"50% government employed or paid feed off the 50% employed by the market"
You essentially called government employees parasites. But you're right. Maybe you don't think of parasites as worthless. My bad.
Where I come from, job experience is valued higher then an actual degree. Job applications say; 5-10 years azure experience and the working level of a bachelor.
Actually, they never word it that way. They say something like:
"B.A./B.S in Computer Science, Computer Information Systems, Engineering, or related field (or the equivalent in related work experience)"
See how the "related work experience" is put in parenthesis like it's an afterthought? The preference is for people with degrees, and if you don't have one, you better have done something extraordinary like founding Microsoft.
Nowhere does it say you need a degree.
Actually, there are many jobs that don't make exceptions to the educational requirement. But, sure, not all of them are so stringent. Nevertheless, you're not going to find too many CEOs these days that dropped out of high school or even college/university. If you lack the faculty to get into college, let alone graduate with a degree, chances are you're not going be able to advance at your job enough to make your years of experience that compelling for the next company you want to work for. In fact, how do you even get your first job without a degree since you lack the "equivalent in work related experience"? Are you going to work your way up from janitor?
If you don't have a degree and no equivalent job experience, a company that hires you for your first job takes a risk that you're going to be competent enough for the job. If you look at the way job descriptions are written, it's pretty obvious that the free market decided long ago that it's a rarity that somebody without a degree and no prior job experience is going to be competent enough. Sure there are exceptions, but companies wouldn't be able to exist if they had to "bear such a high risk" for every single employee. Therefore, without education, you can't have employees, without employees you have no company. Hence, EDUCATION CREATES JOBS.
But you don't think this way. You want to give companies themselves credit for job creation without giving any credit to an educated workforce for making the existence of companies possible.
Now how am I going to check that Stanford claim to be true? Go back in time and destroy Stanford? Ofcourse their would be Yahoo, Sun, etc. etc. Stanford did not invent them, it facilitated. People created Sun, Yahoo, etc. etc., not Stanford.
So here you don't want to give any credit to the university that provided the education, facilities, and other resources to make these companies possible, and you want to give all the credit to the people who started the companies. (See what I mean by making sh1t up as you go along?) Never mind that "SUN" in Sun Microsystems actually stands for "Stanford University Network". Yeah, I can unequivocally say that without Stanford there would be no Stanford University Network. As for the other companies, maybe they'd exist in some other form, but undoubtedly these alter-ego Cisco, Yahoo!, and Google would have been formed at some other university.
But all right then. Let's give credit to only people at the university rather than the university itself, such as the professors who taught these companies' founders and the alumni who donated the money for the facilities and the resources that they used. Let's give credit to all these people, who make the existence of Stanford possible rather than the institution itself.
Then heap more credit to the public school teachers that taught the vast majority of Stanford faculty and alumni.
And while you're at it, give some credit to the US government's National Science Foundation for bankrolling Sergey's and Larry's fellowships and that little search engine product that they created on university computers. Oh, I'm sorry. Give credit to the government employees at the NSF that decided that the Stanford Digital Library Project was a worthy endeavor to fund through taxpayer dollars.
I do get to decide, I am a paying customer. That video that Sven posted is a good example of government regulation doing more harm then good. And this is just one of many regulations limiting free choice. Consumers should have a choice, then and only then do you get value for your money. Remember the four ways to spend money that I posted!
No, that's an example of Republicans electing morons who can only see things as black and white to the bench. There need to be truancy laws, but we need reasonable people executing those laws.