Noen on point as well. While I never worked during a semester, I did my fair share of common jobs. I learned a shit ton from those positions that transition into the engineering field, if nothing more than learning to get along with blue-collar workers, team work, and good old customer service/common courtesy.

Quote :

"You obviously don't know much about how HR works. Back when I worked in an HR department I saw many a resume thrown out over dumb shit, even if the person was a good candidate for the position."

This is true (obviously ). Shit like this is why it is so very important to be able to write a good resume.

Most freshly graduated or in school college students don't know jack shit about writing a good resume. I've seen it with my own eyes. If a person applies for many positions they feel they are a good fit for yet doesn't get any feedback, then they are getting their resume thrown out with the rest of the trash and they need to get help fixing their resume.

9/20/2011 9:03:53 AM

It's not even about writing a good resume. Sometimes it just depends on the mood of the person reviewing resumes. I remember once we had a candidate that had a two year unexplained gap in their resume. My guess was that they were in grad school at the time but didn't want to include that on their resume for fear of being considered overqualified. Rather than bring the person in for an interview they just tossed it in the trash. I felt bad for the guy but sometimes you could have the best written resume in the world but it won't mean squat depending on who is reviewing those resumes.

9/20/2011 10:19:54 AM

Noen your ignorance is displayed more with every post. Just stop and save some face.

Quote :

"People feel ENTITLED as a result of a college degree, that somehow blue collar jobs are beneath them and a waste of their time."

That isn't what I said at all. My point was that if you are getting paid the same amount regardless, why would you remove time from a dedicated job search to work cutting grass or cleaning gutters? It isn't to say that you're too good for those jobs, only that overall economic efficiency will best be served by you taking a job for which you're best suited and those who are unskilled taking jobs for which they are best suited

Quote :

"I didn't have loans in the first place, because I WORKED MY ASS OFF to pay for my education in full, up front."

Interesting. Even before college started you had enough money to pay your first semester tuition, room and board, and books up front, yet didn't take a dime from your parents.

Interesting.

Quote :

"And fuck you, it is impressive."

Again, not really. There are numerous EE/CpEs that have done the same thing. This is beside the point because, while I do believe that you worked, I do not believe you paid for everything on your own.

9/20/2011 11:05:17 AM

^In 5th grade my parents told me if I wanted to go to college, I needed to start saving. Then they handed me a book of deposit slips for a saving account. By the time I started college, I had enough money to pay my first semester tuition, room and board, and books up front, yet didn't take a dime from my parents.

It's plausible that others have done the same thing.

9/20/2011 11:12:01 AM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: These people graduating from 4th tier law schools with 100k in debt? They're never going to pay that off."

That's a lie.

Also, I don't lose much sleep at night because there's an attorney out there who temporarily doesn't make as much money as he or she was anticipating. They'll be okay.

9/20/2011 11:13:53 AM

^Yeah, it's probably not though

9/20/2011 11:22:22 AM

^^Yeah...you're just wrong.

Here's a pretty good blog: http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/

It's only entertaining in a really depressing way, though. The fact is, many of these third/fourth tier schools have popped up in the last decade, just cashing in on the bubble. A lot of the law professors are JDs that couldn't find work or wanted to make money off of people's ignorance. Traditionally, law school was selective and generally meant that you would end up in a high income position. Fast forward to today, and not only is a high income job not guaranteed, it's not all that likely.

If you also take into account that we need to shake this regulatory burden holding back the economy, the legal profession is not one that needs to grow. When you think about it, lawyers don't really create anything of value...they just navigate around government laws and regulations. It would be better for a lot of these people going into bad law schools to work, or go into tech fields.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 11:28 AM. Reason : ]

9/20/2011 11:24:10 AM

A lot of it depends on the type of law you studied, when you graduated, etc. A friend of mine graduated from law school just as the economy was crashing. Took her over a year to get a job even remotely in her field and she's making less than I do. My student loans suck but at least I'm not being crushed with debt like her.

I think a big problem is generations have been sold on this idea that getting a degree instantly means a better life. And now we're being told that getting a graduate degree instantly leads to that better life. And that's simply not the case. As a society we need to decide if it's really worthwhile to have so many people go to college and if we maybe wouldn't be better suited by allowing for the training in trades during secondary education.

9/20/2011 11:28:09 AM

Quote :

"Interesting. Even before college started you had enough money to pay your first semester tuition, room and board, and books up front, yet didn't take a dime from your parents. Interesting."

That isn't so unrealistic. A buddy of mine worked throughout HS, paid for all his college and expenses from day 1, and bought a pretty nice car with cash his freshman year. He now has an undergrad and masters degree without touching a single loan or being supported by his parents. Just takes hard work.

9/20/2011 11:35:06 AM

^^^I've read a great deal about the current situation for people leaving law school...if you guys will recall, there have been multiple threads posted about it on TWW.

However, 100k is like a very small, crappy house. There's no way you guys are telling me that somebody with two college degrees can't pay that off in a lifetime. Working class families with no degrees do that all the time...but 100k is too much for a crappy attorney?!?! Whatever.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 11:37 AM. Reason : You're just wrong.]

9/20/2011 11:35:06 AM

Quote :

" It takes about seven years to recover from bankruptcy. If you can't pay your student loans and can't file for bankruptcy against them, then you're stuck with that forever."

I know, I had to live through it growing up. But at the same time, I think many people take school loans lightly and they really shouldn't (obviously, and just like other loans out there)

9/20/2011 11:39:46 AM

^^You understand how interest works, right? You also understand that interest rates across the board are artificially low right now, and at some point, they're going to have to rise substantially?

Best bet for borrowers is to hope that their debt gets inflated away...and that's pretty damn likely.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ]

9/20/2011 11:39:55 AM

^That and the interest rate for something such as a law degree is nearly double what you would pay on a house, making the payments that much worse.

On top of that, regardless if you have a law degree or not, it would be hard to pay down for a 100k "crappy house" if you don't have a job.

As usual, BridgetSPK, you've made a lot of assumptions but don't really know many facts about the issue. Perhaps you should keep your mouth shut and eyes open so you can learn a thing or two.

9/20/2011 11:57:41 AM

Quote :

"If you also take into account that we need to shake this regulatory burden holding back the economy, the legal profession is not one that needs to grow. When you think about it, lawyers don't really create anything of value...they just navigate around government laws and regulations. It would be better for a lot of these people going into bad law schools to work, or go into tech fields."

Well, I know I have kind of a vested interest here but I disagree that there's a "regulatory burden" holding back the economy, given that deregulation got us into the mess we're in. Even beyond the financial sector, there are a lot of things that could use more regulation that would be beneficial to the average American, like health insurance and food safety. Unfortunately we seem to be moving away from that because it's politically impossible to increase government revenue.

Yeah, people that went to bad law schools probably did make a mistake. I got degrees in ChemE and English from State and I went to a good law school, and I'm still pretty worried about my job prospects, though, so maybe it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway.

9/20/2011 12:11:28 PM

Quote :

"Well, I know I have kind of a vested interest here but I disagree that there's a "regulatory burden" holding back the economy, given that deregulation got us into the mess we're in."

Been hearing this a lot lately. In reality, the government "fixes" things that don't need fixing until, seemingly by magic, they are broken and need more "fixing" (read: regulation). Most of the problems that you think need to be regulated could be prevented if the government wasn't trying to solve every problem that pops up in society. The system is saturated by moral hazard; there's every incentive to do the "wrong thing" because it has been made clear that the real losers win big and the responsible people have to foot the bill.

Best examples? "We need to increase home ownership! Therefore, encourage/enable banks to give out more home loans!" "We need a better educated populace! Therefore, encourage/enable/subsidize student loans so more people go to college!" We see how these things work out. Regulation is a band aid, but it doesn't address the root problem - government trying to tweak or micromanage the economy in superficial ways, only to prevent the market from working as it should.

9/20/2011 12:22:25 PM

Quote :

"Is someone going to give my parents the money they spent for my college back too?"

I'd like to know if this has been touched on yet?

How fair is it that people who never had the money in the first place are being forgiven of their outstanding debt, essentially getting a 'freeloader scholarship', while those who took the time to save and pay up front to get the same crappy low paying degrees are now worse off because that money is gone from them completely? If they are going to forgive student loan debt, they should also hand out refunds to those who actually paid as well. OR just let those with debt suffer with it. No one held a gun to their head and told them they had to go to college.

9/20/2011 12:27:49 PM

Quote :

"On top of that, regardless if you have a law degree or not, it would be hard to pay down for a 100k "crappy house" if you don't have a job."

And never mind you can theoretically sell off that crappy house and use the money to pay off your loan. With a student loan you have nothing to sell off, just the hope you'll get a job that will pay your bills.

9/20/2011 12:28:21 PM

^^^There can be a lot of moral hazard, I'll grant you that, but I would say the bigger problem with regulation is not the regulation itself, but starting something and not following through with it, which ends up creating an even bigger mess. With the housing situation, perhaps they did try to drive the idea that everyone should buy a house for a while, but the Fed also could have popped the housing bubble, restricted ultra-leveraged financial instruments that nobody understands, and cracked down on predatory lenders. You can't just put the car on cruise control and do a tuck and roll out of it, which is more or less what happened. Government intervention is fine as long as it's competent, but sadly that's where we've been really failing in the past 10 years or so.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ^]

9/20/2011 12:35:31 PM

Quote :

"On top of that, regardless if you have a law degree or not, it would be hard to pay down for a 100k "crappy house" if you don't have a job."

It's hard to pay off a loan when you're unemployed?!?! You don't say!



I know three different people who have paid off over 30k in credit card debt in less than three years. In all cases, they had to move to different cities for work and dramatically reduce their standards of living. So...from "owning" their own homes to...renting a room that doesn't have a closet so you just pile up all your business clothes on the mini fridge at the foot of your twin mattress--and you're 30+ years old with an advanced degree.

Tell me you don't want to pay $1200/month. Or that it's too hard to pay that much. But don't tell me that they can't pay it. You can make like $2100/month after taxes as a teacher. After student loans, that's a whole $900/month just for you...you can take it all to the bar on Friday nights and tell everybody you're a lawyer!

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2011 12:45:15 PM

I'm not saying that racking up $100K+ in debt from a lower tier law school isn't a problem. But the economy is much more to blame than getting a degree from a less heralded law school.
The law degree has declined in value because the market is saturated and the economy sucks. People are either too broke to hire lawyers or they aren't paying their bills. Law firms aren't hiring, so the unemployed recent law grads are stacking up higher and higher every year. I know plenty of unemployed law grads from first and second tier schools and I know a good number of grads from lower tiered schools who got great jobs.

There aren't too many majors or post-grads degrees that will guarantee you a well-paying job right after graduation. A law degree use to do that...it just doesn't anymore.

9/20/2011 12:57:38 PM

^^And I don't mean to be harsh. It's just that the conversation feels very perverted: Look at all these pitiful attorneys and PhD holders! We need to help these poor souls get out of the debt that they greedily signed up for!

9/20/2011 1:14:31 PM

If that's what you got from the conversation, I don't know what to say.

Also...900 dollars/month for living expenses? That was considered poverty in the 1990s. These days...lol. Hope you don't drive. Or eat.

9/20/2011 1:58:50 PM

9/20/2011 2:03:56 PM

^^The $900 thing was sort of a joke--I wouldn't expect someone to become a teacher and pay off law schools loans and live on that...they should wait tables evenings/weekends, too. But, seriously, how do you think people live when they are actually trying to pay off a huge debt? You do realize that, if they can't increase their earnings, then they technically might live in poverty, right? That's pretty much how it's done.

And I hear your points about dishonest law schools and the cost of education being artificially inflated by subsidies, and I agree that something needs to be done about it...but let's not pretend it's impossible to pay off 100k in student loan debt if you went to a less a competitive law school.

9/20/2011 2:24:32 PM

^^Lucky Ducky!!!

9/20/2011 2:27:16 PM

Quote :

"I think a big problem is generations have been sold on this idea that getting a degree instantly means a better life. And now we're being told that getting a graduate degree instantly leads to that better life. And that's simply not the case. As a society we need to decide if it's really worthwhile to have so many people go to college and if we maybe wouldn't be better suited by allowing for the training in trades during secondary education."

No one is doing trades. It's so bad MCAS Cherry Point (one of the largest if not the largest civilian employer in eastern N.C.) had to start up an aircraft maintenance school with the community college there just because no one in their 20s is becoming a mechanic, machinist, welder, etc. and all the people doing them now are getting pretty close to retirement. Those people that are doing them now by default will be richer in 20 years just due to the simple rule of supply and demand. I've got a cousin that's a good welder and he's a dropout. Last time I talked to him I told him to get a GED and his certificate because his long-term employment prospects are much better than a college grad with an English degree.


Regarding debt forgiveness, someone is still paying for it. It's not like N.C. State is going to have John that still owes them $20k no longer owe them anything and they don't receive the balance.

I do agree that some kind of review for colleges should take place where they get rid of programs that have low placement in their fields. Or majors that have low placement just don't receive federal funds for scholarships, grants, loans, etc. But I doubt that's ever going to happen. The liberal arts people nationwide would have a fit.

Quote :

"Come on, you know this isn't about intelligence. They're politically intelligent, and this will help them stay in office. That's all that matters."

they're banking on getting the votes of a demographic group that by and large doesn't vote?

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 4:11 PM. Reason : /]

9/20/2011 3:49:16 PM

Quote :

"I do agree that some kind of review for colleges should take place where they get rid of programs that have low placement in their fields. But I doubt that's ever going to happen. The liberal arts people nationwide would have a fit."

Reminds me of a thread I started some years ago, "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go":

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=585344

9/20/2011 3:54:28 PM

Yep I know a few people with trade school certificates that make more than I will anytime soon. Makes me wonder if I should have just gotten an MLT certificate from Wake Tech.

9/20/2011 3:57:15 PM

Quote :

"Noen your ignorance is displayed more with every post. Just stop and save some face. That isn't what I said at all. My point was that if you are getting paid the same amount regardless, why would you remove time from a dedicated job search to work cutting grass or cleaning gutters? It isn't to say that you're too good for those jobs, only that overall economic efficiency will best be served by you taking a job for which you're best suited and those who are unskilled taking jobs for which they are best suited"

You're bein laughable Geppetto. I've been on unemployment, I've worked several blue collar jobs, I have worked with many different trade industries. Your assertion doesn't even make sense.

You don't get paid to search for a job. You temporarily collect unemployment. Those are two very different thing. Getting paid means you are a contributing member of society. Collecting unemployment means you are living on the tax payer's dime.

And sorry, you can't at all convince me that "overall economic efficiency" is greater when 30 million people are looking for work, versus 30 million people WORKING. It's a completely false pretense that you can only look for work when you don't have a current job. Yes it's easier, but this is real life.

There is a HUGE demand for skilled trade labor. There is a HUGE surplus for entry-level college level jobs. And trade labor pays MUCH better, both in the short term and in the long term. Which I guarantee you have no idea about, because you're actually trying to argue "economic efficiency". Plumbers, Masons, Mechanics, hell even assembly line workers can all make 75k+ a year, and senior trade people can top 100k a year.

Quote :

"Interesting. Even before college started you had enough money to pay your first semester tuition, room and board, and books up front, yet didn't take a dime from your parents. Interesting. "

My parents took out a 3k loan in my name to pay for my freshman year tuition. I paid for my own room and board through, yes, my own savings. And I paid off that loan within 6 months of graduation (which I didn't even know about it until graduation day). I worked full time in the summer and winter in High School, and part time during the year as well.

Quote :

"Again, not really. There are numerous EE/CpEs that have done the same thing. This is beside the point because, while I do believe that you worked, I do not believe you paid for everything on your own."

So first, you said it's impossible. Now you say it's not impressive because other people have done it? By the way, I also had NO scholarships or grants either. I paid fully out of pocket each semester. I also didn't do any internships in college, I found my own work.

You can believe what you want, the truth is I have been financially independent since I turned 18. Feel free to ask any of the dozens of people on this site who have known me for years and can tell you that I've paid my own way for everything.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 7:07 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2011 7:06:31 PM

Quote :

" Collecting unemployment means you are living on the tax payer's dime."

Collecting unemployment means you are drawing from a fund to which you contributed. Carry on.

9/20/2011 8:30:43 PM

^ Kind of like Social Security

9/20/2011 8:32:00 PM

^ Exactly like Social Security. Not exactly sure what's eye rolly about that.

9/20/2011 8:36:13 PM

Quote :

"Collecting unemployment means you are drawing from a fund to which you contributed. Carry on."

You contribute anywhere from .6%-6% of your total earnings to unemployment. So yes, 90+ percent of that check you get every month is coming from other people.

^Its not at all like social security, because you don't build equity in UI. It's insurance, not an annuity/investment. It's a social welfare program, because the vast majority of users do not pay in anywhere near what they take out, nor does your contribution have any effect on your payout.

I spent more time that I'd ever like to admit in the ESC offices in NC. It fucking amazed me how abused that system is. Maybe 1 in 10 people in that place were genuinely trying to find a long term job. Everyone else was on a revolving door cycle. Work for two weeks to qualify, get themselves "fired" but qualified, go down to the ESC office and get a check for the next 8 weeks.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2011 9:12:19 PM

You seem to be stuck on people who abuse unemployment benefits, which isn't the conversation. People who use it as it's intended (those who I assume whatshisname up there was talking about) don't get much more (if any) than they put into it. If anything, it's an investment in those workers to eventually get another job and grow the economy. 99-weekers are another discussion, but are irrelevant in attacking legit use of unemployment insurance.

Your holier-than-thou attitude is not surprising (you're always a pretentious twat), but it's absurd to rationalize the idea that your situation is applicable to everyone. Shit happens, man. Get out of your ivory Lotus.

edit:

Quote :

"Work for two weeks to qualify, get themselves "fired" but qualified, go down to the ESC office and get a check for the next 8 weeks."

I'll assume this is a gross exaggeration, because you're not going to get unemployment benefits for long with this strategy.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2011 9:26:12 PM

Quote :

"You seem to be stuck on people who abuse unemployment benefits, which isn't the conversation."

Never said it was. You went and pointed out the source of benefits. My point, and the point of this thread, is that people aren't financially responsible for themselves. Talk about getting off topic. And go fuck yourself, I'm on no high horse, I'm being giving Geppetto a wakeup call.

You make a CHOICE in which college you attend. You make a CHOICE to take on student loan debt. You make a CHOICE in what jobs you apply for and work. Just because you regret a choice you made, doesn't mean you shouldn't be held responsible for it.

We got on the unemployment topic because of whiners in this thread talking about "I can't get a job, so I shouldn't have to pay my loans back". When the reality is, there are PLENTY of jobs they could CHOOSE to get, but feel entitled to hold out for a specific market segment until hell freezes over.

You sign for a loan, you repay the loan. If that means diverting from your chosen career path for a while to actually earn the money to pay your bills, then that is life.

I took out a substantial loan for graduate school, knowing that it would likely take me 10-15 years to repay it. I thought long and hard about making that decision, and was fully prepared to take on the responsibility for it. I spent my first two years out of school making almost nothing (in fact, I was substantially below the poverty line), but I still worked within the system and paid my bills.

Quote :

"I'll assume this is a gross exaggeration, because you're not going to get unemployment benefits for long with this strategy."

I'll assume you haven't spent any time in an ESC office, because it's unbelievable how badly people abuse it.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 9:41 PM. Reason : . ]

9/20/2011 9:40:29 PM

Quote :

"there are PLENTY of jobs they could CHOOSE to get"

Quote :

"If that means diverting from your chosen career path for a while to actually earn the money to pay your bills, then that is life."

Flippin' burgers won't allow you to pay back shit. That's the point.

Quote :

"You make a CHOICE in what jobs you apply for and work"

Yeah, you just pick a job from the old job tree! That's exactly how it works! Everyone is just too lazy to walk out to the job tree!

I wouldn't be in favor of a bill like this, but your FUCK EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS LOOK WHAT I DID argument is so far out of reality.

And, again, you can't game the system for long by working one week a month. Read up on your local ESC site.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 9:50 PM. Reason : Just have some empathy, man. That's all.]

9/20/2011 9:48:11 PM

^I never said a damn thing about flipping burgers. I'm talking about living wages here, not working food service (even though a LOT of people, on this site included, make a decent living doing just that).

Quote :

"Yeah, you just pick a job from the old job tree! That's exactly how it works! Everyone is just too lazy to walk out to the job tree!"

Never said that either. All I am saying is that there are MANY more professions and job opportunities other than what you have your heart set on. Open your eyes to other options. And if you aren't getting jobs you're applying for, maybe think about the feedback you're given (aka overqualified == change your damn resume to fit the job. Resume is NOT a CV.).

^Didn't say one week a month. And I said two weeks a month. And yes you can game the system for a long time. Eligibility is based on being paid at least once per quarter in the year prior to a claim, and at least a threshold amount of total pay. As long you manage to do this, and work for a full calendar month before you make a claim, you can qualify without an appeal hearing. You can appeal anything and everything though.

9/20/2011 10:03:36 PM

Quote :

"If that means diverting from your chosen career path for a while to actually earn the money to pay your bills, then that is life."

While I agree you should have to pay back your loan, I don't agree with this. In my profession it is bad news bears for someone to be out of it for a long time, and can hurt significantly even for a temporary time period in the beginning of their career. I have to get board certified and the organization that gives the certification recommends you work for a year before taking it since many of the questions are clinical based. You could study, sure, but you are much less likely to do well by not having direct experience.

9/20/2011 10:04:05 PM

Quote :

"Didn't say one week a month. And I said two weeks a month."

No you said, "Work for two weeks to qualify, get themselves "fired" but qualified, go down to the ESC office and get a check for the next 8 weeks." Work two of every ten weeks. That's even less than one week a month -- I gave you too much credit. But let's not get pedantic.

Eligibility (in NC and most states) is based on the first four of the previous five quarters. Not at all what you described. As previously advised, get your shit straight.

Quote :

" working food service (even though a LOT of people, on this site included, make a decent living doing just that)."

You cannot make a decent living while repaying your post-grad loan on a $10/hour job.

I'm arguing against this point you made earlier, btw:

Quote :

"Unemployed? Get a job mowing yards, stocking groceries, as a trade apprentice, a sanitation worker, a teacher, or any of a 1000 other professions hurting for skilled labor."

...and not the position you shifted to now.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2011 10:11:21 PM

^^^Not to be too pedantic here but

Quote :

"Unemployed? Get a job mowing yards, stocking groceries, as a trade apprentice, a sanitation worker, a teacher, or any of a 1000 other professions hurting for skilled labor."

Quote :

"^I never said a damn thing about flipping burgers. I'm talking about living wages here, not working food service (even though a LOT of people, on this site included, make a decent living doing just that)."

Is there seriously a difference between flipping burgers and stocking groceries?

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2011 10:12:36 PM

And the state is hurting for teachers?

What fucking planet do you live on

9/20/2011 10:15:44 PM

Noen You are, at this point, sounding delusional

Quote :

"you can't at all convince me that "overall economic efficiency" is greater when 30 million people are looking for work, versus 30 million people WORKING."

I did not and would not ever argue that. If there were 30 million jobs available out there I would suggest that people go out there and take them, but there aren't. It would be in the greatest economic efficiency for low skilled jobs to be taken by the low skilled laborers so that they can make a sustainable wage while those in higher skilled labor look for jobs in closer to their abilities. Placing the high skilled laborers in low skilled jobs would be a loss in potential productivity because the number of remaining unemployed is the same and will be greater when high skilled jobs become available because the low skilled laborer can't fill those jobs.

Quote :

"There is a HUGE demand for skilled trade labor. There is a HUGE surplus for entry-level college level jobs. And trade labor pays MUCH better, both in the short term and in the long term."

You and I have different opinions on what is skilled. Also, truckers can earn 100K a year but I wouldn't call them, by definition, skilled labor. Please provide evidence of a surplus of trade labor (depressed home building has significantly slowed the need for masons and other labor) and the surplus of entry-level-college-educated jobs.

Quote :

"first, you said it's impossible. Now you say it's not impressive"

I never said that. Again, delusional and a further example of your inability to comprehend simple concepts. Go ahead, look and find where I said that.

What I did say is that I don't believe your story as you tell it and that graduating early from state while working is not that impressive.

From page 3:

Quote :

" I think you really just wanted the opportunity to state that you graduated a semester early with working (not really that impressive) and pat yourself on the back some more."

Quote :

"I also had NO scholarships or grants either"

No scholarships or grants and you can't work through simple high school level critical thinking? Mensa at 14, my ass.

9/20/2011 10:18:58 PM

Forgive student loans, just make college free for everyone then...oh yeah, the rich can afford it...

9/20/2011 10:25:53 PM

Quote :

"I did not and would not ever argue that. If there were 30 million jobs available out there I would suggest that people go out there and take them, but there aren't. It would be in the greatest economic efficiency for low skilled jobs to be taken by the low skilled laborers so that they can make a sustainable wage while those in higher skilled labor look for jobs in closer to their abilities. Placing the high skilled laborers in low skilled jobs would be a loss in potential productivity because the number of remaining unemployed is the same and will be greater when high skilled jobs become available because the low skilled laborer can't fill those jobs."

And you are calling neon delusional??? In an ideal world I support this claim. However, there is an abundance of "low skilled" labor jobs available. The market for "high skilled" labor is very small at this point. Waiting it out does nothing for the overall economy. I don't care who you stick in those low labor jobs, those positions need to be filled and doing so will help stimulate the economy. How? Because people are getting PAID. When people get PAID, they tend to SPEND. While working at a low labor job, workers can still try to FIND and APPLY for high labor jobs or jobs in their specific field of study. Or, since this is American (LAND OF OPPORTUNITY), you could try to start your own business (depending on the model this may or may not be feasible). People are being too picky and think that because they are Engineers, doctors, lawyers, or what have you that they are too good for a McD's, Harris Teeter, or Lawn Care company job. Get over that mindset. Something is better than nothing. You've got to do the best that you can in any given situation. Waiting it out is no excuse. Unless you are seriously spending 8 hours a day looking for a job, you should have a job to report to.

^Make college free? How is it going to be funded then?


[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 11:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2011 11:19:23 PM

The sign of a successful society: When your heart surgeon was ringing you up at Teeter two weeks before your coronary

9/20/2011 11:39:08 PM

honestly... if someone told me that all my student loans up to this point were forgiven, I'd take out another student loan and get my doctorate

I just really like school

9/21/2011 12:55:39 AM

^^ Quit being judgmental and making that scenario demeaning/derogetory. That's the wrong attitude to have.

[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 12:59 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2011 12:59:16 AM

It's not about being judgmental, it's about wasted potential. There are unskilled people to do unskilled jobs and there should be a focus on stimulating the economy to create jobs for skilled labor. You are not going to have a productive society that can keep up with the rest of the modernized world if your Ph.D.s are bagging groceries, period.

Granted I was being sarcastic but that sarcasm is directed toward the conditions that created the problem, not the people suffering from it.

[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 1:09 AM. Reason : ]

9/21/2011 1:06:29 AM

So like a true democrat, this problem can be "solved" by throwing money at it You can't just put money into the system and expect it to be fixed. Sure you may "fix" it for now, but in the long run you've done nothing. You can catch a fish and feed a man for a day or you can teach that man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

You stimulate the economy by telling people to GTFO and get a job. I don't care if your proficient skillset is with heart surgery or civil engineering bridge construction. There are certain needs in society and if it's a bagger at a grocery store or a secretarial position in an office then so be it. There's no shame in an honest day's worth of work. Either way, bills need to be paid. People are expecting a handout from the government to help create jobs for them. That's not how it works, nor how it's supposed to work. The world is a dynamic environment (imagine that!) and society's needs are also dynamic. So, instead of being an unproductive, jobless citizen with no income waiting for their "ideal" job to become available, they should find another one that will help provide them with income while helping society run efficiently. This whole "I'm too good to work at job a because it's unskilled labor" is bullshit. It's equal opportunity. Doctorate or high school drop out, it doesn't matter. Jobs are available. If more people have an income then there's more people "stimulating" the economy. Over time, it will "fix" itself without any handouts or increased government spending.



[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 1:24 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2011 1:21:00 AM

Hahaha I love how you spout these meaningless platitudes. Like, "wait, he'll eat for a whole lifetime? Wow, now I'm convinced!"

I mean (a) there's no such thing as a free market in reality, but (b) even in a Chicago School blank slate laboratory, what do you think happens when a person with housing, food, insurance, etc. costs (because a minimum wage employer certainly isn't paying insurance) is trying to save some amount of money (because a minimum wage employer certainly isn't contributing to a 401(k)) and paying down student loan debt on top of that? They are spending money on bills. That's it. We saw it in the last stimulus, which wasn't big enough to stop the downward spiral but did prevent unemployment from going as low as it could have. What you're advocating is to let the rich people create the jobs with the immense wealth that they currently have and are sitting on and not creating jobs with, because the free market will make it happen.

I don't even know what's gonna happen when we have a little robotic crane arm that will bag groceries for you, but they're already preparing drone tractors being rolled out to replace farm labor, which is one of the biggest hirers of unskilled labor. There roads and bridges that need to be fixed and engineered, and private industry can be hired to do that by the government, but they're not going to do it on their own. We could be hiring more scientists to research energy and medicine. It's not like that those things would be a handout with no benefits to the country.

This is kind of tangential, but what happens down the line when we have 300 million people in the workforce but society doesn't need 400 million jobs filled?

[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 1:43 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2011 1:42:39 AM