chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (03/05/87)
.
Hmmm, where to start? Well I certainly provoked a reaction with my
recent articles. I'm happy about that since can.politics experiences
too many "dead" stretches. The quality of some of the responses
leaves something to be desired though. Some people seem to be in
too much of a hurry to bother actually reading the articles and, *gasp*,
thinking about them. I make a suggestion and invite comments but it
seems that some people cannot control knee-jerk responses and the
compulsion to shout "communism" (or socialism or whatever).
This propensity to rash conclusions, arguing a point using emotionally
laden terms and labels, and in general a refusal to consider that
the world is not some simple black&white arena where you must choose
up sides is disappointing.
Let me summarize my proposal a bit.
The major effect would be to:
1. allow many more people to attend school than can currently do so
2. allow people to go to school without having to exit with a
massive debt burden which they must begin paying off
(many people are leaving school with $20,000 debts to CSL which
they must begin paying off almost immediately - makes it pretty
hard for them to get a "foothold" on the rest of their lives)
3. increase the general educational level of the country which
I believe would be an enormous benefit
A lot of the reaction seems to be that this is an amazingly restrictive
proposal that could only happen in a communist country. Let me point
out that this idea is hardly unique to me and that other examples can
easily be found, e.g.
a) the Canadian Armed Forces uses almost precisely the exact same
practice as I have proposed
b) smaller/poorer countries have similar schemes for students who
study aboroad. They found too many of their people accepting
money government support to study abroad (e.g. to become MDs)
and then refusing to return home to give their people the benefits
of the study that they (the people) had payed for. Once their
education was paid for by their poor relations they antd to stay
where they could make lots of money. These countries now insist
that the students agree to return home for a certain number of
number of years.
c) many corporations insist on employees signing agreements to
the effect that they will not use skills/knowledge obtained
through the company for a certain period after they leave the
company's employ.
If a child only kept company with me as long as I lavished $$ on her/him
and showed no appreciation I would consider them a spoiled brat. I'm
not sure what you can say about adults who want to be able to behave
in the same manner.
Perhaps the people who so violently object to this can explain to me
just why I and other taxpayers should be expected to pay for someones
education just to have them whistle off to some country where they
can make more money?? If they like these other places so much let
them go and try to get a cheap education "there".
Thats all for now,
John (big brother socialist commie social democrat) Chapmanchapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (03/05/87)
My apologies for some of the typos and extra words in my last posting - my terminal emultor seems to not be functioning 100% correctly and I didn't catch it till I read the article as a regular posting. Also I would like to add, for what it's worth, that Britain which had a totally open health system (if you got sick on British soil they paid all your medical bills) had to limit free access to only it's citizens as people were coming to Britain with the express purpose of "getting" sick. Their own countries did not have such generous health plans so they got the British taxpayer to pick up the tab. The government eventually decided it was not fair to expect the taxpayers to pay for someones care who would then just turn around and leave the country. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rgatkinson@watmum.UUCP (03/05/87)
In article <224@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > c) many corporations insist on employees signing agreements to > the effect that they will not use skills/knowledge obtained > through the company for a certain period after they leave the > company's employ. Come on John. Get the story straight. What these sorts of agreements prevent is the ex-employee using *proprietary information* or company *trade secrets* when she leaves. Non-competition contracts are looked upon very severly by the courts. In general, an employee's general "skills/knowledge" are her's to use as she pleases. (At least if I remember my intro-to-law courses correctly, this is the case. Anybody who *really* knows what they are talking about want to comment?) -bob atkinson
chapman@fornax.UUCP (03/06/87)
> In article <224@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > > > c) many corporations insist on employees signing agreements to > > the effect that they will not use skills/knowledge obtained > > through the company for a certain period after they leave the > > company's employ. > > Come on John. Get the story straight. What these sorts of agreements > prevent is the ex-employee using *proprietary information* or company > *trade secrets* when she leaves. Non-competition contracts are looked > upon very severly by the courts. In general, an employee's This is not entirely true. There have been contracts in the US where the employee agrees not to work in field X for a certain time period after leaving the company. Not just "you can't use proprietary info" but you can't work in that area at all. I can remember reading of a couple of cases of this in the trade papers a few years ago. However even if you do not believe this I think the point still stands - the company makes you more valuable by imparting particular knowledge and you are then constrained to use that knowledge for the company's benefit (and presumably your own - e.g. better employee -> more pay ) and not for it's competitors benefit. They educate you - you agree to use it only for your mutual benefit . > general "skills/knowledge" are her's to use as she pleases. > (At least if I remember my intro-to-law courses correctly, this is the case. > Anybody who *really* knows what they are talking about want to comment?) > > -bob atkinson
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (03/07/87)
In article <224@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >If a child only kept company with me as long as I lavished $$ on her/him >and showed no appreciation I would consider them a spoiled brat. I'm >not sure what you can say about adults who want to be able to behave >in the same manner. Unless John's plan is retroactive I would have neither anything to gain nor to lose because of it. I also have no expectations of the government lavishing me with anything. What I do have is a belief in a couple of principles: namely that education is a *right*, and emigrants should not be penalized because they no longer consider their future to be in their homeland. It is useful to realize that there are other reasons for leaving ones homeland than the potential for earning bigger bucks. E.g., family reunification, greater career opportunities (which does not necessarily mean more money), and/or a political climate more in tune with the individual's way of thinking. Requiring a person to pay a tax in order to rejoin his loved ones seems like an amazingly petty maneuver to me, yet is exactly what would happen under John's plan. At any rate, the bottom line here is that a would-be emigrant has to buy his way out of the country. A situation that I, coming from a family of immigrants, find extremely distasteful. It is also interesting to consider the fact that immigration is part of the fabric of Canadian society. This country *encourages* people from all over the world to come here to live. Very often these immigrants are educated people. Thus, it seems hypocritical to me that on the one hand Canada should encourage such people to come here, yet on the other hand would (under John's plan) discourage, by way of a tax, emigration of the same educated type of people. >can make more money?? If they like these other places so much let >them go and try to get a cheap education "there". Ever heard of "America, love it or leave it!" The above statement (not to mention the whole idea idea behind an emigration tax) reminds me of that little piece of American jingoism. I think I'll take what's behind door number 3, thank you. J.B. Robinson
chapman@fornax.UUCP (03/08/87)
> In article <224@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >If a child only kept company with me as long as I lavished $$ on her/him > >and showed no appreciation I would consider them a spoiled brat. I'm > >not sure what you can say about adults who want to be able to behave > >in the same manner. > > Unless John's plan is retroactive I would have neither anything to gain > nor to lose because of it. I also have no expectations of the > government lavishing me with anything. What I do have is a belief in a You miss the point again. This comment was not intended to describe you. It was a reference to those who believe I should pay for their education and get nothing in return (and who are ready to take off the minute they have their goodies). > couple of principles: namely that education is a *right*, and emigrants > should not be penalized because they no longer consider their future to > be in their homeland. > > It is useful to realize that there are other reasons for leaving ones > homeland than the potential for earning bigger bucks. E.g., family > reunification, greater career opportunities (which does not necessarily > mean more money), and/or a political climate more in tune with the All true and all irrelevant to the point(s) which seem to be under discussion. > individual's way of thinking. Requiring a person to pay a tax in order > to rejoin his loved ones seems like an amazingly petty maneuver to me, > yet is exactly what would happen under John's plan. Wrong again - why do you persist in attempting to mislead people into the idea that paying for a benefit recieved is akin to exthortion?? > > At any rate, the bottom line here is that a would-be emigrant has to > buy his way out of the country. A situation that I, coming from a Nonsense. Please have someone read you the original article. All a person would have to do is pay for a service rendered and voluntarily accepted. . . > >can make more money?? If they like these other places so much let > >them go and try to get a cheap education "there". > > Ever heard of "America, love it or leave it!" The above statement (not > to mention the whole idea idea behind an emigration tax) reminds me of > that little piece of American jingoism. I think I'll take what's behind I figured you would say that (actually I wasn't sure whether it would be you or Brad) but I decided to post it anyway. Telling people to go with the system of their choice is not jingoism. "if you don't like frigid winters move somewhere warm" is not jingoism .