2016 Election
Quote: BozAny company that is hiring understands we are at 100% employment of qualified employees. While it may not be the job you want, or pay what you want, everyone who wants a job has one. The 5.4 number is made up of people who either don't want to work or are unemployable based on their issues or work history. Anyone looking for employees knows you have to steal potential employees from competitors and either provide better pay or working conditions.
This is patently absurd and false. This is almost kind of sort of maybe true in certain sectors like maybe the tech sector maybe though probably not really. It is absurd in most other fields though. I don't know how you could even begin to believe something so ridiculous. I mean look at academia I know plenty of people with fine credentials who struggle very hard to find a job and there is a decent chance they might not find a job. There are a lot of reasons for this like the fact each professor occupies 1 job but might produce 6+ students so there are 6 people to replace him all with similar areas of research but only one job open. Yeah there are other jobs, but its not a case where everyone can find a job if they want unless they are totally unemployable.
Quote: TwirdmanThis is patently absurd and false. This is almost kind of sort of maybe true in certain sectors like maybe the tech sector maybe though probably not really. It is absurd in most other fields though. I don't know how you could even begin to believe something so ridiculous. I mean look at academia I know plenty of people with fine credentials who struggle very hard to find a job and there is a decent chance they might not find a job. There are a lot of reasons for this like the fact each professor occupies 1 job but might produce 6+ students so there are 6 people to replace him all with similar areas of research but only one job open. Yeah there are other jobs, but its not a case where everyone can find a job if they want unless they are totally unemployable.
Your response is just as absurd and false. Sometimes people have to adapt and use their skills and education in a new way to support their family. I'll stick by my point that people that want to work are working. And those that are not have made that choice themselves through their actions and decisions.
Yup, what a useful link! And still ignoring that tough number to swallow--93 million. That's big enough to choke on for most logical people.Quote: TwirdmanI did provide my numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYup, what a useful link! And still ignoring that tough number to swallow--93 million. That's big enough to choke on for most logical people.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 link. Don't see what that proves but you can easily see labor force participation rate is 62.8% which is the lowest rate its been since the 70s.
As to the 93 million what about it. I've explained that a large portion of those come from baby boomers. There are several tens millions of baby boomers who are retired they represent the single largest group of people. Other then that you have several millions high school students who are not looking for work. The third group is college students who again are not looking for work. Second and third group might be switched don't know raw numbers off the top of my head. The fourth group is what you probably want to bring into mind when you quote this misleading statistic and that is those who are looking but unable to find it.
I mean the more "honest" number for what you are talking about is U-6 which is at 10% and includes all those who have given up working or are only working part time and that's what the GOP used to trot out as OMG look at how badly Obama is doing until everyone started seeing through the little shell game and realized U6 is going down and every other presidents numbers were quoted as U-3 so it wasn't fair to compare those two so you've apparently went to an even more disingenuous trick then using a different number for Democrats then is used for Republicans that always happens to be higher you now use something that is going up due to demographic shifts that literally happened before Obama was even born, damn him and his magical time machine. We also going to blame Obama for more baby boomers dying now per day then before he took office must be related to the Obamacare death panels couldn't just be age like the lowering labor participation rate couldn't at all be linked to age.
Quote: soxfanI'll vote for anyone who runs on a platform of forced sterlizations as the solution to most of America's problems, hey hey.
The Nazi party has no candidates running lol
Quote: terapinedThe Nazi party has no candidates running lol
This is just asking for a sarcastic response..... Take your choice:
Reply from a Republican: "what, did Hillary drop out?!"
Reply from a Democrat: "what, did Ted Cruz drop out?!"
Quote: TwirdmanThere are a lot of reasons for this like the fact each professor occupies 1 job but might produce 6+ students so there are 6 people to replace him all with similar areas of research but only one job open. Yeah there are other jobs, but its not a case where everyone can find a job if they want unless they are totally unemployable.
And I thought about this some more. Is this what todays liberals colleges have created? 6 people for 1 position? Who is the smart one in that situation, creating large student debt and knowing that odds are they will not find work in the field they are training for? This is why people need to adapt and take available positions. It really goes back to if you want a job, you have one. If you don't you either don't want to work or unemployable. It may not pay what you want or be what you want to do, but to most people it is better than being unemployed. Unless of course you are one of those who feels they "earned" their unemployment and are going to collect it to the end and then look for a job with 2 weeks of UC to go. Remember I own a bar, I see a few of those guys too.
Quote: soxfanI'll vote for anyone who runs on a platform of forced sterlizations as the solution to most of America's problems, hey hey.
Quote: terapinedThe Nazi party has no candidates running lol
Quote: ams288This is just asking for a sarcastic response..... Take your choice:
Reply from a Republican: "what, did Hillary drop out?!"
Reply from a Democrat: "what, did Ted Cruz drop out?!"
I was simply responding to soxfan extreme position of supporting forced sterlizations
I wasn't inferring the general right or left as Nazi's
Its the extreme platform of "forced sterlizations" that I was addressing.
I hope nobody else on the board agrees with soxfan but "hey hey", you never know.
Quote: BozAnd I thought about this some more. Is this what todays liberals colleges have created? 6 people for 1 position? Who is the smart one in that situation, creating large student debt and knowing that odds are they will not find work in the field they are training for? This is why people need to adapt and take available positions. It really goes back to if you want a job, you have one. If you don't you either don't want to work or unemployable. It may not pay what you want or be what you want to do, but to most people it is better than being unemployed. Unless of course you are one of those who feels they "earned" their unemployment and are going to collect it to the end and then look for a job with 2 weeks of UC to go. Remember I own a bar, I see a few of those guys too.
Colleges today are businesses enjoying more and more money funded by the government with little accountability. Instead of six people who can take one professor's job being produced each year, they need to produce six people qualified for other positions that are needed. College is more expensive yet the value of it is being cheapened by just producing folks with degrees and no clue.
You are in a bad position if you take on $120,000 in college debt and can't get a job that pays much more than $30,000. Yes, you can move up to higher levels, but that takes time.
Our education system is a mess in more ways than one. Liberals have had their way; maybe it is time to try something more middle of the road...you can't charge more than what something is worth.
Again, these are things we should be working on; not issues involving a small percentage of the population that are sorting themselves out state by state and in the courts.
Quote: RonC
Our education system is a mess in more ways than one. Liberals have had their way; maybe it is time to try something more middle of the road...you can't charge more than what something is worth.
Again, these are things we should be working on; not issues involving a small percentage of the population that are sorting themselves out state by state and in the courts.
How have liberals had their way? Also what is being suggested. I mean the smart and best suggestion would probably be more scholarships to deserving students, caps on how much an institution can raise the fees by each year, and more subsidies in addition to more funding for vocational and trade schools. Also far stricter regulations on for profit colleges which tend to be incredibly expensive and provide almost no benefit to their students while lying about their graduate employment rate. These are the things liberals suggest along with lower interest rate on student loans. We get really none of those.
Instead funding to universities have been slashed, grant and scholarship programs are crap in all but a few states, and in all but the most egregious of examples for profit colleges are allowed to run amok. I mean liberals got a minor victories recently with now government providing loans directly to students rather then insuring a loan issued by a private lender and Corinthian Colleges was shut down for grossly misrepresenting their employment figures. Still no strong regulations put in place to curb what they are doing though. For all the talk of liberals having our way we rarely actually get things that liberals want. Occasionally the center right Democrats get what they want and against the farther right GOP gets want. If liberals are really lucky some center left policies manage to pass but almost no actual liberal policies pass.
Quote: TwirdmanHow have liberals had their way? Also what is being suggested. I mean the smart and best suggestion would probably be more scholarships to deserving students, caps on how much an institution can raise the fees by each year, and more subsidies in addition to more funding for vocational and trade schools. Also far stricter regulations on for profit colleges which tend to be incredibly expensive and provide almost no benefit to their students while lying about their graduate employment rate. These are the things liberals suggest along with lower interest rate on student loans. We get really none of those.
What he is saying is liberals run institutions of higher learning. A few conservatives on campus mostly in the econ and business departments. But that is about it. College is major expensive because we keep subsidizing it. Instead of more scholarships and grants, which we keep trying, we should be putting less out. As it is, colleges keep filling most to all of their slots, so why control costs. When a college has room for 5,000 freshmen and only 4,500 show up perhaps they will look at ways to really lower costs. Instead they keep making the places like resorts, a 4 year vacation with a 100,000 price tag.
And for what? More and more liberal arts, or worse yet, "studies" majors! All borrowing money they can't pay back for degrees for jobs that do not exist.
Quote:For all the talk of liberals having our way we rarely actually get things that liberals want. Occasionally the center right Democrats get what they want and against the farther right GOP gets want. If liberals are really lucky some center left policies manage to pass but almost no actual liberal policies pass.
Oh, please. Gay marriage, Obamacare, the so-called stimulus. Affirmative action and "diversity" set-asides in government contracts. How many tax increases since the reform of 1986, and when there was a surplus in the late-1990s the tax cuts to even it had a sunset provision. The Lilly Ledbetter law which says you can sue after an almost unlimited time. Liberalism has been creeping for nearly 100 years, since Wilson was in office. When liberal policies fail, we are told we just need to spend more or do more of them.
Quote: AZDuffman
Oh, please. Gay marriage, Obamacare, the so-called stimulus. Affirmative action and "diversity" set-asides in government contracts. How many tax increases since the reform of 1986, and when there was a surplus in the late-1990s the tax cuts to even it had a sunset provision. The Lilly Ledbetter law which says you can sue after an almost unlimited time. Liberalism has been creeping for nearly 100 years, since Wilson was in office. When liberal policies fail, we are told we just need to spend more or do more of them.
Obamacare is at best a center right solution the actual liberal solution is single payer which almost every other country in the world has. Also the top tax rate is 39.6% right now compared to 70% when Reagan took office and 50% after he lowered it for the first time. Also you got tax cuts during a booming surplus economy which is the opposite of liberal Keynesian economics. Also it took a tooth and nail fight to actual get them to ever let those cuts expire. The stimulus was a bipartisan bill and woefully inadequate compared to what liberals and economist were saying it should be. The Ledbetter act doesn't given an unlimited amount of time to sue it allows suing up to 180 days after the last act of discrimination which is the last paycheck.
Also really creeping liberalism. The current GOP is to the right of freaking Nixon. Nixon enacted the EPA which has now been branded as super liberal government regulations. The marginal tax rate was in the 70s or above. Hell to pay for WWII tax rates were raised to 90% and that was seen as the cost of doing war whereas the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were "funded" with tax cuts. Not to mention the shift to making the country the world police. Nixon campaigned on ending Vietnam and Carter was trying to end Vietnam because war was seen as a bad thing yet the current crop of GOPers want to use war as the solution to everything and often get enough Democrats to agree hence the quagmire that were Iraq and Afghanistan. The GOP is trying to erode and has been eroding worker protections since Reagan. Minimum wage is like 30% lower then its inflation adjusted amount from 1968 and raising it to even a small amount is decreed as the most liberal thing ever. This is not even talking about increased productivity which would lead to far higher minimum wage. The rule for minimum salary such that "managers" do not have to be paid overtime is ridiculously low compared to what it was. The Violence against women act was stalled because of allowing illegal immigrants to seek protections and protecting gay couples.
Multiple states have no law protecting gays from discrimination in living, working, or public accommodations access. Heck some states have even codified into law that they are allowed to discriminate.
the nomination. She has so much
baggage whoever opposes her
won't know where to start. And
I don't mean the baggage that's
he face..
Quote: AZDuffman
Affirmative action and "diversity" set-asides in government contracts.
Call it what it is-unabashed racism against White and Asian people by the party that has been racist since the day it was born. A century of slavery followed by a century of Jim Crow and a half-century of "affirmative action" with a side trip of Asians sent to concentration camps.
Racism is the only way the Party Of Owe has survived because it sure as HELL isn't their quasi-Soviet economic policies of open borders, borrowing by the trillion and taxing working people to death for the benefit of Wall Street, the banks, illegal aliens, ho's, parasites and most of all a government workforce exponentially better fed than the suckers who pay their unsustainable pensions.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-illinois-pension-20150509-story.html
You can complain about higher education, but I believe if you abandon it, you might as well give up on the advancement of civilization itself, IMO.
Quote: rxwineThe most educated countries in the world also tend to be the wealthiest. If that's what you care about.
You can complain about higher education, but I believe if you abandon it, you might as well give up on the advancement of civilization itself, IMO.
I don't think anyone wants to ABANDON higher education; what in the world makes you even say that?
We need to get control of higher education costs and get educated people with the knowledge to work in various industries; not with a bunch of crap degrees that give them a "higher education" with no expectation of being able to use it.
Quote: rxwineThe most educated countries in the world also tend to be the wealthiest. If that's what you care about.
You can complain about higher education, but I believe if you abandon it, you might as well give up on the advancement of civilization itself, IMO.
Education only bring wealth if it brings usable skills. "(Insert favorite group here) studies" gives no work skills. Poly-sci, English lit, and others give minimal if any skills you can use to
create wealth. And I am not saying abandon it. I am saying force the education-industrial complex on a diet to
get costs down.
I would start by lowering loans and grants to $0 in
the freshman year. That would seperate the people who belong from those going to 13th grade.
Quote: AZDuffman
I would start by lowering loans and grants to $0 in
the freshman year. That would seperate the people who belong from those going to 13th grade.
So its already difficult enough for people who are not rich to go to college and you want to make it more difficult. I mean its not only people who are going to one of these "useless" degrees that rely on money from grants and loans to be able to go to college. Getting a degree in engineering, mathematics, or any of the sciences are also incredibly expensive.
Also even if you did only want to restrict his to useless degrees it's still evil. Oh you see only rich people are allowed to learn for learning's sake the poor are only meant to learn what can go towards making others richer.
Quote: TwirdmanSo its already difficult enough for people who are not rich to go to college and you want to make it more difficult.
Well, yes.
A huge amount of money is wasted on people who go to college but do not return for their second year. Down the drain. Anyone who has been in or works at a college can tell you that there is a major correlation between students who put up their own money and those who have someone else either mommy and daddy or Uncle Sam footing the bill. So my plan would just make them have skin in the game. Save up to go to the school they like, OR co to community college for a year first, OR if the college likes them let the college pay their fare.
I would additionally change the formula for funding. Currently the Feds tell the students what they and their families pay and grants can cover the rest. This means you get what you had when I was in high school; guidance folk telling the kids to pick whatever school they wanted because the system pays the overage. I would instead say, "here is the grants you qualify for, you have to pay the rest."
Such a flip would make students price conscious and schools would have to compete.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell, yes.
A huge amount of money is wasted on people who go to college but do not return for their second year. Down the drain. Anyone who has been in or works at a college can tell you that there is a major correlation between students who put up their own money and those who have someone else either mommy and daddy or Uncle Sam footing the bill. So my plan would just make them have skin in the game. Save up to go to the school they like, OR co to community college for a year first, OR if the college likes them let the college pay their fare.
I would additionally change the formula for funding. Currently the Feds tell the students what they and their families pay and grants can cover the rest. This means you get what you had when I was in high school; guidance folk telling the kids to pick whatever school they wanted because the system pays the overage. I would instead say, "here is the grants you qualify for, you have to pay the rest."
Such a flip would make students price conscious and schools would have to compete.
So again you punish the poor to do what exactly? The cost the nation is burdened by education is a minor fraction of our budget. Grants are 30.2 billion a year this is less then half the total cost of the f22 program and for it we get a years worth of education compared to a plane that doesn't work and even if it did work is utterly pointless.
I mean you are basically saying only the richest people should be able to go to Ivy league schools without going bankrupt from it. What is the next step make them pay for primary school education and if they cannot afford it well they should try harder. If a student is smart and can get into Harvard or Yale do we really want to tell him well sorry but you were born in Compton so there's no chance you can afford to go there if only you had been born with a silver spoon in your mouth in the Hamptons you might have been able to make something of yourself.
Quote: TwirdmanSo again you punish the poor to do what exactly? The cost the nation is burdened by education is a minor fraction of our budget. Grants are 30.2 billion a year this is less then half the total cost of the f22 program and for it we get a years worth of education compared to a plane that doesn't work and even if it did work is utterly pointless.
I mean you are basically saying only the richest people should be able to go to Ivy league schools without going bankrupt from it. What is the next step make them pay for primary school education and if they cannot afford it well they should try harder. If a student is smart and can get into Harvard or Yale do we really want to tell him well sorry but you were born in Compton so there's no chance you can afford to go there if only you had been born with a silver spoon in your mouth in the Hamptons you might have been able to make something of yourself.
Get over the idea that everyone can or should go to Yale or Harvard. If a "disadvantaged" student is smart enough to go there then those institutions can perhaps offer a scholarship in the name of "diversity." But yes, we will have to tell some students, "sorry, this is what we can offer, you will have to select another school." There are lots of things you may want in life but cannot get, welcome to Earth.
In the real world the problem is not too few "disadvantaged yutes" going to better schools, but too many going. They go and get in over their head and end up failing out. Then they have loans that cripple them for years. If they had gone to a community or state school they would be better tracked and might just get an education that will help.
But I still maintain the better system is zero federal aid until they prove themselves. The dropout rate speaks for itself that many do not belong in college.
Quote: AZDuffmanEducation only bring wealth if it brings usable skills. "(Insert favorite group here) studies" gives no work skills. Poly-sci, English lit, and others give minimal if any skills you can use to
create wealth.
I wish to hell and back someone would've had this conversation with me 15 years ago.
Everyone seems to think "higher education" is the key, but from where I sit, the way they define "higher education" is idiotic, at best. College? 4 year degree? Ivy league school? That seems to be the goal. I'm young enough to remember the end of high school, and it was practically propaganda, just every day forced down our throats. Gotta go to college, gotta get that degree. It was all but said that a degree = great job. We're 16 and 17; we're too damn stupid to think it through and figure out there are probably steps in between that. We just accept what advisors and elders tell us. Degree = Cash Money.
What is wrong with being a working man? Why is "trade school" still looked at as a place for the poors and the retarded? I'll tell ya... an automotive certificate can be obtained in ~a year, if you hustle. After that, you need but 2 years working experience to become ASE certified. Get the two years, take the test, pass it, boom. ASE certified. 'Round here, that fetches $25p/hr, all day long. You imagine being 20 years old pulling $25p/hr? Keep hammering out the tests, get certified in all 8 fields, you're now an ASE certified master mechanic making $35p/hr+. One of my buddies went this route. A year or two younger than me, and his house in an affluent town with award winning '71 'Cuda and two '68 Superbees in his garage attests to his success. 32yrs old and has $300k in cars alone, not including his $50k daily driver. As a "working man" that spent four figures on his education. And don't get me started on my welder "father-in-law".
Higher education is important, and everyone should have it as an option. But subsidizing 4yr degrees isn't the only answer, nor should it be the first option.
Quote: Face
What is wrong with being a working man? Why is "trade school" still looked at as a place for the poors and the retarded? I'll tell ya... an automotive certificate can be obtained in ~a year, if you hustle. After that, you need but 2 years working experience to become ASE certified. Get the two years, take the test, pass it, boom. ASE certified. 'Round here, that fetches $25p/hr, all day long. You imagine being 20 years old pulling $25p/hr? Keep hammering out the tests, get certified in all 8 fields, you're now an ASE certified master mechanic making $35p/hr+. One of my buddies went this route. A year or two younger than me, and his house in an affluent town with award winning '71 'Cuda and two '68 Superbees in his garage attests to his success. 32yrs old and has $300k in cars alone, not including his $50k daily driver. As a "working man" that spent four figures on his education. And don't get me started on my welder "father-in-law".
Higher education is important, and everyone should have it as an option. But subsidizing 4yr degrees isn't the only answer, nor should it be the first option.
I am always conflicted. By most measures I have done well with my degree, but as those at DT see, I am on some kind of mission to learn more and more blue collar skills. If I was one of those "99ers" a few years back I would probably consider taking that time for some kind of trade training. When I did look at welding recently it seems that is a trade that gets a steady flow of 40something guys thinking the same thing. $25/hr? Not bad when a degree is bringing $15-20.
Somewhere around 30% of college students drop out after year one. Many should have went to trades.
Quote: FaceGotta go to college, gotta get that degree. It was all but said that a degree = great job. We're 16 and 17; we're too damn stupid to think it through .
College is mostly a scam. Who runs them,
and HS, teachers. Of course they're going
to push their profession. I keep reading there
will be big shortage in 10 years of plumbers,
electricians, heating and cooling, mechanics,
all the trades that were once honorable and
still pay well to this day. But Johnny doesn't
want to get his hands dirty.
I have a nephew who went 18 months to ITT
and has a $45K job installing computers on
semi trucks installing automatic transmissions.
He's not even 30 yet. He's confident that in
a year this will lead to and even better job.
John Stossel went to an unemployment agency
in NYC last summer. The place had a line out the
door. He and his people canvased a 6 block area
around the place and found over 40 available
jobs that nobody was applying for. No wonder
the illegals want to come here, just one of those
$10 an hour jobs makes them a king where they
come from.
Quote: TwirdmanSo again you punish the poor to do what exactly? The cost the nation is burdened by education is a minor fraction of our budget. Grants are 30.2 billion a year this is less then half the total cost of the f22 program and for it we get a years worth of education compared to a plane that doesn't work and even if it did work is utterly pointless.
I mean you are basically saying only the richest people should be able to go to Ivy league schools without going bankrupt from it. What is the next step make them pay for primary school education and if they cannot afford it well they should try harder. If a student is smart and can get into Harvard or Yale do we really want to tell him well sorry but you were born in Compton so there's no chance you can afford to go there if only you had been born with a silver spoon in your mouth in the Hamptons you might have been able to make something of yourself.
If a student is extremely competive he will get private scholarships to those schools.
Should the goverment be responsible for 40k-80k a year of tuition and expenses of any Ivy League somebody wants to go to.
Are Ivy Leagues seriously that more enlightened, that an English degree from Harvard will be vastly more useful than an English degree from a State University that the huge price difference would be justified?
The more people that go to college, the more the market gets saturated by degrees, the less valauable a bachelor's degree becomes. If college becomes the next High School, we will have to go to a Masters or Doctorate program to have an education edge over most other population.
As others have said you can and will make far more joining a trade union than going to college (and you will learn far more useful life skills).
Quote: Gandler
The more people that go to college, the more the market gets saturated by degrees, the less valauable a bachelor's degree becomes. If college becomes the next High School, we will have to go to a Masters or Doctorate program to have an education edge over most other population.
This is already very much the case. Attitude in a saturated market is, "so many people with a degree, why not make it a requirement?"
Worst had to be in AZ when I was there with my degree sitting next to a dude with an MBA all to answer calls for car loans. When degrees get you a gig as a phone monkey you really will wish you did a trade.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is already very much the case. Attitude in a saturated market is, "so many people with a degree, why not make it a requirement?"
Worst had to be in AZ when I was there with my degree sitting next to a dude with an MBA all to answer calls for car loans. When degrees get you a gig as a phone monkey you really will wish you did a trade.
A college degree is one of the worst investment you can make overall. There are some exceptions like hard sciences and engineering. But most people who go to college go for a non-scientific degree. And, it's only going to get worst as more people go to college.
There is something like 20% more photography degrees than photgraphy jobs (and the vast majority require no formal degree to begin with).
Too many people bash blue collar jobs, but the trade union members are laughing all the way the bank as demand and their profits vastly increase. My advice to any non science major is to skip college and learn a trade, they will likley have a house and car while their friends are still partying in college, building up debt, and damaging their liver.
If I knew in high school what I know now, I would have became a plumber or went active duty. But I came from a liberal family where Blue Collar jobs were taboo and college was highly pressured.
Quote:For those who question the value of college in this era of soaring student debt and high unemployment, the attitudes and experiences of today’s young adults—members of the so-called Millennial generation—provide a compelling answer. On virtually every measure of economic well-being and career attainment—from personal earnings to job satisfaction to the share employed full time—young college graduates are outperforming their peers with less education. And when today’s young adults are compared with previous generations, the disparity in economic outcomes between college graduates and those with a high school diploma or less formal schooling has never been greater in the modern era.
more here.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-college/
Quote: rxwineOr the gap is wider than before.
more here.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-college/
That survey is often cited and very misleading.
It includes people like Trumps and endless amounts of billioniares and rich families who all go to college and get some routine degrees. That is why the college educated numbers are vastly scewed.
Take out old money (who would all be we off regardless) and it would be very different.
Also, how many people graduate college and end up working a good job but one they could do without spending 4 years grinding into debt?
People who are extremely successful or extreme failures are not going to change much with or without a degree. (And both groups scew those types of polls).
Quote: GandlerThat survey is often cited and very misleading.
Where are you getting your data from which supports your current view?
Quote: Gandler
Also, how many people graduate college and end up working a good job but one they could do without spending 4 years grinding into debt?
DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!
Imagine for a minute if we could get say the top 50 employers in the USA to list the 50-100 skills they need for there entry level hires. Could have things like "MS Office" of course, maybe "accounting for non-accountants," and "dealing with customers." Then have a college just teach that, compressed into less than one year.
Say make it an 8 month program. After you were out, you would get a sort-of "certification" in these skills and the 50 employers would have a system of some kind to funnel grads into their hiring system. Perhaps an additional 4 months for certification for one or a few employers that have special needs. For example, an "airline certification" where students learned more about the nuts and bolts of that business, then AMR, LUV, etc would agree to look to the grad pool for hires.
Courses would be evaluated every 2-3 years. Idea would be you get hard skills for a white-collar job that needs more formal training than high school but for which a bachelors would be overkill.
Quote: GandlerThat survey is often cited and very misleading.
It includes people like Trumps and endless amounts of billioniares and rich families who all go to college and get some routine degrees. That is why the college educated numbers are vastly scewed.
Take out old money (who would all be we off regardless) and it would be very different.
Also, how many people graduate college and end up working a good job but one they could do without spending 4 years grinding into debt?
People who are extremely successful or extreme failures are not going to change much with or without a degree. (And both groups scew those types of polls).
Really you think there are that many billionaires that it shifts up the median? 50% earn more then is quoted 50% earn less. Maybe something like 1/10 of a percent of those college graduates come from what would be considered an old money family.
Also just because your job happens to not use the subject of your degree does not mean your degree didn't help you and make you stand out more. Many a corporation has chosen people with a degree in mathematics not because of the mathematics required for the job but because it displays a great deal of logical and creative thinking. Similar goes for other jobs and other degrees. An English degree can teach you proper eloquence and communication skills and is an asset on many jobs even if you never discuss Poe or Chaucer for your job.
Also outliers don't screw polls really much at all if you look at medians like this poll is. Even if you had 1 guy earning a hundred trillion dollars for the college side and a guy somehow losing a hundred trillion dollars a year for his salary it would have almost no effect on the median. If you are going to deride a statistical analysis you should actually know what goes into it first.
Quote: TwirdmanReally you think there are that many billionaires that it shifts up the median? 50% earn more then is quoted 50% earn less. Maybe something like 1/10 of a percent of those college graduates come from what would be considered an old money family.
Also just because your job happens to not use the subject of your degree does not mean your degree didn't help you and make you stand out more. Many a corporation has chosen people with a degree in mathematics not because of the mathematics required for the job but because it displays a great deal of logical and creative thinking. Similar goes for other jobs and other degrees. An English degree can teach you proper eloquence and communication skills and is an asset on many jobs even if you never discuss Poe or Chaucer for your job.
Also outliers don't screw polls really much at all if you look at medians like this poll is. Even if you had 1 guy earning a hundred trillion dollars for the college side and a guy somehow losing a hundred trillion dollars a year for his salary it would have almost no effect on the median. If you are going to deride a statistical analysis you should actually know what goes into it first.
I don't know if this poll is a median or not, most use a mean which is why you always hear those much chided memes "college graduates make over a million more than non graduates".
But yes rich families do skew the mean, this has been a long term criticism of these sorts of Polls.
but the important question is what major. A Chemistry major and an English major may both go to the same school, but other than that they have little in common.
Yes, science majors or stem majors (sci., tech., engineering, math) will have a job, most people in the liberals arts genre may as well not go to school.
Learning a trade is far more profitable than doing a liberal arts or social sciences major.
The fact is we need more blue collar workers. We do not need more unemployed college graduates who will likley never pay the goverment back their state subsidized loans.
Colleges are not and should not be for everyone. Too many people are getting pressured to go, and it is lowering the value of the degree and over saturating the job market.
The Ivy league schools and West Point will offer a great education, but even more important for those that would rise to power are the contacts that a student will make while there.
Say, four years of school will give a student exposure to 6 years worth of other students and after graduation those contacts are a great advantage in the business world. Not only the others they met while in school but the family's.
Who on Wall street doesn't know somebody or somebody's brother that went to Harvard? When any important business person want so put a deal together, where will they go? Exactly. That is the benefit of the Ivy league schools.
A good education can be had at a state or community college. A very good education can be had at religious college, for a small percentage of the price. If a student just wants to party, go to California.
If someone has to pay their own freight they would do themselves a favor and not attend college right out of high school. Work a year or so first and learn something about life and reality especially before taking on monster tuition debt that will put them years behind their trade peers economically.
Learning a skilled trade is not the end of the world for middle class people. It is portable and it is great to have something to fall back on in case the dream job doesn't show up right away. It is freedom, it is portable and will allow you to finance more easily the education of your choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_education
Quote: GandlerI don't know if this poll is a median or not, most use a mean which is why you always hear those much chided memes "college graduates make over a million more than non graduates".
But yes rich families do skew the mean, this has been a long term criticism of these sorts of Polls.
but the important question is what major. A Chemistry major and an English major may both go to the same school, but other than that they have little in common.
Yes, science majors or stem majors (sci., tech., engineering, math) will have a job, most people in the liberals arts genre may as well not go to school.
Learning a trade is far more profitable than doing a liberal arts or social sciences major.
The fact is we need more blue collar workers. We do not need more unemployed college graduates who will likley never pay the goverment back their state subsidized loans.
Colleges are not and should not be for everyone. Too many people are getting pressured to go, and it is lowering the value of the degree and over saturating the job market.
Actually when there are outliers most use the median and so does this one. It clearly says in the chart that it is median income. This again goes if you are going to attack something for being biased or bad science you need to at least spend the time to read what it says. Seriously the first graph said it was median.
Also just because going into trade school is more personally profitable then going to school and getting a liberal arts degree doesn't mean we should discourage liberal art degrees. I mean have you ever heard of the tragedy of the commons. Right now there aren't enough plumbers but if too many people become plumbers well then plumbers start making less then those with liberal arts degrees since their market is over saturated and what do we tell everyone to switch to liberal arts. Maybe do this shuffle every few dozen years or so.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to take up a trade carpentry, plumbing, and those are noble and right now profitable trades, but I don't see why we should demonize the liberal arts.
Quote: Twirdman
There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to take up a trade carpentry, plumbing, and those are noble and right now profitable trades, but I don't see why we should demonize the liberal arts.
Folks like Gandler and myself "demonize" liberal arts because it is really more of a hobby than a degree. It tends to produce graduates who are book smart but street stupid. Think meathead on AITF. Insulated from the real world, they know how everything should work "on paper" but when reality is different they are stumped.
Then there is the job market. Lit majors really have a degree only good to teach lit to other students. In and of its own, the degree gives no skills to produce wealth other than working at Borders and Barnes and Noble. A history major might be able to get an analyst job at the CIA, but after they hire the needed 5 people this year it will be a tough slog.
Another thing is liberal arts tends to breed a sort of person insulated from the real world. They think they are in college for "education sake" and never prepare themselves for when they have to go out and earn. Women used to be able to get such a degree while they shopped for a husband on campus. I called this the "husbandry degree." Snag a guy in a business or science major and after a few years they were set. With more women than men on campus now this is less an option.
They get this attitude because all of their professors never spent time in the real world and teach a subject that has little use for it. A business major has porfs who probably worked in business. Science majors will have geology and chemistry teachers who may have been in business or at the least do some part time consulting. But liberal arts folk are people who cram themselves into a university to avoid the nasty real world.
This is in a nutshell why we demonize it.
Quote: TwirdmanActually when there are outliers most use the median and so does this one. It clearly says in the chart that it is median income. This again goes if you are going to attack something for being biased or bad science you need to at least spend the time to read what it says. Seriously the first graph said it was median.
Also just because going into trade school is more personally profitable then going to school and getting a liberal arts degree doesn't mean we should discourage liberal art degrees. I mean have you ever heard of the tragedy of the commons. Right now there aren't enough plumbers but if too many people become plumbers well then plumbers start making less then those with liberal arts degrees since their market is over saturated and what do we tell everyone to switch to liberal arts. Maybe do this shuffle every few dozen years or so.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to take up a trade carpentry, plumbing, and those are noble and right now profitable trades, but I don't see why we should demonize the liberal arts.
A Chemistry major can do virtually anything a liberal arts major can do, plus they also have a degree that leads to a practical job. If you want to go to college, my advice would be go for a STEM major. You will have pretty much every oppurtnity that a liberal arts major has, plus much more.
I'm not demonizing anyone, I wish I knew this when I started college, I would have worked on a completely different degree track or skipped college alltogether.
I am all for going to college, but I'm not sure racking up 100k of debt is worth it for a degree that you can get for free simply by being well-read on your own accord. If you are going to go invest in a competive degree that there is a shortage of.
Quote: AZDuffmanImagine for a minute if we could get say the top 50 employers in the USA to list the 50-100 skills they need for there entry level hires. Could have things like "MS Office" of course, maybe "accounting for non-accountants," and "dealing with customers." Then have a college just teach that, compressed into less than one year.
Say make it an 8 month program. After you were out, you would get a sort-of "certification" in these skills and the 50 employers would have a system of some kind to funnel grads into their hiring system. Perhaps an additional 4 months for certification for one or a few employers that have special needs. For example, an "airline certification" where students learned more about the nuts and bolts of that business, then AMR, LUV, etc would agree to look to the grad pool for hires.
Courses would be evaluated every 2-3 years. Idea would be you get hard skills for a white-collar job that needs more formal training than high school but for which a bachelors would be overkill.
My question is, why can't we do this in high school? The same with trades training.
All I hear these days about improving education is "making college more affordable or accessible." I think education would be improved if trade vocations, or as AZD mentioned, "white collar skills" were taught in high school for those who were not planning to go to college. Then HS graduates would be ready for good jobs without having to spend the time and expense for further training.
Ha! We used to call it an "MRS" degree!Quote:Women used to be able to get such a degree while they shopped for a husband on campus. I called this the "husbandry degree." Snag a guy in a business or science major and after a few years they were set.
Quote: JoemanMy question is, why can't we do this in high school? The same with trades training.
All I hear these days about improving education is "making college more affordable or accessible." I think education would be improved if trade vocations, or as AZD mentioned, "white collar skills" were taught in high school for those who were not planning to go to college. Then HS graduates would be ready for good jobs without having to spend the time and expense for further training.
Ha! We used to call it an "MRS" degree!
You can. They are called Votech. High schools. You get both a high scool diploma and some sort of certification in your chosen trade when you graduate.
I wish I went this route in high school. My school had a program where in the morning you stayed at your local high scool for your academic classes and after lunch you were bussed to the county Votech high school to do your trade classes. Not many people did this as it was somewhat stigmatized, but the people who did this are probably far better off than those who just stayed at regular high school all day. Even if they ended up going to college, they still had an additional certification in a practical trade on their resume.
Plus, I think leaving hs for half a day, not to mention the travel time (I think they had to ride a "short bus" to and from) dissuaded many folks from pursuing this as well.Quote: GandlerNot many people did this as it was somewhat stigmatized
I think actually having vocational class options physically at the high school would get a lot more folks into those fields. If 'we' are going to invest in education, this is where you would get the most bang for your buck.
Yeah, the plumber and electrician I have working at my house right now seem to be doing very well!Quote:the people who did this are probably far better off than those who just stayed at regular high school all day.
Quote: GandlerYou can. They are called Votech. High schools. You get both a high scool diploma and some sort of certification in your chosen trade when you graduate.
I wish I went this route in high school. My school had a program where in the morning you stayed at your local high scool for your academic classes and after lunch you were bussed to the county Votech high school to do your trade classes. Not many people did this as it was somewhat stigmatized, but the people who did this are probably far better off than those who just stayed at regular high school all day. Even if they ended up going to college, they still had an additional certification in a practical trade on their resume.
We had the same thing except there were both morning and afternoon tracts depending IIRC if you were a junior or senior. But again and even back then, it was really considered for "losers" which is part of the problem. The other part is how they run the schools.
I didn't take Votec but I did take a neat building trades class. But we had too many burnouts just warehousing themselves, failing the class. Half the class was too cheap to spend $1-2 on the required fuse to complete their projects. I am not exaggerating, half the class and $1-2!
If I were the teacher I would have booted them all from class, but schools do not work that way. They sat, fooled around, and failed. Because you had to be around this element I did not take as many of those kind of classes as I should have. Looking back I really wish I took machine shop.
Looking back, many of those students probably have better jobs than the ones who did the normal 4 year HS route, then went to college and dropped out after freshman year....
Freshman year of college was one of the best years of my life. So much fun. First year courses are usually fluffy, so there was plenty of time for goofing off and having fun as opposed to studying. But from all the other Freshmen students on my floor in my dorm that first year (about 30 guys and 30 girls), I'd guess about 50% dropped out after that first year, and maybe only 30% ended up graduating with a degree.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/tpp-elizabeth-warren-labor-118068.html#ixzz3abJOV5aP
TPP is much worse than Clinton's Nafta.
If Clinton [Bill] hadn't signed away Glass Steagal, this monetary crisis the world is in wouldn't have happened, at least like it is now.
Quote: petroglyphhttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-19/make-college-free-taxing-stock-trades-dem-presidential-candidate-says Bernie Sanders wants a tax on stock trading to help defray college costs
I believe this is called a "Tobin Tax" and has been a liberal dream for years. Yet another way to take money form one person under threat of violence and give the money to someone else. The Democrat Party might as well rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party at this point.
Quote:If Clinton [Bill] hadn't signed away Glass Steagal, this monetary crisis the world is in wouldn't have happened, at least like it is now.
I'm not so sure about that, there would have been plenty on investment banks still trading the securities.
Since 2012, 2.75 million voters that voted for Rmmney will have passed away
Since 2012 2.3 million voters that voted for Obama will have passed away.
The repubs are allready running behind and now have to make up 400,000 votes they have lost.
The new numbers on gay marraige support, 60 per cent.
Repubs have a huge up hill climb
Getting rid of the uptick rule and mark to market also had huge roles.Quote: petroglyphIf Clinton [Bill] hadn't signed away Glass Steagal, this monetary crisis the world is in wouldn't have happened, at least like it is now.
Quote: terapinedRepublican voters skew a lot older then Democrat voters.
Since 2012, 2.75 million voters that voted for Rmmney will have passed away
Since 2012 2.3 million voters that voted for Obama will have passed away.
The repubs are allready running behind and now have to make up 400,000 votes they have lost.
The new numbers on gay marraige support, 60 per cent.
Repubs have a huge up hill climb
The gay marriage thing is over, America has lost. It is really no longer an issue. Liberals need to quit talking social issues and talk about what the public cares more about.
Way too early to say the GOP is "behind." Hillary is making an idiot of herself right out of the gate and even better is committing to running far to the left. She thinks she will have the energy level Obama had in 2008. This is very unlikely. Lower enthusiasm among blacks alone will drop her at least 2%.
