Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[fhdz]

Free college: yeah, fuck that, and fuck free high school, free middle school, and free kindergarten.  Let's become the nation of idiots we always wanted to be.  P.S. free college does not mean "free college for all."  But let's jump on board that conclusion train.  (Actually, it might for these guys.  But that's not what it says.)

I understand what you're saying, but what I'd rather see is in fact what's beginning to happen - colleges and universities in the US are starting to lose their privileged status as the sole folks who can dole out meaningful credentials. More and more there are certificates, licensures, stuff like the Mozilla OpenBadges project, etc. outside of the traditional college setting which are providing credentials showing mastery of a topic. I say fuck the tenure system, fuck the elitism of expensive schools.

[Sheilbh]

I get the idea that they are angry, but what they want done is a bit more vague.  It's just like the Tea Party who were 'angry as Hell and not going to take it anymore', but beyond that it was pretty confused.  Anyway I still don't like mobs.  Liberal mobs, Conservative mobs, neutral disinterested mobs... any kind of mob.

Mobs don't worry about which public toilets are accessible 24 hours and only use the toilets of businesses that put up pro-protest signs (both the case in London).  They also don't get excited because a generous benefactor's arranged for a delivery of vegan food from Waitrose (again London).

I'm pretty supportive of them, I'll go down this afternoon.  I always find the idea that protest movement's should be releasing coherent manifestos pretty weird.  They're protesting - normally that means they're against something more than about to release an interesting list of policies.  This is the diference between, say, the Tea Party and the Cato Institute.

[Sheilbh]

More and more there are certificates, licensures, stuff like the Mozilla OpenBadges project, etc. outside of the traditional college setting which are providing credentials showing mastery of a topic. I say fuck the tenure system, fuck the elitism of expensive schools.

Isn't this a debate about what universities are for?  Are they technical colleges to give people credentials or are the research institutions that happen to give undergrads degrees?

[Ideologue]

Credit reporting outlawry:  Yeah, no.  That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.

I disagree.  A credit report is a good way for an employer to spot a dishonest employee during the recruiting stage.

As for free college, well devaluing a college education even more than it already is won't help.  How does society benefit by making people take an additional four years of high school before getting a shitty service job?

Well, part of that would need to be reducing college enrollment, and funnelling more people into voc schools.

On the other hand, simply formalizing the already nascent idea that college is nothing more than a higher high school is not necessarily a bad thing, in itself.  Better education does have some value in and of itself.  Enough to send everybody to two more years of school?  I dunno.  But at the very bottom of the service industry, the same argument against college applies to at least the junior and senior years of high school as well.

Why shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.

Because I am a statist with an increasingly terrible credit report.  But I've actually been opposed to it since I'd first heard of the practice, years ago.  Even criminal background checks make more sense than credit history checks.  An employer is not a party to a contract between an employee and a third person.

Also, everyone always has a motive to steal, so I don't see why that's important in the absence of a history of theft or dishonesty.  (And defaulting on a loan is not theft or dishonesty per se, although some element of bad faith may be involved.*)

*Now, bad faith entry into a loan agreement is a different story--e.g., saying you make $150,000 a year when you make 15 and racking up $60k in credit card debt in Vegas--but that's tortious and potentially criminal fraud.  Totally different ballgame.  Lying and stealing may reflect badly an employee.  Being a rational economic actor and reneging on a promise made in changed circumstances, or being unable to fulfill a promise, does not.

Because of the information available to employers and the unregulated use of this information, we are rapidly becoming a society that affords no one a second chance--unless you're already wealthy, that is.  Hell, we're rapidly becoming a society where no one is afforded a first.

[Gups]

The protest is very close to my work, just popped down there. It's opathetically small. More reople turn up for the average 5th division football match.

Doesn't deserve any of the publicity its getting. The protestsers just look like the usual bunch of dirty shoeless anrcho-attention whores.

They have managed to close down Paternoster Square though, so I can't get to my gym.

[Martinus]

Credit reporting outlawry:  Yeah, no.  That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.

Why shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.

It's equality of arms. Most employees do not have financial means to carry out an extensive financial due diligence of the employer nor position strong enough to ask for such data (and I daresay, the employer's financial trouble can bear a much greater influence on the risk associated with the contract, than similar troubles of the employee).

Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.

[Ideologue]

Credit reporting outlawry:  Yeah, no.  That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.

Why shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.

It's equality of arms. Most employees do not have financial means to carry out an extensive financial due diligence of the employer nor position strong enough to ask for such data (and I daresay, the employer's financial trouble can bear a much greater influence on the risk associated with the contract, than similar troubles of the employee).

Actually, yeah, that's no joke.  Imagine Joe, who's near bankruptcy, who gets a job offer from Firm across the country, which is also near bankruptcy.  Neither disclose this.  Joe moves across the country.  They both go bankrupt at the same time.  Who's more likely to be fucked by whom there?

And as with a lot of things, I'm not necessarily advocating a hard and fast rule.  A child molester should not be an elementary school teacher.  A woman with a heart condition should not be an astronaut.  A guy with recent assault convictions maybe shouldn't become a police officer (although clearly in this case you limit your recruiting pool of willing candidates :joke: ).  If you can convince me a particular position requires a history of personal financial responsibility, I'm really all ears.  But as a candidate screening technique?  Unfair, and deeply unAmerican.

[PDH]

Actually, yeah, that's no joke.  Imagine Joe, who's near bankruptcy, who gets a job offer from Firm across the country, which is also near bankruptcy.  Neither disclose this.  Joe moves across the country.  They both go bankrupt at the same time.  Who's more likely to be fucked by whom there?

Wait, I got this one.  The correct answer is the hooker at the Pilot Truck Stop in Des Moines, right?

[garbon]

More and more there are certificates, licensures, stuff like the Mozilla OpenBadges project, etc. outside of the traditional college setting which are providing credentials showing mastery of a topic. I say fuck the tenure system, fuck the elitism of expensive schools.

Isn't this a debate about what universities are for?  Are they technical colleges to give people credentials or are the research institutions that happen to give undergrads degrees?

Yeah, I'm not so sure that universities should be tasked with what fahdiz is looking for.

[Neil]

Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.

No, YOUR argument is a classic slippery slope.

That said, being gay is a huge factor in dishonesty (as a gay's whole life is a lie), so I most assuredly would never knowingly employ one.

[Josephus]

What a bunch of reactionary old gits this forum has become. Do y'all get a giant boner from Law and Order or something?

Where is sask when you need him?

It's been this way for years.

[Neil]

Because I am a statist with an increasingly terrible credit report.  But I've actually been opposed to it since I'd first heard of the practice, years ago.  Even criminal background checks make more sense than credit history checks.  An employer is not a party to a contract between an employee and a third person.

Also, everyone always has a motive to steal, so I don't see why that's important in the absence of a history of theft or dishonesty.  (And defaulting on a loan is not theft or dishonesty per se, although some element of bad faith may be involved.*)

*Now, bad faith entry into a loan agreement is a different story--e.g., saying you make $150,000 a year when you make 15 and racking up $60k in credit card debt in Vegas--but that's tortious and potentially criminal fraud.  Totally different ballgame.  Lying and stealing may reflect badly an employee.  Being a rational economic actor and reneging on a promise made in changed circumstances, or being unable to fulfill a promise, does not.

Because of the information available to employers and the unregulated use of this information, we are rapidly becoming a society that affords no one a second chance--unless you're already wealthy, that is.  Hell, we're rapidly becoming a society where no one is afforded a first.

How you handle your credit shows planning, responsibility, honesty and forethought, which are valuable traits to an employer.

[Barrister]

Credit reporting outlawry:  Yeah, no.  That said, banning its use by employers is a good idea.

Why shouldn't employers be allowed to mitigate against risks? If you're in serious credit trouble you have motive - not necessarily inclination nor opportunity, mind you, but motive certainly - to commit fraud. The employees a company hires are potentially awesome, great workers - but they are also potential liabilities.

It's equality of arms. Most employees do not have financial means to carry out an extensive financial due diligence of the employer nor position strong enough to ask for such data (and I daresay, the employer's financial trouble can bear a much greater influence on the risk associated with the contract, than similar troubles of the employee).

Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.

You do know of course that for any public company it is trivially easy to get detailed financial data on the company.

For private companies there are still bond ratings, BBB, general news reports...

[garbon]

Not to mention, your argument is a classic slippery slope - for the same reasons as you mention, the employer should be able to check a prospective employee's health, family and marital status, DNA, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. - all these factors can statistically affect the risk associated with employing the employee, some of them even more so than the credit rating.

No, YOUR argument is a classic slippery slope.

That said, being gay is a huge factor in dishonesty (as a gay's whole life is a lie), so I most assuredly would never knowingly employ one.

It's what my body tells me.

[Tamas]

I get the idea that they are angry, but what they want done is a bit more vague.  It's just like the Tea Party who were 'angry as Hell and not going to take it anymore', but beyond that it was pretty confused.  Anyway I still don't like mobs.  Liberal mobs, Conservative mobs, neutral disinterested mobs... any kind of mob.

Mobs don't worry about which public toilets are accessible 24 hours and only use the toilets of businesses that put up pro-protest signs (both the case in London).  They also don't get excited because a generous benefactor's arranged for a delivery of vegan food from Waitrose (again London).

I'm pretty supportive of them, I'll go down this afternoon.  I always find the idea that protest movement's should be releasing coherent manifestos pretty weird.  They're protesting - normally that means they're against something more than about to release an interesting list of policies.  This is the diference between, say, the Tea Party and the Cato Institute.

ok, but if they are out to "change the world", shouldn't they have at least a remotely coherent common agenda? Or if that is not a requirement, why taking them seriously is?