Dang, the video wouldn't run even after wasting much time updating players and retrying several times. I suppose the text will have to suffice.

Seems Bernie wants all to be equally ignorant.

But is not every valuation a comparison against a pool of choices which may or may not include a "standard"? Yes. And value includes what one must pay in order to gain access to that choice. So when one has a large pool, one has a multiplicity of choices to select from and the relative cost of that choice goes down because of the sheer size of the pool - Econ 101 (supply & demand theory). A smaller pool drives up that cost of access, inherently driving value up as a result. The notion that value is independent of the range of choices available is simply not reconcilable to the facts.

Given that 99.5% of college professors have donated to Democrats (according to one study), maybe we should simply forward the bill for all college student to the DNC, they can write it off as "voter education."

I agree that for a collective of candidates that one has to compare whatever each individual to the job description as well as things such as being able to take orders, get along with other employees, etc. as well as being able to compensate for perceived biases of the interviewer. But most of the selection process is purely extrinsic to the interviewee and says more about the beliefs of the interviewer. Many interviewers are not exactly objective about interviewees.

Originally, I was just questioning your: "Value comes from scarcity - not abundance!", not about the valuation of a group of potential employees. Value is extrinsic, not intrinsic to the evaluated object and can range from no value to great value depending on the individual doing the evaluation. In evaluating something, to whom is it of value, yourself, your neighbor, a group, a whole species, etc. To some in the Gulch, Objectivism is of great value but to others not so valuable due to its atheistic undertone of not allowing any primacy of consciousness or mystical beliefs or belief without evidence. Evaluations change. I recall that Paul Ryan who comes from my previous hometown, when he became a congressman could not say anything bad about Rand's Atlas Shrugged and had all his staff read it. Then he greatly downgraded its value due to judging it as being atheistic. The value of it is not due to its scarcity nor is it due to its abundance. Its value is only due to the evaluation done by an individual mind and is of importance only to that mind regardless as to how all others might evaluate the book.
In a large business with a multitude of applicants, the HR person valued by the board will evaluate the candidates by whatever standard allowed by the company with all the backgrounds of both the applicant and the HR person in the mix. Objectivity only comes in as how close the applicant comes to some standard that may or may not have evaluated the background of the applicant well.

The objective standard is the job description. What I am considering is the reality that no two applicants are identical: each will present certain attributes, characteristics, training, experience, etc. and which are far more likely than not to be different from each other. Those differences provide comparative valuations: areas where one candidate's potential value to me may be higher than another's.

In the example of education, if the laws change to give everyone free access to higher education, that change effectively removes one significant differentiating factor between potential employees: the investment and effort required to pursue higher education. If I am an employer and I am interviewing candidates, education can be a good measure of a person's work ethic and perseverance - especially if they have demonstrated excellence (grades), graduated from a rigorous curriculum, or had to invest their own time and money.

"The valuation of the A in your example can change during the evaluation"

What matters is whether or not such a change elevates (or demotes) A within the realm of the bigger pool by making A more (or less) attractive/valuable when compared to B, C, D, et al. Remember, value maximization takes into account all possible choices and the rational decision is the one which selects the option with the highest apparent value - not merely the first option to fill the minimum requirements.

PS - if you have some method of evaluating the "Objective reality" pertaining to a person, please share!

Correct. The really sad thing is that at this point both the parents and children want nothing more than for the children to be passed along with the "trappings" of an education and none of the bother of one.
I weep for what I can forsee for my grandchildren.

It's called. . . . Kakistocracy! . . .sorry, It's my favorite word . . .It paints a 1000 pictures.

Our government was designed for an educated populace. An uneducated population allows the elected to stay in office to fix the problems they the officials created.

You said, "Let's just give everyone a diploma and skip the education."
Speaking from the position of a high school math teacher, I feel I am qualified to say that this is basically what is happening already.

There is no equation involved. Your evaluation of something has to be with respect to some standard that you have. That is what it is at a particular moment of time. It can have no other value to you at that moment but when you value it in a comparison to those other values you may revalue it more or less depending on how you value them. The absolutes in objective reality are the identities of the existents which are absolute at any moment of time but may change in a duration of time. Take an oscillating clock reaction. At the starting moment the liquid is perfectly transparent which is absolute at that moment, but, say, 30 seconds later it suddenly changes color which is an absolute at that moment, then 30 seconds later it changes to another color which is an absolute at that moment, and continues until the liquid goes through a cycle of colors until the chemicals are depleted in the liquid.
There are no valuations that are single value judgements since you have to evaluate all the things being evaluated including any standard of value that you might have.
The valuation of the A in your example can change during the evaluation of the set of other valuations which you have to do to compare them to A, maybe you did not have all the information that you have with respect to the other values. Objective reality has no absolutes other than the identities of existents and especially none that evaluates one thing to another thing to a conscious mind.

Relative value is meaningless without minimum requirements.

They also understand what side their bread is buttered on and we are their bread comes from. Conservative people on the other hand expect to earn their own bread so they're not as in the bag for the party of bigger government

That, and Democrats somehow are more obedient. They fall into line. Sheeple.

You have nailed the problem with the Republican Party. Some of us are so extreme that " the perfect becomes the enemy of the good." Most Democrats never seem to have this problem they just incrementally move the mileposts over time.

Hahaha. No, NEVER. But tgey dont have the corner on the market. A fellow Republican just hung up on me b/c I wouldn't agree that an absolutist pro-life platform is the only path to victory for Republican candidates. I just dont know what reality people at both extremes are existing in.

You are missing the point entirely. You are arguing for a single value judgement. I'm not arguing that your argument is without merit. What I am arguing is that you are looking at only half of the equation. If you have already predefined in your mind that you are going to hire a specific person, the addition of further education is going to raise their value to you. I don't question or challenge that assertion.

What I point out is that most people do not know who they are going to hire when they create a position to fill. They take applicants and do a comparative analysis of each candidate against the others. It is not a matter of one individual's value, but of how that individual's value compares to others. It is not a matter of A != A, but how A compares to B, C, D, E, F... ad nauseum. Nothing has changed about one's evaluation of A.

You are only looking at A. I am looking at the set of {A...Z}.

Agreed, Mike. I left that professor and that college behind as soon as practical (2 quarters, I think, to transfer mid year, change majors, and regain momentum.) I also found work in the new major almost immediately, and that was very educational and inspiring, not to mention financially rewarding.

First, the article itself suggests that the questions related to farming are not applicable to today's world They do, however, demonstrate the rigor of the schooling. As to not everyone not being required to.go.to high school - rightly so. Their primary education taught them more than our high schools and most colleges I don't believe that Detroit's demise is the result of not.attending college; it is more likely the result of colleges teaching at the high school level, while the high schools and the primary schools not teaching at all, except football, of course. So, remove the farming questions from that 7th grade test and let me know how college graduates score on that test.

Ah.....you have the answer....he isn't so much criticizing Bernie as he is criticizing an opponent of Hillary. If Bernie was for fresh air Matthews would make his supporters out to be nitwits.