We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
Yes, suevv, but don't extrinsic rewards kill motivation to begin with? Oh dear. This just seems terrible for those poor people. So much promise, utterly destroyed by those horrible Genius Grants. tsk-tsk. Such a shame.
(They make me pretty happy, too, by the way. This is the part of my post that I call "being serious.")
This is unsustainable and I wonder what sort of workplace will exist here in the States in 20 years or so...
The NYT article linked to is "Temporary Visas to Import Talent Help Copycats Take Jobs Abroad". There will continue to be global convergence in wages, mostly in the direction of developing country wages approaching that of developed countries. If an Indian can do an accounting or programming job for a fraction of what an American commands, the job will go to India. Overall this benefits Americans, because in a competitive market companies will pass on labor cost savings to consumers. Clothes and shoes are much cheaper than they would be if they were produced domestically.
Is an American with a given IQ and other skills entitled to much higher pay than a foreigner with the same attributes?
The fellowships from the MacArthur Foundation may be called "genius grants" by plebs, but are given to adults who have long since developed their motivation and proven their perseverance, not to children in a formative stage of development including development of motivation and perseverance.
The fellowships, which have come to be known as “genius grants,” come with a stipend of $625,000 over five years — no strings attached.
“We take ‘no strings’ quite seriously,” said Cecilia A. Conrad, the foundation’s managing director. “They don’t have to report to us. They can use the funds in any way they see fit.”
“We try to reach people who have shown evidence of exceptional creativity but show the potential for more in the future,” she added, “to give individuals the freedom to take some risks, to enable them to do new and exciting things.” Emphasis added.
That being said, it would be interesting to see a 5-year follow-up, "Where are they now?", to see whether the stipends propelled these individuals toward accelerated contribution in their area(s) of expertise, or whether they chose to accept the affirmation of their past accomplishments as a signal to rest on their laurels and avoid the risk of further effort which may or may not eclipse their prior achievements.
Is an American with a given IQ and other skills entitled to much higher pay than a foreigner with the same attributes?
Whether discussing receiving "genius grants" or receiving a paycheck with a living wage, the rewards may go to a fraction of individuals of equivalent IQ, skills, effort, work ethic, etc.
The point which may make each of these articles of great concern, may be the impact upon the strength and stability of any organization or nation which recognizes personal liberty, and empowers individuals to be self-determining.
2) In the second article, employers circumventing laws and/or contractual agreements that the foreign workers “will not adversely affect the working conditions” of Americans or lower their wages may decrease the number of Americans employed, therefore lower the amount of income taxes collected to fund the US government (including programs such as public education, and grant-funded research). Underfunding budgeted US government programs increases the national debt and weakens the current and future capacity for US governmental programs such as public education, grant-funded research, and worldwide philanthropic outreach including the recognition of personal liberties, freedoms, and rights of individuals.
Overall this benefits Americans, because in a competitive market companies will pass on labor cost savings to consumers.
So we can expect workers to lose $10 on hourly wages, and that somehow balances $10 off a pair of shoes?
Originally Posted by Bostonian
Is an American with a given IQ and other skills entitled to much higher pay than a foreigner with the same attributes?
We should first transform into a society that values IQ (in a monetary sense AND in a social sense) before asking that question. Until then, it's meaningless.
That being said, it would be interesting to see a 5-year follow-up, "Where are they now?", to see whether the stipends propelled these individuals toward accelerated contribution in their area(s) of expertise, or whether they chose to accept the affirmation of their past accomplishments as a signal to rest on their laurels and avoid the risk of further effort which may or may not eclipse their prior achievements.
All great points, Indigo. Honestly I was just making a bad joke that was triggered by seeing the word "genius" used in a positive light. It's so rare these days. Usually, it's seen in a more snide or sarcastic context, you know?
Funny side note: If you were wondering what sort of positive influence this board might have on the mindset of parents of gifted kids - well it's working on me at least.
I read the above quote ("interesting to see a 5-year follow-up"), and initially thought to myself, "Hmmm - that's a good idea. It would be a great learning experience for a 5-year old to do this research and see all the things that can be done in the world." .....
Oops, I read that too quickly. You meant "do a follow-up after 5 years." Also a good idea. Maybe one of us has a 5-year old who can do a 5-year follow-up!
Overall this benefits Americans, because in a competitive market companies will pass on labor cost savings to consumers.
So we can expect workers to lose $10 on hourly wages, and that somehow balances $10 off a pair of shoes?
That's why workers need to upgrade their skill set to climb the value-added chain.
Once we are all hedge fund investment banking pediatric radiation oncology neurosurgeons, we will no longer be concerned silly things like hourly wages.
The sheer value that we will create every hour leaves me speechless.
By cooperating with the global financial hypereconomy in creating a self-sustaining Carousel of Progress, we will finally reach utopia.
Note to self: Carousel and Carousal are not synonyms, all irony aside.
I think that there may be a fourth law of thermodynamics which is specific to Carousels of Progress in particular, which means that there is a loss of generated progress upon each revolution. Er-- could have been Carousals of Progress, though, and this is only because I use the zeroth convention in numbering my laws. Maybe it is a subset of the second law. I always found thermo a bit slippery this way.
Oh dear. This just seems terrible for those poor people. So much promise, utterly destroyed by those horrible Genius Grants. tsk-tsk. Such a shame.
