’s early 2000’s during the boom time when fresh graduates could get a job pretty easily on amazing Pay. Nowadays, I.T graduate salaries are pretty low, (median graduate salary of $38000 in 2005 compared to $40,000 in 2001) and the number of positions available for graduates are lower still (75% of graduates working in 2005 compared to 80% in 2001). These stats are all from the Australian Bureau of statistics.
So the goat believes that Education belongs in a different category to investment. It’s more of a cost of living. You need food, you need clothes, you need shelter and in today’s fast changing world, I believe you need education. The return should be satisfying the need, rather than the money or the job.
So you should make your selections based on that. Preference should be given to courses that suit you and your personality. Your needs. Part time/full time, location of the education facility, age of student, quality of teaching. All of these things are more important than the potential job at the end of the degree/diploma.
Best option, like anything is to keep it simple. Find your strengths and look for a course that appeals to them and your interests. Look at education as a way of increasing your knowledge. Forget about the vocation. Educated, talented people will always get jobs, and it might be one you haven’t even thought of yet.
And you never know your luck. You might find you have put your money into BHP instead of One-Tel
I don’t think I agree with this. If you look at education being an investment, you would select your course based on what would pay the most money a few years after the uni days have finished. We would all be dentists (I think they have the highest starting salary first year out)
Another thing is that for a successful investment, you have to finish the course. If you select the course based on pay, it doesn’t take into account your strengths and weaknesses, not to mention interests. Its not a good thing to find out you can’t stand the sight of blood after Year 2 of medical school.
Also like any investment, you might make the wrong decision. The I.T industry is a good example of this. A lot of people studied I.T in the late 90’s early 2000’s during the boom time when fresh graduates could get a job pretty easily on amazing Pay. Nowadays, I.T graduate salaries are pretty low, (median graduate salary of $38000 in 2005 compared to $40,000 in 2001) and the number of positions available for graduates are lower still (75% of graduates working in 2005 compared to 80% in 2001). These stats are all from the Australian Bureau of statistics.
So the goat believes that Education belongs in a different category to investment. It’s more of a cost of living. You need food, you need clothes, you need shelter and in today’s fast changing world, I believe you need education. The return should be satisfying the need, rather than the money or the job.
So you should make your selections based on that. Preference should be given to courses that suit you and your personality. Your needs. Part time/full time, location of the education facility, age of student, quality of teaching. All of these things are more important than the potential job at the end of the degree/diploma.
Best option, like anything is to keep it simple. Find your strengths and look for a course that appeals to them and your interests. Look at education as a way of increasing your knowledge. Forget about the vocation. Educated, talented people will always get jobs, and it might be one you haven’t even thought of yet.
And you never know your luck. You might find you have put your money into BHP instead of One-Tel
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Dead men tell no tales
In the middle of my Christmas leftovers, I ran into the news that Suddam Hussein was executed. What a waste. Of all the things they could have done with Saddam, killing him off was probably one of the worst.
To quantify my statement I will say that I am against the death penalty. In my opinion, the government should not kill its own citizens. How can a government make laws criminalising the death of a person, and then turn around and say, "Oh, but we can do it"? For me, it shrieks of gross hypocrisy.
The advocate's of the death penalty always go one about the deterrent value of the act. At how it makes people less likely to murder if they knew that their own life might be forfeit. Well, the stats, as always, suggest otherwise. Using US data http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169&scid=12, we find that the murder rate in US states that have the death penalty is higher than those that don’t sentence murderers to death.
If we apply this theory to Iraq, I don’t think there are a lot of Iraqi criminals out there going "Well I don’t want to end up like Saddam, so I better put the gas away and not kill a couple of hundred Kurds". If the Iraqi insurgency got their hands on poisonous gas, it would probably go straight into the so-called "Green Zone" where the Iraqi government is (not to mention the US embassy)
The only argument I have heard in a positive sense regarding the death penalty is the economic angle. That is costs millions of tax payers funds to keep prisoners in jail for life Indeed, in the US, according to Department of justice figures, it costs an average of $25,327 US to imprison someone for a year (2003 figures). This is in the Federal System, which we will say is roughly equivalent to the state based systems (According to Bueuru of justice figures) .So if someone was imprisoned for life, say 40 years, we are talking a fair bit of dosh. But even on death row, prisoners have an average of 12 years of imprisonment before they are put to death. California stats have each prisoner of death row costing $90,000 a year. So if we discount this, it is really only 28 extra years.
These figures are dwarfed by the court costs of a death penalty case. Indeed in a 2005 report, it was found that the state of California spent 250 million per execution over 20 years. http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost&menu=1%22
That’s a lot of money to kill someone. I haven’t seen any figures for Saddam’s trial, but I’m sure it wasn’t cheap. So you have to ask the question, did the Iraqi people get their money’s worth?
I think not. Saddam is an icon to the Sunni minority, no doubt, but in jail he can not do any harm. Look at Colonel Noreiga. He is languishing in a Florida prison at the moment. No one thinks that when he is released (this year in fact), that he will go back to cause havoc in Panama. In fact Noreiga gave a fair bit of information regarding the drug trade to US Authorities. Who knows what valuable information went with Saddam to the grave? You want someone who knows where the bodies are buried? Who knows the informal tribal networks the Sunni insurgency is using? Saddam’s your man. If he knew he was facing a lifetime of jail, he would be handing over nuggets of valuable information for a packet of smokes.
I think right from the start, the Americans should not have given Saddam to the Iraqi authorities. They should have handed him right over to the International Criminal Court. He would have received as fair a trial is as possible and would be facing life imprisonment. But that is a little too worldly for the Yanks.
To quantify my statement I will say that I am against the death penalty. In my opinion, the government should not kill its own citizens. How can a government make laws criminalising the death of a person, and then turn around and say, "Oh, but we can do it"? For me, it shrieks of gross hypocrisy.
The advocate's of the death penalty always go one about the deterrent value of the act. At how it makes people less likely to murder if they knew that their own life might be forfeit. Well, the stats, as always, suggest otherwise. Using US data http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169&scid=12, we find that the murder rate in US states that have the death penalty is higher than those that don’t sentence murderers to death.
If we apply this theory to Iraq, I don’t think there are a lot of Iraqi criminals out there going "Well I don’t want to end up like Saddam, so I better put the gas away and not kill a couple of hundred Kurds". If the Iraqi insurgency got their hands on poisonous gas, it would probably go straight into the so-called "Green Zone" where the Iraqi government is (not to mention the US embassy)
The only argument I have heard in a positive sense regarding the death penalty is the economic angle. That is costs millions of tax payers funds to keep prisoners in jail for life Indeed, in the US, according to Department of justice figures, it costs an average of $25,327 US to imprison someone for a year (2003 figures). This is in the Federal System, which we will say is roughly equivalent to the state based systems (According to Bueuru of justice figures) .So if someone was imprisoned for life, say 40 years, we are talking a fair bit of dosh. But even on death row, prisoners have an average of 12 years of imprisonment before they are put to death. California stats have each prisoner of death row costing $90,000 a year. So if we discount this, it is really only 28 extra years.
These figures are dwarfed by the court costs of a death penalty case. Indeed in a 2005 report, it was found that the state of California spent 250 million per execution over 20 years. http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost&menu=1%22
That’s a lot of money to kill someone. I haven’t seen any figures for Saddam’s trial, but I’m sure it wasn’t cheap. So you have to ask the question, did the Iraqi people get their money’s worth?
I think not. Saddam is an icon to the Sunni minority, no doubt, but in jail he can not do any harm. Look at Colonel Noreiga. He is languishing in a Florida prison at the moment. No one thinks that when he is released (this year in fact), that he will go back to cause havoc in Panama. In fact Noreiga gave a fair bit of information regarding the drug trade to US Authorities. Who knows what valuable information went with Saddam to the grave? You want someone who knows where the bodies are buried? Who knows the informal tribal networks the Sunni insurgency is using? Saddam’s your man. If he knew he was facing a lifetime of jail, he would be handing over nuggets of valuable information for a packet of smokes.
I think right from the start, the Americans should not have given Saddam to the Iraqi authorities. They should have handed him right over to the International Criminal Court. He would have received as fair a trial is as possible and would be facing life imprisonment. But that is a little too worldly for the Yanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)