The Instigator
voxprojectus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheFurryOat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Improving Education Will do Nothing To Solve Economic Woes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 911 times Debate No: 35007
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

voxprojectus

Pro

My premise is simple: While there may be correlation to the wealth of a country and its level of education, there is no proof that the latter causes the former.

1. It is often argued that getting more people educated will create more jobs, but how? There is no job cheaper laborers overseas cannot acquire, so we cannot make a workforce so skilled that it can't be undersold.

2. We often complain about what a wreck our educational system is, yet regardless of where our position in relation to other nations is in terms of math and science scores, our economic booms and busts aren't influenced. Terrible scores in the 80's built to a massive economic boom in the early 2000's. Ostensibly great grades in the 60's saw economic downturn in the 80's.

3. The correlation between high level of education and a robust economy is only due to the fact that richer places in the world can afford high levels of education. The money is the real answer to the chicken-and-egg question, not academia.
TheFurryOat

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to an entertaining debate with pro, I wish the best of luck to both of us.



In response to one, imagine one person with a dream of atoms, he is the only person in a thousand mile radius that wants to do this, would he not have an ambition to do this, and in turn meets others who feel the same way? Would the government not see the benefits of something like this? NASA can claim sole responsibility for the upgrade of the tools used on a daily basis. The power drill that runs without a power cord was made so astronauts could work on the space station without worrying about recharging the tool or getting tangled. The invention of one object created less jobs focused on the need for men and more on the quality of men. This is where education pushes, for higher quality and not quantity. As the education of a nation rises, the number of jobs will decrease as the sophistication of the jobs increase until an equilibrium is reached for that generation. Eventually there will be no need for jobs and in turn no need for businesses.

In response to two, are you supposing that those students, be them in high school or college, where not the reason for either bust or boom? Who is responsible then? Can it be any one person? Suppose it is one person, then does the education of that one person dictate the gain made by a whole nation?

Or, business relies on dice rolls, there is a reason that Brownian motion is best described by the stock market’s rise and fall. While some external factors can be identified it would be foolish to suppose the education of someone who has only the want of money is representative of the whole population.

In response to three. Of course, that’s supposing that humans prefer bartering over learning, but you can’t adopt a system to gain without first observing what that person wants, or studying that person. Yes then, the want to gain came from the observation of having nothing.


Debate Round No. 1
voxprojectus

Pro

I don't really WANT to disagree with your first point in my heart. I think we have long surpassed the need for everyone to be gainfully employed due to the progress reached through our innovation and ingenuity.

But that is not the world or society we live in. So long as we still exist in a country that looks down on anyone not employed, lack of employment will continue to be a problem, one that education will, as you have perfectly illustrated, only exacerbate. As the quality of workers continues to rise and mechanization will replace more and more bodies in jobs, economies will falter.

To the second point, yes, I am exactly positing that there is no correlation between our booms and busts and the level of education before or after they occur. As a point of interest, every country I've ever spent time in laments and whines that that THEIR students are falling behind. Even when Japan was sitting on the ostensible top of the education game a few years back, their headlines were filled with endless concern of their failing students and lowering test scores versus the rest of the world. To me this illustrates that A: Our perception of education is bad, and B: even when education is good, the outcomes of an economy seem far more at the mercy of other economic forces. The impact education may have has yet to be convincingly measured.

As to your latter point, I don't think studying others to learn how to meaningfully trade with them is a matter of "education" so much as something we do with instinct or intuition. I'm not saying that education hurts these skills, but it is by no means the source of them.
TheFurryOat

Con

Your rebuttal to my first point is excellent. I agree that it is more on the part of the one's who view who have never contributed to improvements that are the reason for the ill perception of the unemployed. That is neither here nor there though. I am confused, how can an economy falter when it cannot not even be agreed what a good economy is? A good economy for some would still be a bad economy for others. Therefore, wouldn't the judgement of the quality of an economy be subjective? Yes, you can measure an economy based on metrics such as GDP, but does that measure the quality or sustainability of the economy? I do not appreciate predictions based on gambling.

Your rebuttal to my second point ignores what I wrote. The scheming of one may put the rest in Hell. Therefore it is the education of one that causes hell for all others. There is a reason intellectuals flock to the least oppressive country at any given time. At least, any scholar that does research on topics that may be uncomfortable for the entities to hear. Take the oil business, the research is constantly accused of being bias, this is in due in part to buy-offs on the part of the companies and researchers.

Your rebuttal to my third point is good.

Overall, the education of a country is connected to the wealth of the country, the higher the education one has, the least likely there is for acquiescing for money on the part of the scholar. When, in the future, education becomes more rigorous then it is now, as is evidenced by trends from Greece to Modern times, then I would think that there would be less weakness in morals and ethics, and less "faltering" of the economy.


I hope I have addressed all of your points thoroughly and without bias.
Debate Round No. 2
voxprojectus

Pro

*Pokes* You're allowed to be biased towards your OWN argument for goodness sake.

I guess I'm a little confused about how your second point helps your side when you re-frame it this way. One of my key points is that we falsely attribute economic success to countries with a highly educated populace. Your argument would seem to back this up: Rich countries effectively buy more educated people, the presence of more educated people did not make those countries rich.

I certainly hope you are correct on your final point for the sake of all of us, but as things are now, it does nothing to suggest educated countries are faring economically better.
TheFurryOat

Con

As this will be the final round, I must be frank. Bias gets in the way of truth, if you are in the right then it will show and likewise with me.
I have shown how each of my points connected to form a picture, this picture illustrated the fact that it is the moral and ethical education that is derived from rigorous study that affects wealth, thusly connecting the countries wealth and it's education. I have shown that it is the innovations of a few that affect the majority, thusly connecting the moral and ethical education of a few to the wealth of a country. I have shown that the converse to be true as well. I have shown that it is the quality of the job's that affect the number of jobs, thereby affecting the economy, and in turn the wealth of the country. If I have left anything out I welcome another debate with PRO as this has been more than fun. Thank you for the opportunity to debate with you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by voxprojectus 3 years ago
voxprojectus
Well, given that my other two debates have ended in me losing so far, I'm gonna call this the closest to a win I got. Thanks for the debate!
Posted by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
Holy crap, no one voted. Jeez.
Posted by voxprojectus 3 years ago
voxprojectus
Right back atcha. I wish you good luck in the voting.
Posted by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
I meant to say we should do this again sometime.
Posted by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
Thank you, this debate was very fun. We should do this again.
Posted by voxprojectus 3 years ago
voxprojectus
I'm a little new here...why are you posting a comment instead of simply accepting the debate?
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
I might be interested in this debate.

Your statement "Improving Education Will do Nothing To Solve Economic Woes" is worth debating on at least two levels"

1. Better educated people are more capable of making wise individual decisions.
This wisdom will solve many economic woes.

2. Education and innovation are linked.
More of our better educated people will be leaders and innovators in fields that improve the economy.

3. Morally educated people often resist the destruction that comes with alcohol, drugs and other vice.
Vice destroys our economic and moral foundation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.