It 's not like Relapse actually paid any attention to the movement back then, either.
But I'd also point out that the Tea Party itself isn't the same as it was when it started off. It's no longer a grassroots movement unconcerned with political parties, it's basically just a fringe wing of the Republican party now.
I guess being able to crap in the streets and cost cities and tax payers thousands of dollars in cleanups isn't the draw it was a year ago.
I strongly suspect that you have missed the entire point of the movement.
You mean people suckering large groups into living in filth on the streets, all the while thinking they were doing something useful? Sorry, saw it with the hippie movement in the 60's which family members were involved with. The whole squatting on the streets looking for a hand out thing is as bogus now as it was then.
Most hippies grew mature and moved on, looks like most occupiers did the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's interesting how the article talks about a lot of the energy of the movement was diverted by debates on whether they should be violent or not.
You mean people suckering large groups into living in filth on the streets, all the while thinking they were doing something useful? Sorry, saw it with the hippie movement in the 60's which family members were involved with. The whole squatting on the streets looking for a hand out thing is as bogus now as it was then.
Most hippies grew mature and moved on, looks like most occupiers did the same.
I'm still sure that you don't understand the movement. I do find it interesting how you seem to focus on the sanitation aspects of their protest rather than anything meaningful.
You mean people suckering large groups into living in filth on the streets, all the while thinking they were doing something useful? Sorry, saw it with the hippie movement in the 60's which family members were involved with. The whole squatting on the streets looking for a hand out thing is as bogus now as it was then.
Most hippies grew mature and moved on, looks like most occupiers did the same.
I'm still sure that you don't understand the movement. I do find it interesting how you seem to focus on the sanitation aspects of their protest.
I had family members in New York that hadtodeal with it. They weren't impressed with the occupiers they met, either.
I guess being able to crap in the streets and cost cities and tax payers thousands of dollars in cleanups isn't the draw it was a year ago.
I strongly suspect that you have missed the entire point of the movement.
If the point of the movement was to accomplish...anything, really, then it failed.
The Tea Party got more than a few Congressmen elected, Congressmen who pursued non-negotiable obstructionist stances. Which is exactly what the Tea Party wanted them to do.
On the balance, the Tea Party was a more effective movement.
It's interesting to note the change of tone NBC news has towards the movement. A year ago, they were lionizing the Occupiers as opposed to their current tune that reflects what Fox's attitude was back then.
Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Five years later? Six? It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era—the kind of peak that never comes again. San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run… but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant.…
History is hard to know, because of all the hired bs, but even without being sure of "history" it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time—and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened.
My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights—or very early mornings—when I left the Fillmore half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 650 Lightning across the Bay Bridge at a hundred miles an hour wearing L. L. Bean shorts and a Butte sheepherder's jacket… booming through the Treasure Island tunnel at the lights of Oakland and Berkeley and Richmond, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change)... but being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and wild as I was: No doubt at all about that…
There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda.… You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning.…
And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave.…
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote this about the hippie movement. It's also applicable to OWS. Though their hearts were in the right place (and I agreed with what they were yelling about), ultimately they accomplished nothing.
Quantitative easing—a fancy term for the Federal Reserve buying securities from predefined financial institutions, such as their investments in federal debt or mortgages—is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality formed by crony capitalism. And it is hurting prospects for economic growth down the road by promoting malinvestments in the economy.
...
...
To put it simply: More quantitative easing is not going to move the dial much on the growth meter.
Taken together, the crony capitalism and negative wealth effects of quantitative easing should clearly give pause. The fact that QE promotes activities that led to the housing bubble should have stopped its progression as an idea a long time ago, especially since these problems are greater than any gain that would come from this now perpetual pace of money creation.
If there is a time to head down to Zuccotti Park and raise some cardboard in opposition to the continuation of such a devastatingly failed policy, it is now.
LoneLictor wrote: Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Five years later? Six? It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era—the kind of peak that never comes again. San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run… but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant.…
History is hard to know, because of all the hired bs, but even without being sure of "history" it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time—and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened.
My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights—or very early mornings—when I left the Fillmore half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 650 Lightning across the Bay Bridge at a hundred miles an hour wearing L. L. Bean shorts and a Butte sheepherder's jacket… booming through the Treasure Island tunnel at the lights of Oakland and Berkeley and Richmond, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change)... but being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and wild as I was: No doubt at all about that…
There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda.… You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning.…
And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave.…
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote this about the hippie movement. It's also applicable to OWS. Though their hearts were in the right place (and I agreed with what they were yelling about), ultimately they accomplished nothing.
I remember as a kid on the family farm in Northern Maine waking up in the mornings to the smells of incense and Petuli oil with Cream, Moody Blues, or The Doors playing in the background as I got ready for school. My father wasn't a big fan of my sisters hippy friends that used to come visit the farm and camp out, but he always made a place for them at our table and came to like quite a few of them.
During one of those summers a couple of cousins that rode with Hells Angels, but weren't members came out from California and with the aid of friends and family, painted up my sisters bedroom in 60's psycadelic that became the scandalized talk of the town.
It was an interesting time and enviornment for a kid like me, with my views, to grow up in.
I don't know much about Dallas except the Cow Palace is there, and a certain book depository. Going to that Plaza feels weird though.
Barbeque and honkey tonks I am sure.
If you can go to Austin. Six Street (drunken college street), and don't forget Barton Springs. Thats where the topless coeds hang out.
Don't go to Hippy Hollow though. Again thats just weird.
Frazzled wrote: I don't know much about Dallas except the Cow Palace is there, and a certain book depository. Going to that Plaza feels weird though.
Barbeque and honkey tonks I am sure.
If you can go to Austin. Six Street (drunken college street), and don't forget Barton Springs. Thats where the topless coeds hang out.
Don't go to Hippy Hollow though. Again thats just weird.
Fraz, I think you took a wrong turn at Wall Street. The Texas thread is two blocks over.
A while ago, when people thought The Tea Party might end up being anything other than the craziest wing of the Republican Party, there were a lot of stories about prominent Tea Party people doing and saying all kinds of crazy, offensive nonsense. I love that lots of the same old right wingers were so quick to jump and point out the Tea Party was a diverse all the people and the actions of one crazy couldn't be used to discredit the whole movement.
And yet those same folk don't see anything wrong with dismissing the entirety of the OWS movement because of the actions of a few.
Quantitative easing—a fancy term for the Federal Reserve buying securities from predefined financial institutions, such as their investments in federal debt or mortgages—is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality formed by crony capitalism. And it is hurting prospects for economic growth down the road by promoting malinvestments in the economy.
That's just nonsense. Lies told to fool non-economists.
Quantitative easing isn't a fancy name, it's the name given to the stance a central bank will take on monetary policy when buying and selling bonds to influence interest rates aren't sufficient for the economic problems in the country. And so instead they will buy a fixed quantity of bonds to pump more money into the economy, and ward off concerns of deflation.
The rallying call you're asking people to fight against can basically be summed up as 'we don't understand how this works but someone made it sound scary so lets tear it down'.
The rallying call you're asking people to fight against can basically be summed up as 'we don't understand how this works but someone made it sound scary so lets tear it down'.
The rallying call you're asking people to fight against can basically be summed up as 'we don't understand how this works but someone made it sound scary so lets tear it down'.
Yeah that's never worked before.
Okay... that's a "/thread" if I ever seen one...
@Sebster: all that does is give the banks more "cash" on hand...
What it doesn't do is ecourage the banks to lend "more"... the first two QE really did make that much of an impact... the danger here is that unlike the first two QE, there's no "end date" for the current program... that is, "they'll keep buy bank assets, ie, print money, until things look good". Here's the thing, when would that be?
EDIT: Oh, and commodities market is on a real upswing, this QE seems to depreciate the dollar... which pushes the price in Oil future markets... know what these things can lead to? Higher inflation...
I guess being able to crap in the streets and cost cities and tax payers thousands of dollars in cleanups isn't the draw it was a year ago.
I strongly suspect that you have missed the entire point of the movement.
As soon as they can find a point, please illuminate us.
In Houston we had difficulty telling the homeless from the Occupymyassers. According to people inside City hall, they asked to use city power and be supplied bottled water. Denied.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: It 's not like Relapse actually paid any attention to the movement back then, either.
But I'd also point out that the Tea Party itself isn't the same as it was when it started off. It's no longer a grassroots movement unconcerned with political parties, it's basically just a fringe wing of the Republican party now.
It was always concered with political parties. Thats why (for good and ill) it pushed many candidates. Many of them won.
How's that Occupysomedeodorant work out again?
You mean people suckering large groups into living in filth on the streets, all the while thinking they were doing something useful? Sorry, saw it with the hippie movement in the 60's which family members were involved with. The whole squatting on the streets looking for a hand out thing is as bogus now as it was then.
Most hippies grew mature and moved on, looks like most occupiers did the same.
I'm still sure that you don't understand the movement. I do find it interesting how you seem to focus on the sanitation aspects of their protest rather than anything meaningful.
They didn't do anything meaningful. There were some assaults, rape, etc. but I don't think thats what you mean. On the positive they allied with unions, which gives unions a further bad name.
Frazzled wrote: It was always concered with political parties. Thats why (for good and ill) it pushed many candidates. Many of them won.
How's that Occupysomedeodorant work out again?
Well, given that we're posting in a "one year later" thread in September, I'd say that means it's a bit too early to tell. You know, because of that trivial little detail that there hasn't been an election since the whole Occupy thing.
If I had a choice between Tea Party support or OWS support. I pick the Tea Party. OWS lost all credibility when it got ugly with law enforcement. Have not heard of democrat that has support from the OWS at all.
I'm really not sure what any of the occupy protests were actually meant to do in the first place.
As a protest method, it was fundamentally flawed. Why the hell did they think that going to wall street and living in a makeshift slum outside the offices, which contain multi-millionaire businessmen, in hand-made, tailored, designer suits with expense accounts larger than the GDP of some 3rd-world nations (and that's not even taking into account their own vast personal fortunes), would convince them to give up their massive sums of money made from risky and corrupt banking pratices and live the life of a 99%er.
I mean, they are protesting folks who probably wipe their backsides with $50 bills by living in a tent and crapping in garbage cans. I'm quite sure that those investment bankers really felt moved to submit to their cause as they wallowed in a hot-tub filled with money and champagne...
Leigen_Zero wrote: I'm really not sure what any of the occupy protests were actually meant to do in the first place.
Neither did they. Do you recall their initial website with their initial "manifesto". It was all over the freaking place. For a time, each of the Occupy (Fill in the Blank) groups had their own. Here is one of them.
Declaration of the Occupation of New York City
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice [good start—the bailout WAS mass injustice—I'm still pissed-off about it], we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.
We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence [In some cases, yes], and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
And here is the one for Zucotti Park, also in New York.
A MESSAGE TO AMERICA FROM THE PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY IN ZUCOTTI PARK
Dear fellow Americans,
We are assembled in Zucotti Park — which we’ve renamed Liberty Plaza — in the financial district of New York, because we believe that the American economy is heading in the wrong direction and we have a few ideas for what to do about it.
There is a feeling shared by a growing number of people on the streets of the world that the global economy has become a kind of Ponzi scheme, a global casino, run by and for the benefit of the 1 percent.
We believe that it is possible to inject justice into the global economy. We have come up with the following list of things that can be done right now to rejuvenate democracy and economic justice in our country:
• Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick and elderly
• Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1 percent
• Forgive all student loan debt
• Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act in order to control speculation
• Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% “Robin Hood” tax on all financial transactions and currency trades
• Ban high-frequency ‘flash’ trading and bring sanity to the markets
• Break up the “too big to fail” banks that threaten our future
• Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice
• Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington
If you agree with any of these demands, then join us! We will stay here in our encampment in Liberty Plaza until President Obama responds to each of these demands. This is just the beginning, there is more to come as we work together to reshape America.
I love how they all want their student loans absolved. Please. No one forced you to take out $120,000 so that you could get your B.S. in Classical Literature from Harvard. Suck it up, buttercup.
I guess being able to crap in the streets and cost cities and tax payers thousands of dollars in cleanups isn't the draw it was a year ago.
I strongly suspect that you have missed the entire point of the movement.
You mean people suckering large groups into living in filth on the streets, all the while thinking they were doing something useful? Sorry, saw it with the hippie movement in the 60's which family members were involved with. The whole squatting on the streets looking for a hand out thing is as bogus now as it was then.
Most hippies grew mature and moved on, looks like most occupiers did the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's interesting how the article talks about a lot of the energy of the movement was diverted by debates on whether they should be violent or not.
Yep, you pretty much missed the bus there. Like always.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: If I had a choice between Tea Party support or OWS support. I pick the Tea Party. OWS lost all credibility when it got ugly with law enforcement. Have not heard of democrat that has support from the OWS at all.
Here I thought the teaparty lost all credibility when the people it elected fethed up the budget ceiling debate and got our credit rating downgraded. I guess they didn't deadweight in some protests at least. That's the important thing.
LoneLictor wrote: There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda.… You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning.…
And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave.…
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
Man, some of his stuff is tough to digest--but HST could write.
I love how they all want their student loans absolved. Please. No one forced you to take out $120,000 so that you could get your B.S. in Classical Literature from Harvard. Suck it up, buttercup.
I agree, sure there are a few things i agree with them, but yeah, there are ways of going through school w/o incuring dept, like what i do, fill out financial aid, and i got up to nothing for my units.
And then there are scholorships or grants.
I love how they all want their student loans absolved. Please. No one forced you to take out $120,000 so that you could get your B.S. in Classical Literature from Harvard. Suck it up, buttercup.
I agree, sure there are a few things i agree with them, but yeah, there are ways of going through school w/o incuring dept, like what i do, fill out financial aid, and i got up to nothing for my units.
And then there are scholorships or grants.
The alternatives are fairly unealistic given how ludicrous modern schooling costs. It's cost has risen so far beyond inflation for so long that it's becoming untenable for people who aren't already wealthy to afford. The high paying work that college used to ensure no longer really exists, but the American job market requires degrees for almost anything that's going to pay above 30k. The whole system is starting to go the way of the American healthcare system.
I don't disagree that college/University costs are high.
I do disagree that people's debts should be absolved/forgiven/erased.
If you (you being a generic Occupy person, not anyone in this thread) took out the loan, that's your debt, pay it. You could have gone to a less expensive community college. Also, if you think banks are faltering now, make them "eat" all of those student loans...
Quite a bit given the recruitment and loan structures that many colleges use. I for one was lied to heavily about what my college major did or didn't have. I ended up leaving the school incredibly bitter and resentful for it all. I'll owe people for the next twenty to thirty years of my life for a faux education taught by people who shouldn't have been trusted to be out in the rain without drowning. A functioning educational system would have had structures in place to prevent this from happening and wouldn't incentivise it in the first place. I for one want my student loans absolved and I've considered suing the university. I can identify with a lot of the occupy movements views in regard to the education system, American higher education students pay an order of magnitude more than in competing countries and the educations aren't better.
The personal responsibility argument only works when the system itself isn't broken.
Kronk... those students have a "point" to certain degree...
When I was in school... from the time my Freshman year till I graduated, the cost of tuition and fees more than doubled... and as I understand it, that was the norm.
I think part of the issue is that most students don't really know what they want to do and yet they go to these schools without fully understanding what happens afterwards (the debt).
Not saying we should automatically absolve the debt... just saying that the current system is bad.
I disagree with almost all of Rick Santorum's positions, often profoundly, but I do agree with him that we drastically over-emphasize the necessity of a college education in this country. Most grads aren't in jobs that require their degree as anything other than a box to be checked by someone in HR when looking at the resume.
I, for example, probably would have made more money over my lifetime if I hadn't gone to college and then looked at the military. If I'd joined up, done a moderate amount of snake-eating, GI Bill'd my way through school, and then made $200K a year as a twenty-six year-old doing contract work for the government overseas, I'd...well, I'd likely have blown it all by now, but money's for spending.
College isn't the right answer for everybody, and it's an unnecessary one for an awful lot.
College isn't the right answer for everybody, and it's an unnecessary one for an awful lot.
Tell that to the modern job market which requires degree holding professionals, even when the degree is unrelated. There is a significant disconnect between supply, demand, and actual need.
Kronk... those students have a "point" to certain degree...
When I was in school... from the time my Freshman year till I graduated, the cost of tuition and fees more than doubled... and as I understand it, that was the norm.
I think part of the issue is that most students don't really know what they want to do and yet they go to these schools without fully understanding what happens afterwards (the debt).
Not saying we should automatically absolve the debt... just saying that the current system is bad.
College tuition is a serious issue. The issue is college tuition growth though not loans.
One could make an excellent argument about colleges colluding to price fix.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I disagree with almost all of Rick Santorum's positions, often profoundly, but I do agree with him that we drastically over-emphasize the necessity of a college education in this country. Most grads aren't in jobs that require their degree as anything other than a box to be checked by someone in HR when looking at the resume.
I, for example, probably would have made more money over my lifetime if I hadn't gone to college and then looked at the military. If I'd joined up, done a moderate amount of snake-eating, GI Bill'd my way through school, and then made $200K a year as a twenty-six year-old doing contract work for the government overseas, I'd...well, I'd likely have blown it all by now, but money's for spending.
College isn't the right answer for everybody, and it's an unnecessary one for an awful lot.
Seriously bolstering good trade schools are incredibly needed. Everyone needs education, just not university.
Please answer this question from an ignorant foreigner that can't make any sense from your junior / senior shenanigans, but how many years of education do you guys have before graduating from high-school?
Kovnik Obama wrote: Question coming from someone who'se entire academic world is limited to philosophy&psychology : what's an associate degree?
Usually a 2 yr program that takes care of most pre-requisites of a standard 4 yr BA.
Sometime, those 2 yr degree are focused in one particular trade.
Yes its either a stepping stone to university, or its its animal used to train important segments of society: mechanics; nurses; EMTS, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: Please answer this question from an ignorant foreigner that can't make any sense from your junior / senior shenanigans, but how many years of education do you guys have before graduating from high-school?
And yet you can still get an associates degree or a full degree from a community college for much less than a private school or most state schools.
I have an associates. It's toilet paper. Not everyone is going to be a medical transcriptionist or a heating repair guy. Not everyone can be. Anyone working in hiring for those fields will tell you that the chance of actually getting one of those jobs with an AS in the field is low. Supply has vastly outstripped demand.
"requires degree holding professionals"
Well, yeah. Professional jobs generally SHOULD require a degree. Accountant, Nursing, IT Specialist, Engineer, and so on.
What specific professional job are you saying shouldn't require one?
Management, but that's increasingly requiring one. The jobs people can do without a degree is becoming totally untrained minimum wage labor. There is no upward mobility in America without a degree. The problem is feeding yourself and a family in a career without a degree is starting to becoming unrealistic. No one runs the company when they started on the saleroom floor anymore, it's a myth.
It isn't some grand conspiracy, but it is common practice in collegiate financial offices to reduce aid to students over the period in which they're enrolled. Especially once they pass that holy barrier of "We will only accept 2 years of transfer credits." Its much like the "introductory rates" used by cable and satellite providers.
And God forbid your school uses a 4 credit system, no one is taking any of those even if the college you are presently attending is is a top 25 institution.
ShumaGorath wrote: The jobs people can do without a degree is becoming totally untrained minimum wage labor. There is no upward mobility in America without a degree.
This is true, and unfortunately it's not because a degree's actually needed to perform a given job, but because a degree's needed to get the interview for the job.
When everyone's told in primary school that they need a degree, and a hell of a lot of them go out and get it, you wind up with more degree-holders. Recruiting "standards" begin to rise, because the applicant pool is more "qualified," and thus a job that would not have required a degree twenty years ago does now.
If you know how to use Windows XP, you're qualified for a hell of a lot of white collar work.
College tuition is a serious issue. The issue is college tuition growth though not loans.
Eh, sort of.
The growth of college tuition is the root cause, but much of the reason college tuition has been able to grow is the willingness of lenders to give large amounts of money; which they do because they know borrowers can't default.
I mean, who gives an 18 year old 20k? Or, in my case, 130k?
This is true, and unfortunately it's not because a degree's actually needed to perform a given job, but because a degree's needed to get the interview for the job.
How many are willing to move for a job though. How many are willing to spend time to get a security clearence. If you play in the field you play to win. You be a Blue Falcon on the rest of your classmate.
Jihadin wrote: How many are willing to move for a job though. How many are willing to spend time to get a security clearence. If you play in the field you play to win. You be a Blue Falcon on the rest of your classmate.
Considering a TS/SCI is basically like adding 15% a year to all your future salaries...everybody?
The foot in the door is with resume. How similiar are the resumes when your class graduate and look for a job. You have to make it stand out. Heck even throw in a four year stint with National Guard. Get PLDC under your belt to. An individual has to stand out from amongst the herd. Also be willing to move. I already had job offers from South Dakota before I got extended. Last count was 7 job offers. Starting off 70K (this is South Dakota though and cost of living there is cheap). The ole wife and I seriously looking at South Dakota and there were positions open in DHS there.
Melissia wrote: Ahahahah, that's funny, you think an associates degree is anything more than expensive toilet paper.
I know you're just trolling, but if an Associate's degree gets you the job you want I'd say it was worth the effort.
Check job placement rates at community colleges at some point. You might be underwhelmed.
As someone has already stated, you need a degree to even get an interview in many cases. I'm not sure what bearing job placement percentages would have on this.
Melissia wrote: Ahahahah, that's funny, you think an associates degree is anything more than expensive toilet paper.
I know you're just trolling, but if an Associate's degree gets you the job you want I'd say it was worth the effort.
Check job placement rates at community colleges at some point. You might be underwhelmed.
As someone has already stated, you need a degree to even get an interview in many cases. I'm not sure what bearing job placement percentages would have on this.
The big national push to create numerous community colleges and move education online have created a strong industry for passing out economically worthless trade educations in fields that are already flush with qualified applicants. In my job search I'm finding a very strong demand for 4 year degrees and I work in a design field that almost every community college in America offers a major for. It's even a field where job placement is based on portfolio quality and not educational certificates or schooling. Community colleges don't place people into the economy like people want to pretend.
There's a weird disconnect where businesses want four year degrees or better, but don't want people who are overqualified, and want them in fields where degrees aren't even needed. Two year degrees can be kind of a trap due to what hirers have fooled themselves into needing.
Melissia wrote: Ahahahah, that's funny, you think an associates degree is anything more than expensive toilet paper.
I know you're just trolling, but if an Associate's degree gets you the job you want I'd say it was worth the effort.
Check job placement rates at community colleges at some point. You might be underwhelmed.
As someone has already stated, you need a degree to even get an interview in many cases. I'm not sure what bearing job placement percentages would have on this.
The big national push to create numerous community colleges and move education online have created a strong industry for passing out economically worthless trade educations in fields that are already flush with qualified applicants. In my job search I'm finding a very strong demand for 4 year degrees and I work in a design field that almost every community college in America offers a major for. It's even a field where job placement is based on portfolio quality and not educational certificates or schooling. Community colleges don't place people into the economy like people want to pretend.
There's more to getting a job than simply having a diploma, I agree. Still, you need specialized training in many lines of work that make it extremely difficult to be hired without.
There's a weird disconnect where businesses want four year degrees or better, but don't want people who are overqualified, and want them in fields where degrees aren't even needed. Two year degrees can be kind of a trap due to what hirers have fooled themselves into needing.
They also want experience but don't want too much experience, as well.
So you get weird things like entry level positions requiring 3 months of experience in the field. But if you have a year or more they won't hire you because you're overqualified.
Actually... yeah. Negotiating on loans can result in a favorable loan. And I've helped my father get a nice loan for his business.
But see, the lenders in that case were actually being HONEST-- they had more inclination to be honest because very few lenders want to get a bad reputation in the small business community (that doesn't stop some, obviously).
Honest is something that many private student lenders frequently are not. Most students are young people, inexperienced with money and the law, and with few resources. Therefor, they are easily abused-- and gotten away with.
Melissia wrote: They also want experience but don't want too much experience, as well.
So you get weird things like entry level positions requiring 3 months of experience in the field. But if you have a year or more they won't hire you because you're overqualified.
There seems to be a floor for experience in my jobs searches of 2 years. After that it's 5-10. These aren't even directorial or project lead jobs, they're assistant jobs or things a monkey and a mouse could do. I have one year of solid experience and several years of freelance, but I'm having a hell of a time getting into the interview stage at all. There is seemingly nothing for me with my one year agency experience and four year design degree, I'm too experienced for internships and not experienced enough for anything else.
Melissia wrote: Predatory lending isn't something that should be encouraged.
In Melissia's world anything you don't want to pay back is predatory lending.
That's a good lie that you tell yourself.
In the words of a 2 year old Genghis Connie. "You don't tell meeeee. I tel YOU!!!"
whats your definition then? Have you met a loan you liked?
You described price collusion earlier in this thread. That would imply predatory lending on the part of the colleges, recruiters, and their finaid supporters. I for one believe I was a victim of predatory lending and co-operation between lenders and recruiters to lie and charge big numbers for non transferable credits.
Melissia wrote: Actually... yeah. Negotiating on loans can result in a favorable loan. And I've helped my father get a nice loan for his business.
But see, the lenders in that case were actually being HONEST-- they had more inclination to be honest because very few lenders want to get a bad reputation in the small business community (that doesn't stop some, obviously).
Honest is something that many private student lenders frequently are not. Most students are young people, inexperienced with money and the law, and with few resources. Therefor, they are easily abused-- and gotten away with.
So student loans are bad? What other loans are bad? Small business loans are good evidently (having worked in small business lending including doing the approvals for a state sized bank I can tell you your opinion on business bankers is...misplaced...). Dut I digress, what other loans are good or bad?
You described price collusion earlier in this thread. That would imply predatory lending on the part of the colleges, recruiters, and their finaid supporters. I for one believe I was a victim of predatory lending and co-operation between lenders and recruiters to lie and charge big numbers for non transferable credits.
You very well might have been. however you know which classes were transferrable or not. I sure did.
You very well might have been. however you know which classes were transferrable or not. I sure did.
When the people in charge of informing me about what is and is not transferable lie to my face I don't know the truth. I can't walk up to mister policeman and ask directions for where my credits go, I have to trust the people whose job it is to inform me of this. When I end up having to take an entire year of worthless introductory classes a second time because everyone up to that point lied to me about what does and doesn't transfer I end up with a very strong case for a lawsuit. Sadly, I don't have proof of what I was told, but I sure as hell remember being told for two solid years that "these credits transfer to all schools within the university of Maine system", only to have the only major they can transfer to tell me "no first year credits are transferable" after telling me "everything you have will transfer fine" up until I signed up for classes.
I don't get emotional about very many things in very many places, but if I didn't live several hundred miles away from them It's likely I'd be in jail for physically assaulting some of the professorial staff in my major. They're crooks, and rotten to the core.
Frazzled, at least try to pay attention, however hard it might be for you.
You know, instead of being a fething liar all the time and making gak up and lying about what has been said.
You sure like to throwing the term "liar" about. I'd be careful there, you may do that to the wrong person one day and end up with you face in location and the rest of you in another.
Ancient Budha say 1) never call someone a liar; 2) never call someone a cheater; 3) never get directly in the path of an angry Wife in a vehicle.
You very well might have been. however you know which classes were transferrable or not. I sure did.
When the people in charge of informing me about what is and is not transferable lie to my face I don't know the truth. I can't walk up to mister policeman and ask directions for where my credits go, I have to trust the people whose job it is to inform me of this. When I end up having to take an entire year of worthless introductory classes a second time because everyone up to that point lied to me about what does and doesn't transfer I end up with a very strong case for a lawsuit. Sadly I don't have proof of what I was told, but I sure as hell remember being told for two solid years that "these credits transfer to all schools within the university of Maine system", only to have the only major they can transfer to tell me "no first year credits are transferable" after telling me "everything you have will transfer fine" up until I signed up for classes.
More later off to the bus. Mine said whether they were transferrable (and went to the college I was planning on transferring to). You may not have been able to do that, hence my statement - you may be right.
More later off to the bus. Mine said whether they were transferrable (and went to the college I was planning on transferring to). You may not have been able to do that, hence my statement - you may be right.
I was also sold on classes that they hadn't run in years (they didn't tell me that) and industry professional teachers that didn't exist because they were on three year sabbaticals (they didn't tell me that and those people left the university without returning). They sold me on industry placement statistics that I later found out were a decade old. I was also unfortunate enough to go to school during the financial crises in a state university hammered by it, so what little worth my education had started getting cut as they removed classes and non tenured staff (the only staff worth something there).
I need to move farther away from that place, the whole thing makes me want to hurt someone.
More later off to the bus. Mine said whether they were transferrable (and went to the college I was planning on transferring to). You may not have been able to do that, hence my statement - you may be right.
I was also sold on classes that they hadn't run in years (they didn't tell me that) and industry professional teachers that didn't exist because they were on three year sabbaticals (they didn't tell me that and those people left the university without returning). They sold me on industry placement statistics that I later found out were a decade old. I was also unfortunate enough to go to school during the financial crises in a state university hammered by it, so what little worth my education had started getting cut as they removed classes and non tenured staff (the only staff worth something there).
I need to move farther away from that place, the whole thing makes me want to hurt someone.
Damn dude... drinks on me.
And, the sad thing, I hear this all the time from different folks.
We need more sunlight on this because this gaks-up people lives...
If student loans (more properly student debt) could be discharged the rate of Bachelor's attainment would decrease massively, which would mean lower costs of attendance, more valuable degrees, and cheaper tuition.
If student loans could be discharged the rate of Bachelor's attainment would decrease massively, which would mean lower costs of attendance, more valuable degrees, and cheaper tuition.
??? really...
If they can be discharged, then just about everyone would file for bankruptcy.
Not sure if there's a simple answer.
Maybe somehow hold the colleges/universities accountable? No sure how this would be feasible...
If they can be discharged, then just about everyone would file for bankruptcy.
There would be a transitional issue, which would be easily sorted out by way of an effect date. But in the long run you would simply see fewer student loans issued, which would lead to the conditions I described.
If student loans could be discharged the rate of Bachelor's attainment would decrease massively, which would mean lower costs of attendance, more valuable degrees, and cheaper tuition.
??? really...
If they can be discharged, then just about everyone would file for bankruptcy.
Not sure if there's a simple answer.
Maybe somehow hold the colleges/universities accountable? No sure how this would be feasible...
Filing for bankruptcy as an individual isn't really the best solution when compared to paying a few hundred a month for thirty years. Bankruptcy can make it difficult to function while loans can make it unpleasant.
Filing for bankruptcy as an individual isn't really the best solution when compared to paying a few hundred a month for thirty years. Bankruptcy can make it difficult to function while loans can make it unpleasant.
True, bankruptcy can make it very hard to find a place to live, or a job.
More later off to the bus. Mine said whether they were transferrable (and went to the college I was planning on transferring to). You may not have been able to do that, hence my statement - you may be right.
I was also sold on classes that they hadn't run in years (they didn't tell me that) and industry professional teachers that didn't exist because they were on three year sabbaticals (they didn't tell me that and those people left the university without returning). They sold me on industry placement statistics that I later found out were a decade old. I was also unfortunate enough to go to school during the financial crises in a state university hammered by it, so what little worth my education had started getting cut as they removed classes and non tenured staff (the only staff worth something there).
I need to move farther away from that place, the whole thing makes me want to hurt someone.
Damn dude... drinks on me.
And, the sad thing, I hear this all the time from different folks.
We need more sunlight on this because this gaks-up people lives...
I tried to do something about it when I was there, but seemingly the entire staff was either in on it or didn't care. The heads of the university couldn't care less, they were busy cutting everything they could and my major had shown significant growth in new attendants. The students themselves were generally scared to speak up and left after the second year in droves (seriously, there was almost a 50% washout rate, I didn't have enough money to transfer, my family is hella poor). I was in "New Media Design", which was sold to me as a graphic design and technology focused degree. Apparently a lot of other people were sold on a lot of other degree focuses and the classes didn't seem to teach much of anything at all. You don't go to a state school as your first choice if you want to do graphic design, film, or videogames, you do that as a last resort, or in my case because it's where the fething credits could transfer from that pile of gak community college. Since it was mostly everyones last choice or desperation choice most of my classmates just shut up and accepted the easy classes and worthless staff. Without a lot of other people speaking up I was just labeled as a squeaky wheel and nothing happened.
feth Maine, feth the American educational system. This country has a huge problem with it's sacred cow of "individual responsibility" and that's making it impossible for us to reform anything. It's all the same gak, middlemen get in and try to make as much money as possible and people with no choice or who don't know better end up fethed. I hate this countries higher ed system. Everything in this fething country just caters to the rich and feths people like me who work hard to get ahead but don't have a free pass.
Filing for bankruptcy as an individual isn't really the best solution when compared to paying a few hundred a month for thirty years. Bankruptcy can make it difficult to function while loans can make it unpleasant.
True, bankruptcy can make it very hard to find a place to live, or a job.
Traditionally... bankruptcy is like have a red "A" seared on your chest...
Now? Not so much.
I'm in bankruptcy right now due to my divorce... while my current lender can't contact me (obviously), I get hammered with offers for new home loans, car loans, CREDIT CARDS! It never STOPS . Just for gak and giggles, I went through the process for the Credit check... afterwards, they approved me! (didn't take the offer).
Even then... its a SERIOUS decision and if you can pay off your loans, I'd advise to do so. Bankruptcy is literally the last resort.
But, for those high debt college degree such as Doctoral, Lawyers, etc... it'd be tempting to file bankruptcy after graduating....
Filing for bankruptcy as an individual isn't really the best solution when compared to paying a few hundred a month for thirty years. Bankruptcy can make it difficult to function while loans can make it unpleasant.
True, bankruptcy can make it very hard to find a place to live, or a job.
Traditionally... bankruptcy is like have a red "A" seared on your chest...
Now? Not so much.
I'm in bankruptcy right now due to my divorce... while my current lender can't contact me (obviously), I get hammered with offers for new home loans, car loans, CREDIT CARDS! It never STOPS . Just for gak and giggles, I went through the process for the Credit check... afterwards, they approved me! (didn't take the offer).
Even then... its a SERIOUS decision and if you can pay off your loans, I'd advise to do so. Bankruptcy is literally the last resort.
But, for those high debt college degree such as Doctoral, Lawyers, etc... it'd be tempting to file bankruptcy after graduating....
And that is a pretty sure sign of a system where price is out of line with benefit.
Frazzled wrote: You sure like to throwing the term "liar" about
Well stop doing it, Frazzled. As another old wise man said, I'm out of feths to give, so be honest or get off my lawn
Isn't calling someone a liar an "intellectually lazy technique" or some such pithy remark that you like to throw around?
I'm still waiting on that list of "Professional jobs" that shouldn't require either an associates or an advanced degree.
Managing a KFC. Any managerial position at UPS warehouse or any similar box distributor. Really any sort of job advancement at all. Find an industry where you can go from service floor to manager without a degree and that managerial position has to pay more than 12 an hour.
But, for those high debt college degree such as Doctoral, Lawyers, etc... it'd be tempting to file bankruptcy after graduating....
High debt degrees?
When I came out of undergrad my student loans were, as mentioned before, right around 130k. I went to private school, but the aid they gave me in my freshman year reduced cost of living below my major state university. I've since paid that debt back, but I also would have filed bankruptcy given the chance. Of course, the bank would never have given me that loan if they knew I could do so.
And good luck finding a position as a doctor or lawyer if you have no experience and a bankruptcy.
More later off to the bus. Mine said whether they were transferrable (and went to the college I was planning on transferring to). You may not have been able to do that, hence my statement - you may be right.
I was also sold on classes that they hadn't run in years (they didn't tell me that) and industry professional teachers that didn't exist because they were on three year sabbaticals (they didn't tell me that and those people left the university without returning). They sold me on industry placement statistics that I later found out were a decade old. I was also unfortunate enough to go to school during the financial crises in a state university hammered by it, so what little worth my education had started getting cut as they removed classes and non tenured staff (the only staff worth something there).
I need to move farther away from that place, the whole thing makes me want to hurt someone.
Damn dude... drinks on me.
And, the sad thing, I hear this all the time from different folks.
We need more sunlight on this because this gaks-up people lives...
I tried to do something about it when I was there, but seemingly the entire staff was either in on it or didn't care. The heads of the university couldn't care less, they were busy cutting everything they could and my major had shown significant growth in new attendants. The students themselves were generally scared to speak up and left after the second year in droves (seriously, there was almost a 50% washout rate, I didn't have enough money to transfer, my family is hella poor). I was in "New Media Design", which was sold to me as a graphic design and technology focused degree. Apparently a lot of other people were sold on a lot of other degree focuses and the classes didn't seem to teach much of anything at all. You don't go to a state school as your first choice if you want to do graphic design, film, or videogames, you do that as a last resort of in my case because it's where the fething credits could transfer from that pile of gak community college. Since it was mostly everyones last choice or desperation choice most of my classmates just shut up and accepted the easy classes and worthless staff. Without a lot of other people speaking up I was just labeled as a squeaky wheel and nothing happened.
feth Maine, feth the American educational system. This country has a huge problem with it's sacred cow of "individual responsibility" and that's making it impossible for us to reform anything. It's all the same gak, middlemen get in and try to make as much money as possible and people with no choice or who don't know better end up fethed. I hate this countries higher ed system. Everything in this fething country just caters to the rich and feths people like me who work hard to get ahead but don't have a free pass.
Damn... you got shafted... no ifs-and-buts about it.
Your right, the higher education system seriously needs reform.
I have a few friends who were in web design and can't find a job now because the don't have the experience. It's a classic catch-22.
Jihadin wrote: Before I commit to name a few "profession" that doesn't require a college degree. What pay range I'm looking at. We talking salary or hourly?
Lets start at $17 hourly or 40k salaried. Something that will put you at the bottom of lower middle class.
Alot of skilled jobs don't need a college degree and pay well. But many do want at least you to have a certificate, easily obtainted with 2-3 semesters at a community college.
Welding for one. You can easily make $30+ an hour, you may or may not have benifits though.
Of course there won't be much opprotunity for advancement without a college degree and there is the inherent security risk that comes with the job. If the local economy takes a dip you may be out of work.
Well, this thread is frakking depressing, especially as I'm a highschool senior now. Basically, I have 3 options:
1: I can go to community college to get my electives done and then finish my degree at a 4-year university, and risk having the uni. not accepting my com. college credits.
2: I can go to a university for the full 4 years and end up with crap tons of debt in a stagnant/shrinking economy.
3: I can commit suicide. I can't get a job without a 4-year degree, and I will end up with lots of debt no matter what route I take.
Honestly, (3) is the most attractive sounding option. I'm pretty much screwed no matter what I do, so why bother living?
Jihadin wrote: Aircraft Airframe and power plant mechanic
Aircraft Structural Repairer
Surgical Technician
Rep for surgical equipment
Forklift operator
I would throw in what I do but you literally have to join the military to get the school/classes
HVA tech
GS7 jobs for the government.
Though I'm trained and experience on one major field I can branch all out to a whole truck load of other jobs
Half of those sound like they require that you be in the military. Aircraft structural repair certainly sounds like it's something that wouldn't be done untrained in the civilian industry. Working on cars, which don't fly in the sky, requires a technical degree and vocational training these days.
One class and a apprenticeship program for aviation.
or
A VOTech catering to it. SC will give you access to the high end airframes = more cash
Surgtech like a 4 month program. Start off in Central Processing to learn the instruments and sets be my advice. With the SC you gain access to certain type of hospitals
HVA school like 3 months. Everyone loves their AC and heat.
some require tech school not a degree
If you skydive and in excellent shape go for Smoke Jumpers or the fire crews to. Unlike me I'm a paratrooper and in no longer in perfect shape....dang the IED
Another off the wall job not many people think of but its a 8 month program. Train logistical coordinater. Thats start 23 an hour. You have to be selected for that.
Jihadin wrote: One class and a apprenticeship program for aviation. or A VOTech catering to it. SC will give you access to the high end airframes = more cash
Surgtech like a 4 month program. Start off in Central Processing to learn the instruments and sets be my advice. With the SC you gain access to certain type of hospitals
HVA school like 3 months. Everyone loves their AC and heat.
some require tech school not a degree
If you skydive and in excellent shape go for Smoke Jumpers or the fire crews to. Unlike me I'm a paratrooper and in no longer in perfect shape....dang the IED
Another off the wall job not many people think of but its a 8 month program. Train logistical coordinater. Thats start 23 an hour. You have to be selected for that.
I'm not sure these jobs are common enough to absorb the 12 million people currently looking for work in America. I really doubt that even if they filled every available slot in every industry in every one of the areas you listed it would bring down employment by .01%. I doubt enough aircraft frames need repair. Niche jobs and cottage industries are nice, but they're not a realistic answer to the current systemic issues with employment and education in America.
Aahhhh jobs that would make a dent in Unemployment at the get go. Can't help there unless we're invading China soon and then just wait for the draft to be implemented. Best guess though and its far fecth. Crank up the recycling centers nationwide. Just throwing it out there. I don't see a profit in it till like5-6 yrs down the road.
More later off to the bus. Mine said whether they were transferrable (and went to the college I was planning on transferring to). You may not have been able to do that, hence my statement - you may be right.
I was also sold on classes that they hadn't run in years (they didn't tell me that) and industry professional teachers that didn't exist because they were on three year sabbaticals (they didn't tell me that and those people left the university without returning). They sold me on industry placement statistics that I later found out were a decade old. I was also unfortunate enough to go to school during the financial crises in a state university hammered by it, so what little worth my education had started getting cut as they removed classes and non tenured staff (the only staff worth something there).
I need to move farther away from that place, the whole thing makes me want to hurt someone.
Now THAT I understand.
My Jr. College (Mt. Sac uber alles) was almost tied to the hip to the undergrad I went to. It was even located adjacent to it. The counselors for both interacted heavily and the classes interacted heavily. California public universities were awesome.
LOL how do you think we prior service feel. We be called back up to for cadre. I've no desire to deal with draftee's. I'm not laying my arse on the line for a possible quitter
Jihadin wrote: One class and a apprenticeship program for aviation.
or
A VOTech catering to it. SC will give you access to the high end airframes = more cash
Surgtech like a 4 month program. Start off in Central Processing to learn the instruments and sets be my advice. With the SC you gain access to certain type of hospitals
HVA school like 3 months. Everyone loves their AC and heat.
some require tech school not a degree
If you skydive and in excellent shape go for Smoke Jumpers or the fire crews to. Unlike me I'm a paratrooper and in no longer in perfect shape....dang the IED
Another off the wall job not many people think of but its a 8 month program. Train logistical coordinater. Thats start 23 an hour. You have to be selected for that.
I'm not sure these jobs are common enough to absorb the 12 million people currently looking for work in America. I really doubt that even if they filled every available slot in every industry in every one of the areas you listed it would bring down employment by .01%. I doubt enough aircraft frames need repair. Niche jobs and cottage industries are nice, but they're not a realistic answer to the current systemic issues with employment and education in America.
Seriously... if you're good at math and can force yourself to learn chemistry... Pharmacy is hot. (not Pharmacy tech, but full bore PharmD).
My parents participated in the DC Occupy movement. I thought it was pretty funny. They have opinions about everything, and every single opinion was greeted with the same opinion by everyone else.
I think OWS was a cool idea, but a total failure, due in no small part to the media's portrayal of it., and their very organization as leaderless.
The idea of people getting out and putting actual effort into expressing their dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs and trying to make change happen is a good one. Being willing to sacrifice your comfort and time for a cause is admirable.
It was the execution that was poor and ineffective.
But the basic idea was charmingly idealistic and did remind folks of other protest movements which actually got some things done and changes made.
Man, I personally feel rather shafted about the whole Occupy thing. I was employed literally for the duration, and it ended right before I was fired, so I didn't have the free time to go, and when I finally did they weren't there anymore. Sucked.
Also, I think the OWS was noble in it's original intent, which was to separate money from politics essentially, but they didn't actually manage to do much aside from raise awareness and feed a bunch of homeless people.
I don't really understand why people claim the Occupy movement was unsuccessful. It highlighted heavily the wealth gap, cronyism in wallstreet and bank regulation, and modern tax reform issues while putting a spotlight on the failures of the modern American educational system. It was on the news every single day for almost a year. By almost every reckoning it was one of the most successful protest movements in the last 30 years, even more so since it's message was pretty distributed and nuanced. Unlike the tea party movement which became by a 3-1 margin hated a year after it's time in the sun most people are still pretty ambivalent or vaguely scornful of the occupy movement. It didn't become a fox news co-opted media darling and crash and burn like it's contemporary, it displayed actual desperation and highlited actual fething issues.
ShumaGorath wrote: I don't really understand why people claim the Occupy movement was unsuccessful. It highlighted heavily the wealth gap, cronyism in wallstreet and bank regulation, and modern tax reform issues while putting a spotlight on the failures of the modern American educational system.
Agreed. I had initially claimed it would fail miserably, but OWS has successfully spurred the conversation regarding conditions in America in that it has actually brought to the fore issues that affect young people.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Well, this thread is frakking depressing, especially as I'm a highschool senior now. Basically, I have 3 options:
1: I can go to community college to get my electives done and then finish my degree at a 4-year university, and risk having the uni. not accepting my com. college credits.
2: I can go to a university for the full 4 years and end up with crap tons of debt in a stagnant/shrinking economy.
3: I can commit suicide. I can't get a job without a 4-year degree, and I will end up with lots of debt no matter what route I take.
Honestly, (3) is the most attractive sounding option. I'm pretty much screwed no matter what I do, so why bother living?
_Tim?
My completely off-the-cuff and undoubtedly hilariously ill-matched career advice:
Military right out of high school. If they're still handing out 18X contracts, and you actually end up being one of the 5% or so who can hack it, congratulations on acquiring a skillset that'll have you in your choice of 200K+ a year jobs, especially if you combine it with...
A paid-for degree as soon as you get out with the GI Bill.
whembly wrote: Sebster: all that does is give the banks more "cash" on hand...
What it doesn't do is ecourage the banks to lend "more"...
QE isn't about encouraging the banks to lend more. I thnk you're confusing different elements of monetary policy. QE is simply about directly injecting more cash into the market place to have a direct impact on deflation.
the first two QE really did make that much of an impact... the danger here is that unlike the first two QE, there's no "end date" for the current program... that is, "they'll keep buy bank assets, ie, print money, until things look good". Here's the thing, when would that be?
It isn't about making the market good again. It's about reducing the negative impact while the market recovers itself. In this case the point was to prevent deflation. I can't do anyting more than point out that that was achieved.
EDIT: Oh, and commodities market is on a real upswing, this QE seems to depreciate the dollar... which pushes the price in Oil future markets... know what these things can lead to? Higher inflation...
You're confusing depreciating the dollar relative to other currencies, and inflation. Those two things are actually negatively correlated (think about it - inflation means the dollar can buy less goods than it used to be able to buy, it only makes sense that a currency that can buy less goods will be less valuable relative to another currency that hasn't had as much inflation).
If you're interested in how that works go look up ISLM, it's a little tricky to get your head around but the graphs it shows will give you a better understanding than I could do here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I think part of the issue is that most students don't really know what they want to do and yet they go to these schools without fully understanding what happens afterwards (the debt).
Not saying we should automatically absolve the debt... just saying that the current system is bad.
I think the other thing Americans need to realise is how expensive tertiary education is there compared to elsewhere in the world. Not just at the top end, but middle tier colleges charge an outrageous sum for basic degrees.
The university I used to work, which was by no means a model of efficiency in any possible sense of the term, had a cost per student of about a third of the US average (that's cost including all government subsidies, by the way). And it was just outside the top 50 places of higher learning in the world.
There needs to be a massive program of economic rationalisation within the college systems in the US, to make sure students are paying no more than they have to for what they get.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I disagree with almost all of Rick Santorum's positions, often profoundly, but I do agree with him that we drastically over-emphasize the necessity of a college education in this country. Most grads aren't in jobs that require their degree as anything other than a box to be checked by someone in HR when looking at the resume.
I, for example, probably would have made more money over my lifetime if I hadn't gone to college and then looked at the military. If I'd joined up, done a moderate amount of snake-eating, GI Bill'd my way through school, and then made $200K a year as a twenty-six year-old doing contract work for the government overseas, I'd...well, I'd likely have blown it all by now, but money's for spending.
College isn't the right answer for everybody, and it's an unnecessary one for an awful lot.
Agreed. A lot of the problem came from the very dubious logic that figured that all us first world nations needed to figure out some place where we had a competitive advantage over the developing world, in order to protect our high incomes and avoid a race to the bottom.
They figured the answer was higher education, and therefore a future wealthy society would be one where loads more people had higher educations. Problem is that just because you train a computer programmer, doesn't mean a job for a high end computer programmer appears. All you end up doing is devaluing higher education.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote: I'm not sure these jobs are common enough to absorb the 12 million people currently looking for work in America. I really doubt that even if they filled every available slot in every industry in every one of the areas you listed it would bring down employment by .01%. I doubt enough aircraft frames need repair. Niche jobs and cottage industries are nice, but they're not a realistic answer to the current systemic issues with employment and education in America.
The idea would be that for the 500 people employed in working on aircraft, you'd probably have another 1500 odd employed in supporting that business, as reception, management, finance, all that stuff. Then all those 2,000 people would spend their pay cheque into the local economy, and generate another 2,000 odd jobs.
I know you're saying that's probably a niche industry, but unfortunately the reality is that if you want to protect high wages you have to look to specialist industries. The only way to compete on bulk industries is to pay Chinese wages.
The problem is that these niche industries aren't opening up fast enough to match the growing US population. This graph shows the number of people in jobs relative to the total US population, and tells a rather unpleasant story;
Looking back to the recession in the early 2000, you see that the jobs lost there were never actually replaced. The economy stabilised so that it returned to creating jobs as fast as the population expanded, but it never made any real recovery back to the highs of the late 90s. The same thing is happening now in the wake of the GFC, the economy is back to creating jobs about as fast as the population expands, but it isn't looking like recovering the jobs lost in the GFC, let alone returning to old heights.
Jihadin wrote: One class and a apprenticeship program for aviation.
or
A VOTech catering to it. SC will give you access to the high end airframes = more cash
Surgtech like a 4 month program. Start off in Central Processing to learn the instruments and sets be my advice. With the SC you gain access to certain type of hospitals
HVA school like 3 months. Everyone loves their AC and heat.
some require tech school not a degree
If you skydive and in excellent shape go for Smoke Jumpers or the fire crews to. Unlike me I'm a paratrooper and in no longer in perfect shape....dang the IED
Another off the wall job not many people think of but its a 8 month program. Train logistical coordinater. Thats start 23 an hour. You have to be selected for that.
I'm not sure these jobs are common enough to absorb the 12 million people currently looking for work in America. I really doubt that even if they filled every available slot in every industry in every one of the areas you listed it would bring down employment by .01%. I doubt enough aircraft frames need repair. Niche jobs and cottage industries are nice, but they're not a realistic answer to the current systemic issues with employment and education in America.
In Jihadin's defense, he stated there were several profitable fields one could get into without a degree. When called on it, he produced some jobs. Now he's getting called out because those jobs can't fix our nations unemployment problems... that is some serious goalpost moving.
In any event, I agree with the core preposition - I work in IT and there are an awful lot of jobs that requite a bachelors that would be more appropriately filled by someone who had a few months worth of professional certifications. For example, one highly skilled technician lost out on a program manager position he applied for to someone simply because she had a degree and he did not. I'm not sure how much use an IT professional actually gets out of a degree in hotel management, but that's how my shop rolls.
Spoiler: she wound up being really terrible; this not being a hotel.
Seaward wrote: I disagree with almost all of Rick Santorum's positions, often profoundly, but I do agree with him that we drastically over-emphasize the necessity of a college education in this country. Most grads aren't in jobs that require their degree as anything other than a box to be checked by someone in HR when looking at the resume.
College isn't the right answer for everybody, and it's an unnecessary one for an awful lot.
Agreed. A lot of the problem came from the very dubious logic that figured that all us first world nations needed to figure out some place where we had a competitive advantage over the developing world, in order to protect our high incomes and avoid a race to the bottom.
They figured the answer was higher education, and therefore a future wealthy society would be one where loads more people had higher educations. Problem is that just because you train a computer programmer, doesn't mean a job for a high end computer programmer appears. All you end up doing is devaluing higher education.
I agree with you both, although I'm not sure why Seaward is referencing Rick Santorum, rather than the current candidate who also prominently advocates technical and trade schools as an alternative to a default assumption that college is the only path.
I agree with you both, although I'm not sure why Seaward is referencing Rick Santorum, rather than the current candidate who also prominently advocates technical and trade schools as an alternative to a default assumption that college is the only path.
Just because you're curious, I'm not going to tell you.
sebster wrote: Looking back to the recession in the early 2000, you see that the jobs lost there were never actually replaced. The economy stabilised so that it returned to creating jobs as fast as the population expanded, but it never made any real recovery back to the highs of the late 90s. The same thing is happening now in the wake of the GFC, the economy is back to creating jobs about as fast as the population expands, but it isn't looking like recovering the jobs lost in the GFC, let alone returning to old heights.
If you look at the chart of individual disposable income (for most, this will probably take actual work; finding nominal disposable income then deflating via personal consumption expenditures) through that 'last leg' period 2000 onward, you see that "real" disposable income continued to tear higher all the way through 2007. There's been some research done that suggests demographics shifts during that timeframe, i.e. women opting out of the workplace to be at-home domestics simply because they could afford to and early-retirement age individuals in good financial circumstance took the option.
i.e. underutilization of the labor pool as a result of prosperity
That's why I don't think it's accurate to say 'the job loss following the 2k recession were never replaced'; to some extent, it may have been Haves succeeding while Have-Nots languished, but it seems at least equally likely that individuals simply didn't have to work as much or those 'on the cusp' opted for early retirement, especially as their portfolios, if invested in equities in any way whatsoever, would have performed fantastically.
Jihadin wrote: If I remember correctly he TeaParty pretty mch obeyed the laws to.
Plenty of Tea Party members broke the law. Many times during protests as well.
Really? Can we have some examples where Tea Party members actually broke the law while protesting? I'm curious as something like that would have made the national news like when OWSers went on their rampages in cities such as Oakland Ca.
Jihadin wrote: One class and a apprenticeship program for aviation. or A VOTech catering to it. SC will give you access to the high end airframes = more cash
Surgtech like a 4 month program. Start off in Central Processing to learn the instruments and sets be my advice. With the SC you gain access to certain type of hospitals
HVA school like 3 months. Everyone loves their AC and heat.
some require tech school not a degree
If you skydive and in excellent shape go for Smoke Jumpers or the fire crews to. Unlike me I'm a paratrooper and in no longer in perfect shape....dang the IED
Another off the wall job not many people think of but its a 8 month program. Train logistical coordinater. Thats start 23 an hour. You have to be selected for that.
I'm not sure these jobs are common enough to absorb the 12 million people currently looking for work in America. I really doubt that even if they filled every available slot in every industry in every one of the areas you listed it would bring down employment by .01%. I doubt enough aircraft frames need repair. Niche jobs and cottage industries are nice, but they're not a realistic answer to the current systemic issues with employment and education in America.
In Jihadin's defense, he stated there were several profitable fields one could get into without a degree. When called on it, he produced some jobs. Now he's getting called out because those jobs can't fix our nations unemployment problems... that is some serious goalpost moving.
In any event, I agree with the core preposition - I work in IT and there are an awful lot of jobs that requite a bachelors that would be more appropriately filled by someone who had a few months worth of professional certifications. For example, one highly skilled technician lost out on a program manager position he applied for to someone simply because she had a degree and he did not. I'm not sure how much use an IT professional actually gets out of a degree in hotel management, but that's how my shop rolls.
Spoiler: she wound up being really terrible; this not being a hotel.
I agree that it's goalpost moving, but I didn't set that goal, kronk did. The discussion of individual examples as kronk repeatetedly wanted was kind of a silly one in the first place. I had asked kronk specifically to list jobs with significant upward mobility in them. Jihadin jumped in with his own, but most of them missed the wider issue of structural unemployment, inflated hire requirements, and low pay. Certainly, jobs out there exist that break the mold, but they don't exist on a scale that provides meaningful answers to current poor conditions. If they did there wouldn't be the heavily documented issues being discussed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The idea would be that for the 500 people employed in working on aircraft, you'd probably have another 1500 odd employed in supporting that business, as reception, management, finance, all that stuff. Then all those 2,000 people would spend their pay cheque into the local economy, and generate another 2,000 odd jobs.
I know you're saying that's probably a niche industry, but unfortunately the reality is that if you want to protect high wages you have to look to specialist industries. The only way to compete on bulk industries is to pay Chinese wages.
The problem is that these niche industries aren't opening up fast enough to match the growing US population. This graph shows the number of people in jobs relative to the total US population, and tells a rather unpleasant story;
I think an issue is that these niche industries are following the same path as every other in their own time. Apprenticeship based fields are dwindling to nothing, while fields like heating repair or surgical technicians are so flush with candidates right now that the institutions handing out the degrees are adding to unemployment by advertising fields without demand but with significant growth.
I guess being able to crap in the streets and cost cities and tax payers thousands of dollars in cleanups isn't the draw it was a year ago.
It's a complicated question, but I think the answer lies somewhere with 'they ran out of money' and 'initially anyone with a gripe over anything could find a home'.
The constant calls for direct action, the lack of an over-arching strategic vision and no hard goals or timeline, and the culture of Demonstration/Occupation for the purpose of Demonstration/Occupation all served to create a brushfire movement that was inevitably going to burn itself out.
Organizations never subsist on discontent alone; eventually you have to have achievement milestones and purpose, which OWS as a 'horizontal, leaderless movement' didn't really have. That was probably fine as long as the money lasted; discontented people, especially young ones with few obligations beyond familial, can go for as long as the free food lasts.
I don;t know, considering before OWS all we were talking about was the Debt; I think the movement was pretty successful in changing the dialogue in the national media. 1 year later, the dialogue change continues to hold.
However, I think the 'energy' of the OWS movement has been rechanneled into standard electoral politics. This is really common in American Politics and one of the beauties of the system. Protest movements and political frustration get funneled to the ballot box, instead of into revolutionary movements. Thus, stability.
I think Occupy Wallstreet did cement social inequality into the public discourse, but I think that's all it really did; increase visibility for this one topic. (Lasting impact, anyways, the whole thing was riding on the wave of Arab Spring and success of many protests internationally)
By the time they adopted more concrete messaging like reinstate Glass-Steagall and 'money out of politics', it already seemed to me like the whole thing had already been pretty radicalized and had lost a lot of steam, both as a credible source of 'discontent' and in membership.
sourclams wrote: I think Occupy Wallstreet did cement social inequality into the public discourse, but I think that's all it really did; increase visibility for this one topic. (Lasting impact, anyways, the whole thing was riding on the wave of Arab Spring and success of many protests internationally)
By the time they adopted more concrete messaging like reinstate Glass-Steagall and 'money out of politics', it already seemed to me like the whole thing had already been pretty radicalized and had lost a lot of steam, both as a credible source of 'discontent' and in membership.
A protest that changes the national discourse is a wildly successful protest.
However, cementing 'social inequality' in the social discourse is a pretty big step considering before it wasn't even on the radar.
The TEA party did the same thing with the Nationl Debt.
And it had the misfortune of lasting too long and electing broadly incompetent officials which caused the tea party itself to eventually become largely unpopular after starting off with a rather high approval rating.
I guess being able to crap in the streets and cost cities and tax payers thousands of dollars in cleanups isn't the draw it was a year ago.
It's a complicated question, but I think the answer lies somewhere with 'they ran out of money' and 'initially anyone with a gripe over anything could find a home'.
The constant calls for direct action, the lack of an over-arching strategic vision and no hard goals or timeline, and the culture of Demonstration/Occupation for the purpose of Demonstration/Occupation all served to create a brushfire movement that was inevitably going to burn itself out.
Organizations never subsist on discontent alone; eventually you have to have achievement milestones and purpose, which OWS as a 'horizontal, leaderless movement' didn't really have. That was probably fine as long as the money lasted; discontented people, especially young ones with few obligations beyond familial, can go for as long as the free food lasts.
The article also talks about a lot of the energy of the movement being lost in debates whether they should use violent tactics or not. I wonder how many got turned off by the more violent members of the movement and walked.
The article also talks about a lot of the energy of the movement being lost in debates whether they should use violent tactics or not. I wonder how many got turned off by the more violent members of the movement and walked.
Basically, from what I observed on the OWS forums, tons. Absolutely tons of people got really disenfranchised by the more radical elements. Any dissenting voice was labeled 'troll' by a screaming, vocal minority of really left-leaning, anti-capitalism radicals, and the organizers/mods were absolutely rampant in censorship. Radical party line, or GTFO.
I think many people expected a friendlier, bohemian version of the tea party. The anarchist fringe seemed to subvert a lot of the movement.
A protest that changes the national discourse is a wildly successful protest.
Sure, that's why a year later it's a dead movement.
Calling that a successful movement is like calling whatever band wrote 'Hey There Delilah' a successful music franchise.
They rode a catchy slogan during a period when mass protests were very much in vogue and there was a lot of national anger that could be harnessed, and burned out once the money dried up. I don't think it actually changed the national discourse so much as gave it a bunch of memes.
Mannahnin wrote: I agree with you both, although I'm not sure why Seaward is referencing Rick Santorum, rather than the current candidate who also prominently advocates technical and trade schools as an alternative to a default assumption that college is the only path.
I think demanding that of seaward is a little unfair. Just be happy he's talking about an issue that actually means something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote: If you look at the chart of individual disposable income (for most, this will probably take actual work; finding nominal disposable income then deflating via personal consumption expenditures) through that 'last leg' period 2000 onward, you see that "real" disposable income continued to tear higher all the way through 2007. There's been some research done that suggests demographics shifts during that timeframe, i.e. women opting out of the workplace to be at-home domestics simply because they could afford to and early-retirement age individuals in good financial circumstance took the option.
i.e. underutilization of the labor pool as a result of prosperity
That's why I don't think it's accurate to say 'the job loss following the 2k recession were never replaced'; to some extent, it may have been Haves succeeding while Have-Nots languished, but it seems at least equally likely that individuals simply didn't have to work as much or those 'on the cusp' opted for early retirement, especially as their portfolios, if invested in equities in any way whatsoever, would have performed fantastically.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that the problem with the US economy in the 2000s was that people were too prosperous.
And I just cannot agree with any economic model that starts with the idea that jobs are as much a push thing as a pull thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote: Sure, that's why a year later it's a dead movement.
Calling that a successful movement is like calling whatever band wrote 'Hey There Delilah' a successful music franchise.
They rode a catchy slogan during a period when mass protests were very much in vogue and there was a lot of national anger that could be harnessed, and burned out once the money dried up. I don't think it actually changed the national discourse so much as gave it a bunch of memes.
I agree, they didn't impact much on the national discourse. This is because unlike The Tea Party and the Republicans, there was little outreach or cross-over between the Democrats and the various Occupy movements.
The ultimately irony of the whole thing is that in the wake of The Tea Party movement people are calling it a success for its ability to influence Republican policy... when its whole reason for being was to be outside of conventional two party politics.
Of course the Tea Party members really don't mind so long as their views and ideas gain traction. Staying seperate from the political system is only important so long as there is a difference of opinion. Once the view becomes mainstream they'll fold back into the system with no issue.
I do kinda find the OWS movement kinda laughable now. In my hometown where it once took up the whole town square its now regulated to a single 10x10 tent that only seems to be occupied every other weekend. And I think the only people hanging out there are a half dozen homeless hippies. And Yuppie pretty much describes the whole town
Grey Templar wrote: Of course the Tea Party members really don't mind so long as their views and ideas gain traction. Staying seperate from the political system is only important so long as there is a difference of opinion. Once the view becomes mainstream they'll fold back into the system with no issue.
No doubt. I mean, if I wanted to rapidly inject a series of polices into the national discourse I'd copy the The Tea Party model almost to the letter.
But it's just funny when a movement is all about being outside of the establishment, and then it turns out it succeeded because unlike its left wing equivalent it was always attached to the hip of a major political party. And then everyone who talked about it being independant from the Republicans just ignores all of that as much as they can.
I do kinda find the OWS movement kinda laughable now. In my hometown where it once took up the whole town square its now regulated to a single 10x10 tent that only seems to be occupied every other weekend. And I think the only people hanging out there are a half dozen homeless hippies. And Yuppie pretty much describes the whole town
I went to Wall Street in May this year. The smattering of protestors sitting in the 'free speach zone' bleachers were just sad.
sourclams wrote:I think many people expected a friendlier, bohemian version of the tea party. The anarchist fringe seemed to subvert a lot of the movement.
This is basically what my mother (a blue dog liberal) and I expected. She was hopeful that a liberal tea party that opposed the incestuous relation between corporations and regulators but promoted her liberal ideals would be what came of OWS. It became really unfortunate the way things turned and I found the movement as a whole disgusting and subversive as a result.
. Just for gak and giggles, I went through the process for the Credit check... afterwards, they approved me! (didn't take the offer).
