|
Fat Ogre posted:If you're still considering a PHD in something like Archaeology or any other low paying highly competitive field that is irresponsible or uninformed plain and simple. We're going to start requesting citations from you when you go half-cocked about worthless majors. What do you know about archaeology?
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:The market collapsed in 2008 with warnings all over the place the market was going to implode. "I'm really mad that you would say I claimed these choices are irresponsible! What a strawman!" "These choices are irresponsible, plain and simple." Perhaps you can at least cop to the fact, then, that you believe the only people capable of achieving doctorates without being "irresponsible" and "uninformed" are the wealthy, who can afford to weather to the five to seven years of low wages training (which is what graduate school is for any field). Once you have admitted to the fact, it will be easier to converse with you about without your exploding into accusing people of the first logical fallacy you were able to find on wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:The market collapsed in 2008 with warnings all over the place the market was going to implode. In 2000 I decided I didn't want to keep taking CS classes at UIUC (a very good public college) because too many people were in CS/CE and the dotcom bubble showed it was a long term bad idea. Then I decided to go to law school in 2005 because of family connections + it seemed like that was a field that would keep hiring at better rates than elsewhere. Then 2008 happened, after I graduated. Oops!!! Should I just go get more degrees or just kill myself at this point, in your estimation?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:In 2000 I decided I didn't want to keep taking CS classes at UIUC (a very good public college) because too many people were in CS/CE and the dotcom bubble showed it was a long term bad idea. Then I decided to go to law school in 2005 because of family connections + it seemed like that was a field that would keep hiring at better rates than elsewhere. Then 2008 happened, after I graduated. The answer to this he has given so far seems to be that it is a systemic problem which requires an overhaul of our education system, although I have some difficulty squaring this response with later assertions that certain fields of study are "irresponsible or uninformed, plain and simple."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:The answer to this he has given so far seems to be that it is a systemic problem which requires an overhaul of our education system, although I have some difficulty squaring this response with later assertions that certain fields of study are "irresponsible or uninformed, plain and simple." If you're aware of a broken system. Should you keep trying to use it, or figure out the best way to work in the bounds of the broken system to survive and work to try to fix it? We are telling kids they can be anything they want and they should go to college and get a degree in Anthropology, Sociology, Palentology, Archaeology, History etc. And there are very few real paying jobs in those fields outside of schools themselves. So while they 'can' be anything they want it is quite irresponsible to keep telling them that is the case, when it can be shown that simply isn't possible. I want to be a zoo veterinarian. Well there are a finite number of zoos each with an onsite vet already. The turn over is super low, and the competition is very high, oh well I guess I could be anything... good thing I spent all this time going for exotics in my studies since I'll never use them now for anything and have a less useful skill set than a basic vet degree. Now you get your degree in a low turn over field, that is mostly low salaried to begin with, overly competitive because of the super small number of jobs that pay well. Was it really responsible to convince those kids to take out non-dischargeable student loans they have no way in hell of paying off with their current skill set and now have to compete for unskilled jobs but with debt hanging over their heads? I watched a friend of mine take out the max student loans possible to get his under graduate degree in chemistry and max out credit cards instead of getting a job doing anything. Then when he graduated and found out grad school was going to be another couple thousand dollars on top of what he already had to start paying now. He realized he couldn't afford grad school, and is stuck with a bachelor's degree in Chemistry that doesn't even let him become a high school teacher without spending more money on it. The only job he could snag left him making less money (after paying loans and credit card debts) than his buddy who had gotten a job as a delivery driver of a pizza place and wound up assistant manager in the same time period. So while he technically 'earns' more than the pizza guy his take home is far less after student loans, taxes etc. I'm not saying people should just become pizza place managers or pizza drivers instead of getting college degrees. What I am saying is we need to get people to wake the gently caress up about that the system isn't fair and they need to pay attention to poo poo like paying down their debt in school, only taking out what is needed for maybe books and tuition and not using the loan for room and board and beer and gas etc. That unless they are rich they need to really hedge their bets and play it safe with what they are taking a loan out on to get.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Were at 6.7% unemployment.. 5-6% is considered healthy for the economy. The more I read posts like these, the more I finally understand the reason why having a Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) is actually really drat important. Structurally, those 5-6% (ie, 313,900,000 * .05 = 15,695,000) are hosed. Through no fault of their own. Let me repeat that again for emphasis - roughly 15.7 million people, who could all be literal clones of Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, would be forced out of the economy and have no income due to how the US economy is structured. This is actually a concept in economics. It's called structural unemployment, in addition to other kinds of unemployment such as cyclical, seasonal, etc. It's a basic microeconomics concept. And, because our welfare net is so pathetic (see: SNAP benefits being cut sharply) and GMI considered to be so utterly radical a concept in America as to be unfathomable, guess what happens to those 15.7 million people? Either they find help however they can (eg friends, family, charity; still not a sure bet) or... They loving die a slow death. So, thank you for advocating for the slow death of millions who did nothing to deserve it!  [e]: ^^^ The system is broken and needs to be fixed, not merely tolerated or accepted. It's like being in a dysfunctional, abusive relationship (on a societal level) and saying to yourself: "Welp! This is all it will ever be so I better accept the way things are!" Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
"Gosh you shouldn't wear a skirt that short when you're walking out alone at night. Yeah it's messed up that violence against women is so endemic but you gotta recognize a broken system. Maybe you should wear a wooly muffler instead"
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:If you're aware of a broken system. Should you keep trying to use it, or figure out the best way to work in the bounds of the broken system to survive and work to try to fix it? This is such a stupid argument, because there's not a solution that can be achieved through personal responsibility. There's no chastity belt degree that you can get, besides maybe an MBA, but that has to be from a decent program itself to justify the $. Seriously stop loving strawmanning majors, there's a ton of people in STEM who are out of work/making $12/hr
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:The more I read posts like these, the more I finally understand the reason why having a Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) is actually really drat important. Structurally, those 5-6% (ie, 313,900,000 * .05 = 15,695,000) are hosed. Umm. It's 5-6% of the labor force, which is (say) 5% of 130 million or so (BLS will have the number.) or about 6.5 million. Those 5-6% are different people at different times. There's a lot of turnover in the economy.  About 4.5 million million people a month have been hired for the last few months. A lot of those are going to be unemployed people cycling into jobs. It takes time for people and positions to match. Depending on where people live they may have up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits to help them out while that happens. Like, it's fine to be all gung ho about minimum income and wanting to fix the system. But you should probably understand how the system works before you get all indignant. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 20:06 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
The funniest thing about this entire discussion is that major universities (and small colleges!) are actually quite adept at tracking gainful employment through their career services offices and the Obama administration (using BLS data, if I'm not mistaken), actually sought to make colleges more accountable for the numbers, where they were fought tooth and nail by representatives whose pockets were lined by the larger for profits like CEC, EMDC et alia. Not surprisingly, the bad actors were increasingly not the colleges and universities that offer those dreaded archaeology or veterinary zoology degrees, but the so-called trade schools that offer expensive "diplomas" or even bachelors degrees in a host of medical tech things that, even if you do land a job because of them, are completely incapable of paying back the loans. This is to say nothing of the earlier linked statistics regarding obtaining a bachelors degree in general and how they seem at odds with the central premise of Fat Ogre's general conceit, or the privilege implied in the idea that people should somehow be capable of working a full-time job while participating in a full time graduate program (in perfectly reasonable fields like chemistry, just to avoid the basketweaving talking point).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:In 2000 I decided I didn't want to keep taking CS classes at UIUC (a very good public college) because too many people were in CS/CE and the dotcom bubble showed it was a long term bad idea. Then I decided to go to law school in 2005 because of family connections + it seemed like that was a field that would keep hiring at better rates than elsewhere. Then 2008 happened, after I graduated. If you got your law degree and you understand computers you can do a ton. There are a lot of small tech companies out their behind most businesses and county offices that could use a lawyer on retainer that is good with tech and understands it. You'd have to go out and press the flesh but you could rapidly get enough business to keep you comfortable for a good long while. Patents, law suits, contracts, EULA texts, and contracts fit support etc. Aside from that with a law degree you could easily set up trusts for people and advertise your services in places like gun stores for NFA trusts, funeral homes for estate planning and even county clerk or circuit clerk offices to explain how to protect assets for your children or spouse. It all depends if you have your law degree though. Seriously though a law degree and understanding the guts of programming etc is huge.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Of course! That's what the economy has been missing, what would provide every graduate with healthcare! The real secret to universal healthcare and living wages, as provided by Fat Ogre: elbow grease and pounding the pavement with resumes. Would that our leaders had thought of this strategy sooner.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Of course! That's what the economy has been missing, what would provide every graduate with healthcare! The real secret to universal healthcare and living wages, as provided by Fat Ogre: elbow grease and pounding the pavement with resumes.  yup that sure is an accurate summation of what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Were you not basically saying that the unemployed should just create their own jobs?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:
Your custom title is well deserved.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
This thread may be a bit of a non-starter if over half of it is being spent on a guy who a) has made, no exaggeration, over 500 posts arguing about guns, and b) has a dancing troll-face in his profile.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:
You just replied to somebody with an anecdote about difficulty finding work with what amounts to "Maybe you should to out and seek some work? Just a thought." Sure, it's at odds with your other posts which blame people for irresponsibly choosing a field of study that requires them to work for low wages for long periods and sure, that contradicts your assertion that you're not saying people of wealth should be the only ones worthy of degrees, but we can only pick one bad viewpoint to respond to here, I just decided to focus on the latest.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Fat Ogre, here's what you've been missing in this conversation: When discussing systemic problems, stepping in to talk about individual solutions is really loving dense. Especially in this case, where the systemic problems involve individuals not having the options they should have. You keep tossing out "I think we should have UHC, but..." and then you explain how people can get along just fine without UHC. Let me lay this down for you: Do you honestly think that people are capable of finding work and health care under the current system? Do you think that an inability to find work and health care is due to personal failing? The first one implies the second one. Do you think this system allows people who deserve/need income and healthcare to find it, if they take the proper course of action? Do you think this system is fine? The first one implies the second one. I'm really curious to see how you answer these four questions. If you say "no" to either of the second questions, I can't imagine how the hell you'd justify a "yes" to the corresponding first question. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 21:04 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Were you not basically saying that the unemployed should just create their own jobs? If your choice is not working and saying pity me or creating work, what have you got to lose at that point?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:If your choice is not working and saying pity me or creating work, what have you got to lose at that point? What a horrible view you have of the unemployed. Lots of people are doing everything they should to find work and failing. This is why we say the system is broken and should be fixed. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 21:09 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:If your choice is not working and saying pity me or creating work, what have you got to lose at that point? Your mistake is in assuming that the second option is at all realistic (but thank you for once again admitting to holding a viewpoint you just now disavowed as being a strawman - it's good that you are consistent about something).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Umm. It's 5-6% of the labor force, which is (say) 5% of 130 million or so (BLS will have the number.) or about 6.5 million. Now they've got 26 weeks max. EUC is gone and shows no real signs of ever coming back. Long-term unemployed workers (people who are over 26 weeks unemployed) make up 3.5 million of those jobless people and they have a harder time getting hired because employers vastly prefer to hire someone who's still working. If they live in a state with reasonable Medicaid, then they're probably okay for health insurance. If not, the wealthiest nation ever certainly can't afford to spend money on long-term unemployed people with cancer or anything else that's non-acute. It's also not all that big a distance for someone to fall from unemployed to long-term unemployed. Your chances of getting a job every month work out to around 10% (obviously with enormous variance), so on average you're going to end up flipping a coin to determine whether or not you end up there.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Fat Ogre, here's what you've been missing in this conversation: No I'm saying how people can find a way to get along without UHC for now, because it isn't an option. That is a big difference. Do I honestly think people are capable of finding work and health care under the current system? Yes I think really focused, driven and talented people can do just that. But your question isn't fair. It is like saying do you think people can get into the NFL? Of course some people can, and there are a lot that cannot do so even if they worked super hard and did everything they were supposed to. There are those who have a better drive, natural talents etc that will enable them to find work and get a job. It is just the nature of competition. It isn't fair to everyone, but to then blame me for an unfair system is ridiculous. I already said I recognize that the system is flawed. Do I think this system allows people who deserve/need income and healthcare to find it, if they take the proper course of action? It depends a lot on your employer and your state laws. I think it is bullshit that hospitals aren't required to post their prices out in the open for everyone to see and comparison shop. That insurance companies aren't able to cross state lines easily like car insurance. Or that we don't have an option for single payer healthcare. Do I think the system is fine? gently caress no. But again you're trying to say if I think 50% of people get healthcare then I must think it is fine, which is a bullshit argument and way of looking at it. No thinking that just because a few can get a good deal doesn't mean the system is fine. I've already said it needs an overhaul and agree that it needs one.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Alright, that all seems fair enough, especially on the second half. Contrary to the impression you'd given in this thread, you're willing to acknowledge that there's a lot of bullshit that can keep even smart workers from what they need. But you missed the question that I think is key to 90% of the strife in this thread: Do you think that an inability to find work and health care reflects a personal failing? Because that is kind of implied by the advice you give on "how to do fine in the current system", and it is also kind of a jerk thing to believe. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:"Creating work" means starting your own business which requires more preexising wealth and more luck than you seem to understand. Bicyclops posted:Your mistake is in assuming that the second option is at all realistic (but thank you for once again admitting to holding a viewpoint you just now disavowed as being a strawman - it's good that you are consistent about something). So you're saying no one unemployed can create work? That you have to have money to do anything? You're the ones with the hosed view point. How exactly does it cost anything to create a consulting business? A web design business (use your local library or scrape up $100 for a netbook)? A lawn mowing business? A basic home based day care? Aside from many other opportunities. There is work out there if you want it. Have you never been around anyone that started a business from the ground up?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Alright, that all seems fair enough, especially on the second half. You're more willing to acknowledge that there's a lot of bullshit that can keep even smart workers from what they need. Does not getting into the NFL reflect a personal failing? Does not getting into an exclusive club or school reflect a personal failing? You have an unfairly competitive system at work, but to say that the only reason people didn't get a job is just because of luck and that who they are had no part of it is ignoring the fact that there are talented and driven people out there. It completely discounts anyone improving their skills or attempting to better themselves from others because why try if it just by pure chance you'll get a job. Is it pure chance people get into the NFL? Is it pure chance and luck that anyone gets into grad school or becomes a successful actor or musician? Talent and drive has nothing to do with anything. It is all chance right? While some of the times unemployment comes from a personal failing, it can come from plain bad luck just as easily. You could be the top of your class with a Harvard Business degree and find yourself working as a consultant for Arthur Anderson or Bear Stearns and wind up with a totally poisoned resume that no one wants to touch even though you have the talent, drive and dedication. You could get a nice degree from MIT and get a cushy job working with Fiberoptic networks and realize too late that World-Com was a bad idea. It isn't a simple black and white system.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I know a handful of successful entrepreneurs. Failure rates make it unrealistic. It, de facto, prescribes leaving these people out to dry. If you want to preserve a healthy first-world society, the greatest utility comes from processing people back into the system, keeping them integrated. Whether intended or not, your line of thinking prescribes letting them fall out of the system.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I know a handful of successful entrepreneurs. Failure rates make it unrealistic. It, de facto, prescribes leaving these people out to dry. If you want to preserve a healthy first-world society, the greatest utility comes from processing people back into the system, keeping them integrated. Whether intended or not, your line of thinking prescribes letting them fall out of the system. They already are left out to dry because they are unemployed.  If your assuming they can't ever get a job because the system is rigged they're going to have to do something until it is fixed right?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:They already are left out to dry because they are unemployed. There's a difference between unemployed and someone becoming straight up disconnected and ending up homeless, ending up in a secondary system like black markets and gangs, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:There's a difference between unemployed and someone becoming straight up disconnected and ending up homeless, ending up in a secondary system like black markets and gangs, etc. What are you talking about? How does your mind go to black market and gangs from the suggestion that if they need work they could create a service job with very little upfront cash if needed. Yes the black market underground day care networks. Lawn Mower gangs roving the streets, mowing laws for money and shaking down homeowners in the process. And the black market world of designing websites for local businesses or evil work through RentACoder... 1099 Miscs are the devil's playground. (speaking of which it is bullshit how high independent contractors are taxed vs capital gains)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Counter-argument: Gangs and black markets really do exist.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:No I'm saying how people can find a way to get along without UHC for now, because it isn't an option. That is a big difference. Whoa there paramedics! I need to check out these prices before you roll me in there. I know I just had a heart attack and this was the closest hospital, but I think I could get a better deal if you take me to the hospital the next town over.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Imagine an economy powered by giving each other haircuts in our living rooms. Truly the mark of a Great Society.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Zwiftef posted:Whoa there paramedics! I need to check out these prices before you roll me in there. I know I just had a heart attack and this was the closest hospital, but I think I could get a better deal if you take me to the hospital the next town over. You're saying that if the hospital one block over was 30% cheaper across the board you wouldn't make that request to go there? Already with parts of the ACA coming out they've shown prices can vary wildly in the same city between hospitals.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:You're saying that if the hospital one block over was 30% cheaper across the board you wouldn't make that request to go there? Not in a civilized country.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:You're saying that if the hospital one block over was 30% cheaper across the board you wouldn't make that request to go there? He's saying that you don't have time to comparison shop when you have a life-threatening condition and time is of the essence. Or if, say, you were unconscious when the paramedics found you. Even if it were possible to find out the rates for every procedure from every local hospital in advance (hospitals often straight up refuse to give quotes if you call them), what do you do with that information? Have a flow chart tattooed on your back so the paramedics can follow the decision tree and get you to your hospital of choice for every condition? I mean, this is the reason we have universal firefighting, because when your house is burning down there's no time to request bids and hope someone offers you a better deal than Crassus' bid to buy your home-inferno.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing private insurance and making the the Fed the sole provider of insurance, which is mandatory for all. Strict cost controls, doctors become government workers and receive tiered salaries through the General Schedule. Paid by a progressive tax on the highest earners, middle barely pays into the pool and and low income does not pay. This would solve so many issues in the American society. Where do I vote?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He's saying that you don't have time to comparison shop when you have a life-threatening condition and time is of the essence. Or if, say, you were unconscious when the paramedics found you. Even if it were possible to find out the rates for every procedure from every local hospital in advance (hospitals often straight up refuse to give quotes if you call them), what do you do with that information? Have a flow chart tattooed on your back so the paramedics can follow the decision tree and get you to your hospital of choice for every condition? Notice how I said they should have to post their prices upfront. It could allow comparison shopping before hand. Or once you're stable being transferred to a lower cost place. Again UHC would be nice but there are smaller things that could get through first to make it easier for people.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Notice how I said they should have to post their prices upfront. It could allow comparison shopping before hand. Or once you're stable being transferred to a lower cost place. The demand for the service is too erratic and immediate for pricing signals to make a difference. This is like health care markets 099
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
Plus healthcare in general is like a textbook example of perverse incentives. Sometimes markets aren't the most efficient way of doing things, I know that might be a shock to some of you neoliberals, but it's true.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 15:01
|
|