Log in

View Full Version : This Is What Happens When A Millennial Tries To Get A Job



Pages : 1 [2]

dpacrkk
06-02-2015, 11:58 AM
You only mentioned workplace advertising. Now you are saying that these jobs were advertised.
/sigh, it's right here for the lazy/illiterate/scrolling-challenged. And also means "in addition to," meaning it's posted in multiple places:


This is accomplished by proving that the job description was posted for some duration of time that was readily available to the public. Also the job description has to be posted in two conspicuous locations in the work site (usually the kitchen or break area).

I'm not going to debate you if you're just going to pretend assertions I make were never posted in plain English.

Bahuba
06-02-2015, 06:53 PM
This is commonly cited, but never supported.

To dispel these myths, for an employer to hire an H-1B visa candidate, they have to prove to the government that there was no US citizen candidate that could fill the role. This is accomplished by proving that the job description was posted for some duration of time that was readily available to the public. Also the job description has to be posted in two conspicuous locations in the work site (usually the kitchen or break area). Then upon intending to hire an H1B candidate, another document has to be posted stating this intention with at least the job title, wage, and start date. And yes, that last sentence stated "wage," so you'll know how much your evil corporation is underpaying that dirty foreigner for stealing a job from a rightful American.

TLDR: keep the "they took our jobs" to undocumented illegal immigrants and South Park, and out of most prospective graduates' futures.

I don't want to get in an argument, but having seen the process multiple times up close this is not what I found at all. In fact, I saw not one single example of what you describe, since there is never an audit process. Documents are typed, walked through, and the person is hired. In many cases, titles are inflated and salaries falsely lowered to create the impression that a "search" was done. I was thoroughly shocked by the lack of compliance, but more so by the lack of any serious audit. I have yet to meet one professional who has actually seen this in the field who does not agree. Many people quote how it "should be" but I think we all understand enforcement vs. Laws on the books.

Zofia
06-02-2015, 06:53 PM
Oddly my parents were the opposite. Neither attended college and managed to find jobs. ... My mom got a job st Prudential in the accounting department. As a result neither one saw a purpose in college. I spent almost a decade working as an accountant. I supervised the accounting people who did not have college degrees and I was paid substantially more than them. A starting accounting clerk at the electric utility where I first worked made about $30,000/year. My starting salary was $60,000 until I got notice that I had passed the CPA exam. Then it went to $75,000.

Let's look at the numbers. Starting salary for a non-degree clerk = $30,000. Over four years it will grow to just under $34,000. Thus, the opportunity cost of going to four years of college is roughly $128,000. Add to that another $25,000 per year for college costs and living expenses. Total cost of college, including opportunity cost is $228,000.

How long would it have taken me to recover that cost? In the simplest terms about six and a half years assuming no CPA pass. With the CPA passed, about five years. Of course, from there the gulf between the CPA manager and the Clerk widens considerably. The difference over a thirty year career is at least $2,290,000 and probably a lot more. For the people I supervised not so many years ago, the gulf is much wider. They are making less than $40,000/year. I am making in excess of a quarter million a year. I will earn that differential for decades to come.

Is that all because I went to college? Not entirely. I learned many valuable lessons stripping. But, Indiana University taught me the skills that were absolutely necessary to do what I do today.

Z

Kellydancer
06-02-2015, 09:21 PM
A place I worked as an accounting trainer was the opposite. Even though I was in management and had a degree I was paid less than those I trained. Of course it was an union company and management was non union so I think that made a difference. I did consider getting an accounting degree because I had heard the payoff can make a difference within a few years.

Melonie
06-03-2015, 02:23 AM
I supervised the accounting people who did not have college degrees and I was paid substantially more than them. A starting accounting clerk at the electric utility where I first worked made about $30,000/year. My starting salary was $60,000 until I got notice that I had passed the CPA exam. Then it went to $75,000.

Let's look at the numbers. Starting salary for a non-degree clerk = $30,000. Over four years it will grow to just under $34,000. Thus, the opportunity cost of going to four years of college is roughly $128,000. Add to that another $25,000 per year for college costs and living expenses. Total cost of college, including opportunity cost is $228,000.

How long would it have taken me to recover that cost? In the simplest terms about six and a half years assuming no CPA pass. With the CPA passed, about five years.

Not meaning to be argumentative, but these past conditions were arguably dependent on certain market factors which may no longer be the case. First, the employer's accounting volume required the hiring of half a dozen non-degree clerks. With more capable computer technology that number has likely been reduced today such that three clerks can handle the same accounting volume . Thus the employer's need for a 'supervisor' has been significantly reduced as well. Agreed that where a CPA is concerned, the employer is still going to require someone with that credential to 'sign off' on certain financial documents.

So what happened to the three clerks whose positions were eliminated by technology ? With separation benefits and student loans, it's likely that two of them decided to return to college to obtain degrees in accounting. But the employer ( and by inference all similar employers ) still only needs three clerks to handle their accounting volume, and still only needs one degreed accountant to 'supervise' them - now probably also requiring a CPA degreed accountant so that the 'supervisory' and 'sign off' functions can both be performed by the same person.

So the next time an employer needs to hire an accounting clerk, some number of ( unemployed ) recently graduated degreed accountants are likely to apply ... because pressure to repay student loans makes $30k a year better than zero. The employer hires the recent graduate for the accounting clerk position ... because they will supposedly get more talent / productivity for the same $30k salary. And now knowing that ( unemployed ) degreed accountants are willing to work for accounting clerk pay rates, the next time an accounting clerk must be hired the employer sets a requirement that applicants must have an accounting degree. The employer may also alter the job title to minimize the perception of underemployment. But the $30k pay rate is likely to remain the same.

I'm obviously flirting with hyperbole, but some underlying facts remain true nonetheless. Technology reduces the need for human workers by making remaining human workers more productive. Thus, all else being equal, the total number of human workers an employer requires to perform a given volume of work is reduced over time. As available jobs not requiring college degrees are reduced in number, more people pursue college degrees. As more college graduates become available, employers realize that they can hire college graduates for relatively low paying positions which don't actually require that college education to perform the required work. As yet more college graduates become available, the stagnant / reduced number of human workers required by employers to perform a given volume of work provides a strong incentive for ( at least some of ) those recent college graduates to accept lower paying positions in their field. And once this 'new normal' is established, employers can require college degrees for lower paying positions.

So what is the tuition cost versus increased salary payback equation for those recent graduate degreed accountants who are being paid the same $30k as non-degreed accounting clerks ? That's obviously an unfair comparison, since the availability of degreed accounts who are willing to work for a $30k pay rate in turn makes it very difficult for non-degreed accounting clerks to be hired for what functionally remains a clerk position that really doesn't require an accounting degree.

rickdugan
06-03-2015, 05:59 AM
^Melonie, I'm not sure that using accountants as an example of those who are being replaced by technology was the best example. Outside of healthcare and certain technology fields, Accounting is still considered one of the best fields to pursue. There is still a lot of subjective judgment required in many Accounting jobs, which technology can only go so far in tackling. Additional government regulatory burdens in a number of industries has also increased the need for accountants with certain specialties.

But to your broader point, yes technology has replaced certain jobs, but it has also created opportunities in other fields. It is the process of Creative Destruction. An economy driven by market forces is not static, but dynamic. We don't have horse and buggy drivers, horse whip manufacturers, elevator operators and a variety of other professions that used to exist either, but they were replaced by others. It is a normal and healthy part of ongoing economic development. Also, like Accounting, many of the newer growth fields require degrees and specialized training, so I continue to agree with Zofia's position that picking a good major and doing well in it can have an enormous impact upon one's future standard of living.

Truth be told, my biggest fears have nothing to do with technology, changing demographics or any of the other natural things that may influence an economy. My greatest worry is that our population's increasing reliance upon government will suck resources away from natural economic activities and redirect them far less efficiently. Between Social Security, student loans and mortgages backed solely by the feds, and massive upcoming healthcare costs, we have so many looming debts now that it boggles the mind. The money to pay for those things is going to have to come from somewhere and the decision making will be based upon political realities rather than what is best for the economy. But I will stop there for fear of jumping too far into prohibited territory...

Anyway, just my :twocents:

KikiGem
06-03-2015, 07:53 AM
This is why I'm so worried for my sister who graduates next year. She has such high hopes but I'm afraid reality will fall very short of them. Four year degrees are meaningless, it seems.

Eric Stoner
06-03-2015, 09:09 AM
This is why I'm so worried for my sister who graduates next year. She has such high hopes but I'm afraid reality will fall very short of them. Four year degrees are meaningless, it seems.

Hold on a sec. Let's all take a deep breath and try to keep a grip on reality. College is good for SOME people. For many people it will drastically increase their earning power as compared to a H.S. graduate. Every year there are lists posted of those college degrees that have high rates of both employability and starting salaries. Most are in STEM and health care. Art history ; women's studies, ( Not going there ! ), black studies ( Definitely not going there ) ; sociology and various other majors are not doing very well these days except as training for Starbucks.

That being said , the fact remains that we have too many colleges and too many people going to college in this country. And who btw have accumulated far too much student debt.

As tempting as it is, we don't have to get ( gasp ! ) "political " to point out several unpleasant facts about the current situation. Likewise , a college degree does not automatically condemn the recipient to a life of crushing debt and unfulfilling work. As with many things in life , it depends.

Kellydancer
06-03-2015, 11:49 AM
That's exactly it. I'll be the first to admit I wasn't thinking when I chose a communications degree but believe it or not some employers seek it out because it's a general degree. My minor was business and in hindsight wish I had gotten my major in this instead. My experience and later certifications are what employers look at now. Those degrees you mentioned generally don't unless it's for a specific field like teaching the subject or working for an organization connected to it. Yes many years ago many employers hired people with any degree but those days are long gone. I know plenty of people with degrees working in stores and restaurants.

Zofia
06-03-2015, 06:35 PM
Not meaning to be argumentative, but these past conditions were arguably dependent on certain market factors which may no longer be the case.

I'm not that old, thank you very much. ;-)


With more capable computer technology that number has likely been reduced today such that three clerks can handle the same accounting volume . Thus the employer's need for a 'supervisor' has been significantly reduced as well. Agreed that where a CPA is concerned, the employer is still going to require someone with that credential to 'sign off' on certain financial documents.

I was referring to a public utility. And, the accounting department is down some from when I was there, but not many. And the pay differential is about the same. Front line managers make twice what non-managers make and front line managers with a CPA get a 25% pay bump over non-CPA managers. The big difference is, a non-CPA cannot expect a long career. She better pass the exam now. When I was hired, there was less pressure to pass.

You do make a point though about technology. When I moved from a utility to a VC, there were far more chiefs at the VC and far fewer Indians. I had supervised half a dozen people. At the VC, it was down to never more than three. And, I handled as much dollar volume. When I got my first CFO job, I had two direct reports, but more, much more dollar volume. Each new company where I went, it was the same story, two direct reports and more dollars. Until, I jumped ship and bought my own company. It didn't take me long to figure out that if I had too many direct reports, I got nothing done. So, I cut it down to just two. I gave more people down the ladder more responsibility and more money. I ended up making more money in the end because the company worked more efficiently and I worked more efficiently.


So what is the tuition cost versus increased salary payback equation for those recent graduate degreed accountants who are being paid the same $30k as non-degreed accounting clerks ? That's obviously an unfair comparison, since the availability of degreed accounts who are willing to work for a $30k pay rate in turn makes it very difficult for non-degreed accounting clerks to be hired for what functionally remains a clerk position that really doesn't require an accounting degree.

The mean starting salary for B.Sc in accounting is $48,000/year. $30,000 would be $5,000 below the lowest reported starting salary for a B.Sc. in the U.S in 2014. So, I'm going to say that no one is starting at $30K. The mean for first year accountants who have passed the CPA exam is $78,000/year. With those numbers, being relatively close to mine, I'll say the payback remains at five years. Maybe even a little faster. The real problem is wage growth for starting accountants has been close to zero for a decade. While we're employing all of our new graduates at a good wage and a great wage for our new CPAs, we have not improved those wages in far too long. I experienced that too. I was a startup company CFO before I was thirty. But, looking out over a career, I couldn't see a lot of wage growth beyond inflation if I didn't become an owner.

HTH
Z

Eric Stoner
06-04-2015, 07:57 AM
^^^ As Zofia has ably pointed out an accounting degree is a great tool to use to get a job that pays well. CPA's are and will always be in demand. Likewise for many other degrees that we have discussed and which have been listed.

Following up on a favorite theme of Melonie's , even IF the actual number crunching were sent off-shore there would still have to be a CPA here in the U.S. who had not yet assumed room temperature and could sign off on the tax return , SEC filing , certified financial statement etc. etc. Same thing for those with engineering degrees.

Here's something I'm curious about and haven't been able to find the answer : What is the employment rate of recent Ivy League grads ? Overall ? In their field ( in accord with their major ) ? For similar type schools ( Top 20 on the U.S. News list of top colleges ) ? Time was that a degree from Harvard or Yale was a ticket to employment regardless of what the graduate's major was . Is that still the case ?

xStacey
06-04-2015, 10:01 AM
This is so depressing. I am starting law school this Fall, I am excited but also questionning myself and wondering if I am making the right decision. A recent report came out less than a week ago about the situation of young lawyers in my province and the statistics are alarming.

Articling students average weekly salary dropped from $647 to $543, if they're lucky to even find paid articling positions. The number of unemployed lawyers increased dramatically and a lot of practicing lawyers are unsatisfied with their career and work conditions. The law market is still not as bad as in the US but I am pretty sure it is only a matter of time. Although, I can't really think of any field that is not oversatured with recent graduates and qualified workers.

Career dancing is not for me, but I understand why some people choose to do sex work full-time instead of going to school.

Naida
06-04-2015, 07:59 PM
The reality is that kids who are C (or below) students throughout High School and score poorly on their SATs are not likely to go far academically.

While I agree with every other aspect of your post, I found this part to be kind of offensive. Just because a student doesn't do well in school does not automatically mean that they are poor candidates for higher education. Just as frequently, it's non-academic issues that can cause poor grades.

I was an honors student from first grade until high school, routinely testing in the highest percentile for my state, and was even approached by my class's valedictorian at our class's senior prom to tell me that she felt like I was the one who deserved the title. The reason I didn't get that title? Because my home life was crap and the only thing that made my high school career even marginally better, between all the bullying and prejudice I experienced from faculty, was seeing the few friends I had in school every day I was there.
I completely fucked off my first year of high school for those reasons. My standard MO was to show up on Monday to review Friday's test material, then skip the rest of the week and still get the highest scores on most of said tests when I reappeared Friday. Purely from test scores and the work I did on Mondays, I was a low-C student but still failed most of my classes because of truancy. My second year, when I was still classed as a freshman, I missed maybe one or two days and shot up to a low-A student in all my classes because I didn't do homework. I voluntarily attended summer school so that I could return my third year as a junior like the majority of my friends, and I breezed through eight credits in two weeks while attending the at-your-own-pace learning center. When I came back for my third year, I found out they had changed their grading system over the summer. I was still a sophomore by HALF A CREDIT. A few weeks in, something set off the powder keg that had been growing since I found out about the grading change and I dropped out. I've since gotten my GED (in what ended up being a record for my county's learning center - three days, two of which were spent wasting time while testing arrangements were made - because I mistakenly thought I needed to brush up before the test) and dipped my toes into the college scene, where I also had fantastic grades until I had to leave for home life reasons.

I just can't believe for half a second that a low grade student should be pushed one way or another about something that will effectively alter their entire life based solely on grades without evaluating other factors.

/rant

Back on track to the topic at hand, we definitely live in a society that's over-educated, under-demanded, AND ignorant about a lot of basic survival skills. Guess I lucked out by falling in love with a future career path whose demand seems to only be increasing during my lifetime and developed a deep interest in sustainable homesteading.

eagle2
06-04-2015, 08:21 PM
I'm obviously flirting with hyperbole, but some underlying facts remain true nonetheless. Technology reduces the need for human workers by making remaining human workers more productive. Thus, all else being equal, the total number of human workers an employer requires to perform a given volume of work is reduced over time.
No, technology often increases the demand for workers. Huge numbers of jobs have been created by the internet. There's been a huge increase in the demand for IT professionals. All major businesses spend significant amounts of money on internet-related technologies. 25 years ago, most businesses were spending nothing on the internet. This is all in addition to traditional roles performed by computers, such as billing and processing payments. Newer technologies have only increased demand. Now business websites must be mobile-friendly and tablet-friendly, in addition to working for desktops. In the future the demand for IT professionals will only grow, as newer technologies come out.

The internet has created jobs in other areas as well, including many in the adult-entertainment industry. Technology has always been advancing and over the longer term, the standard of living has been increasing, wages have been increasing, and the number of jobs has been increasing.

Naida
06-04-2015, 08:50 PM
No, technology often increases the demand for workers. Huge numbers of jobs have been created by the internet. There's been a huge increase in the demand for IT professionals. All major businesses spend significant amounts of money on internet-related technologies. 25 years ago, most businesses were spending nothing on the internet. This is all in addition to traditional roles performed by computers, such as billing and processing payments. Newer technologies have only increased demand. Now business websites must be mobile-friendly and tablet-friendly, in addition to working for desktops. In the future the demand for IT professionals will only grow, as newer technologies come out.

The internet has created jobs in other areas as well, including many in the adult-entertainment industry. Technology has always been advancing and over the longer term, the standard of living has been increasing, wages have been increasing, and the number of jobs has been increasing.

I'm in the middle of the road between your post and Melonie's. The issue is what sort of technology we're discussing. What we tend to think of as "technology," like the internet, computers, smart phones, and myriad other gadgets have increased demand for workers. On the flipside, automation technology like the mechanization on portions of assembly lines or things like industrial tractors have arguably destroyed more jobs than they've succeeded in creating.

Let's also not touch "increased standard of living" and "increased wages" in the same sentence. I feel that opens a whole can of worms that really doesn't have a place in this thread yet.

Selina M
06-04-2015, 08:51 PM
Just my 2 cents before I get out of this thread:
I agree with Naida that grades do not mean everything. I actually find it very unfair to make what you choose as a 16 year old kid, be what influences the rest of your life (what college you get into, or if you don't go because you've been told you're 'not smart enough' based on your grades). The GPA vs. test scores system does not work IMHO and does not accurately reflect the student at hand.

I was one of those smart-but-lazy kids, who only went to school because I wasn't quite rebellious enough to ditch routinely. Socializing was more interesting to me and I spent most of my spare time chasing boys and doing dance/theatre. I walked out with a 3.1 GPA, because I didn't do most of the bullshit busy work. Despite having the 2nd highest SAT score in the school and 90th+ percentile on all state tests, because of the GPA I would have been ineligible for most 'good' schools. Meanwhile, my bff at the time had close to a 4.0, yet had to retake the incredibly easy state standards test, and barely scraped a high enough SAT score to get into a certain state school that is slightly more selective than the Burger King Kids Club, yet she got a scholarship off her GPA.

When you get into college, it's even worse. I have an abysmal undergrad GPA because of the professors I was dealt my first 2 years; they barely spoke English, would teach half a semester before switching to another professor, and the tests were impossible unless you were Rainman and memorized 5 chapters @ 30 pages each. They had something like a 30% increase curve (70% = 100%), just to get enough kids to pass so they could retain their research position (which required them to teach as a stipulation). This is tre' bad if you want to go to grad school, and I am now having to do a post-bac in order to go to med school. My GPA does NOT reflect what I would have done had I been given adequate professors. You'd better believe that every class I take right now, I "RateMyProfessors" that shit first.

As far as a degree being useful... the kids who got jobs, was nothing to do with their degree or GPA or anything, it was the ones who knew people and kissed ass and volunteered. I absolutely refuse to "volunteer" or "intern" for free, so I would not have found a job had I looked for one in my field. "You have not shown enough dedication" - So a $40,000 4 year degree is not dedicated enough?

With all that said, the only people who should be in college IMO, are going into the science fields, teaching, or medicine. Everyone else would probably be better off getting an entry-level crap position in their chosen field and working up, or going to a vocational school.

Melonie
06-05-2015, 06:06 PM
I was referring to a public utility. And, the accounting department is down some from when I was there, but not many. And the pay differential is about the same.

Agreed that my attempt to expand on your accounting dep't example was a reach. And it appears that public utilities are finding a different way to reduce payrolls ... see

(snip)Information technology workers at Southern California Edison (SCE) are being laid off and replaced by workers from India. Some employees are training their H-1B visa holding replacements, and many have already lost their jobs.

The employees are upset and say they can't understand how H-1B guest workers can be used to replace them.

The IT organization's "transition effort" is expected to result in about 400 layoffs, with "another 100 or so employees leaving voluntarily," SCE said in a statement. The "transition," which began in August, will be completed by the end of March, the company said.

"They are bringing in people with a couple of years' experience to replace us and then we have to train them," said one longtime IT worker. "It's demoralizing and in a way I kind of felt betrayed by the company."(snip)



Huge numbers of jobs have been created by the internet. There's been a huge increase in the demand for IT professionals. All major businesses spend significant amounts of money on internet-related technologies. 25 years ago, most businesses were spending nothing on the internet.

That's technically true. However, as shown by the example above, a large increase in the demand for IT professionals doesn't necessarily help recent US IT graduates all that much if a fair number of the jobs are being filled by H1-B foreign IT professionals at comparatively low pay rates.

And there's also the problem that jobs being created in one particular sector shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum ... but instead need to be viewed as part of the overall jobs spectrum.

http://www.dark-bid.com/Images/Bachelor-Degree-Labor.jpeg



What we tend to think of as "technology," like the internet, computers, smart phones, and myriad other gadgets have increased demand for workers. On the flipside, automation technology like the mechanization on portions of assembly lines or things like industrial tractors have arguably destroyed more jobs than they've succeeded in creating.

Indeed, some attention should be paid to the 'nature' of the job being abolished, versus the 'nature' of the new jobs being created. Yes millions of Americans now earn their living via the internet. But many of these are self-employed persons or part time workers with no guarantee of weekly earnings, no benefits, etc. In contrast, the majority of jobs which have been abolished were full time, comparatively high paying jobs with benefits.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vy_-qkSm89s/UiPoA1A9yxI/AAAAAAAAVik/wAaVWOnaM2c/s1600/Full+Time+vs.+Part+Time+1999_2013.png


Also, in case you're thinking that jobs taken by foreign born / H1-B workers is an isolated phenomenon, consider this ...


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/06/foreign%20born%20workers_1_0.jpg

(snip)Assuming, the Household and Establishment surveys were congruent, this would mean that there was just 1K native-born workers added in May of the total 280K jobs added.

Alternatively, assuming the series, which is not seasonally adjusted, was indicative of seasonally adjusted data, then the 272K increase in total Household Survey civilian employment in May would imply a decline of 7K native-born workers offset by the increase of 279K "foreign borns."

But while all of these comparisons are apples to oranges, using the BLS' own Native-Born series, also presented on an unadjusted basis, we find the following stunner: since the start of the Second Great Depression, the US has added 2.3 million "foreign-born" workers, offset by just 727K "native-born".(snip)

eagle2
06-07-2015, 08:35 PM
I work in IT, and there are far more businesses that are unable to fill all of their IT positions, with or without H-1B guest workers, than there are businesses laying off IT workers or outsourcing their jobs.

Kellydancer
06-07-2015, 09:45 PM
Just my 2 cents before I get out of this thread:
I agree with Naida that grades do not mean everything. I actually find it very unfair to make what you choose as a 16 year old kid, be what influences the rest of your life (what college you get into, or if you don't go because you've been told you're 'not smart enough' based on your grades). The GPA vs. test scores system does not work IMHO and does not accurately reflect the student at hand.

I was one of those smart-but-lazy kids, who only went to school because I wasn't quite rebellious enough to ditch routinely. Socializing was more interesting to me and I spent most of my spare time chasing boys and doing dance/theatre. I walked out with a 3.1 GPA, because I didn't do most of the bullshit busy work. Despite having the 2nd highest SAT score in the school and 90th+ percentile on all state tests, because of the GPA I would have been ineligible for most 'good' schools. Meanwhile, my bff at the time had close to a 4.0, yet had to retake the incredibly easy state standards test, and barely scraped a high enough SAT score to get into a certain state school that is slightly more selective than the Burger King Kids Club, yet she got a scholarship off her GPA.

When you get into college, it's even worse. I have an abysmal undergrad GPA because of the professors I was dealt my first 2 years; they barely spoke English, would teach half a semester before switching to another professor, and the tests were impossible unless you were Rainman and memorized 5 chapters @ 30 pages each. They had something like a 30% increase curve (70% = 100%), just to get enough kids to pass so they could retain their research position (which required them to teach as a stipulation). This is tre' bad if you want to go to grad school, and I am now having to do a post-bac in order to go to med school. My GPA does NOT reflect what I would have done had I been given adequate professors. You'd better believe that every class I take right now, I "RateMyProfessors" that shit first.

As far as a degree being useful... the kids who got jobs, was nothing to do with their degree or GPA or anything, it was the ones who knew people and kissed ass and volunteered. I absolutely refuse to "volunteer" or "intern" for free, so I would not have found a job had I looked for one in my field. "You have not shown enough dedication" - So a $40,000 4 year degree is not dedicated enough?

With all that said, the only people who should be in college IMO, are going into the science fields, teaching, or medicine. Everyone else would probably be better off getting an entry-level crap position in their chosen field and working up, or going to a vocational school.

With grades I agree with a lot of what you're saying. In college I had a couple of extremely biased anti women professors (one was a woman sadly) who gave me lower grades than my male classmates though I did better. I reported them and was told to accept being treated unfairly because women have to work harder. In particular the fucking bitch told me I couldn't speak proper English though at the time I was a DJ at a Chicago radio station! Yet she gave those who recently immigrated because "they were trying". She was eventually fired. The other teacher who gave me a lower score than all my male classmates as far as I know never got fired. One time he got up in class and started calling strippers whores. In grad school I had this professor who would often bash Americans as dumb. He graded based on how he liked you. He liked me but prevented most of my classmates from graduating on time. I'm sure there are teachers in high schools who are unfair too.

However, I'm mostly thinking of the idiots who had no business in school. I had classmates who didn't really know how to do a research paper or basic math like addition and subtraction. These are things you should know before college. These students were in remedial classes for math and English but regular classes for other subjects. The result was of course they slowed down everyone and made a mockery of the degree. I think the school got rid if open admission and raised stricter requirements for degree but much too late for long time ago grads like me.

Eric Stoner
06-08-2015, 07:05 AM
Melonie - What is the breakdown , if any , of what jobs the foreign born are taking ? Service sector ? Food industry ? Construction ?

If the numbers you cited are correct then there should be millions of native born workers currently unemployed but not counted in any survey - not the Employer nor Household nor Labor Force Participation. The millions of native born added to the labor pool every year didn't just go "poof " and disappear. Unless they are all living in Mom's basement and not on file with anyone, anywhere.

I suggest that something is missing and that your data is possibly incomplete. Or maybe it's just me.

Melonie
06-08-2015, 07:38 AM
^^^ I have looked for the same sort of breakdown stats myself !!! However, for whatever reason, this sort of data is very scarce.


There's some older stuff based on BLS data ...

(snip)The new BLS figures reveal that since the start of the recession in 2007 — which is said to have ended in June 2009 — the number of foreign workers employed in the United States rose by 1.7 million.

In December 2007 the number of foreign-born workers was 22,810,000 by January 2009 the number has increased to 24,553,000.

Meanwhile the number of American-born workers employed decreased by 1.5 million, from 123,524,000 to 121,999,000.

While the foreign-born and American-born population experienced different statistical employment fates, both categories of adults experienced net growth.(snip)

There is also some older Center for Immigration Studies data ...

(snip)•In 2008 and 2009, 2.4 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States, even though 8.2 million jobs were lost over the same period.

•Immigrants come to America for many reasons. As a result, the overall level of new immigration can remain high even in the face of massive job losses.

•Immigrants accounted for just 34 percent of the growth in the working-age population (18 to 65) between 2000 and 2010, but 100 percent of the net increase in jobs went to immigrants during the entire decade.

•The growth in the native-born working-age population, coupled with their decline in the number working, created a dramatic decline in share of natives holding a job during the decades — from 76 percent in 2000 to 69 percent in 2010.

•While the share of working-age natives holding jobs fell dramatically during the decade, the share of working-age immigrants holding jobs remained roughly constant at 70 percent.

•Less-educated natives have been especially hard hit. The share of working-age native-born high school dropouts holding a job fell from 52 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2010. For those natives with only a high school education, the share working fell from 74 percent to 65 percent.

•A significant share of the decline in work among natives is attributable to the current recession. However, the share of natives working was declining even before the current recession began.

•If past patterns hold, employment levels will recover for the native-born, but they will not return to pre-recession levels, while those of immigrants will.

•For the native employment rate to reach the 2000 level, it would require 12 million new jobs.(snip)


The Center for Immigration Studies has also attempted some 'forensic accounting' on public record gov't data in an effort to come up with an accurate number of H1-B visa workers. See . Their estimate came out at 651,500 for 2011 ... with the legal limit of 70,000 new H1-B visa holders per year being added during the 4 subsequent years. Thus America probably has just under 1 Million H1-B foreign 'professional' workers today.


The BLS has also provided some digested stats in their recent reports ... such as

- there were 25.4 million foreign born workers in the US labor force in 2014 ( comprising 16.5% of the total US labor force )

- In 2014, foreign-born workers were more likely than native-born workers to be employed in
service occupations (24.1 percent versus 16.4 percent); in production, transportation,
and material moving occupations (15.6 percent versus 11.2 percent); and in natural
resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (13.7 percent versus 8.4 percent).

- Native-born workers were more likely than foreign-born workers to be employed in management,
professional, and related occupations (39.8 percent versus 30.7 percent) and in sales and
office occupations (24.2 percent versus 16.0 percent).


However, it is seemingly impossible to find official stats which document the loss of jobs by American 'professionals' and non-professionals alike, versus those jobs being effectively filled by H1-B foreign 'professionals' and legal / illegal immigrant foreign non-professionals. This only seems to appear as media blurbs i.e. the SoCal Edison effort to replace ~500 American IT workers with H1-B foreign IT workers ( which I posted earlier in this thread ), or from 'agenda driven' sources.

In regard to your point about the 'numbers not adding up', this really isn't anything new. Both the 'birth death model' and the 'no longer in the work force' gov't stats are notoriously unreliable. Some pundits also point out that college students aren't counted as unemployed, but also aren't counted as 'no longer in the work force'. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that there were 21 million US college students in 2014 ... an increase 0f 5.7 million since the year 2000. Compared to an estimated US work force of 157 million, US college students represent a potential 13.4% 'black hole' in the statistics which don't count them !!!

The 'positive' effect of US college students being disregarded by employment statistics is that the 5.7 million additional US college students attending college since 2000 effectively reduced officially reported unemployment levels throughout that period by a corresponding 5.7 million 'bodies'. With a larger number of new college enrollees each year ( versus the number of college graduates + college dropouts during the same year ) this functionally removed 350,000 or whatever Americans per year from official unemployment / 'not in the labor force' statistics. In general terms, this was equivalent to an extra one or two months worth of official jobs growth per year, or a 350,000 or whatever reduction in annual work force growth, from the standpoint of official unemployment statistics calculations !!!

However, if ( or, more accurately, when ) future college enrollments are reduced as a result of a poor jobs picture for new graduates, rising tuition costs, (re) tightening academic standards, or whatever reason, those former annual additions of new college enrollees versus college graduates + dropouts will turn into subtractions. This in turn will cause a re-emergence from the statistical 'black hole'. The negative 'balance' of new college enrollees versus graduates + dropouts will thus officially reappear in the US work force total, as well as officially reappearing in unemployment / 'no longer in the work force' statistics.

Eric Stoner
06-08-2015, 09:27 AM
I think ( repeat THINK aka I am not sure i.e. I'm taking an educated guess ) that A reason the numbers are not adding up is all the people "leaving" the labor force. They have stopped looking for work so they are not counted as unemployed ; they are in college ; they moved back home and are sponging off their parents ; they are working off the books etc. etc.

Even then the number of jobs taken by native born vs. immigrants still do not add up. We are supposedly creating 200,000 to 300,000 "new" jobs every month and have been doing so for at least the last five years. That's 2.4 to 3.6 "new" jobs per year UNLESS those "new" jobs are cancelled out by jobs that are now " redundant ".

Melonie
06-08-2015, 09:38 AM
Even then the number of jobs taken by native born vs. immigrants still do not add up. We are supposedly creating 200,000 to 300,000 "new" jobs every month and have been doing so for at least the last five years. That's 2.4 to 3.6 "new" jobs per year UNLESS those "new" jobs are cancelled out by jobs that are now " redundant ".

^^^ give that man a cee-gar !!!

the website shadowstats.com has this to say ... from


http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif

(snip)The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.(snip)


Note that while ShadowStats adds back their estimated number of 'long term discouraged workers' per pre-1995 unemployment statistics methodology, they do not deal with the ( formerly ) rising number of enrolled college students.

Also note that part-time jobs and full-time jobs are equally counted as 'new jobs' in official statistics. Thus the abolishment of say 50,000 full time jobs, and substitution of 100,000 part time jobs, is counted as 100,000 'new' jobs being created ... even though total hours worked may be exactly the same.

And also note that official statistics assume that one person working two part time jobs is actually two separate people. As such, for many purposes, official statistics count one person working two part time jobs, plus another person who isn't working at all, as if these were two 'new' jobs created - with two people being newly employed.


Attempts have been made to do 'forensic analysis' on BLS data to arrive at an 'absolute' number of total US jobs added. The following graphic was the result ...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tM1KWqRe884/UEQ6ukNBk-I/AAAAAAAAEAs/Z4qLcZi4_ro/s1600/Total+NonFarm+-+2001+to+07-2012.JPG


... this data becomes even more disturbing when one factors in that US population growth has been running at somewhere around + 2 million per year !!! This is the basis for the earlier link author's claim that, for US employment levels to return to their 2008 peak ( on a total percent of working age Americans having jobs basis ), another 12 million 'new' jobs would be required !!!

Eric Stoner
06-08-2015, 10:10 AM
Now it is starting to make some sense.

Eric Stoner
06-08-2015, 10:11 AM
I work in IT, and there are far more businesses that are unable to fill all of their IT positions, with or without H-1B guest workers, than there are businesses laying off IT workers or outsourcing their jobs.

Not trying to argue with you but please tell us WHERE these IT jobs are going begging ?

Melonie
06-08-2015, 10:28 AM
I also just ran across an interesting new article on this very subject ... from

(snip)Among the economic and social trends worth worrying about is the fate of the NEETs. Never heard of the NEETs? I hadn't either. It's one of those clumsy terms concocted by government bureaucrats and social scientists to designate a group, social condition or political problem - and then to make it obscure by wrapping it in jargon. NEETs refer to young people who are "neither employed nor in education or training." There are roughly 39 million NEETs in 33 of the world's advanced industrial countries, according to a new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

(snip)Let me repeat what I've said previously. Treat generational generalizations skeptically. Many millennials are doing fine; others would struggle in the best of times. Still, their collective prospect is "substantially worse than that of [recent] generations of Americans" through no fault of their own, as Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Jared Meyer write in "Disinherited," their book on millennials.

The NEETs are a similar phenomenon on a global scale. In each of Britain, France and the United States, NEETs were 16 percent of the 15-to-29-year-old population in 2013, reports the OECD. In South Korea and Ireland, their share was 19 percent; in Italy, Spain and Greece it was slightly more than 25 percent. As disturbing, a quarter of those with jobs had temporary work.

Granted, young adulthood is a time of life when, in rich societies, people search for the right job, the right living place, the right mate. There's more changing jobs, moving around and idleness. Even so, the pool of disengaged youth now seems bloated, posing two obvious questions.

The first is whether - or how much - their extended joblessness will inflict permanent damage on their future employability and earnings. A job is not just a paycheck. It's also an education. Some skills are simple but crucial: showing up on time; learning how to take instruction; dealing with customers or co-workers. Other skills involve specialized competencies that, as often as not, are taught or perfected on the job and not in school.

The longer workers don't get these skills, the harder it becomes to succeed in the job market. They don't develop the personal contacts that help them find and keep work. They're less appealing to businesses. They become stigmatized. Employers wonder why they've been without a job for so long.

The second question is more profound. Does prolonged unemployment (and, perhaps, dependence on parents) erode their confidence, undermine their ability to form durable relationships and radicalize their politics? Being outside the economic mainstream could become a semi-permanent condition that exerts a pervasive influence on their beliefs and behavior. They might live on the fringes of society.

They could become a "burden for their countries . . . from lower tax revenues, higher welfare payments, and the social instability that may arise when part of the population is out of work and demoralised," warns the OECD.(snip)

Eric Stoner
06-08-2015, 10:40 AM
We are edging close to the "forbidden zone " but if one reads current reports from Greece the next to last paragraph of your post seems to be very true indeed.

I am going to resist discussing the relevance to certain areas and communities in the U.S. The reports and stats have been discussed and are out there for anyone interested to read for themselves. I will only say that the picture is not a pretty one.

RelaxationTechniques
06-08-2015, 11:05 AM
I also just ran across an interesting new article on this very subject ... from

(snip)Among the economic and social trends worth worrying about is the fate of the NEETs. Never heard of the NEETs? I hadn't either. It's one of those clumsy terms concocted by government bureaucrats and social scientists to designate a group, social condition or political problem - and then to make it obscure by wrapping it in jargon. NEETs refer to young people who are "neither employed nor in education or training." There are roughly 39 million NEETs in 33 of the world's advanced industrial countries, according to a new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

(snip)Let me repeat what I've said previously. Treat generational generalizations skeptically. Many millennials are doing fine; others would struggle in the best of times. Still, their collective prospect is "substantially worse than that of [recent] generations of Americans" through no fault of their own, as Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Jared Meyer write in "Disinherited," their book on millennials.

The NEETs are a similar phenomenon on a global scale. In each of Britain, France and the United States, NEETs were 16 percent of the 15-to-29-year-old population in 2013, reports the OECD. In South Korea and Ireland, their share was 19 percent; in Italy, Spain and Greece it was slightly more than 25 percent. As disturbing, a quarter of those with jobs had temporary work.

Granted, young adulthood is a time of life when, in rich societies, people search for the right job, the right living place, the right mate. There's more changing jobs, moving around and idleness. Even so, the pool of disengaged youth now seems bloated, posing two obvious questions.

The first is whether - or how much - their extended joblessness will inflict permanent damage on their future employability and earnings. A job is not just a paycheck. It's also an education. Some skills are simple but crucial: showing up on time; learning how to take instruction; dealing with customers or co-workers. Other skills involve specialized competencies that, as often as not, are taught or perfected on the job and not in school.

The longer workers don't get these skills, the harder it becomes to succeed in the job market. They don't develop the personal contacts that help them find and keep work. They're less appealing to businesses. They become stigmatized. Employers wonder why they've been without a job for so long.

The second question is more profound. Does prolonged unemployment (and, perhaps, dependence on parents) erode their confidence, undermine their ability to form durable relationships and radicalize their politics? Being outside the economic mainstream could become a semi-permanent condition that exerts a pervasive influence on their beliefs and behavior. They might live on the fringes of society.

They could become a "burden for their countries . . . from lower tax revenues, higher welfare payments, and the social instability that may arise when part of the population is out of work and demoralised," warns the OECD.(snip)

The figure that jumps out at me is the ~43% of 15-29 year-olds who are either not in school, unemployed, or temporarily employed in the economies most in danger of failing in Europe. To me, it's hard to see how a prolonged recovery can be sustainable if there is a significant subset of the population - the part that should be funding social programs, just sitting out of the job market.

Melonie
06-08-2015, 11:17 AM
^^^ again treading carefully to avoid a 'political' turn in this discussion, from a purely economic standpoint ...

Unemployed / underemployed younger people do not contribute ( much ) tax revenues ( with many young people actually 'consuming' tax revenues paid by others ), do not have much 'discretionary' money available for spending on such non-essential items like consumer goods or lap dances, etc. They also cannot accumulate much, if anything, in the way of savings. This in turn leads to a relatively poor credit rating, no down payment money for a mortgage / car loan, and arguably a short term 'renter' approach to life in general.

Eric Stoner
06-08-2015, 11:28 AM
To try and avoid being too doomy and gloomy I suggest reviewing U.S. economic history. It was not that long ago that the picture was a better one ; maybe 20 years ago.

After W.W. II we really had 15 to 16 years of overall economic mediocrity. The post-war prosperity had to be fit around no less than four ( 4 ) recessions with unemployment as high as 7.5 % under Eisenhower. Policy changes by Kennedy came to fruition under LBJ and lasted into Nixon's FIRST term and we had a boom.

Likewise the Reagan - Bush (The Less Dumb) - Clinton years were a very nice 20 plus years of prosperity and fairly good overall employment.

Compared to most of Europe the U.S. is doing GREAT !

So maybe hold off on stocking up on canned goods and survival gear.

Kellydancer
06-08-2015, 11:52 AM
Asking where the long term unemployed are and they are various places. Some are back in college trying to get a degree that will pay off. Some are working jobs way below their education. I know a few cashiers at the store with degrees. Most seem to be teachers or lawyers strangely (there are many unemployed teachers and lawyers). Others are on welfare, disability or social security (mostly older workers). It's brutal out there, especially if you are older.

Melonie
06-08-2015, 12:12 PM
Compared to most of Europe the U.S. is doing GREAT !

That's like saying that, compared to a cancer patient, an alsheimers patient is doing great !!! In objective terms, neither one is capable of much productive activity.


^^^ again trying to stick with the purely 'economic' issues ...

The 1950's and 1960's were an era of 'real' productivity for America. Despite the 'honest' unemployment / recession statistics, the fact remains that WW2 had decimated the work forces and production capabilities of Europe and Asia ... leaving the USA as almost the only manufacturing country left standing. In addition to 'vendor financing' ( the Marshall Plan which loaned European countries money with which to purchase our exported products ), this allowed America to bank some 'real' added value profits. And those profits were shared with the American workforce resulting in a higher US standard of living.

Once you get to the early 70's, a new generation of Europeans and Asians began to replenish their work force ... and some new production facilities were built ( using newer / better technology than America's production facilities ). Thus US exports began to drop, while the US began to import significant amounts of manufactured goods from Europe and Asia. This sudden change in export-import cash flows led to de-coupling of the US dollar from any precious metals standard, thus opening the door to US dollar currency inflation. Thus 'real' US profits stagnated, as did 'real' US wages. But the US was able to cope fairly well ... primarily by adding formerly unemployed wives to the US workforce thus adding a second income to the family's cash flow to maintain the US standard of living.

Once you move to the late 80's and 90's, you begin to see a different phenomenon. As imports from Europe and Asia begin to seriously outnumber US exports, and as the purchasing power of the US dollar continued to drop, with both mom and dad working the US standard of living was in danger of falling. This was avoided by the spending of borrowed money in addition to earned money. This is also the point where a major redistribution of profits begins to take hold i.e. huge stock market gains during the 'dot-com' boom ... which primarily benefitted those Americans who were already well-to-do.

As you move into the 2000's, with the notable exception of tech industries, imports from Europe and Asia continued to kick the a$$ of American manufacturers. Ongoing loss of US dollar 'purchasing power' in turn made lower cost ( now mostly Eastern ) European and Asian imports an economic 'necessity' for many lower earning Americans. This further depressed 'real' US wages and added to the debt pile via spending of even more borrowed money in addition to earned money to maintain the US standard of living. This obviously ran into a 'brick wall' during the crash of 2008 ... at which point access to borrowed money was 'cut off' for many Americans ... leading to a real decline in US standard of living ( with the exception of the relatively unaffected top 10% of course ).

The post-2008 'recovery' has been anemic at best because access to borrowed money ( at affordable rates anyhow ) remains 'cut off' for many Americans - because regulatory mandates now require lenders to actually assess the ability of those Americans to repay their loans. US wages have remained depressed. Non-tech related US exports have been 'hit or miss' as the arguable result of rising 'costs of doing business' for US companies, with an associated reduction in both US full time jobs and 'real' pay rates. Adding millions of part time US bartenders, waiters, and burger flippers has not, and never will, offset this loss.

Also, from a purely economic standpoint, the US gov't has attempted to fill the void left by many Americans not being able to borrow and spend more money personally. In other words, the US gov't itself has borrowed record amounts of money from foreign governments / investors ( which US taxpayers must eventually repay ), has 'distributed' record amounts of that borrowed money to lower income / unemployed Americans via various gov't programs ( as well as via refundable 'tax credits' ), and has allowed those lower income / unemployed Americans to spend that borrowed money without a need for repayment !!!

eagle2
06-08-2015, 07:14 PM
That's like saying that, compared to a cancer patient, an alsheimers patient is doing great !!! In objective terms, neither one is capable of much productive activity.


No, the US economy is doing very well. Millions of jobs have been created over the past few years. The unemployment rate is way down. Wages are starting to increase. The cost of gasoline is way down. Inflation is practically non-existent. The Federal budget deficit is way down. Stocks are way up. By practically every measurement, the US economy is doing well.





The 1950's and 1960's were an era of 'real' productivity for America. Despite the 'honest' unemployment / recession statistics, the fact remains that WW2 had decimated the work forces and production capabilities of Europe and Asia ... leaving the USA as almost the only manufacturing country left standing. In addition to 'vendor financing' ( the Marshall Plan which loaned European countries money with which to purchase our exported products ), this allowed America to bank some 'real' added value profits. And those profits were shared with the American workforce resulting in a higher US standard of living.

No, West Germany was already a major economic power by the late 1950's and by 1960 industrial production was way above pre-war levels.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Germany#Economic_miracle_and_b eyond

The West German boom that began in 1950 was truly memorable. The growth rate of industrial production was 25.0 percent in 1950 and 18.1 percent in 1951. Growth continued at a high rate for most of the 1950s, despite occasional slowdowns. By 1960 industrial production had risen to two-and-one-half times the level of 1950 and far beyond any that the Nazis had reached during the 1930s in all of Germany. GDP rose by two-thirds during the same decade. The number of persons employed rose from 13.8 million in 1950 to 19.8 million in 1960, and the unemployment rate fell from 10.3 percent to 1.2 percent.




As you move into the 2000's, with the notable exception of tech industries, imports from Europe and Asia continued to kick the a$$ of American manufacturers. Ongoing loss of US dollar 'purchasing power' in turn made lower cost ( now mostly Eastern ) European and Asian imports an economic 'necessity' for many lower earning Americans. This further depressed 'real' US wages and added to the debt pile via spending of even more borrowed money in addition to earned money to maintain the US standard of living. This obviously ran into a 'brick wall' during the crash of 2008 ... at which point access to borrowed money was 'cut off' for many Americans ... leading to a real decline in US standard of living ( with the exception of the relatively unaffected top 10% of course ).


No, going into the 2000's, the US was the world's leading manufacturer. Americans did not have to borrow money to maintain their standard of living. Americans were borrowing money because they wanted a much higher standard of living than they currently had. Americans were buying much bigger houses and cars/SUV's than in the past.

IMO, this thread has gone way over the line with politics, so this is going to be my last post on this topic.

Naida
06-08-2015, 07:19 PM
However, I'm mostly thinking of the idiots who had no business in school. I had classmates who didn't really know how to do a research paper or basic math like addition and subtraction. These are things you should know before college. These students were in remedial classes for math and English but regular classes for other subjects. The result was of course they slowed down everyone and made a mockery of the degree. I think the school got rid if open admission and raised stricter requirements for degree but much too late for long time ago grads like me.

I both agree and disagree with this sentiment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a student taking remedial classes while taking regular classes as long as their shortcomings do not effect progress toward the degree. Instructors should be able to discern which students are capable of keeping up with the regular coursework and work with the institution to enforce the minimum requirements for courses. I personally had to take a remedial math course (I only retain non-practical math while I'm using it) while I attended college as a condition of enrolling in standard classes, and my remedial status didn't affect any of my other courses because I wasn't taking any classes that made use of the skills I lacked.

As long as instructors and the college/university in question are only letting remedial students attend classes that they are capable of keeping up in, those students really should not be having any negative impact on other students.

Anyway, this thread is about jobs post-college and we've deviated, so /threadjack.

Kellydancer
06-08-2015, 08:44 PM
Actually at the college I attended these students were taking other classes and slowing down the other students. I'm not talking those who might have trouble with say algebra 2 or they've been out of college awhile. I'm talking those who can barely read, write and do mathematics. These students don't belong in college. They ruined way too many college classes. They couldn't do the assignments. This actually does correspond to this because too many of these idiots are graduating college. They water down the degree. If someone does want to attend college and they are slow, then they should take classes before taking classes for a degree. I got a poor education in many classes because of dumbasses. I think the school tightened restrictions on who could attend. I wish I had chosen a better college but at the time it had the field I wanted and was a name school. In grad school restrictions were tighter and you had to get a B or you failed. You also had to take various tests to see your level.

Melonie
06-09-2015, 02:43 AM
Millions of jobs have been created over the past few years

That's technically true. However, it's more than a bit misleading because it treats part-time new jobs as being equivalent to lost full time jobs, it doesn't address the fact that the working age US population has grown faster than the number of jobs, etc.


Inflation is practically non-existent

'Official' inflation is low. However, 'official' inflation also effectively minimizes such things as rising prices for beef, for example, by assuming that people will be just as happy buying lower priced chicken instead ! If one uses 1990 official inflation methodology the current rate is around 3.5%. If one uses 1980 official inflation methodology the current rate is around 7% . See . Anybody who is facing 10% rent increases, forecast 10%+ increases in health care / insurance costs, etc. will tell you that 'official' inflation statistics bear little resemblance to their economic reality.


The Federal budget deficit is way down.

Again technically true in the short term. Not true compared to deficit levels prior to 2008. But this deficit also doesn't count the rapidly rising future obligations of the Social Security retirement and disability funds, doesn't count the rapidly rising deficits of many US states, etc. This deficit figure also doesn't consider the side effects of the record number of tax revenue dollars collected from Americans last year which helped to reduce the deficit.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that 'headline' statistics may sound good on the surface, but often aren't borne out by reality if one looks 'under the hood'.

However, at this point, I'll concede that the discussion has descended to nitpicking of minutiae to the point where the original focus of this thread is in danger of being lost.



Melonie - What is the breakdown , if any , of what jobs the foreign born are taking ?

As a final follow-up, some anecdotal information just became available regarding Disney's efforts to replace American IT workers with H1-B foreign IT workers via subcontractor HCL ... from

(snip)According to government data acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, the median wage HCL paid those 1,713 H-1B workers was $61,984, which is essentially the entry level wage for an information technology (IT) worker, and more importantly, a 25 percent discount on the median wage of $82,710 for Computer Systems Analysts in the United States. Moreover, it’s almost certain that Disney’s 25 percent H-1B discount is an understatement, because many of the laid off Disney workers I spoke with were earning approximately $100,000, and had been employed there for many years, so they had also earned and accumulated benefits packages based on their seniority.

It’s important to point out that Disney is not an outlier, it’s the norm. Loopholes in the H-1B program make it irresistible to corporations, whose sole goal has become to maximize profits and shareholder value. Appealing to patriotism, corporate social responsibility, or even a sense of moral decency is a fool’s game. If you don’t believe me, look no further than Disney(snip)

Eric Stoner
06-09-2015, 07:44 AM
No, the US economy is doing very well. Millions of jobs have been created over the past few years. The unemployment rate is way down. Wages are starting to increase. The cost of gasoline is way down. Inflation is practically non-existent. The Federal budget deficit is way down. Stocks are way up. By practically every measurement, the US economy is doing well.




No, West Germany was already a major economic power by the late 1950's and by 1960 industrial production was way above pre-war levels.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Germany#Economic_miracle_and_b eyond

The West German boom that began in 1950 was truly memorable. The growth rate of industrial production was 25.0 percent in 1950 and 18.1 percent in 1951. Growth continued at a high rate for most of the 1950s, despite occasional slowdowns. By 1960 industrial production had risen to two-and-one-half times the level of 1950 and far beyond any that the Nazis had reached during the 1930s in all of Germany. GDP rose by two-thirds during the same decade. The number of persons employed rose from 13.8 million in 1950 to 19.8 million in 1960, and the unemployment rate fell from 10.3 percent to 1.2 percent.




No, going into the 2000's, the US was the world's leading manufacturer. Americans did not have to borrow money to maintain their standard of living. Americans were borrowing money because they wanted a much higher standard of living than they currently had. Americans were buying much bigger houses and cars/SUV's than in the past.

IMO, this thread has gone way over the line with politics, so this is going to be my last post on this topic.

"Very well " ? Not when one looks at the REAL employment numbers. Including but not limited to black and latino "yoots". Economic growth is the slowest post-recession rate ever seen. We are barely averaging 2 % a year since 2009. Median income has been stagnant. Wages have edged up SLIGHTLY but starting from way back from where they should be. As Melonie touched on the inflation rate gets measured several ways meaning you have to look at more than just the commonly reported CPI. That being said the doom and gloom predictions of runaway inflation thanks to loose Fed policy have not come true. Yet. The Federal deficit has declined but our states and cities ( not being able to run deficits ) are going broke. Plus you have to look at the Trillions ! in unfunded liabilities. Stocks are up but that has benefitted the " 1 % " more than ever and not the Average Joe. By practically every measure the U.S. economy is treading water. At best.

West German growth in the 50's and 60's was fantastic. First of all they started from almost Zero and had nowhere to go but up. Post -war economic growth in the rest of Europe and even the Soviet bloc was pretty good too. Better than the U.S. during the Eisenhower years. The Germans had a sound Deutschmark and a high savings rate and they worked their asses off. They had to rebuild an entire country. They had to rebuild their infrastructure ( we blew up those bridges and trestles that the Nazis didn't ) and start many factories and businesses from the ground up.

I partly agree with you that this has all been said before but the facts are what they are. I think we are OK just reviewing some basic economic history as long as we shy away from the whys and wherefores or point any fingers. Things are what they are. Attaching blame would be ( God help us ! ) "political ".

The original point of this thread was Employment ! ; job prospects for recent college grads and the like. Let's all get out of the weeds and try to get back to a more practical discussion.

Eric Stoner
06-09-2015, 07:57 AM
Actually at the college I attended these students were taking other classes and slowing down the other students. I'm not talking those who might have trouble with say algebra 2 or they've been out of college awhile. I'm talking those who can barely read, write and do mathematics. These students don't belong in college. They ruined way too many college classes. They couldn't do the assignments. This actually does correspond to this because too many of these idiots are graduating college. They water down the degree. If someone does want to attend college and they are slow, then they should take classes before taking classes for a degree. I got a poor education in many classes because of dumbasses. I think the school tightened restrictions on who could attend. I wish I had chosen a better college but at the time it had the field I wanted and was a name school. In grad school restrictions were tighter and you had to get a B or you failed. You also had to take various tests to see your level.

I think this a different but somewhat related point : Admission standards and how they affect the value of a degree from certain schools. For instance , when CUNY ( the City University of New York ) went to Open Enrollment under Mayor Lindsay in the 1970's the value of a degree from many of the CUNY colleges was seriously degraded. It used to be the "poor man's Harvard " and graduate schools and employers recognized the quality of the education provided. Open Enrollment caused there to be admission of many students who were totally unprepared for college. They simply could not read at a college level or do advanced math ( Algebra , Geometry , Trigonometry or Calculus ).Some had trouble with more basic math like addition , subtraction , division , multiplication , fractions and percentages. There was a resultant explosion of remedial courses and programs where college students were doing high school work. There were CUNY students who justifiably ( imho ) felt cheated. They arrived at CUNY with good high school records ; good SAT scores ; did the work in college but had trouble getting interviewed or admitted to grad schools thanks to the degraded reputation of CUNY.

Fortunately, thanks to people like the late Herman Badillo , standards were somewhat restored in 1990's ( let me see , who was the Mayor back then ? ) and the picture is much improved today. Even so CUNY's academic reputation is not close to what it was in the 1940's ; 50's and 60's.

Kellydancer
06-09-2015, 02:42 PM
The school I graduated from has recently raised standards which many are complaining about but which I agree. It was an embarrassment being in class with these idiots, many of us would complain but the thinking of course was more money for the school.

In an irony, I just got an email for a website designer job but once they found out I am not a visa worked they lost interest. That tells a lot about what is happening. I googled the company and found even their HR manager was from India.

Melonie
06-10-2015, 02:47 AM
not wanting to dilute thread focus, but these are important points ...


The school I graduated from has recently raised standards which many are complaining about but which I agree. It was an embarrassment being in class with these idiots, many of us would complain but the thinking of course was more money for the school.

Indeed a lot of colleges have received 'negative feedback' from employers who have hired recent graduates who obtained their degrees during the period of lowered academic standards. The employers were obviously not happy that those recent graduates underperformed on the job, in many cases forcing the employer to provide 'remedial' education and/or more extensive training etc. This spreading 'negative feedback' reflected badly on the reputation of the college, and thus the 'value' of degrees issued by that college. This in turn negatively affected the desirability of that college to new students, thus the price of tuition which the college could charge. The worst consequence, however, is the fact that pre-lowered academic standards graduates, as well as post-lowered academic standards future graduates, will both suffer a 'devaluation' of their degree / educational efforts for many years to come.



just got an email for a website designer job but once they found out I am not a visa worked they lost interest. That tells a lot about what is happening. I googled the company and found even their HR manager was from India.

While most of this info is anecdotal, there indeed seems to be a new trend in this regard. According to my business acquaintances, once the number of H1-B workers at a particular company reaches a certain 'critical mass', that company will actively favor the hiring of more H1-B workers over Americans. And I'm told that the reason isn't totally rolled up in H1-B worker pay rates representing a 25% 'bargain'. Part of the reason is also 'improved' communication i.e. a whole department of H1-B software developers from the same foreign country being able to communicate with each other in their own language !!! One of my business acquaintances joked that this is equivalent to 'buying out and onshoring' a Mumbai software development firm one worker at a time ... which is much more convenient, not much more expensive for corporate management, and results in a faster / better end product, than actually offshoring that software development work to Mumbai !!! Thus American software developer job applicants potentially face a double disadvantage ... lower pay rates, plus not fitting in very well with that American company's increasingly 'foreign' corporate culture.

Eric Stoner
06-10-2015, 06:49 AM
The school I graduated from has recently raised standards which many are complaining about but which I agree. It was an embarrassment being in class with these idiots, many of us would complain but the thinking of course was more money for the school.

In an irony, I just got an email for a website designer job but once they found out I am not a visa worked they lost interest. That tells a lot about what is happening. I googled the company and found even their HR manager was from India.

Kelly - You know I love you and we agree about so many things but calling students who need remedial education "idiots" is not very nice and does not advance the discussion. I understand your frustration and even anger at the current state of our educational system. I am just suggesting that you try and avoid blaming the victims.
If you turn the coin over it might be said that those "idiots" were at least TRYING to improve their own lot in life. Yes, their presence dragged down everyone else and there probably ought to have been an alternate program to give them the remediation that they needed but being derogatory towards them reflects poorly on you imho. Just my two cents.

Kellydancer
06-10-2015, 11:13 AM
Kelly - You know I love you and we agree about so many things but calling students who need remedial education "idiots" is not very nice and does not advance the discussion. I understand your frustration and even anger at the current state of our educational system. I am just suggesting that you try and avoid blaming the victims.
If you turn the coin over it might be said that those "idiots" were at least TRYING to improve their own lot in life. Yes, their presence dragged down everyone else and there probably ought to have been an alternate program to give them the remediation that they needed but being derogatory towards them reflects poorly on you imho. Just my two cents.

The problem though is these students weren't even trying. We did have a student who was mentally challenged and she tried. I'm talking about students like Tom who would sit and play Gameboy the entire class. Another example was I had to give a presentation in marketing class and the students were supposed to critique. Most would say something like "great idea"or something like "too expensive for an idea". However others decided to critique my shoes or the suit I was wearing. Most of them didn't even give a presentation or if they did gave one so poorly executed (and we had all semester). Most of these people were only in school because their parents paid for it or they had nothing to do. If they were going to be in school I wish they hadn't been in my classes because often the teachers had to slow down so they could catch up. The good thing I suppose is I finished all my classwork early in the semester including projects.

Naida
06-10-2015, 01:24 PM
Kelly - You know I love you and we agree about so many things but calling students who need remedial education "idiots" is not very nice and does not advance the discussion. I understand your frustration and even anger at the current state of our educational system. I am just suggesting that you try and avoid blaming the victims.
If you turn the coin over it might be said that those "idiots" were at least TRYING to improve their own lot in life. Yes, their presence dragged down everyone else and there probably ought to have been an alternate program to give them the remediation that they needed but being derogatory towards them reflects poorly on you imho. Just my two cents.

This is precisely what I was thinking. You shouldn't blame the students who are making an effort to better themselves for the institution's blunder of allowing open enrollment into classes they are not adequately prepared to take. Last I checked, many colleges have remedial programs for the late high school level skills that would be necessary for college level education and (especially in the case of community colleges) often help to fund local learning centers for more basic skills. Even at my poor little community college when I was attending, I would not have been allowed to take the college level algebra course I need for applying to the university I want to attend without first completing my remedial math course - and my lack of mathematical skill did not effect my or other students' performance in my socio, chem, or English comp classes in the slightest.

Instances like you describe, Kelly, were not even implied to be tolerated in any of my classes while I was in attendance. If you got caught playing with an electronic of any sort, you were either booted from the class or marked absent. Falling asleep during any portion of the class was an automatic absence. Falling behind on your coursework meant you failed, and extensions were only granted in situations where the instructor cancelled a class session they thought we needed or an individual had an extraordinary situation that stalled them. Hell, the only extension I ever received was for 24 hours because I missed a class that was pivotal to the assignment and still made a clear effort to complete it on time.

If my rinkydink little community college (and we all know how pathetic CC looks to employers or better universities outside the immediate area,) which people are pretty much expected to fail or drop out of, could do it, then there's no reason a better university can't have similar standards unless they want their degrees to look like Monopoly money.

But that's just my $0.02, and I'm done deviating from the focus of a thread about the over-saturation of degrees from joke institutions, undervaluing of degrees from good ones, and a severe lack of blue collar workers in a social climate of "everyone should go to college."

Kellydancer
06-10-2015, 04:49 PM
Well at my college (art school)the teachers rarely did anything. Many of us would complain about these students and if anything they coddled them. They didn't do the work. The good thing was in many classes the standards were low but who wants to get an easy A? I wanted an A because I worked hard. They didn't enforce requirements either. For instance you couldn't graduate without a writing intensive class in the major but many "writing intensive" classes were often something like you wrote on essay during the semester. I remember in one class we were supposed to do a research paper but so many were turning in 1-2 pages handwritten. Apparently these students never did a research paper, yet they got to college? A requirement I had to graduate 8th grade was to do a research paper. It was a requirement when I graduated high school that I also had to do one along with taking the US History test. I'm no math genius but how could a student get to college without knowing how to do adding and subtracting? Part of marketing is dealing with budgets and that requires math skills. The school should have required all students to pass tests in these skills before going to the next level.