|
computer parts posted:If you have kids, will you tell them "you should go be a plumber"? If they liked working with their hands, sure. Why not? What's wrong with being a plumber? It would be pretty handy. What can I do? Help people with their Physics homework?
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
420DD Butts posted:https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/9t0p5tm0qhejyy8t8hub Well there are a lot of numbers there but looking at it casually so far my conclusions would be: - 'Recent' BA/BS college graduates have highly variable rates of unemployment and this seems to depend on whether their degree prepares them for a job. - 'Experienced' BA/BS college graduates have a lower and highly variable rate of unemployment and this seems to depend on whether their degree prepares them for a job. - Applied sciences jobs pay very well, science jobs pay variably but mostly well if you get a graduate degree, arts jobs pay considerably less well. I guess my instinct here is to say that the applied sciences have a little higher initial unemployment than I might have expected but overall I'm really not seeing anything that suggests a degree in theater is a great career option for someone trying to pick something that will make them money and keep them away from the bread lines. Qublai Qhan fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If they liked working with their hands, sure. Why not? What's wrong with being a plumber? It would be pretty handy. What can I do? Help people with their Physics homework? What if they were just really bad at everything in school?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 06:57
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:Well there are a lot of numbers there but looking at it casually so far my conclusions would be this: Applied sciences, business, and agricultural degrees are really the only undergraduate degrees that prepare you for a job, though, so it's not surprising to see them doing better than sciences or arts.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Become the world's richest man (and first trillionaire) and give everyone all the money,. This is in unironically my goal. Brb, wish me luck
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What if they were just really bad at everything in school? I'd encourage them to get a few summer jobs, see if anything works for them. Construction's nice if you're willing to stick with it, in that if you can move things from point A to point B, you can start out being useful, and then you can try for one of the trades if anything catches your fancy. Plus then they can save money so if they want to go into academics later in life (and I've known people like that), then they have somewhere to do this from. Mind you, if I were raising them in Israel, the IDF would have "taken care" of some of that, including a one-year GI bill for after, but sometimes also just teaching a trade or just getting somewhat disciplined (and also maybe killing people  ).
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Keep in mind, plumbers and high-school teachers make about the same amount of money. Plumbers don't get wealthy or even UMC without owning a business or living in a really tony area.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I'd encourage them to get a few summer jobs, see if anything works for them. Construction's nice if you're willing to stick with it, in that if you can move things from point A to point B, you can start out being useful, and then you can try for one of the trades if anything catches your fancy. Hmm, someone who did horribly in school and is now pushed towards construction. This sounds familiar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Oh and the thing ignored in all of this is that trades are overwhelmingly male so if you have a girl you're pretty hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Keep in mind, plumbers and high-school teachers make about the same amount of money. Plumbers don't get wealthy or even UMC without owning a business or living in a really tony area. It isn't my goal for my children to be rich, I just want them to be happy.  Also, if academia is the only route up for the working man, saving so you can pay your own way and having a trade to fall back on in case things go south seem much better to me than taking a computer parts posted:Hmm, someone who did horribly in school and is now pushed towards construction. This sounds familiar. Yeah, then if they want to rectify things (if you're insinuating that they didn't do well because they weren't affluent? I'm starting to lose your train of thought, are you asking me or a hypothetical laboring me?) after 2-4 years, they will have saved money and can maybe go do it without taking out loans. ETA: computer parts posted:Oh and the thing ignored in all of this is that trades are overwhelmingly male so if you have a girl you're pretty hosed. I and my spouse (assuming I have one when I'm raising her) will have her back if she gets any bullshit for wanting to do any trade she wants. I really don't understand what the purpose is of this exercise. Are you going to deal with my point about how trades are an essential inter-generational step from laborer to white-collar regardless of ambient racism, or are you going to just keep bringing up hypotheticals involving my non-existent children? Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Who would be managing this situation? How about a workers' soviet? It's just a myth that the sons of privilege have some arcane knowledge of "management." Put together all the people who have been running the factory up to this point and they will do fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Applied sciences, business, and agricultural degrees are really the only undergraduate degrees that prepare you for a job, though, so it's not surprising to see them doing better than sciences or arts. Yes, I agree. That was part of what I was saying and 420DD said: 'Even then, applied sciences are quickly becoming less of a "sure thing" out of college. I posted a few pages back about how engineering/tech majors straight out of school have unemployment rates similar to those in fields people would consider "hobbies" in this thread, e.g. Theater and Drama Arts. This doesn't seem to be as cut and dry as some people are suggesting.' Which I just don't think is borne out by that document. I'd be willing to admit that the IT number is high but I don't really consider IT to be something you need a BA/BS for in any case. I know a lot of IT professionals have one but it's really more of a tech 'trade' rather than an applied science so it isn't really surprising to me that it's high since graduation doesn't magically grant you certifications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:Well there are a lot of numbers there but looking at it casually so far my conclusions would be: That's if you believe the end goal should be making as much money as possible as opposed to making a decent amount of money and enjoying what you do (and, ultimately, having a job). A median income of 48k (for all arts) is nothing to sneeze at in this economy, thus coming back to my initial point that the "worthlessness" of degrees in the Arts is overplayed, mostly by people obsessed with making >100k in engineering. If your goal is not to make the most money possible then a degree in Arts is a perfectly valid route to take. The only field that has incredibly large unemployment with experience is Architecture. Also, if everyone that goes into the Arts suddenly switched to Engineering, do you not think that median wages would go down and unemployment would go up? This is one issue I haven't seen addressed by people who expound the wisdom of going into engineering. Qublai Qhan posted:Yes, I agree. That was part of what I was saying and 420DD said: A >7% average unemployment rate from 22-26 isn't exactly sterling, and it directly contradicts those who claim that you can just get an Eng degree and immediately get paid an exorbitant sum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Fine then - they're not an essential step. If they were, then black people and other minorities would already be part of the middle class (at least at higher rates than today), because they specifically migrated a century ago to find these high paying jobs. And they were denied, because of fundamental racism. The woman comment was not to you specifically but to the idea that the trades would be a free for all instead of institutionally biased (which they are, both in terms of sex and [less so] race). computer parts fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:12
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:Yes, I agree. That was part of what I was saying and 420DD said: It's probably distorted somewhat by the current depression. Older data suggests that overall "hobby" majors like fine arts or sociology tend to have periods of irregular/unemployment early on and then steady employment afterwards with the occasional upset, as compared to getting hired early on for engineering, compsci, accounting, etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
But seriously, here is your class system fix: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU Eliminate the necessity of work by automating everything. Changes will be gradual, giving ordinary small business owners time to automate stuff and ordinary people time to buy their own robot workers before everyone is unemployable. Raise taxes to buy farming and house-building robots and cheap Midwestern land for people who can't afford to do purchase such things themselves. Spin it as "teaching" them to fish for themselves instead of handing them out a fish to get a chunk of the inevitably shrinking conservative group of people to go along with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Fine then - they're not an essential step. If they were, then black people and other minorities would already be part of the middle class (at least at higher rates than today), because they specifically migrated a century ago to find these high paying jobs. Essential, by which I meant "necessary" but it's getting late and I was losing patience because of this pointless detour, is not sufficient. You want to wait with everything else until you find the "racism" switch in American society and turn it off. I'm saying there's stuff to do in the meantime, that is necessary for that switch to happen. Again tell me how removing trade-schools from consideration, and instead pushing everyone to take up loans and go to university has helped minorities in this country. ETA: quote:The woman comment was not to you specifically but to the idea that the trades would be a free for all instead of institutionally biased (which they are, both in terms of sex and [less so] race). I thought you said that if we promoted trades, it would pull minorities away from white-collar. Now you're saying they won't. The explanation is "racism" for two contradictory things. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How about a workers' soviet? It's just a myth that the sons of privilege have some arcane knowledge of "management." Put together all the people who have been running the factory up to this point and they will do fine. The son who was raised working in the company and prepared to run it would know quite a bit actually. I doubt the janitor is going to show up the day after the boss's death and just start paying bills, ordering material, and organizing schedules. spacetoaster fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Where have I said people should take up loans? I've said exactly the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Where have I said people should take up loans? I've said exactly the opposite. Then they should go be laborers or low-level service workers? They can't go into trades (it would mean less minorities in white-collar/they can't anyway, depending on the post), most people are not going to get a full scholarship for college (and that is definitely racially/class biased), we're talking about people without affluent parents, so where does that leave us?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Then they should go be laborers or low-level service workers? No, the state(s) should pay for funding. I've said it from the beginning - the fundamental system we have is not broken (in this regard), it just needs funding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:24
|
|
spacetoaster posted:The son who was raised working in the company and prepared to run it would know quite a bit actually. I doubt the janitor is going to show up the day after the bosses death and just start paying bills and organizing schedules. No, they wouldn't necessarily. Labor is specialized to such an extent in heavy industry that having a doctorate in materials science and 30 years of experience in steelmaking just allows you to understand the presentations different divisions make. Light industry is better, but I still doubt that a developed WidgetCo is going to be immediately comprehensible just because Entelbuch Widgetson Jr. filed business cards and made coffee when he was ten. Dynasties also have been pretty ineffectual in practice, and successful companies that are still owned by a particular family generally leave the actual operations to professionals. Absurd Alhazred posted:Essential, by which I meant "necessary" but it's getting late and I was losing patience because of this pointless detour, is not sufficient. You want to wait with everything else until you find the "racism" switch in American society and turn it off. I'm saying there's stuff to do in the meantime, that is necessary for that switch to happen. It hasn't, but eliminating universities from consideration isn't a good idea either.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, the state(s) should pay for funding. I've said it from the beginning - the fundamental system we have is not broken (in this regard), it just needs funding. Effectronica posted:It hasn't, but eliminating universities from consideration isn't a good idea either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:What if that isn't politically doable in the next decade, but promoting trades is? Especially considering that if it's a public focus (say, with the same Title IX scrutiny as universities and colleges), the blatant discriminatory practices are going to have a harder time surviving? What makes you think vastly changing the way we do education (which will also cost a lot of money) is going to be more politically palatable than increasing our funding to the current system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:That's if you believe the end goal should be making as much money as possible as opposed to making a decent amount of money and enjoying what you do (and, ultimately, having a job). A median income of 48k (for all arts) is nothing to sneeze at in this economy, thus coming back to my initial point that the "worthlessness" of degrees in the Arts is overplayed, mostly by people obsessed with making >100k in engineering. If your goal is not to make the most money possible then a degree in Arts is a perfectly valid route to take. The only field that has incredibly large unemployment with experience is Architecture. 48k is nothing to sneeze at but you need to bear in mind that these aren't statistics for the people who 'go into the field of arts', it's 'people with an art degree'. The 48k is being adjusted upwards by a combination of 1. people accepting that their dreams are broken dreams and that they'll never be a famous artist and 2. people who used the art degree as an easier way to get an undergraduate degree so they 'gots me a diploma'. If people were required to go into a field related to what they studied (which is ridiculous, I'm just saying) the unemployment figures would be in the high double digits and average salaries would probably be below minimum wage (since minimum wage isn't applicable in a lot of cases if you're basically freelancing). This is actually illustrated to a lesser extent by your observation on architects -- people don't get a degree in architecture to get an easy diploma, they think it's a genuine path to a career and it just isn't an easy road these days for the same reason unemployment among lawyers is going up (computers). (edit: also the slowdown in new housing is depressing employment for architects but I think some of those jobs aren't ever coming back for the reason I stated) I agree that a degree in arts is fine if you just want a degree to help you get a job that just requires a degree. I'd just say that if you can and you have any real interests that don't involve being a cog or a low level manager you should seriously consider applied sciences and that if you can't do that you should consider a trade because they actually do pay pretty well and (to me at least) are a lot more appealing than most jobs open to people with a BA in BS. Qublai Qhan fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What makes you think vastly changing the way we do education (which will also cost a lot of money) is going to be more politically palatable than increasing our funding to the current system? How is bringing back trade schools vastly changing the way we do education? There are already people learning trades, and getting jobs training at private professional colleges (some of them for-profit, which is even worse!). This doesn't require a Space Program level of funding. As for putting more money into the existing system, even if graduates are saddled with less debt they will still be as underemployed as they are now. Meanwhile, a bunch of companies are dying for people to go into trades, so they can be cajoled into putting money into this thing. They already are in some places for what's called a 6-year highschool. So yeah, I think that's more feasible than reversing the trend of lower funding for 4-year colleges. Build on existing trade schools, make that a priority for community colleges so people don't have to go to expensive private ones to get jobs training (I see this a lot as I get off the bus at a stop near one), it's not rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How is bringing back trade schools vastly changing the way we do education? There are already people learning trades. This doesn't require a Space Program level of funding. Title IX only comes into play regarding federal financial assistance. That alone is going to change how trades are currently conducted. quote:As for putting more money into the existing system, even if graduates are saddled with less debt they will still be as underemployed as they are now. Meanwhile, a bunch of companies are dying for people to go into trades, so they can be cajoled into putting money into this thing. They already are in some places for what's called a 6-year highschool. So yeah, I think that's more feasible than reversing the trend of lower funding for 4-year colleges. Build on existing trade schools, make that a priority for community colleges so people don't have to go to expensive private ones to get jobs training (I see this a lot as I get off the bus at a stop near one), it's not rocket science. If companies are dying to people to get into trades it's so they can suppress wages. Trades are not a panacea for Capitalism. Even if that didn't happen, what's stopping someone from going to trades after they can't find a career with their degree? It's just the opposite of the hypothetical posted earlier about your son going to academics after manual labor/trade schools.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What makes you think vastly changing the way we do education (which will also cost a lot of money) is going to be more politically palatable than increasing our funding to the current system? What makes you think either are workable solutions? They aren't. Novel strategies such as lock-in tuition and fees are necessary. Even if it reduces the rate of growth in tuition and fees by 1.3% annually, over several decades that's a few thousand you've saved each student in your state. But no, people want flash in the pan, fascistic solutions. Guess what? Freedom means you've got the freedom to fail. And plenty of individuals do fail, and are failed, in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:Also, if everyone that goes into the Arts suddenly switched to Engineering, do you not think that median wages would go down and unemployment would go up? This is one issue I haven't seen addressed by people who expound the wisdom of going into engineering. Also on this, yes, this is true. At a certain point no matter how optimal people's education choices are you're going to still have unemployment. Shifting people from one thing to another will increase unemployment in the other thing and decrease wages, but it will generally decrease overall unemployment and increase overall wages. I don't think everyone who is currently in the arts should switch over to CS/engineering/etc but I do think some should and some others shouldn't be in college at all because the jobs they're headed to really don't (or shouldn't) require a college diploma. And still others should consider trades and trade schools because they'll make more money and have more fun. computer parts posted:Even if that didn't happen, what's stopping someone from going to trades after they can't find a career with their degree? Nothing it's just stupid to spend $35-150k on a piece of paper that doesn't actually prepare you for that trade? Qublai Qhan fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
edit: double post
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If companies are dying to people to get into trades it's so they can suppress wages. Trades are not a panacea for Capitalism. Neither is making higher ed free. Just ask the Germans. quote:Even if that didn't happen, what's stopping someone from going to trades after they can't find a career with their degree? It's just the opposite of the hypothetical posted earlier about your son going to academics after manual labor/trade schools. Also age. I mean, trades are a bit more physical. Otherwise, sure, the maritime transportation thread has stories about people going into it after having had another career, and TheImmigrant was talking about their friend moving from this to that. I mean, yeah, on some level removing the payment part would help, but even best-case, if we are not allowing people to do trades when that is what would work for them early, then that's more people squandering time they could be spending doing what they didn't even know they like, and then finding a job-market that's unhelpful. Also, we haven't even factored in all those jobs that are requiring degrees which didn't in the past, and just because employers can rather than because it's a necessary qualification; with trades you at least know that you are studying for a specific job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:Nothing it's just stupid to spend $35-150k on a piece of paper that doesn't actually prepare you for that trade? This is under a hypothetical that college was paid for (by the state). Absurd Alhazred posted:Neither is making higher ed free. Just ask the Germans. Germany has fewer problems than the US, though they do export their problems to the rest of the EU. quote:If you remove completely and utterly the issue of crippling debt? I think trades are likelier to give you more remunerative summer jobs/seasonal jobs which make saving for semester of school during rather than as a block easier. computer parts fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:48k is nothing to sneeze at but you need to bear in mind that these aren't statistics for the people who 'go into the field of arts', it's 'people with an art degree'. The 48k is being adjusted upwards by a combination of 1. people accepting that their dreams are broken dreams and that they'll never be a famous artist and 2. people who used the art degree as an easier way to get an undergraduate degree so they 'gots me a diploma'. If people were required to go into a field related to what they studied (which is ridiculous, I'm just saying) the unemployment figures would be in the high double digits and average salaries would probably be below minimum wage (since minimum wage isn't applicable in a lot of cases if you're basically freelancing). This is actually illustrated to a lesser extent by your observation on architects -- people don't get a degree in architecture to get an easy diploma, they think it's a genuine path to a career and it just isn't an easy road these days for the same reason unemployment among lawyers is going up (computers). Despite the fact that you're making quite a few claims here, if the goal is to "just get a job" then many social sciences/Lib Arts degrees are fulfilling their purpose. It doesn't make sense to call a degree worthless if it actually results in people getting a job in whatever field, even if it is not their own. I just chafe at the idea that people should avoid the liberal arts in favor of app sci since obviously cultural works (and, at a pretty basic level, the ability to effectively communicate with others) are an important part of society, and the resulting traffic in those programs would result in them being much less lucrative. Trade and applied work is fine for some people, but it's not the cure for all ails. Ultimately, we should be looking for ways to make college affordable while also removing some of the stigma around trades, not force people into certain fields. The job market is not 100% predictable, and thus favoring some fields over others could end disastrously for those that were convinced to the "safety" of a certain choice. Hell, say fossil fuels keep collapsing, are chem e degrees going to be worth nearly as much in that new reality? I don't think central planning the job market is the answer here. e: You kind of answered this in your last post, so you can feel free to not reiterate your thoughts. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This is under a hypothetical that college was paid for (by the state). Ok sorry, missed that point. The same thing I said originally except instead of the individual paying everyone would get to pay for someone to go to school twice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, they wouldn't necessarily. Labor is specialized to such an extent in heavy industry that having a doctorate in materials science and 30 years of experience in steelmaking just allows you to understand the presentations different divisions make. Light industry is better, but I still doubt that a developed WidgetCo is going to be immediately comprehensible just because Entelbuch Widgetson Jr. filed business cards and made coffee when he was ten. Dynasties also have been pretty ineffectual in practice, and successful companies that are still owned by a particular family generally leave the actual operations to professionals. Okay. You're talking about huge factories with hundreds (thousands?) of workers. I don't know crap about that. I'm talking small textile mill with 40 or so employees where son has been working from the bottom to the top in roles of increasing responsibility his entire life in preparation to take over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
My "pie-in-the-sky" opinion is that we should make it relatively cheap to go to college, but should also make it easy to switch to areas of need if they are unable to find employment after school. Asking 18 year olds to figure out the entirety of their lives seems like a bit of a stretch, and anything that lessens the impact of their initial decision seems like a good thing to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:The son who was raised working in the company and prepared to run it would know quite a bit actually. I doubt the janitor is going to show up the day after the boss's death and just start paying bills, ordering material, and organizing schedules. If so, as I mentioned he would have the opportunity to work for the factory for the same compensation as the other workers. If he has the interest and aptitude you claim, with basic living expenses already covered, why would he not? Also interesting that you perceive everyone who is not the owner as "janitors." All the other work you mention is handled by bookkeepers and office managers, not by the owner. Owners are parasites.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:Despite the fact that you're making quite a few claims here, if the goal is to "just get a job" then many social sciences/Lib Arts degrees are fulfilling their purpose. It doesn't make sense to call a degree worthless if it actually results in people getting a job in whatever field, even if it is not their own. I just chafe at the idea that people should avoid the liberal arts in favor of app sci since obviously cultural works (and, at a pretty basic level, the ability to effectively communicate with others) are an important part of society, and the resulting traffic in those programs would result in them being much less lucrative. Trade and applied work is fine for some people, but it's not the cure for all ails. I'm not really suggesting that we central plan the job market. In terms of an actual change in policy I think the main thing to do is do better education counseling so people can make better choices in advance of spending money on a piece of paper. I'm not really sure there's a (good) way to get rid of the phenomenon of people getting a piece of paper that helps them get jobs that have nothing to do with that piece of paper. Employers are presumably benefiting in some way from requiring people get their BA in basket weaving before they're allowed the privilege of being paid $15-$25 an hour to: A) play with spreadsheets or B) make phone calls to clients on the exciting subject of spreadsheets or C) make sure people are playing with their spreadsheets or making phone calls about spreadsheets instead of looking at kitties and/or titties on reddit That I'm unable to imagine what value that is doesn't really matter. I'm just saying that I think if people were better informed about what their education is going to lead to they might make different choices because they might find the possibility of plumbing just a little more enticing than being forced to sit in front of a screen while not being allowed to look at [t/k]itties all day. (edit: I just want to be clear: I am aware that there are variations that don't involve excel -- some of them involve editing word documents also or instead.) SedanChair posted:Also interesting that you perceive everyone who is not the owner as "janitors." All the other work you mention is handled by bookkeepers and office managers, not by the owner. Owners are parasites. This depends on the size of the business. This is the case sometimes but not really many sole proprietorships are big enough that the owner can twiddle his thumbs exclusively. I think it's more accurate to say that owning partners or shareholders are sometimes parasites (although necessary ones since they're the source of capital. I'm really only offended by professional parasites who are hired by the owners to be parasites (CEOs and often other upper management)). Qublai Qhan fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If so, as I mentioned he would have the opportunity to work for the factory for the same compensation as the other workers. If he has the interest and aptitude you claim, with basic living expenses already covered, why would he not? Communism fails because the sort of go-getter who works hard to gets things done gets terribly demotivated when those who don't contribute get an equal share. quote:Also interesting that you perceive everyone who is not the owner as "janitors." All the other work you mention is handled by bookkeepers and office managers, not by the owner. Owners are parasites.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Communism fails because the sort of go-getter who works hard to gets things done gets terribly demotivated when those who don't contribute get an equal share. This seems to be a rather dubious claim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 08:18
|
|