|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Not to degrade any teachers, but it certainly isn't the toughest job in the world, either... and not one of the people doing it is irreplaceable.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
First off, this isn't a reply to you by any means. It's more so a reply to whoever made this leaflet.
Quote:
For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy working to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing landscaping?
Yes, because teaching is the easiest job in the world and any average joe can do it. 
I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying they are more than capable of being anything. That they worked to get where they are, and that they could and would just as hard to be landscapers, teachers, police, lawyers, etc. He essentially was saying (at least this is how I took it) is that Wall Street is full of "go getters and sacrificers" and they could apply their talents to any field and succeed, versus those who just want someone to hand them opportunity.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
First off, this isn't a reply to you by any means. It's more so a reply to whoever made this leaflet.
Quote:
For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy working to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing landscaping?
Yes, because teaching is the easiest job in the world and any average joe can do it.
I agree with Florida, I don't read it that way. I read it as him saying that they will work and sacrifice to be good at whatever they have to do... My opinion is they would be lousy 3rd grade teachers because it requires patience and compassion and people skills that they don't possess, that's part of the reason they are where they are... but that's just my opinion... they can change job skills and work hard but they can't change their personalities. And being a good elementary school teacher is a lot about your personality.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,874
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,874 |
Quote:
Not to degrade any teachers, but it certainly isn't the toughest job in the world, either... and not one of the people doing it is irreplaceable.
Not for nothin, but teachers are the ones that have our kids 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, for about 38 weeks a year, While it's maybe not the toughest job in the world, it may well be one of the most important jobs in the world.
A good teacher can teach.. a great teacher can inspire. they have a great deal of influence.
Because of that, I'm all for paying them and paying them exceptional well, but like you and me, they gotta produce the desired results.. if they don't, they gotta go. And if we are paying better, we'll be able to attract people that want to teach, but choose industry for the sake of making a better living.
In other words, we'll increase the size of the potential pool of teacher candidates and hopefully, the quality of the candidates.
But, that's JMO....
One other quick point.. in regards to it not being the toughest job in the world.. I don't know, but having the most precious thing a family can have in under your watchful eye for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 38 weeks a year, sure sounds intense to me.. I gotta believe that if your a teacher that really cares, it weighs on you heavy.... That's a helluva lotta responsibility.
Again, JMO
Last edited by Damanshot; 10/27/11 03:23 PM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
j/c
my two cents . . .
It seems to me that MOST of the participants in the OWS movement (I use movement loosely) are relatively young with a few older folks sprinkled in here and there. CNN has a spot where they talk these guys and put a blurb underneath their photo and it seemed that there were a lot of young twenty somethings saying they are "sick" of the way things are. And that has me thinking. How can you be so young and yet so sick that you need to protest?
I think these folks are finding a common outlet--besides the internet and social media--to vent the complaint du jour. And I don't have a problem with the complaints so much in and of itself, but rather the vehicle of the complaint and the vague talk about being sick coming from young folks who have yet to truly appreciate the unjustness of life and it make me think a bit.
These guys are like Frodo, they finally have reached a spot where they are the farthest from the shire they have ever been and have come to the stark realization that "oh crap, what did I get myself into." None of their complaints are new, some I share and have felt for a long time.
I just wonder if these now twentysomethings are the product of a childhood that told them that it's okay to be average, everyone gets a prize for showing up, and there are no losers in the game--mentality.
I feel sympathy for some, but for most of them, unfortunately, the whole thing is going to be a kindling for malcontents whose voice is not representative of the 99 percent and in the end they will go away and have gotten nowhere.
The real problem isn't the 1 percent. It's Washington.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
very well put. Also remember that a 20 something (or early 30 something) was a child through the late 90s and into this last decade when things were relatively good for most people financially... now they find themselves on their own and trying to start making a living in an extremely bad economy, it's tough... Most people understand that.. but we are, to some extent, paying the price for all of that goodness we had from about 1996 to 2007... because a lot of it was artificial.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
A very good point.
For folks my age, we grew up in the 70's, so we know quite well that what we came through in the 90's was a total boom time, and one that couldn't possibly last.
For them, they have no other frame of reference.. it IS their sense of what should be normal.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,546
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,546 |
Quote:
just clicking.....
The plot thickens...
A reply from the Bankers to the OWS.....
http://patdollard.com/2011/10/we-are-sma...-occupychicago/
someone leaflet bombed the protestors in Chicago with the following note...(kinda funny in some ways)
“We are Wall Street. It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of fake paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable. I didn’t hear America complaining when the market was roaring to 14,000 and everyone’s 401k doubled every 3 years. Just like gambling, its not a problem until you lose. I’ve never heard of anyone going to Gamblers Anonymous because they won too much in Vegas.
Well now the market crapped out, & even though it has come back somewhat, the government and the average Joes are still looking for a scapegoat. God knows there has to be one for everything. Well, here we are.
Go ahead and continue to take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: We’re going to take yours. We get up at 5am & work till 10pm or later. We’re used to not getting up to pee when we have a position. We don’t take an hour or more for a lunch break. We don’t demand a union. We don’t retire at 50 with a pension. We eat what we kill, and when the only thing left to eat is on your dinner plates, we’ll eat that.
For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy working to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing landscaping? We’re going to take your cushy jobs with tenure and 4 months off a year and whine just like you that we are so-o-o-o underpaid for building the youth of America. Say goodbye to your overtime and double time and a half. I’ll be hitting grounders to the high school baseball team for $5k extra a summer, thank you very much.
So now that we’re going to be making $85k a year without upside, Joe Mainstreet is going to have his revenge, right? Wrong! Guess what: we’re going to stop buying the new 80k car, we aren’t going to leave the 35 percent tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We’re going to landscape our own back yards, wash our cars with a garden hose in our driveways. Our money was your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours.
The difference is, you lived off of it, we rejoiced in it. The Obama administration and the Democratic National Committee might get their way and knock us off the top of the pyramid, but it’s really going to hurt like hell for them when our fat asses land directly on the middle class of America and knock them to the bottom.
We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive. The question is, now that Obama & his administration are making Joe Mainstreet our food supply…will he? and will they?”
LOL
Anybody that thinks this turd came from a legit 'Wall Street' response has been smoking the good stuff! This is so obviously from a Tea Party, Palin type. LOL
Look at the structure of the flyer in the pic!
Here is a reply to that leaflet, reality check:
____________________________________________
'We eat what we kill' - Boiler Room? Really!
No, I've lived my whole life EATING what I KILL. Pure commission earnings, pure business earnings, not punching somebody's clock for a living. Earn or don't eat.
Try to take the food off my plate and I'll kick your city slicker 'butt' (G-version)! As you look at me with those dazed what the heck just happened eyes, gasping for air while my boot crushes your neck, the realization that you just messed with the wrong man (G-version) will be last thought to pass through your small little mind. I will stomp you out of existence.
I go out into the streets (the REAL streets) and make (TAKE) a living everyday. There's no champagne and caviar at the end of my day, just bandages and pain killers.
People like me have played your game, with your rules. You change the rules whenever you like to suit your needs at the moment, always insuring that you come out on top. Yet we've played.
You lost all the money you had and cried to us for help. The game was over for you. Yet we've played.
We helped and you lied, cheated and stole from us for our trouble. Yet we've played.
Now you treat us like we don't exist, our pain is not real, our hunger is imaginary and threaten to take what little we have left?
I say, come on down to our streets and try. We're not playing anymore.
_____________________________________________ end reply
Hey, it's not literary genius but it's something a group of small minded, bible thumping, gun toting types might rally around... just saying. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
The Obama administration and the Democratic National Committee might get their way and knock us off the top of the pyramid, but it’s really going to hurt like hell for them when our fat asses land directly on the middle class of America and knock them to the bottom.
I know this is an attempt at satire and all, but Obama and the DNC are two of Wall Street's closest allies.
A large part of his administration has been spent bending over backwards for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,546
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,546 |
Quote:
A very good point.
For folks my age, we grew up in the 70's, so we know quite well that what we came through in the 90's was a total boom time, and one that couldn't possibly last.
For them, they have no other frame of reference.. it IS their sense of what should be normal.
I grew up in the 60's/70's. I think things were much better then. We didn't have all the technology but money was much easier to come by. Wages weren't higher but they went much further, You didn't need two and three jobs to make a decent living. Families could afford a stay at home parent. Families were closer. I think it was a richer more fulfilling life back then.
I kind of feel for those that will never know what we have seen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
So are you saying that law enforcement should get to pick and choose which laws and ordinances they enforce based on the perceived nobility of the cause?
Absolutely not.
For the fourth or fifth time: the cause itself is not the issue. It could be NAMBLA or the KKK.
Quote:
Excessive force is excessive force but the primary job of the police in these situations is to maintain order and we have seen, all too often, these types of things turn into violent riots with property destruction, looting, death, etc...
You think that using tear gas and concussion bullets on a large group of protesters who aren't out of order and aren't committing violence is a way to maintain order and prevent violence?
That sort of thing usually creates more violence and unrest than it does suppress it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,546
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,546 |
Quote:
You think that using tear gas and concussion bullets on a large group of protesters who aren't out of order and aren't committing violence is a way to maintain order and prevent violence?
That sort of thing usually creates more violence and unrest than it does suppress it.
I think that's the END GAME they're banking on. Provoke the protesters into rioting so they can quell the rebellion. Sure worked in the 60s huh?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
We didn't have all the technology but money was much easier to come by. Wages weren't higher but they went much further, You didn't need two and three jobs to make a decent living. Families could afford a stay at home parent. Families were closer. I think it was a richer more fulfilling life back then.
Wages went much further because we weren't spending it on crap. It's still very possible to do it. But "middle class" people don't want to live without a smartphone, an iPad, a trip to Vegas, the NFL package, XM radio in the car, Hollister clothes for the kids, $60 xBox games, etc.
If people were willing to live like families back then, with a home phone and that's it, a smaller house, a trip to the nearest beach in the summer for a week at a modest hotel, basic television package and 1 television, clothes from Sears, and wiffle balls for toys, IT'S STILL ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO DO IT on a relatively modest one-income salary. But NOBODY wants to live like that.
My parents had FOUR utility bills. Electric (which included heat), water/sewer, phone, cable... and there were very few "options" that you could have, you either had cable or you didn't, there weren't 18 different packages to choose from... how many bills do people have now that they consider necessary utilities? Electric (maybe gas), water/sewer, home phone, cell phones for everybody, cable package, internet, XM radio, home security monitoring... If you want people to live like they did in the 60s and 70s, then START GIVING CRAP UP!!!
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
j/c http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/t...8EKM_story.htmlWill we soon see a distinguished-looking older man in long, white robes walking among the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in New York’s Zuccotti Park? Is Pope Benedict XVI joining the protest movement? Well, yes and no. Yes, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace issued a strong and thoughtful critique of the global financial system this week that paralleled many of the criticisms of unchecked capitalism that are echoing through Lower Manhattan and cities around the world. The report spoke of “the primacy of being over having,” of “ethics over the economy,” and of “embracing the logic of the global common good.” In a knock against those who oppose government economic regulation, the council emphasized “the primacy of politics — which is responsible for the common good — over the economy and finance.” It commented favorably on a financial transactions tax and supported an international authority to oversee the global economy. But Vatican officials were careful to say that their report was not a direct response to the worldwide demonstrations. “It is a coincidence that we share some views,” said Bishop Mario Toso, secretary of the council. “But after all, these are proposals that are based on reasonableness.” Indeed, and that may be a larger compliment to the “99 percent” activists. This document got more attention than it might have because the demonstrators have heightened concern about the problems it addresses. Moreover, the Vatican office’s intervention shows that those protesting against a broken and unjust financial system are not expressing some marginal point of view. They are highlighting worries shared by many, including the Roman Catholic Church. To challenge what the global markets have wrought is not extreme. It reflects, as Toso said, “reasonableness.” Needless to say, Catholic conservatives were not happy with the document, and they did all they could to minimize its importance. George Weigel, the conservative Catholic writer, took to National Review’s blog to denigrate the Pontifical Council as “a rather small office in the Roman Curia” and to insist that its document “doesn’t speak for the pope, it doesn’t speak for ‘the Vatican,’ and it doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.” Oh really? Then for whom does it speak? Weigel wasn’t done. “This brief document from the lower echelons of the Roman Curia no more aligns ‘the Vatican,’ the pope, or the Catholic Church with Occupy Wall Street than does the Nicene Creed,” he wrote. “Those who suggest it does are either grossly ill-informed or tendentious to a point of irresponsibility.” My, my. It is always entertaining for those of us who are liberal Catholics to watch our conservative Catholic friends try to wriggle around the fact that, on the matters of social justice and the economy, Catholic social teaching is, by any measure, “progressive.” Conservatives regularly condemn liberal “Cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose among the church’s teachings. But the conservatives often skip the parts of the moral buffet involving peace, social justice and what Pope John Paul II called the “idolatry of the market.” As it happens, the Pontifical Council is no mere “small office.” It has been a pioneer over the years in Catholic thinking about solidarity and justice. And this document is firmly rooted in papal teaching going back to Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. Pope Benedict’s 2009 encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, spoke explicitly of the need for a global political authority to keep watch on an increasingly integrated world economy. Inside-the-church politics aside, the Pontifical Council’s document is important because it reflects an ethical approach to economics that is shared well beyond Catholic circles. In particular, the council grapples intelligently with the problem of how the economy can be subject to reasonable rules when the nation-states that once enforced such regulations have less and less power, given how swiftly and easily capital moves. The document describes the benefits of globalization as well as its costs, and it does not pretend that establishing transnational structures will be easy. It addresses the importance of “democratic legitimacy” and speaks of “shared government,” rather than some top-down world authority. “We should not be afraid to propose new ideas, even if they might destabilize pre-existing balances of power that prevail over the weakest,” the document declares. “They are a seed thrown to the ground that will sprout and hurry towards bearing fruit.” Let’s hope so. If our religious leaders won’t challenge us to love mercy and do justice, who will?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Good post. Along the lines of what I posted somewhere, in the last week or so. But - you guys had CABLE????? Lucky dawg. I grew up with abc, nbc, cbs, and pbs. And that was IT for t.v. You must have come from the privileged elite if you had cable back then. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
I grew up in the 60's/70's. I think things were much better then. We didn't have all the technology but money was much easier to come by. Wages weren't higher but they went much further, You didn't need two and three jobs to make a decent living. Families could afford a stay at home parent. Families were closer. I think it was a richer more fulfilling life back then.
I kind of feel for those that will never know what we have seen.
However, that lifestyle is still available. I know many, many people that live in that world.
Dad works - mom stays at home. They even have 1, 2, even 4 kids. Dad makes about $30,000 to $35,000 a year. They own homes. They have 2 vehicles (not new ones though)...........as DC pointed out - that lifestyle is still there. It's available. Problem is, too many think they're entitled to more.
I have a family member - multimillionaire. He's not one bit happier than I am, and trust me - he's got all the toys. 8 corvettes sitting here in his storage unit. He's on his 4th $600,000 motor coach (commoners like me call them motor homes) in the last 7 years. 3 houses - 1 in northern michigan, on Traverse Bay, 1 here, and 1 in florida. He did sell his 55 ft. yacht because he was afraid to use it..... He's loaded...........and not a darn bit happier than me and my wife. (my wife didn't attend college, by the way. I did, and graduated - in 4 years. And here I am now, doing a blue collar job)
We are not entitled to anything other than the opportunities we've been given, and what we do with them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
I think there is some "we were told this is the American dream, and now we can't live it sentiment" But also, the current job market is MUCH worse than anybody from your generation ever had to deal with in their 20s/30s (unless you went on the job market it 1981, but the recovery there was quicker). Additionally, it's much worse to come out of college and not be able to find a job (due to student loans) than it was in your generation, where those unable to find jobs were usually coming out of high school. I believe the first four graphs explain the overall issues that are brought up: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1So maybe there is some entitlement, but things are demonstrably much worse for 20-somethings today than anytime in the past 30 years.
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 10/27/11 05:18 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
You had pbs? That explains a lot about you. Seriously, when I say we had cable, we had cable to get basically the same channels you had. I think I was about 16 when actual "cable" came out in our area that had other stuff.... but we didn't get it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
If you want people to live like they did in the 60s and 70s, then START GIVING CRAP UP!!!
You first.....
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,579
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,579 |
I like that.
It's true and too bad most are too dumb to understand the truth in that.
Oh well.
More Obama socialistic crap.
Sesame street meets Wall street....lol
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
We didn't have all the technology but money was much easier to come by. Wages weren't higher but they went much further, You didn't need two and three jobs to make a decent living. Families could afford a stay at home parent. Families were closer. I think it was a richer more fulfilling life back then.
Wages went much further because we weren't spending it on crap. It's still very possible to do it. But "middle class" people don't want to live without a smartphone, an iPad, a trip to Vegas, the NFL package, XM radio in the car, Hollister clothes for the kids, $60 xBox games, etc.
If people were willing to live like families back then, with a home phone and that's it, a smaller house, a trip to the nearest beach in the summer for a week at a modest hotel, basic television package and 1 television, clothes from Sears, and wiffle balls for toys, IT'S STILL ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO DO IT on a relatively modest one-income salary. But NOBODY wants to live like that.
My parents had FOUR utility bills. Electric (which included heat), water/sewer, phone, cable... and there were very few "options" that you could have, you either had cable or you didn't, there weren't 18 different packages to choose from... how many bills do people have now that they consider necessary utilities? Electric (maybe gas), water/sewer, home phone, cell phones for everybody, cable package, internet, XM radio, home security monitoring... If you want people to live like they did in the 60s and 70s, then START GIVING CRAP UP!!!
I agree with you.
But as a counterpoint - how much education was necessary for your parents to earn their living? Mine didn't go to college, because they lived in a time when a H.S. diploma was enough. At that time, walking in as an apprentice or at entry level right out of H.S. was a possibility.
To be competitive in most job markets, you need a Bachelor's degree or higher; even trade schools have become rather expensive.
I think education has become our next bubble, but it's become known - whether it's true or not - that one needs to incur five figure debt just to have the education to get a job.
While I agree with you that our crap buying has increased steadily, other costs are being incurred as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,579
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,579 |
While I'll never knock education, I think the current model is over rated.
Unless one is set on a professional degree, you're wasting your money.
One is better off at a community college attaining a degree that can actually turn in to a job, or learning a trade.
Starting your adult life 90k in debut even before you buy a home is crazy. It leads to a life in indentured servitude.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
While I'll never knock education, I think the current model is over rated.
Unless one is set on a professional degree, you're wasting your money.
One is better off at a community college attaining a degree that can actually turn in to a job, or learning a trade.
Starting your adult life 90k in debut even before you buy a home is crazy. It leads to a life in indentured servitude.
Agreed.
The reality is that the youth has been pushed for some time into said indentured servitude.
Community college and trade school aren't advocated unless the person is perceived to be dumb (though I've often found the 'dumb' ones who take the CC/trade route often end up wiser and more mature than the crowd that heads off to universities).
Just about any kind who maintains a low B average is told by authority and guidance counselors to take out federal loans and go to a 4-year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
And I understand that. Valid points.
A counter point would be that too many people spend 5 years getting a degree in a field that just isn't worth it. "General Studies" is an example.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,579
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,579 |
I agree, it's become a business,,,,a ruthless one to be honest.
It's gotten to the point most colleges accept nearly anyone knowing damn well they are going to flunk out, but as long as they get that first 20K they will do it.
It's a joke.
And the bigger joke is that as time goes on I think it will turn back towards that days of your parents, and mine where a degree wasn't as necessary as dedication and hard work.
In my day a liberal arts degree was pretty much a joke.
I was reading a article not long ago that many companies are now looking for that so they can train people rather then get these robots direct out of business school.
IMO the right degree is great, other than that, just be sharp, dive in to the job and work your ass off.
That pays.
More and more companies are willing to go with that over the droid fresh out of your basic, ho-hum college.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Quote:
Quote:
We didn't have all the technology but money was much easier to come by. Wages weren't higher but they went much further, You didn't need two and three jobs to make a decent living. Families could afford a stay at home parent. Families were closer. I think it was a richer more fulfilling life back then.
Wages went much further because we weren't spending it on crap. It's still very possible to do it. But "middle class" people don't want to live without a smartphone, an iPad, a trip to Vegas, the NFL package, XM radio in the car, Hollister clothes for the kids, $60 xBox games, etc.
If people were willing to live like families back then, with a home phone and that's it, a smaller house, a trip to the nearest beach in the summer for a week at a modest hotel, basic television package and 1 television, clothes from Sears, and wiffle balls for toys, IT'S STILL ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO DO IT on a relatively modest one-income salary. But NOBODY wants to live like that.
My parents had FOUR utility bills. Electric (which included heat), water/sewer, phone, cable... and there were very few "options" that you could have, you either had cable or you didn't, there weren't 18 different packages to choose from... how many bills do people have now that they consider necessary utilities? Electric (maybe gas), water/sewer, home phone, cell phones for everybody, cable package, internet, XM radio, home security monitoring... If you want people to live like they did in the 60s and 70s, then START GIVING CRAP UP!!!
Winner!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
And I understand that. Valid points.
A counter point would be that too many people spend 5 years getting a degree in a field that just isn't worth it. "General Studies" is an example.
I agree that some fields are poor choices, but the idea that a college degree is unimportant (at present) is disputed by the current unemployment statistics by education level:
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
Of course, you are partially right, in that this current recession is hitting both those with college degrees and without relatively hard:
http://bit.ly/t9V35E
On your last point, I'm trying to find the number of liberal arts majors (compared to other degrees) per year. If my memory serves me, the percentage of students choosing liberal arts majors has gone way down in the last 30 years.
Basically, your parents liberal arts degrees ensured them jobs, because they were competing on the job market against a large population of workers with only HS degrees. Now, everybody has a college degree, which has devalued it's worth (especially those degrees that don't offer an immediate advantage to employers). In the world where everybody has these degrees, a recession hits those with degrees a lot harder.
Still - your employment opportunities are much worse without a college degree than with it (the first plot I showed). Thus it's really an arms race - the bar has been raised so you need a college degree (and the debt that comes with it) to be competitive, but that doesn't actually help you stand out, since everybody has one.
It's a huge inefficiency in our way of life (since, as you noted, college degrees aren't really necessary for most of the work out there), but it's certainly not the fault of any individual student who wants to try to compete (see prisoner's dilemma)
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you want people to live like they did in the 60s and 70s, then START GIVING CRAP UP!!!
You first.....
Hey, I'm not the one complaining about it.
What most people mean when they say "You can't raise a family on a single income any more"..... what they really mean is "You can't raise a family on a single income any more and still live like I want to live"
As far as higher education... on one hand its sad that we have devalued "learning" as much as we have to the point where there is no real point to getting an education which makes you a well rounded individual and we have moved to the point where it's just a "get the skills you need to get a job and get out" mentality. On the other hand, that is the reality we live in and I don't look for colleges and universities to initiate any kind of a change because they are charging huge fees and getting more applicants than they have slots to fill so at worst all they have to do is accept marginal students and they are still making the cash... there is no incentive for them to change.
What is also sad about this is that we are asking kids at the age of 16-17 years old to definitively know what they want to do for the rest of their lives and begin obtaining those skills when the fact is that most kids that age have no clue what they want to do and will change their mind 12 times between then and 25 years of age... but by that point they will be so pigeon holed because they have only learned skills that are applicable to a very narrow set of occupations that it would be a huge setback for them to decide they want to do something else.
When I went to high school, I think we had 3 kids out of 180 in our graduating class that had a 3.9 gpa or better at graduation and two of them were on the "business curriculum" which meant they didn't take calculus or physics or advanced biology... Since I have a 15 year old son I have been checking into colleges lately and so I went to look up University of Marylands admission standards and what I found is that the average freshman accepted, THE AVERAGE student accepted, had a 3.9 gpa... and Maryland accepts 4-5,000 kids a year and many of the other universities I checked showed similar results. So who are all of these kids getting 3.9 gpa's? It seems like 30% of every high school class must have a 3.9.... which leads me to believe that high schools are playing right into the system, figure out a way to get the kids the grades so they can go to college and make our numbers look good...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,874
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,874 |
Quote:
But "middle class" people don't want to live without a smartphone, an iPad, a trip to Vegas, the NFL package, XM radio in the car, Hollister clothes for the kids, $60 xBox games, etc.
Yuppers, Us middle classers should never be allowed to have any of the good stuff
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
But "middle class" people don't want to live without a smartphone, an iPad, a trip to Vegas, the NFL package, XM radio in the car, Hollister clothes for the kids, $60 xBox games, etc.
Yuppers, Us middle classers should never be allowed to have any of the good stuff
You can have as much of it as you want, but don't spend your money on all of these accessories and then complain that you can't raise a family on a single income like they did in the good old days.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
someone on here said that the university system is the next bubble. i agree in a way.
universities have had such an arms race in competition for new students (new TVs to keep up with the plasma then 1080p HD, then LCD, now 3D in EVERY dorm building, student facility, etc. Or completely redoing the entire dorm structure rather than fixing what is there - Case & NW both recently). It has given rise to a huge escalating cost structure that universities just assume they can pass onto the students.
when my siblings have been applying to college lately, I was trying to help them find what I had in Case when I went. A highly ranked school that kept costs really low and made it affordable to go (not Case anymore). For teaching, I came up with BW for my sister. For environmental science, my brother find a great masters program at Cleveland State that is relatively inexpensive. It is extremely tough to find anymore and the ones that exist are extremely rigid for what you need to do at that specific school.
And, if you do have to switch schools, then all of the "deals" that you get when you are a freshman disappear and you get raked over the coals (my sister had to switch from Toledo to Akron because she figured out she wanted to be an occupational therapist for the physically and mentally handicapped through an internship, but Toledo did not offer the required coursework).
In fact, alot of schools even are pulling a bait-n-switch right now. Where they offer freshman what looks like a great 'scholarship' package. But, they are all 1 year scholarships that expire and the 'true cost' after that is much, much higher. Think of it like football oversigning for the average student.
Also, I have put my belief that the tuition should reflect the expected salary benefits of your major. Teaching degrees should not cost as much as engineering degrees, etc.
The sad thing is that through this recession where the jobs are drying up for post-college grads, the tuitions continue to rise as if nothing is wrong.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138 |
This is interesting. cbs Tea Party to Mayor: Make ‘Occupy Richmond’ Pay Up RICHMOND, Va. (CBS Washington) – The Richmond Tea Party is accusing Mayor Dwight Jones of taking a soft stance against the “Occupy Richmond” protesters and is demanding that the group pay up. After nearly three weeks of protests and overnight stays in Kanawha Plaza, the Richmond Tea Party is about to send Jones a bill for about $8,000 on the basis that “Occupy Richmond” has been using the area illegally and for free. Richmond Tea Party spokeswoman Colleen Owens told CBS Washington that the protesters have been given special treatment and free reign of the park and have not had to comply with the strict liability and security provisions that the city required of a Tea Party Tax Day in 2009. As the person in charge of the 2009 event, Owens said Richmond officials dictated the number of police and emergency personnel they were required to have on site and required a $1 million liability policy to protect the city. Owens said that when a Tea Party member decided to call the mayor’s office to see if the protesters had required any of the necessary permits for the park, the city said that “Occupy Richmond” didn’t have any requirements for them to protest and stay overnight in Kanawha Plaza. “We’re forced to comply with the laws, but yet they don’t have to,” she said. “That’s such a blatantly unequal application of the laws.” Jones, who is scheduled to meet with “Occupy Richmond” protesters today, is accused of being too lenient with the group, which has expanded in size since it was formed to follow suit with “Occupy Wall Street.” The difference in perception between the two groups, as well as Jones’ background of being a child of the 1960s, Owens said, helped make his decision to not charge the group for every day spent in the park. “When we were applying for our permits, did the city say, ‘Oh never mind, we’re children of the 60s, we believe in the First Amendment’? No, they didn’t tell us that,” she said. “We’re almost being punished for following the law. We do have a problem when others are protesting in the same exact park and they don’t have to follow the same rules.” Calls and emails made by CBS Washington to “Occupy Richmond” officials and Jones’ office seeking comment were not immediately returned. The Tea Party hopes to send an invoice to Jones’ office by tomorrow or Monday. “The Occupiers are still there and [the mayor’s office] need to explain themselves,” Owens said. “Why is it OK for some people to break the law and why is it OK for others to comply with the law? Why is that OK and why is that acceptable? I don’t think that’s acceptable.”
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,517 |
"The OWS movement is ...... sex, drugs, violence, nuisance, and a lack of bathing."
How do I sign up?
Add rock and roll to that list,and it wouild be something we did back in the sixties and seventies.
At least I think I remember it that way.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430 |
They have a good point, and probably a strong enough case to take to court. Further, if I am damn near every single parade, organizational assembly, concert, or any other gathering of people in Richmond, NYC, or any other of the cities who have allowed this to continue without permits and such, then I am going to run my event without permits as well and let the city try to sue me. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
It has given rise to a huge escalating cost structure that universities just assume they can pass onto the students.
Some of it.. some of the cost escalation just gets absorbed into the state budget and is spent out of the general fund.
I'm not going to gripe about this too bad because it helps keep me in business..  ... but I know of a university that is having budget cuts, like most... and in the last 3 years they have built a new tennis facility, with 8 courts, locker room, etc. A new baseball facility with bleachers, lights, locker room, new recreational fields for intermurals which look better than most NFL fields (some are natural grass, some are synthetic, all have lights and scoreboards, a new football stadium for 15,000 seats with locker rooms, press box, weight etc, a new track/soccer facility, again with new locker rooms, concessions, press box... and they built all of this in the same section of campus. One could easily argue the need for all of but even if you think they did NEED it all, they could have configured that area and built one larger athletic building with locker rooms, weight training, etc to serve multiple facilities instead of giving each sport its own building.
We have done well being involved in it all but it seems like a monumental waste of money.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,175 |
Quote:
I agree, it's become a business,,,,a ruthless one to be honest.
It's gotten to the point most colleges accept nearly anyone knowing damn well they are going to flunk out, but as long as they get that first 20K they will do it.
It's a joke.
And the bigger joke is that as time goes on I think it will turn back towards that days of your parents, and mine where a degree wasn't as necessary as dedication and hard work.
In my day a liberal arts degree was pretty much a joke.
I was reading a article not long ago that many companies are now looking for that so they can train people rather then get these robots direct out of business school.
IMO the right degree is great, other than that, just be sharp, dive in to the job and work your ass off.
That pays.
More and more companies are willing to go with that over the droid fresh out of your basic, ho-hum college.
This is already the case in my field.
Yes, a degree in computers/IT can help... but TONS of the people in my field are simply self-taught. I've been doing it for 15+ years and haven't ever been to a classroom (sans silly things like Microsoft Certification classes - which are worthless).
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,579
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,579 |
Excellent point, and it's that way in many industries, and more are following.
I hope it continues. Not everybody is college material, nor is a degree required for many jobs...you don't have a advantage with a degree if you want to make 100k a year and manage a Cracker Barrel restaurant.
You need to be smart, willing to work 50-60 hours a week and get in there and learn the restaurant business.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138 |
Quote:
They have a good point, and probably a strong enough case to take to court.
Further, if I am damn near every single parade, organizational assembly, concert, or any other gathering of people in Richmond, NYC, or any other of the cities who have allowed this to continue without permits and such, then I am going to run my event without permits as well and let the city try to sue me.
Makes you wonder.....just where is the line drawn for having a free protest and one that requires permits and is charged for security and cleanup?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
They have a good point, and probably a strong enough case to take to court.
Further, if I am damn near every single parade, organizational assembly, concert, or any other gathering of people in Richmond, NYC, or any other of the cities who have allowed this to continue without permits and such, then I am going to run my event without permits as well and let the city try to sue me.
Makes you wonder.....just where is the line drawn for having a free protest and one that requires permits and is charged for security and cleanup?
Apparently it's drawn by pre-planning. If your event is impromptu, then by all means go ahead, but if you actually plan ahead of time, then you need to fill out these forms and meet these conditions. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Re: People Should Occupy Wall
Street
|
|
