(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2FLNS14000000_61929_1317846249636.gif&hash=0bcc5288321549cb3edffc7facd1846752bd3f2f)
Bureau of Labor Statistics graph of US unemployment rate (http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3)
So unemployment is a pretty big issue these days, but there seems to be some debate about what causes it. GOP hopeful Herman Cain (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/cain-if-you-dont-have-a-job-and-you-are-not-rich-blame-yourself-video.php?ref=fpa) claims that the unemployed are simply lazy, stating "if you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!", while crazy canuck claims that the unemployed feel "entitled". I think it'd be interesting for Languishites to discuss why people are unemployed. I know some here have been unemployed in the past, or are currently unemployed, so maybe they can say whether it was because they were lazy, or felt entitled and refused jobs beneath them (which are always plentiful!), or maybe it was their fault in another way.
And why did unemployment suddenly spike? Was there a laziness epidemic?
Since you mischaracterized my argument I will assume you did an equally bad job summarizing the other arguments.
Right now the primary causes of unemployment in America are Barack Hussein Obama and Harry Mason Reid.
Below: here are the party adjusted figures that the administration refuses to release.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg821.imageshack.us%2Fimg821%2F8181%2Funledgb.jpg&hash=dc1016fd53659935e2d29de35638301f110dbbae)
Solution?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frealclearconservatives.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Frick_perry_yo1.jpg&hash=dd46a048ffeaa43bb19516c5182714291cec3039)
Well, I for one got really lazy in early 08, so maybe Cain is right. :hmm:
The underlying cause is the disappearance of living wage jobs for average humans. Until this is recognized, and dealt with in a mature fashion, we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Since politicians bafflingly want to hang on to a 1950s-style conception of the value and necessity of human labor--40 hour work weeks, the absence of a negative income tax, the unshakeable belief that nearly everyone is actually capable of meaningfully contributing to the economy, etc--I predict 30-40% unemployment by 2020.
I am not sure if this thread is meant as a troll or as a legitimate question.
In case it's the latter...
There is always a group of people in the society who are unable to work (e.g. due to mental disabilities). I would posit that a percentage of such people in the society remains more or less a constant.
Then there is a second group of people who lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control, but would be willing to work.
There is, then, a third group of people who are able to work but, depending on the incentives and disincentives offered by the unemployment system, may decide it pays off not to work.
The game is to make sure the first group can survive (more or less indefinitely), the second group is given necessary temporary support so it does not slide into lower class, while making sure the third group is incentivized to work.
In times of economic downturn, I believe the first two goals trump the third.
Lack of necessity causes unemployment. And all other types of inaction too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:35:02 PM
Since you mischaracterized my argument I will assume you did an equally bad job summarizing the other arguments.
indeed. CC doesn't think the unemployed feel entitled... Just unemployed youth :P
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 04:32:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:35:02 PM
Since you mischaracterized my argument I will assume you did an equally bad job summarizing the other arguments.
indeed. CC doesn't think the unemployed feel entitled... Just unemployed youth :P
To be clear I think that the portion of society who actually get into universities and obtain a university degree (and dont kid yourself - if you do get to that position you are in a priviledged position) and then complain that such a degree doesnt automatically deliver a great job are a bunch with an overly developed sense of entitlement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:35:11 PM
To be clear I think that the portion of society who actually get into universities and obtain a university degree (and dont kid yourself - if you do get to that position you are in a priviledged position) and then complain that such a degree doesnt automatically deliver a great job are a bunch of with an overly developed sense of entitlement.
Well I think they have been going through life being told if they go down such and such assembly line everything will be great and then when they discover now they have to be creative and think for themselves it can be a shock.
Having said that I do feel for the people who were sold on getting a very specialized and expensive degree (like a Law degree) and then discovered there is actually very little demand for it.
One of these days we will have to realize that barring any major scientific breakthrough creating new industries or anything, full employment is a pipe dream. There is simply no need for this much unskilled work, and this is is also getting into the skilled part of the workforce, especially since globalization means an Indian will go and do a UK skilled job, or a Hungarian will do the IT job two Germans were too lazy to do properly.
What to do about it? I have no idea. Sooner or later we will solve it via a big war, or an epidemic as usual, I just hope it will happen after my time.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 04:37:12 PM
Well I think they have been going through life being told if they go down such and such assembly line everything will be great and then when they discover now they have to be creative and think for themselves it can be a shock.
Having said that I do feel for the people who were sold on getting a very specialized and expensive degree (like a Law degree) and then discovered there is actually very little demand for it.
If they were "sold" on it and didnt have the intelligence that their highly paid education assumes to look around to see its a competitive world out there they have no sympathy from me. It has been a truism of law schools since at least the time I graduated that if you are not in the top X% - and we can quibble about what the X is - you are going to have a hard time of it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 04:32:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:35:02 PM
Since you mischaracterized my argument I will assume you did an equally bad job summarizing the other arguments.
indeed. CC doesn't think the unemployed feel entitled... Just unemployed youth :P
To be clear I think that the portion of society who actually get into universities and obtain a university degree (and dont kid yourself - if you do get to that position you are in a priviledged position) and then complain that such a degree doesnt automatically deliver a great job are a bunch with an overly developed sense of entitlement.
In normal economy you would be right, but in this recession time, that's retarded beyond belief. A lot of employers, even those who did not go under during the crisis, simply stopped hiring (they saw it as preferable to firing people). This means there is now a huge group of young, educated people who simply cannot find jobs - and blaming them for that is just stupid. What's worse, some companies appear to view these people as a "lost generation" and prefer to hire now people fresh out of school than those who were unemployed for 2 years or so.
You are a classic example of someone who holds to his views, despite circumstances having changed dramatically. I.e. you are a close-minded idiot.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:40:12 PM
If they were "sold" on it and didnt have the intelligence that their highly paid education assumes to look around to see its a competitive world out there they have no sympathy from me.
Well their lives are pretty much ruined with thousands of dollars of debt they cannot default on. That sorta sucks.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:40:51 PM
You must be quite blind to have such views, considering the current economy state.
I realize that you have told us many times that Poland is backward. But trust me when I say that every else in the world having an education is better than not.
The rules for being successful in the education arena are so vastly different from the rules for being successful "on the outside" that everyone is being set up for failure from a young age. In a way, it's like an uber-Darwinian economic crucible.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:40:12 PM
If they were "sold" on it and didnt have the intelligence that their highly paid education assumes to look around to see its a competitive world out there they have no sympathy from me.
Well their lives are pretty much ruined with thousands of dollars of debt they cannot default on. That sorta sucks.
I would rather have a ruined life then the life of someone trying to compete against someone with a university education while having only a high school education.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:40:12 PM
If they were "sold" on it and didnt have the intelligence that their highly paid education assumes to look around to see its a competitive world out there they have no sympathy from me.
Well their lives are pretty much ruined with thousands of dollars of debt they cannot default on. That sorta sucks.
That is a common problem in many European countries, and the themes are the same. Claiming that this is because young people today are lazy or stupid - the way CC does - is retarded, considering the problem seems to be ubiquitous. The economy and the job market have shrunk and the young people were left apparently alone, with consequences of actions they were told before are the best course of action. That is both unfair and socially irresponsible.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:45:48 PM
Claiming that this is because young people today are lazy or stupid - the way CC does
I also understand that you cannot disagree with my position that having an education is better than not. After all, no way in hell you would go to manual labour. So you must now invent a position - I think Grumbler would call that a strawman.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:40:51 PM
You must be quite blind to have such views, considering the current economy state.
I realize that you have told us many times that Poland is backward. But trust me when I say that every else in the world having an education is better than not.
I don't even know what you just said there.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:48:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:40:51 PM
You must be quite blind to have such views, considering the current economy state.
I realize that you have told us many times that Poland is backward. But trust me when I say that every else in the world having an education is better than not.
I don't even know what you just said there.
It shows.
In a vacuum it's better to have an education, but there is a risk/reward to everything.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 05, 2011, 04:49:52 PM
In a vacuum it's better to have an education, but there is a risk/reward to everything.
Certainly. But having experienced the workforce on both ends of that spectrum I definitely prefer to be educated.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:50:47 PM
Certainly. But having experienced the workforce on both ends of that spectrum I definitely prefer to be educated.
My wife does very well and she doesn't have a college education. Alot better than many of the people I know who do. In fact most of the people who she manages have college degrees. But I am not talking about you or my wife specifically but a growing problem in education today.
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2011, 04:38:21 PM
One of these days we will have to realize that barring any major scientific breakthrough creating new industries or anything, full employment is a pipe dream. There is simply no need for this much unskilled work, and this is is also getting into the skilled part of the workforce, especially since globalization means an Indian will go and do a UK skilled job, or a Hungarian will do the IT job two Germans were too lazy to do properly.
What to do about it? I have no idea. Sooner or later we will solve it via a big war, or an epidemic as usual, I just hope it will happen after my time.
This has been continuously realized for hundreds of years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:00:47 PM
I am not sure if this thread is meant as a troll or as a legitimate question.
Why can't it be both? :P
Originally I was inspired to post this thread because of CC's arguments and the statement from Cain. But after thinking about it, I realized it's a pretty interesting question, and I'm honestly interested in hearing serious answers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:35:02 PM
Since you mischaracterized my argument I will assume you did an equally bad job summarizing the other arguments.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that young people are unemployed because they feel "entitled" to good-paying jobs right out of college. You say they should accept lower paying jobs and work their way up. Correct? If not, then please clarify.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 04:56:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:50:47 PM
Certainly. But having experienced the workforce on both ends of that spectrum I definitely prefer to be educated.
My wife does very well and she doesn't have a college education. Alot better than many of the people I know who do. In fact most of the people who she manages have college degrees. But I am not talking about you or my wife specifically but a growing problem in education today.
Ok so your wife is one of the very few lucky ones that made it without an education past high school. On average having an education is better than not having one. Your point is apt, we should be talking about general experience.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 04:59:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:00:47 PM
I am not sure if this thread is meant as a troll or as a legitimate question.
Why can't it be both? :P
Originally I was inspired to post this thread because of CC's arguments and the statement from Cain. But after thinking about it, I realized it's a pretty interesting question, and I'm honestly interested in hearing serious answers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 03:35:02 PM
Since you mischaracterized my argument I will assume you did an equally bad job summarizing the other arguments.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that young people are unemployed because they feel "entitled" to good-paying jobs right out of college. You say they should accept lower paying jobs and work their way up. Correct? If not, then please clarify.
No, there are a lot of young people who are not priviledged enough to be able to obtain post secondary educations. My heart does go out to them. I think they do have it very tough.
I think that young people who are educated have it much better and yes they should expect to have lower paying jobs as they work their way up. Since when has a university degree automatically guarranteed someone to a high paying job. That is the overly developed sense of entitlement I am talking about.
My guess is that unemployment is somehow linked to not having a job.
There's no question that being educated is better than not. In fact, if I had kids, and we could afford it, right now I'd recommend that they stay in school as long as they can.
Undergraduate degrees are becoming more and more worthless these days. You really need a Masters now, at minimum to get good work.
On another point, to say that kids today are lazy, and I don't think anyone is really saying that, is missing the point. I think it's quite the opposite. The market is so competitive that I get calls in the summer from students willing to work for us for free.
Is there a sense of entitlement? Yes. I think so. I think it's generation wide, this growing sense that they deserve more than they're getting. this was especially true just before the recession hit a few years ago, where kids fresh out of shcool shuddered at the thought of entry level positions and thought they deserved better.
Is it going to get any better? Not under the present conditions, no.
They should bring back the 65 mandatory retirement age. I was told that when I entered the job market it would be a prime time as all the boomers would be retiring. Damn old people not saving for their retirement :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 05:04:06 PM
No, there are a lot of young people who are not priviledged enough to be able to obtain post secondary educations. My heart does go out to them. I think they do have it very tough.
I think that young people who are educated have it much better and yes they should expect to have lower paying jobs as they work their way up. Since when has a university degree automatically guarranteed someone to a high paying job. That is the overly developed sense of entitlement I am talking about.
I think the problem is that, when society is in one of its periods of decline, even quite reasonable expectations based on what had been common experience do not meet reality. Things are I think genuinely getting more competitive and people are noticing.
Dunno if I would characterize that as an "overdeveloped sense of entitlement".
As you well know, for professional-type jobs obtaining that first few years of employment is really important - someone with a few years of litigation experience isn't going to suffer too much (unless they get disbarred), they can easily get some sort of work, even if at a lower level then they are used to.
To a large extent, getting that first few years is down to market conditions and luck. If the market sucks, the first thing cut is those "foothold" type positons, making it really hard if you happen to have the bad luck of graduating at that time.
Now, that being said, there are other things one can do. But I don't blame anyone graduating to find the firms aren't hiring for being a trifle unhappy about it.
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 05:20:44 PM
They should bring back the 65 mandatory retirement age. I was told that when I entered the job market it would be a prime time as all the boomers would be retiring. Damn old people not saving for their retirement :lol:
You can thank the market melt down for that. Remember all those freedom 55 commercials during the boom years?
Quote from: Malthus on October 05, 2011, 05:21:03 PM
Dunno if I would characterize that as an "overdeveloped sense of entitlement".
As you well know, for professional-type jobs obtaining that first few years of employment is really important - someone with a few years of litigation experience isn't going to suffer too much (unless they get disbarred), they can easily get some sort of work, even if at a lower level then they are used to.
Our profession is a good example of the sense of entitlement.
Have you hired a junior lawyer in the last few years? Their salary expectations are way out of proportion to their actual value. To some extent the big firms are to blame for inflating first year salaries during the boom times but that was a long time ago now. I would have thought that exptectations would have come back into line with reality. But not so much.
In addition to large salaries there is also an expectation of working fewer hours.
You are not that much younger than me. When I started off my salary was low and I worked long hours. The joke used to be that we wished we were making minimum wage. I recognize that I did not want to treat my juniors they way I was treated. But that does not explain the sense of entitlement I see.
And it is not just in our field. Many of our clients report the same phenomenon. The trend is becoming the subject of acedemic study.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:40:51 PM
In normal economy you would be right, but in this recession time, that's retarded beyond belief. A lot of employers, even those who did not go under during the crisis, simply stopped hiring (they saw it as preferable to firing people). This means there is now a huge group of young, educated people who simply cannot find jobs - and blaming them for that is just stupid. What's worse, some companies appear to view these people as a "lost generation" and prefer to hire now people fresh out of school than those who were unemployed for 2 years or so.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2011, 04:00:47 PM
I am not sure if this thread is meant as a troll or as a legitimate question.
Why can't it be both? :P
Originally I was inspired to post this thread because of CC's arguments and the statement from Cain. But after thinking about it, I realized it's a pretty interesting question, and I'm honestly interested in hearing serious answers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 05:04:06 PM
No, there are a lot of young people who are not priviledged enough to be able to obtain post secondary educations. My heart does go out to them. I think they do have it very tough.
I think that young people who are educated have it much better and yes they should expect to have lower paying jobs as they work their way up. Since when has a university degree automatically guarranteed someone to a high paying job. That is the overly developed sense of entitlement I am talking about.
I have a degree from a decent state school, 3.49 GPA, Honors Program, 6 months studying abroad, internship experience, 2 years working as an English teacher abroad, and conversational skills in German and Korean. I've applied to government jobs, contractor jobs, admin assistant, secretarial, and landscaping jobs, and gotten none of them. Tell me what job I should apply for, since I apparently feel "entitled" to those jobs and don't deserve them. And I'm not alone in my position.
I think the subset of youth that are entitled as you feel is much, much smaller than you think.
Furthermore, you say college grads should aim low and work their way up. Why should they start at McDonalds or another low-paying job when they've spent the time, money, and effort to be qualified for better jobs? Most college kids already work low-paying jobs while in school - they didn't study to go back to working those jobs. Worse, with the recession, entry-level jobs are few, and McDonalds and other low-wage jobs are more likely to higher those without a college degree, since college grads are going to leave as soon as they get a better offer. This leaves recent college grads unable to start a career because of lack of jobs (especially any where they're competing with more experienced people who were just laid off), and struggling to get even low-wage jobs.
The answer is to go back ~30 years and get a job on that sod farm CC worked at during high school.
Quote from: Jacob on October 05, 2011, 06:18:11 PM
The answer is to go back ~30 years and get a job on that sod farm CC worked at during high school.
I'll be sure to graduate well before 2008, too.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:06:26 PM
I have a degree from a decent state school, 3.49 GPA, Honors Program, 6 months studying abroad, internship experience, 2 years working as an English teacher abroad, and conversational skills in German and Korean. I've applied to government jobs, contractor jobs, admin assistant, secretarial, and landscaping jobs, and gotten none of them. Tell me what job I should apply for, since I apparently feel "entitled" to those jobs and don't deserve them. And I'm not alone in my position.
Stop whining! Work harder! THE SOD MUST FLOW.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:06:26 PM
I think the subset of youth that are entitled as you feel is much, much smaller than you think.
Perhaps the entitled youngsters CC run into feel that way because they're close enough to the top in a competitive market (due to their work, connections, luck and/or any other contributing factors), and thus feel they're the cream of the crop (which they evidently are, getting the jobs)?
Or perhaps they've learned that it's best to ask for the world. After all, you're not going to get something by sticking around and working hard quietly in a corner; you're more likely to get it if you ask for it and act as if it's your due. Perhaps that sense of entitlement is a prerequisite for getting a job in the current economy, so the people CC meet are in fact entitled brats because the system selects for them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 05:27:15 PM
Our profession is a good example of the sense of entitlement.
Have you hired a junior lawyer in the last few years? Their salary expectations are way out of proportion to their actual value. To some extent the big firms are to blame for inflating first year salaries during the boom times but that was a long time ago now. I would have thought that exptectations would have come back into line with reality. But not so much.
In addition to large salaries there is also an expectation of working fewer hours.
You are not that much younger than me. When I started off my salary was low and I worked long hours. The joke used to be that we wished we were making minimum wage. I recognize that I did not want to treat my juniors they way I was treated. But that does not explain the sense of entitlement I see.
And it is not just in our field. Many of our clients report the same phenomenon. The trend is becoming the subject of acedemic study.
Well, the actual value of a
truly junior lawyer (say, a couple of years out) is generally going to be close to negligible. ;) One hires for the future.
The hours and lifestyle expectations of our profession on juniors are frankly inhuman and do not really permit much of a private life and it is no wonder no-one wants to accept that. In my day everyone bitched about it, and there were all sorts of learned committees going on about how lawyering had to structure itself differently but to no avail.
Maybe it is just Toronto but when I started out I was delighted at the amount of cash they gave, even as an articling student ... but then I was used to having nothing, much. The students I see now are scared shitless and willing to work like dogs, for fear of not being hired back in this economy - much as we were in our day. I dunno if they grouse about the pay, I'm not privy to that, my guess would be not.
So would you like to hire a junior lawyer/articler? I can totally get a visa. Quebec told me so. I'm also sure getting a call to the Ontario bar would be no prob, and fwiw I actually probably know more Canadian law than most American law grads because of my association with you dudes and a blog that's mainly about comics I read, but is run by a Canuck lawyer who talks about Canuck law from time to time (I'd be willing to bet I'm one of the few lawyers in my cohort who has a strong opinion about, e.g., R. v. J.A.).
It's all about connections, I hear.
I promise I won't say anything about $2000 strollers, or how you betrayed us in Iraq. Although, if you think about it, you owe America, collectively... and individually. Heal the wounds of the past. :yes:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 03:55:44 PM
The underlying cause is the disappearance of living wage jobs for average humans. Until this is recognized, and dealt with in a mature fashion, we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Since politicians bafflingly want to hang on to a 1950s-style conception of the value and necessity of human labor--40 hour work weeks, the absence of a negative income tax, the unshakeable belief that nearly everyone is actually capable of meaningfully contributing to the economy, etc--I predict 30-40% unemployment by 2020.
I'll bet you $1,000 dollars that it will be below 30% in 2020. :)
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 06:44:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 03:55:44 PM
The underlying cause is the disappearance of living wage jobs for average humans. Until this is recognized, and dealt with in a mature fashion, we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Since politicians bafflingly want to hang on to a 1950s-style conception of the value and necessity of human labor--40 hour work weeks, the absence of a negative income tax, the unshakeable belief that nearly everyone is actually capable of meaningfully contributing to the economy, etc--I predict 30-40% unemployment by 2020.
I'll bet you $1,000 dollars that it will be below 30% in 2020. :)
Hmmm, you could be right, because by that point they'll have figured out how to use the statistics to make it seem like able-bodied, able-minded potential workers are not actually unemployed.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 06:46:16 PM
Hmmm, you could be right, because by that point they'll have figured out how to use the statistics to make it seem like able-bodied, able-minded potential workers are not actually unemployed.
If they continue like they have down that road, we'll have -20% unemployment by then. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 05, 2011, 06:47:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 06:46:16 PM
Hmmm, you could be right, because by that point they'll have figured out how to use the statistics to make it seem like able-bodied, able-minded potential workers are not actually unemployed.
If they continue like they have down that road, we'll have -20% unemployment by then. :P
Yeah, isn't labor participation--even when you factor out the old, infirm, and children--actually still pretty low? Like not close to 100%?
Young people suck.
Coulda been wrong on that--looking at SC specifically, our labor participation rate is 60%, but under 18/over 65 accounts for 37%. Dunno how significant that 3% is, and may well be accounted for by people with disabling conditions, etc.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 06:22:40 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:06:26 PM
I have a degree from a decent state school, 3.49 GPA, Honors Program, 6 months studying abroad, internship experience, 2 years working as an English teacher abroad, and conversational skills in German and Korean. I've applied to government jobs, contractor jobs, admin assistant, secretarial, and landscaping jobs, and gotten none of them. Tell me what job I should apply for, since I apparently feel "entitled" to those jobs and don't deserve them. And I'm not alone in my position.
Stop whining! Work harder! THE SOD MUST FLOW.
:lol:
And while I'm ranting and raving, I want to register my absolute disgust at the current Republican party. Their entire response to this mess has been to blame the victims (unemployed) and push only for tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporations. Fuck them, and double-fuck Rep. Cantor, who tried to prevent FEMA disaster relief even for the counties in his district suffering from flooding.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 06:22:40 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:06:26 PM
I have a degree from a decent state school, 3.49 GPA, Honors Program, 6 months studying abroad, internship experience, 2 years working as an English teacher abroad, and conversational skills in German and Korean. I've applied to government jobs, contractor jobs, admin assistant, secretarial, and landscaping jobs, and gotten none of them. Tell me what job I should apply for, since I apparently feel "entitled" to those jobs and don't deserve them. And I'm not alone in my position.
Stop whining! Work harder! THE SOD MUST FLOW.
:lol:
And while I'm ranting and raving, I want to register my absolute disgust at the current Republican party. Their entire response to this mess has been to blame the victims (unemployed) and push only for tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporations. Fuck them, and double-fuck Rep. Cantor, who tried to prevent FEMA disaster relief even for the counties in his district suffering from flooding.
I was gonna post a joke that would ensure neither one of us ever got a security clearance, but I thought better of it. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 06:22:40 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:06:26 PM
I have a degree from a decent state school, 3.49 GPA, Honors Program, 6 months studying abroad, internship experience, 2 years working as an English teacher abroad, and conversational skills in German and Korean. I've applied to government jobs, contractor jobs, admin assistant, secretarial, and landscaping jobs, and gotten none of them. Tell me what job I should apply for, since I apparently feel "entitled" to those jobs and don't deserve them. And I'm not alone in my position.
Stop whining! Work harder! THE SOD MUST FLOW.
:lol:
And while I'm ranting and raving, I want to register my absolute disgust at the current Republican party. Their entire response to this mess has been to blame the victims (unemployed) and push only for tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporations. Fuck them, and double-fuck Rep. Cantor, who tried to prevent FEMA disaster relief even for the counties in his district suffering from flooding.
I was gonna post a joke that would ensure neither one of us ever got a security clearance, but I thought better of it. :P
Go for it. I sure as hell am never revealing my presence on this site to any employer, or most other people in general.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 07:03:05 PM
Go for it. I sure as hell am never revealing my presence on this site to any employer, or most other people in general.
Smart lad.
Well, the souffle's gonna fall now, but it involved an invitation to join my organization, as a man who can speak Korean to our suppliers could come in handy.
Quote from: Jacob on October 05, 2011, 06:18:11 PM
The answer is to go back ~30 years and get a job on that sod farm CC worked at during high school.
You joke but there are a lot of farm jobs out in the Fraser Valley that go unfilled... Why is that?
QuoteI think the subset of youth that are entitled as you feel is much, much smaller than you think.
Furthermore, you say college grads should aim low and work their way up. Why should they start at McDonalds or another low-paying job when they've spent the time, money, and effort to be qualified for better jobs? Most college kids already work low-paying jobs while in school - they didn't study to go back to working those jobs. Worse, with the recession, entry-level jobs are few, and McDonalds and other low-wage jobs are more likely to higher those without a college degree, since college grads are going to leave as soon as they get a better offer. This leaves recent college grads unable to start a career because of lack of jobs (especially any where they're competing with more experienced people who were just laid off), and struggling to get even low-wage jobs.
Indeed, back home I couldn`t get any job.
The low level crap I could do in my sleep wanted someone who could expect no better and would stick around.
Graduate jobs...well those were thin on the ground.
Quote from: Fate on October 05, 2011, 03:37:14 PM
Right now the primary causes of unemployment in America are Barack Hussein Obama and Harry Mason Reid.
Below: here are the party adjusted figures that the administration refuses to release.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg821..us%2Fimg821%2F8181%2Funledgb.jpg&hash=f67ec58ab0448fb8e66de86cca3c2749b217c5c5)
Solution?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frealclearconservatives.com%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Frick_perry_yo1.jpg&hash=fc7a7665e02599dbf88fcab0885f1c8bcb92a13a)
I like the way the upwards trend quite clearly starts with the other guy.
Quote from: Malthus on October 05, 2011, 06:33:57 PM
Well, the actual value of a truly junior lawyer (say, a couple of years out) is generally going to be close to negligible. ;) One hires for the future.
Agreed, and the wage expectations ought to follow from those assumptions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 04:37:12 PM
Well I think they have been going through life being told if they go down such and such assembly line everything will be great and then when they discover now they have to be creative and think for themselves it can be a shock.
Having said that I do feel for the people who were sold on getting a very specialized and expensive degree (like a Law degree) and then discovered there is actually very little demand for it.
If they were "sold" on it and didnt have the intelligence that their highly paid education assumes to look around to see its a competitive world out there they have no sympathy from me. It has been a truism of law schools since at least the time I graduated that if you are not in the top X% - and we can quibble about what the X is - you are going to have a hard time of it.
I don't get why post-graduation jobs for law are so sparse. Why do law schools provide such an excess of seats if they know there isn't gainful employment for their classes? In medicine even the guy who is dead last in class rank is going to end up in a residency making on average 50 grand a year and after 4 years they'll be making on average 170 grand as a family medicine doc. 40% of US family medicine residencies every year go to foreigners because there aren't enough Americans to fill them.
Hey Ide, it's time to switch professions.
People with degrees from shitty institutions shouldn't feel entitled - they should feel embarrassed. :P
Demand only happens when people want and can pay for stuff. Total demand is therefore limited. We only need that much labour to produce that amount of stuff. The rest is unemployment.
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 05:20:44 PM
They should bring back the 65 mandatory retirement age. I was told that when I entered the job market it would be a prime time as all the boomers would be retiring. Damn old people not saving for their retirement :lol:
I've been saving! I plan to retire no later than 65! So some youngster can have my job! ;)
Quote from: KRonn on October 05, 2011, 09:05:45 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 05:20:44 PM
They should bring back the 65 mandatory retirement age. I was told that when I entered the job market it would be a prime time as all the boomers would be retiring. Damn old people not saving for their retirement :lol:
I've been saving! I plan to retire no later than 65! So some youngster can have my job! ;)
You're one of the good ones :hug: I can see CC keeping his job well into his 90's just to spite the young wiper snappers ;) :D
Quote from: Fate on October 05, 2011, 08:52:18 PM
I don't get why post-graduation jobs for law are so sparse.
I am not sure. Most people with post-graduate law degrees go on to become professors in universities.
My mother says she is getting out at 55. I don't really see that happening and have been trying to break it to her that she'd be unhappy without work.
Quote from: HVC on October 05, 2011, 09:10:14 PM
You're one of the good ones :hug: I can see CC keeping his job well into his 90's just to spite the young wiper snappers ;) :D
Well maybe 85.
Quote from: Fate on October 05, 2011, 08:52:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2011, 04:37:12 PM
Well I think they have been going through life being told if they go down such and such assembly line everything will be great and then when they discover now they have to be creative and think for themselves it can be a shock.
Having said that I do feel for the people who were sold on getting a very specialized and expensive degree (like a Law degree) and then discovered there is actually very little demand for it.
If they were "sold" on it and didnt have the intelligence that their highly paid education assumes to look around to see its a competitive world out there they have no sympathy from me. It has been a truism of law schools since at least the time I graduated that if you are not in the top X% - and we can quibble about what the X is - you are going to have a hard time of it.
I don't get why post-graduation jobs for law are so sparse. Why do law schools provide such an excess of seats if they know there isn't gainful employment for their classes? In medicine even the guy who is dead last in class rank is going to end up in a residency making on average 50 grand a year and after 4 years they'll be making on average 170 grand as a family medicine doc. 40% of US family medicine residencies every year go to foreigners because there aren't enough Americans to fill them.
Hey Ide, it's time to switch professions.
Actually, if I did have it to do all over again, I'd have majored in biology and then gone to med school (or maybe just become a biologist). I frankly find it more interesting, but that might be in part because I wasn't exposed to it for three years' worth of dreary training. In any event, it's obviously more marketable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 07:36:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 05, 2011, 06:33:57 PM
Well, the actual value of a truly junior lawyer (say, a couple of years out) is generally going to be close to negligible. ;) One hires for the future.
Agreed, and the wage expectations ought to follow from those assumptions.
Problem is that while really junior lawyers are of negligible worth, law firms do need a steady influx of young, competent middle-year lawyers. Paying junior lawyers is simply a way to attempt to lock them in, much like offering summer positions and the like.
Certainly, one strategy could be to not hire really junior lawyers at all and simply attempt lateral hires from the firms that do ... but most young lawyers by that time will have developed client and mentor contacts and be less willing to leave.
In short, there are rational reasons to pay juniors, even though their work
at the moment is not of great value - it is an investment.
what's he average pay for a first yearer in your firm, malthus? if you know.
Quote from: Fate on October 05, 2011, 08:52:18 PM
I don't get why post-graduation jobs for law are so sparse. Why do law schools provide such an excess of seats if they know there isn't gainful employment for their classes? In medicine even the guy who is dead last in class rank is going to end up in a residency making on average 50 grand a year and after 4 years they'll be making on average 170 grand as a family medicine doc. 40% of US family medicine residencies every year go to foreigners because there aren't enough Americans to fill them.
Hey Ide, it's time to switch professions.
I think a primary reason for this is that law is unlike medicine in that one does not have to plan one's educational career so as to get into it. Thus, it is more a sort of "default" profession for (admittedly smart) folks who educated themselves in some pursuit that interested them at the time but did not lead to a career.
Few people think to themselves "oh, my four years education in early medieval literature did not pan out into a paying career - I think I'll become a doctor". Being a doc requires lots of prerequisites in terms of education, and a narrower focus of aptitude. If you aren't already into those prerequisites, you would have to go back and do undergrad all over again. Not so law.
This leads to an abundance (perhaps over-abundance) of very bright people of all sorts chasing law as a career choice, which makes it quite competitive.
I think you (or perhaps BB? ) ralied agaisnt the idea of "pre-law" degrees. but if the scenario you outlined is indeed a problem perhaps a focues education would help weed down the over supply of the law feild.
Quote from: HVC on October 06, 2011, 08:20:03 AM
what's he average pay for a first yearer in your firm, malthus? if you know.
I know, but I'm not supposed to tell, since it is confidential. :Embarrass:
I don't think a pre-law degree would be required to reform the system. Law schools could raise the bar on their admission standards and decrease class sizes. Only let the top X% into school instead of allowing the 1-X% to waste their money.
Pre-med isn't a major. It's a set of 10 introductory level science and math courses that generally overlap with a good chunk of natural science degrees. A lot of incoming freshmen start with up to 80% of them fulfilled thanks to high school AP credits in physics, biology, general chemistry, and calculus. Even if you didn't have any AP credits you could knock them out in two semesters.
Quote from: HVC on October 06, 2011, 08:24:21 AM
I think you (or perhaps BB? ) ralied agaisnt the idea of "pre-law" degrees. but if the scenario you outlined is indeed a problem perhaps a focues education would help weed down the over supply of the law feild.
That wasn't me, since I don't remember it.
I dunno, why would such "weeding" be a good idea? Really, it amounts to cutting smart folks out of an opportunity artificially.
I dunno why having a highly competitive but highly lucrative field open to smart folks who did not specialize young is a "problem" to be solved.
Quote from: Fate on October 06, 2011, 08:31:37 AM
I don't think a pre-law degree would be required to reform the system. Law schools could raise the bar on their admission standards and decrease class sizes. Only let the top X% into school instead of allowing the 1-X% to waste their money.
Pre-med isn't a major. It's a set of 10 introductory level science and math courses that generally overlap with a good chunk of natural science degrees.
I disagree that a law degree that does not lead to a legal career is a "waste". It is often the springboard to all sorts of other career opportunities.
In Canada at least, the Law Society does attempt to exert some control over the number of law students.
My point concerning pre-med is that generally, those taking the right courses tend to have planned it in advance. If you study pure humanities, for example, you are unlikely to have the right "mix". And it is people who have taken humanities who commonly find no paying job results.
Quote from: HVC on October 06, 2011, 08:24:21 AM
I think you (or perhaps BB? ) ralied agaisnt the idea of "pre-law" degrees. but if the scenario you outlined is indeed a problem perhaps a focues education would help weed down the over supply of the law feild.
That was me - but I complained about them because they are false advertising. Because there are no pre-requisites to law school, calling your program pre-law is just wrong.
And I'm going to guess $95k for a 1st year lawyer at Malthus' firm.
Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2011, 08:46:30 AM
And I'm going to guess $95k for a 1st year lawyer at Malthus' firm.
I have now sided with CC, but only for law students :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 08:41:51 AM
I disagree that a law degree that does not lead to a legal career is a "waste". It is often the springboard to all sorts of other career opportunities.
In Canada at least, the Law Society does attempt to exert some control over the number of law students.
Well that was a major selling point and one of the reasons for the current law school bloat. But obviously when you have so many JDs out there they just become another degreed job seeker. I am glad Canada is stepping in to put limits on it.
If anything else it is just a matter of educating the students and the public about the current state of the Legal field. The money from running a law school is so lucrative that marketing campaigns selling a chance to be a big time lawyer are hard for cold hard facts to compete with.
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2011, 09:01:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 08:41:51 AM
I disagree that a law degree that does not lead to a legal career is a "waste". It is often the springboard to all sorts of other career opportunities.
In Canada at least, the Law Society does attempt to exert some control over the number of law students.
Well that was a major selling point and one of the reasons for the current law school bloat. But obviously when you have so many JDs out there they just become another degreed job seeker. I am glad Canada is stepping in to put limits on it.
If anything else it is just a matter of educating the students and the public about the current state of the Legal field. The money from running a law school is so lucrative that marketing campaigns selling a chance to be a big time lawyer are hard for cold hard facts to compete with.
The problem is that the chances to be a "big time"
anything are pretty low these days. Is there any field people wishing to make a lot of money really ought to be exploring?
Perhaps some sort of entrepreneurship in the skilled trades - say, becomming a plumber or electrician, with the goal of running a firm of plumbers or electricians. I dunno.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2011, 09:01:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 08:41:51 AM
I disagree that a law degree that does not lead to a legal career is a "waste". It is often the springboard to all sorts of other career opportunities.
In Canada at least, the Law Society does attempt to exert some control over the number of law students.
Well that was a major selling point and one of the reasons for the current law school bloat. But obviously when you have so many JDs out there they just become another degreed job seeker. I am glad Canada is stepping in to put limits on it.
If anything else it is just a matter of educating the students and the public about the current state of the Legal field. The money from running a law school is so lucrative that marketing campaigns selling a chance to be a big time lawyer are hard for cold hard facts to compete with.
The problem is that the chances to be a "big time" anything are pretty low these days. Is there any field people wishing to make a lot of money really ought to be exploring?
Perhaps some sort of entrepreneurship in the skilled trades - say, becomming a plumber or electrician, with the goal of running a firm of plumbers or electricians. I dunno.
The law has been pretty good to you, me and CC though. I can't say I'd have been better off going to trade school.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
The problem is that the chances to be a "big time" anything are pretty low these days. Is there any field people wishing to make a lot of money really ought to be exploring?
Perhaps some sort of entrepreneurship in the skilled trades - say, becomming a plumber or electrician, with the goal of running a firm of plumbers or electricians. I dunno.
The context here is the crushing debt one has to take on to get a law degree. There are plenty of fields, nursing or engineering and so forth, that not only have a high demand but also do not come with that burden. It would be like if we were producing tons of MDs without job prospects. That would also be a disaster.
Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2011, 09:08:37 AM
The law has been pretty good to you, me and CC though. I can't say I'd have been better off going to trade school.
Heh, true enough ... but I'm vain enough to think that there is a certain amount of selection bias at work here. ;)
I guess the issue as I'd put it is 'knowing how tough it is to get a good position in law in this economy when starting out, if you took 100 random people smart enough to get into law school, which would give 'em a better chance at an upper-middle class lifestyle on average - some sort of self-funded entreprenuership in say the skilled trades, or a legal carreer'?
I dunno the answer. Obviously, I myself voted with my feet as it were, and it worked out for me ... but I could easily have worn a different tie at my articling interview, thus not gotten a good articling position, failed to find a foothold in those vital first years, etc.
Around here, the French University Law programs only accept a small numbers of new students. I don't know how the English Us do it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2011, 09:13:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
The problem is that the chances to be a "big time" anything are pretty low these days. Is there any field people wishing to make a lot of money really ought to be exploring?
Perhaps some sort of entrepreneurship in the skilled trades - say, becomming a plumber or electrician, with the goal of running a firm of plumbers or electricians. I dunno.
The context here is the crushing debt one has to take on to get a law degree. There are plenty of fields, nursing or engineering and so forth, that not only have a high demand but also do not come with that burden. It would be like if we were producing tons of MDs without job prospects. That would also be a disaster.
That's more of a US-specific problem; though costs in Canada are rising too, it is nothing compared with the US.
When I went to law school, by living at home and working as a research assistant in the summers and in my (heh heh) copious spare time during the school year, I made enough to do law school at one of the top Canadian schools (U of T) without borrowing
anything.
Dunno if that is still possible, though.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 10:14:19 AM
That's more of a US-specific problem; though costs in Canada are rising too, it is nothing compared with the US.
Oh yes it absolutely is...or at least I sure hope it is. We have tons of private for-profit schools driving the problem as well as traditional schools trying to find new revenue sources with public money drying up.
While debt is no big problem for students in Germany, there seems to be a glut of law students here too. While there are a few extremely well paid jobs for the top 1-5% of each year, the rest often has to take badly paid jobs as employed lawyers or when they start their own practice will often live some years in poverty and might have to live of state welfare payments until they have established their business.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 08:11:34 AM
Certainly, one strategy could be to not hire really junior lawyers at all and simply attempt lateral hires from the firms that do ... but most young lawyers by that time will have developed client and mentor contacts and be less willing to leave.
Another strategy is to pay junior lawyers more like, you know, junior lawyers. :P
So I guess that's a no, Mal? Fine, I don't want to work at your dumb firm with your unsafe windows anyway.
Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2011, 04:38:21 PM
One of these days we will have to realize that barring any major scientific breakthrough creating new industries or anything, full employment is a pipe dream. There is simply no need for this much unskilled work, and this is is also getting into the skilled part of the workforce, especially since globalization means an Indian will go and do a UK skilled job, or a Hungarian will do the IT job two Germans were too lazy to do properly.
What to do about it? I have no idea. Sooner or later we will solve it via a big war, or an epidemic as usual, I just hope it will happen after my time.
We lowered our unemployment considerably in the last few years. A positive explanation could be that we liberalized our labor market (a bit) and make stuff that is in demand. A negative explanaition could be that we leech off our neighbors that are bound to us in a currency union and can't out-deflate us as we already mastered that particular policy.
Quote from: HVC on October 06, 2011, 08:55:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2011, 08:46:30 AM
And I'm going to guess $95k for a 1st year lawyer at Malthus' firm.
I have now sided with CC, but only for law students :lol:
Yeah, it is ridiculous. And it is because in the late 90s there was a kind of insane competition for new law grads, London started poaching from New York who started poaching from everywhere including Toronto who started poaching from Vancouver etc etc etc.
My first year salary was I think about 40k and only about 5 or 6 years later first year lawyers were being paid more than double that. Of course what the big firms were not telling them was that the attrition rate was high and most of them would be looking for another job in about 2 years. The market craziness never corrected itself because no big law firm wants to be the first to lower wage rates back to reasonable levels. So the profession has adjusted. The result as been many fewer starting positions for lawyers and a drop in articled positions - they are just too expensive. It takes a good 2-3 years to train a lawyer to the point where they can justifiably bill at a level that might recover their expense. That is a pretty big training expense for an employer to take on.
Now take what happened in the Legal community and apply it across many professions and industries where for a whole variety of reasons, including salary expectations, the cost of hiring a new employee has sky rocketed and employers have to look long and hard at whether it is worth hiring that young person.
There are way too many grads in humanities and especially law over here as well. If my friends are anything like the norm, the degree is mostly a vehicle to high-tiered public service. After many years studying for the exams, all but one of them are working for the public sector (a judge, a diplomat and a couple IRS inspectors). The other guy is a junior manger at a savings institution.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 11:06:09 AM
So I guess that's a no, Mal? Fine, I don't want to work at your dumb firm with your unsafe windows anyway.
My firm has safe windows.
It is the *exterior* bits of the building that fall off and crush people. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Canadian_Place#Cladding
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 01:12:29 PMMy firm has safe windows.
They have safe windows
now.
Still, are you confident enough to test them by bouncing against them?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 11:16:22 AM
Yeah, it is ridiculous. And it is because in the late 90s there was a kind of insane competition for new law grads, London started poaching from New York who started poaching from everywhere including Toronto who started poaching from Vancouver etc etc etc.
My first year salary was I think about 40k and only about 5 or 6 years later first year lawyers were being paid more than double that. Of course what the big firms were not telling them was that the attrition rate was high and most of them would be looking for another job in about 2 years. The market craziness never corrected itself because no big law firm wants to be the first to lower wage rates back to reasonable levels. So the profession has adjusted. The result as been many fewer starting positions for lawyers and a drop in articled positions - they are just too expensive. It takes a good 2-3 years to train a lawyer to the point where they can justifiably bill at a level that might recover their expense. That is a pretty big training expense for an employer to take on.
Now take what happened in the Legal community and apply it across many professions and industries where for a whole variety of reasons, including salary expectations, the cost of hiring a new employee has sky rocketed and employers have to look long and hard at whether it is worth hiring that young person.
The attrition rate was just as high when salaries were lower. ;)
But yeah, there was a period of wage-inflation. Thing is, firms have just as big a need as ever for 3rd year and above lawyers - but now, more investment to get to that spot.
I'm all for salary caps. :)
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 01:29:16 PMBut yeah, there was a period of wage-inflation. Thing is, firms have just as big a need as ever for 3rd year and above lawyers - but now, more investment to get to that spot.
I think that dynamic is elsewhere as well.
You hear industry cry about the shortage of engineers, for example. But they don't mean average new grads from middle tier engineering programs, they mean proven engineers with experience in specific sub-fields or, maybe, recent grads that are clearly so bright that the company knows they'll get there without too much effort.
So the engineers (or whatever) there's a shortage of are not the engineers the education system necessarily produces.
At least that's my impression.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 01:29:16 PM
The attrition rate was just as high when salaries were lower. ;)
I dont think so - or at least because the cost of employment was lower the attrition happened latter on - ie in the 5th or 6th year rather than in the 2nd or 3rd year. That was a big benefit for those losing their jobs because by the 6th year they had built up sufficient skills to be marketable to other firms (and there was a lot of lawyer swapping back in the day at the 5-6 year of call) or to other employers outside law - or even opening their own practices - which quite a few did.
Later when the cost of employment more than doubled attrition occured much earlier and those younger lawyers were essentially sol.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 01:34:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 01:29:16 PMBut yeah, there was a period of wage-inflation. Thing is, firms have just as big a need as ever for 3rd year and above lawyers - but now, more investment to get to that spot.
I think that dynamic is elsewhere as well.
You hear industry cry about the shortage of engineers, for example. But they don't mean average new grads from middle tier engineering programs, they mean proven engineers with experience in specific sub-fields or, maybe, recent grads that are clearly so bright that the company knows they'll get there without too much effort.
So the engineers (or whatever) there's a shortage of are not the engineers the education system necessarily produces.
At least that's my impression.
Yes, I think that is right and for the same reasons. Hiring and training a new engineer has become prohibitatively expensive.
Here's a question that I brought up but was mostly ignored:
Will there always be a place for human labor, including intellectual labor, in the economy?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
Here's a question that I brought up but was mostly ignored:
Will there always be a place for human labor, including intellectual labor, in the economy?
Why wouldnt there be?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
Here's a question that I brought up but was mostly ignored:
Will there always be a place for human labor, including intellectual labor, in the economy?
Of course. There will also always be jobs for unskilled humans. That's because machines are expensive. In one of our manufacturing locations they considered to install a fancy logistics system iwth conveyor belts and computer control at the factory hall ceiling that would transport parts directly to the assembly line. However, they figured out that it is cheaper to pay unskilled laborers to just transport the parts to the assembly line with forklifts and pallet jacks and thus didn't install the logistics system. And you don't need to be a genius to operate a pallet jack.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 01:34:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 01:29:16 PMBut yeah, there was a period of wage-inflation. Thing is, firms have just as big a need as ever for 3rd year and above lawyers - but now, more investment to get to that spot.
I think that dynamic is elsewhere as well.
You hear industry cry about the shortage of engineers, for example. But they don't mean average new grads from middle tier engineering programs, they mean proven engineers with experience in specific sub-fields or, maybe, recent grads that are clearly so bright that the company knows they'll get there without too much effort.
So the engineers (or whatever) there's a shortage of are not the engineers the education system necessarily produces.
At least that's my impression.
It's not just engineers. Most companies can't afford to hire recent grads from middle-tier schools and give them a chance to prove themselves, especially when there are now many more experienced workers who were recently laid off. Now the recent grads are stuck in the catch-22 of needing experience to get hired, but unable to get hired to get that experience.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 06, 2011, 02:34:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 01:34:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 01:29:16 PMBut yeah, there was a period of wage-inflation. Thing is, firms have just as big a need as ever for 3rd year and above lawyers - but now, more investment to get to that spot.
I think that dynamic is elsewhere as well.
You hear industry cry about the shortage of engineers, for example. But they don't mean average new grads from middle tier engineering programs, they mean proven engineers with experience in specific sub-fields or, maybe, recent grads that are clearly so bright that the company knows they'll get there without too much effort.
So the engineers (or whatever) there's a shortage of are not the engineers the education system necessarily produces.
At least that's my impression.
It's not just engineers. Most companies can't afford to hire recent grads from middle-tier schools and give them a chance to prove themselves, especially when there are now many more experienced workers who were recently laid off. Now the recent grads are stuck in the catch-22 of needing experience to get hired, but unable to get hired to get that experience.
:yes:
When I was hiring people to flush out my roster, I mostly went with those on the bench with proven experience. I did hire a couple of n00b kids that had interned with me before, so I knew what I was getting with them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
Here's a question that I brought up but was mostly ignored:
Will there always be a place for human labor, including intellectual labor, in the economy?
Why wouldnt there be?
Increasing automation, including of intellectual tasks, leaving the only human-necessary labor beyond the grasp of most people. A Player Piano-type scenario.
Quote from: ZanzaOf course. There will also always be jobs for unskilled humans. That's because machines are expensive. In one of our manufacturing locations they considered to install a fancy logistics system iwth conveyor belts and computer control at the factory hall ceiling that would transport parts directly to the assembly line. However, they figured out that it is cheaper to pay unskilled laborers to just transport the parts to the assembly line with forklifts and pallet jacks and thus didn't install the logistics system. And you don't need to be a genius to operate a pallet jack.
That seems very near-term to me.
Beyond the question of will it, there's also the question of whether it's desireable that the economy may always need human labor, as well.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 01:34:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 01:29:16 PMBut yeah, there was a period of wage-inflation. Thing is, firms have just as big a need as ever for 3rd year and above lawyers - but now, more investment to get to that spot.
I think that dynamic is elsewhere as well.
You hear industry cry about the shortage of engineers, for example. But they don't mean average new grads from middle tier engineering programs, they mean proven engineers with experience in specific sub-fields or, maybe, recent grads that are clearly so bright that the company knows they'll get there without too much effort.
So the engineers (or whatever) there's a shortage of are not the engineers the education system necessarily produces.
At least that's my impression.
When I went back to Yukon for a week I asked my old boss how hiring a replacement was going. Tough they said - no applicants. But when I asked further what they meant was no experienced applicants.
Why they wouldn't be willing to hire a baby lawyer though is beyond me. There's plenty a new lawyer can do, and do well, in a prosecutions office, and the office when I left was actually pretty senior-heavy - at 10 years I was one of the more junior.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 02:46:25 PMThat seems very near-term to me.
Capital and labor are both scarce. If you increase capital usage, it becomes more expensive and there are dimishing returns. At some point, labor is just cheaper. I don't see why that should ever change. Is the idea that capital will at one point no longer be scarce?
QuoteBeyond the question of will it, there's also the question of whether it's desireable that the economy may always need human labor, as well.
As I would be bored without my work, I think it wouldn't be desireable.
Quote from: Zanza on October 06, 2011, 03:44:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 02:46:25 PMThat seems very near-term to me.
Capital and labor are both scarce. If you increase capital usage, it becomes more expensive and there are dimishing returns. At some point, labor is just cheaper. I don't see why that should ever change. Is the idea that capital will at one point no longer be scarce?
Capital, in the sense of means of production, is not some zero-sum fund.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 04:04:51 PM
Capital, in the sense of means of production, is not some zero-sum fund.
That's true, but it doesn't alter the fallaciousness of your neo-luddite argument.
Consider that in many traditional subsistence-type economies, where there is little or no mecahnisation, it is common for there to be significant levels of under-employment. The reason for that is that these economies are not capable of producing economic surplus and thus there is a lack of effective demand that would induce people to work more.
It is not like there is some shortage of productive or societally useful tasks that would require some human labor to perform. For example, just today there are two threads here on languish that mention in some way critical shortages in the provisions of vital legal services and yet there is also the recognition that there is unemployment and underemployment of many individual lawyers, including the very one posting the above. This state of affairs does not arise because lexis has invented mechanized attorneys, but because our economic system is not presently allocating resources in such a way that would finance such employment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2011, 05:11:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 04:04:51 PM
Capital, in the sense of means of production, is not some zero-sum fund.
That's true, but it doesn't alter the fallaciousness of your neo-luddite argument.
Now, that's an unfair characterization. I don't oppose displacement of workers or the increased automation of the economy; quite the contrary. The elimination of drudgery is or should be the principal goal of human endeavor.
QuoteConsider that in many traditional subsistence-type economies, where there is little or no mecahnisation, it is common for there to be significant levels of under-employment. The reason for that is that these economies are not capable of producing economic surplus and thus there is a lack of effective demand that would induce people to work more.
It is not like there is some shortage of productive or societally useful tasks that would require some human labor to perform. For example, just today there are two threads here on languish that mention in some way critical shortages in the provisions of vital legal services and yet there is also the recognition that there is unemployment and underemployment of many individual lawyers, including the very one posting the above. This state of affairs does not arise because lexis has invented mechanized attorneys, but because our economic system is not presently allocating resources in such a way that would finance such employment.
I agree, but that doesn't really address my argument, which is a somewhat specualtive, futurist one. Now you can counterargue that on this basis it is not an important argument, but long-term planning dictates taking into account future technological advances which we can reasonably foresee coming (and, indeed, which are presently accumulating)
In general technological advancement has permitted--not without dislocation--increased individual productivity and reallocation of labor into more productive endeavors, and this has been on balance a very good thing. But it's not ridiculous to expect that at some point productivity per capita will be so vast as to reduce demand to no more than a few ten or hundred million maintainers, users, and designers of machines.
What happens to the rest of humanity when only the best and brightest are necessary and the average human, let alone the below average human, has not the intellectual capacity to contribute meaningfully? And even that is not the end of it, as no physical law dictates that a machine cannot replicate my abilities--or even yours. Although I suspect the legal profession will be amongst the
last to become mostly automated, the idea that human skills are irreplaceable strikes me as fundamentally incorrect.
But in the nearer term, take your average McDonald's or Wal-Mart, and cut staffing needs by 90%. Where do they go? When you can answer that question, I will consider the argument refuted. But I do not believe it is instructive to rely on the example of the fields emptying into the cities. There is no sector to absorb the redundant.
Quote from: Zanza on October 06, 2011, 02:32:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
Here's a question that I brought up but was mostly ignored:
Will there always be a place for human labor, including intellectual labor, in the economy?
Of course. There will also always be jobs for unskilled humans. That's because machines are expensive. In one of our manufacturing locations they considered to install a fancy logistics system iwth conveyor belts and computer control at the factory hall ceiling that would transport parts directly to the assembly line. However, they figured out that it is cheaper to pay unskilled laborers to just transport the parts to the assembly line with forklifts and pallet jacks and thus didn't install the logistics system. And you don't need to be a genius to operate a pallet jack.
That reminds me of a meeting with a senior manager at a fairly big factory over here. We were presenting a proven system to monitor the assembly lines that would allow significant reduction in expenses. As we explained what it was, how it worked and how much it would cost, the guy said: 'Fuck that. We could just hire a dozen interns to do that'. At zero cost, I might add. Needless to say, the project didn't come to fruition.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
The problem is that the chances to be a "big time" anything are pretty low these days. Is there any field people wishing to make a lot of money really ought to be exploring?
Perhaps some sort of entrepreneurship in the skilled trades - say, becomming a plumber or electrician, with the goal of running a firm of plumbers or electricians. I dunno.
That's pretty much the way I settled for. I return to professional high school next year to learn plumbery with that exact plan in mind : working a few years to create myself a clientele and experience, and build my own business. I do it because I find it inconceivable that passed 30, after years of service, I would still be payed below the Canadian or even Quebec's average net salary. So I go where the money is, even if it means doing manual labor. I consider my years of university a few years wasted of my youth that led nowhere but to idle dreams, and my diploma a useless piece of paper.
Construction is the only sector with currently a massive demand for workers and actually paying bigger money for it : First year of apprenticeship would pay me 50% more of my actual salary - after five years of service.
I don't agree with CC - our generation is getting shafed big time and the promise that openings would come as the baby boomers weed themselves off toward retirement ended up untrue : either they stay or their job get closed by attrition. When a big chunk of your age bracket literally begs to work for free as interns, something's utterly wrong. It is white-collar employment paid way, way below minimum wage or fruit-handling Mexican labor. So what people perceive as "entitlement" is simply asking to be given decent wage to live, create a family, and finance a house through mortgage like their parents did.
Drakken is a weird dude.
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 08:22:40 PM
Drakken is a weird dude.
:rolleyes:
How is it weird to want to make more money in another sector, for my labour, when my sector is paying me so low that I cannot even afford to found a family and buy a house even together with my life partner's salary? Geez, it's not choosing whether I'll buy this game or that game. It's actually a life decision, you know, one you take when you want to better your life and situation?
And I don't see my fellow students begging to be taken as free interns for a two-month contract that they'll know will never lead to permanent employment, and collecting such "valuable experience" on their resume, as a sign of a healthy employment world.
You a lawyer Drak?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 08:37:13 PM
You a lawyer Drak?
I data processing after collection for an opinion research company, so I do a mix of programming (SPSS and Quantum), statistics, and client management service. I had thought of going to law school, but I finally decided it wasn't a cost-effective venue for the next few years, for the reasons CC and Malthus discussed early in the thread.
I like the job itself, it's just a dead-end job in the corporate work with bad pay for the level of specialization it requests. And it's certainly not a job I study to perform, I was just lucky to have found entrance in that company and I was offered the position with a decent raise.
How would you call that field?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 08:42:36 PM
How would you call that field?
Low-level, white-collar professional job. It's not really a field, it's a corporate job in a corporation. What I do, another monkey could learn it and be effective after a few weeks and expect the same dead-end.
But when I got offered that at 26, it was like the Eldorado. I was lucky not to go through what quite a few of my fellow students end up doing : welfare or being cashier in stores or fast food joints.
Quote from: Drakken on October 06, 2011, 08:40:47 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 08:37:13 PM
You a lawyer Drak?
I data processing after collection for an opinion research company, so I do a mix of programming (SPSS and Quantum), statistics, and client management service. I had thought of going to law school, but I finally decided it wasn't a cost-effective venue for the next few years, for the reasons CC and Malthus discussed early in the thread.
I like the job itself, it's just a dead-end job in the corporate work with bad pay for the level of specialization it requests. And it's certainly not a job I study to perform, I was just lucky to have found entrance in that company and I was offered the position with a decent raise.
Why not that flip that into being an analyst/researcher? Already knowing the nitty gritty of data can't but help with the interpretation side of things.
Quote from: Drakken on October 06, 2011, 08:43:39 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 06, 2011, 08:42:36 PM
How would you call that field?
Low-level, white-collar professional job. It's not really a field, it's a corporate job in a corporation. What I do, another monkey could learn it and be effective after a few weeks and expect the same dead-end.
eh, I know that pain. QA isn't usually a good paying jobs.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:33:30 PM
But in the nearer term, take your average McDonald's or Wal-Mart, and cut staffing needs by 90%. Where do they go? When you can answer that question, I will consider the argument refuted. But I do not believe it is instructive to rely on the example of the fields emptying into the cities. There is no sector to absorb the redundant.
I can see two possible futures once that happens: either humans are enhanced so that everyone can actually contribute with creative tasks, or a small elite will provide panem et circenses for large class of unemployed citizens.
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Why not that flip that into being an analyst/researcher? Already knowing the nitty gritty of data can't but help with the interpretation side of things.
Because it's not? Researchers/analysts are the "manager" type Grallon was talking about. A lot of chiefs over very few Indians, so I can relate to his situation. They recruit laterally and externally when openings come, either from MBAs or their networks of contact, rather than promote from bottom-up, which contribute to my barren vision for a promotion or more responsabilities.
Quote from: Grey Foxeh, I know that pain. QA isn't usually a good paying jobs.
It's not QA. Client service wouldn't be doing a thing without the tables I create and the analysis I provide from the data they collect. After all, all the polls and market survey reports you read in the papers are from the tables people like me operationalize from the data collected in their polls.
They even attempted to put in my SMART objectives to take a Statistics class in college, so that I may use this knowledge while being payed $30K/yearly. Needless to say, I refused that objective as not being cost-effective (and the fact that it would be on my free time, and not on work time), and my bosses relented. :lol:
Like I said, it's a good job and if it weren't acorporate dead-end, I would stay, peddle my ware, and play the corporate political game. I just don't see an opening in the foreseeable future and I am not interested in being treated as an IT dork for another five years, so I prefer completely change sector, and aim to become my own boss.
Quote from: Drakken on October 06, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Why not that flip that into being an analyst/researcher? Already knowing the nitty gritty of data can't but help with the interpretation side of things.
Because it's not? Researchers/analysts are the "manager" type Grallon was talking about. A lot of chiefs over very few Indians, so I can relate to his situation. They recruit laterally and externally when openings come, either from MBAs or their networks of contact, rather than promote from bottom-up, which contribute to my barren vision for a promotion or more responsabilities.
Quote from: Grey Foxeh, I know that pain. QA isn't usually a good paying jobs.
It's not QA. Client service wouldn't be doing a thing without the tables I create and the analysis I provide from the data they collect. After all, all the polls and market survey reports you read in the papers are from the tables people like me operationalize from the data collected in their polls.
They even attempted to put in my SMART objectives to take a Statistics class in college, so that I may use this knowledge while being payed $30K/yearly. Needless to say, I refused that objective as not being cost-effective (and the fact that it would be on my free time, and not on work time), and my bosses relented. :lol:
Like I said, it's a good job and if it weren't acorporate dead-end, I would stay, peddle my ware, and play the corporate political game. I just don't see an opening in the foreseeable future and I am not interested in being treated as an IT dork for another five years, so I prefer completely change sector, and aim to become my own boss.
Oh I know, QA is what I do.
Quote from: Drakken on October 06, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Because it's not? Researchers/analysts are the "manager" type Grallon was talking about. A lot of chiefs over very few Indians, so I can relate to his situation. They recruit laterally and externally when openings come, rather than promote from bottom-up.
I wonder if this is a Quebec thing then. I know plenty of people who did pure data processing and then switched to client service. I, myself, began on the client service side (did minor analysis, stats were outsourced) but I think many a company would benefit from researchers/analysts who were more data focused - and hence why they got brought up here and there when they apply for such positions.
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 09:00:36 PM
I wonder if this is a Quebec thing then. I know plenty of people who did pure data processing and then switched to client service. I, myself, began on the client service side (did minor analysis, stats were outsourced) but I think many a company would benefit from researchers/analysts who were more data focused - and hence why they got brought up here and there when they apply for such positions.
Hence why, before I jump ship, I plan to have a talk with my bosses to let them know that I would like to have more responsabilities, and ask them what are the plans for me in the next five years for someone with my expertise and experience (I have been both data analyst and data processing manager, after all). My President and vice-presidents are my direct bosses on-site, after all.
If you don't ask you'll never know.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 06, 2011, 08:50:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:33:30 PM
But in the nearer term, take your average McDonald's or Wal-Mart, and cut staffing needs by 90%. Where do they go? When you can answer that question, I will consider the argument refuted. But I do not believe it is instructive to rely on the example of the fields emptying into the cities. There is no sector to absorb the redundant.
I can see two possible futures once that happens: either humans are enhanced so that everyone can actually contribute with creative tasks, or a small elite will provide panem et circenses for large class of unemployed citizens.
Yeah, enhancement is actually an option, although my post was long and sci-fi enough. Iirc, Stephen Hawking (granted, neither an economist nor a geneticist, but he' famous :P ) said something to the effect that it's a race between the maturation of artificial intelligence and genetic engineering.
Drak: life partner? You must be the anti-Martinus, because I don't think you ever mentioned that. :P
Quote from: Drakken on October 06, 2011, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2011, 09:00:36 PM
I wonder if this is a Quebec thing then. I know plenty of people who did pure data processing and then switched to client service. I, myself, began on the client service side (did minor analysis, stats were outsourced) but I think many a company would benefit from researchers/analysts who were more data focused - and hence why they got brought up here and there when they apply for such positions.
Hence why, before I jump ship, I plan to have a talk with my bosses to let them know that I would like to have more responsabilities, and ask them what are the plans for me in the next five years for someone with my expertise.
If you don't ask you'll never know.
Agreed, although I'd also say that you don't have to give up on the whole field. Plenty of market research outfits want their analysts/researchers to be familiar with stats programs. As long as you can speechify a bit about want to help clients and the importance of analysis, you could go far - well around here, at least.
Plumber = great choice, dude. Seriously. I've probably paid $10K to plumbers since I first got a house. :bleeding:
My great-great grandfather had to drop out of medical school in the 1880s because his mother lost their fortune, and ended up apprenticing as a plumber. His son followed in his footsteps and by the time he died (he was killed in a car accident in 1969) he had a plumbing company with like 40 plumbers working for him. They had a mansion in northeast Philadelphia with (black :cool: ) servants, three cars, etc. Even through the Depression he still did extremely well, because people didn't stop shitting even then. :smoke:
Quote from: Caliga on October 07, 2011, 06:34:55 AM
Plumber = great choice, dude. Seriously. I've probably paid $10K to plumbers since I first got a house. :bleeding:
My great-great grandfather had to drop out of medical school in the 1880s because his mother lost their fortune, and ended up apprenticing as a plumber. His son followed in his footsteps and by the time he died (he was killed in a car accident in 1969) he had a plumbing company with like 40 plumbers working for him. They had a mansion in northeast Philadelphia with (black :cool: ) servants, three cars, etc. Even through the Depression he still did extremely well, because people didn't stop shitting even then. :smoke:
Not sure how much this is a deviation from the topic as I wasnt reading the thread for a while, but I think the apparent obsession with college degrees is not only causing all kinds of troubles, but also rather foolish.
In an urbanizing, specializing world a good craftmanship could become very profitable. Not make-you-super-rich profitable, but allowing for a decent honest living.
And sure it is less comfortable than telcoing ad infinitum as a project manager, but more useful
Quote from: Drakken on October 06, 2011, 08:07:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
The problem is that the chances to be a "big time" anything are pretty low these days. Is there any field people wishing to make a lot of money really ought to be exploring?
Perhaps some sort of entrepreneurship in the skilled trades - say, becomming a plumber or electrician, with the goal of running a firm of plumbers or electricians. I dunno.
That's pretty much the way I settled for. I return to professional high school next year to learn plumbery with that exact plan in mind : working a few years to create myself a clientele and experience, and build my own business. I do it because I find it inconceivable that passed 30, after years of service, I would still be payed below the Canadian or even Quebec's average net salary. So I go where the money is, even if it means doing manual labor. I consider my years of university a few years wasted of my youth that led nowhere but to idle dreams, and my diploma a useless piece of paper.
Construction is the only sector with currently a massive demand for workers and actually paying bigger money for it : First year of apprenticeship would pay me 50% more of my actual salary - after five years of service.
I don't agree with CC - our generation is getting shafed big time and the promise that openings would come as the baby boomers weed themselves off toward retirement ended up untrue : either they stay or their job get closed by attrition. When a big chunk of your age bracket literally begs to work for free as interns, something's utterly wrong. It is white-collar employment paid way, way below minimum wage or fruit-handling Mexican labor. So what people perceive as "entitlement" is simply asking to be given decent wage to live, create a family, and finance a house through mortgage like their parents did.
Way I see it, there is a lot of class-based inertia - that is, kids want a university/professional education and not one in the trades because an office type job is seen as more prestigeous. Though with cubicle monkeys being paid diddly these days, dunno if that is true anymore ...
Quote from: Caliga on October 07, 2011, 06:34:55 AM
Plumber = great choice, dude. Seriously. I've probably paid $10K to plumbers since I first got a house. :bleeding:
My great-great grandfather had to drop out of medical school in the 1880s because his mother lost their fortune, and ended up apprenticing as a plumber. His son followed in his footsteps and by the time he died (he was killed in a car accident in 1969) he had a plumbing company with like 40 plumbers working for him. They had a mansion in northeast Philadelphia with (black :cool: ) servants, three cars, etc. Even through the Depression he still did extremely well, because people didn't stop shitting even then. :smoke:
This being my point - but just like not every law student ends up as a big-time rainmaker (or even a middling regulatory lawyer ;) ), not every plumbing apprentice ends up owning their own company - I actually have no idea which course, if pursued today, would on average lead to the money.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 09:06:33 PM
Drak: life partner? You must be the anti-Martinus, because I don't think you ever mentioned that. :P
I thought Drakken enjoyed being the sleazy guy in the bar mouthing lame pickup lines. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 08:21:50 AM
This being my point - but just like not every law student ends up as a big-time rainmaker (or even a middling regulatory lawyer ;) ), not every plumbing apprentice ends up owning their own company - I actually have no idea which course, if pursued today, would on average lead to the money.
Office work is the only way. Even if the pay is the same, at least the office monkey sits in an air-conditioned room, instead of having to deal with someone else's shit :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2011, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 09:06:33 PM
Drak: life partner? You must be the anti-Martinus, because I don't think you ever mentioned that. :P
I thought Drakken enjoyed being the sleazy guy in the bar mouthing lame pickup lines. :hmm:
Nah - D has said he has a girlfriend. Just that he won't ever marry her is all.
I think about becoming a plumber too but I'm not very handy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2011, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 09:06:33 PM
Drak: life partner? You must be the anti-Martinus, because I don't think you ever mentioned that. :P
I thought Drakken enjoyed being the sleazy guy in the bar mouthing lame pickup lines. :hmm:
Naw, I thought Drakken just enjoyed all of the fame, respect and glory of being
thought to be the sleazy guy in the bar mouthing lame pickup lines. ;)
Quote from: Monoriu on October 07, 2011, 08:43:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 08:21:50 AM
This being my point - but just like not every law student ends up as a big-time rainmaker (or even a middling regulatory lawyer ;) ), not every plumbing apprentice ends up owning their own company - I actually have no idea which course, if pursued today, would on average lead to the money.
Office work is the only way. Even if the pay is the same, at least the office monkey sits in an air-conditioned room, instead of having to deal with someone else's shit :P
There is indeed that.
But they guy who owns a plumbing company also gets to sit in an office ... ;)
I think a lot of office workers are still way overpaid. Any Drakken, look into what I said, there's definitely opportunity out there - maybe more on the market research side than just the pure opinion research but methods are virtually the same so I don't see what would hamper you ---- unless of course you are as socially gifted as you are here. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2011, 10:29:38 AM
I think a lot of office workers are still way overpaid.
Well I know one who is. ZING!
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:33:30 PM
I agree, but that doesn't really address my argument, which is a somewhat specualtive, futurist one.
It could happen - Keynes wrote an essay about this, which I know you read from another discussion. But you need to consider that at least in the West the level of affluence has already passed that at which Keynes imagined a transformation of social attitudes towards leisure.
What has happened instead is a cultural and economic response that has generated new demands for new kinds of services and goods to replace those that can now be produced more efficiently through machinery. So for example, modern household conveniences have had the effect of significantly reducing middle class demand for household servants, but now that demand is channelled to other kinds of services like personal trainers, yoga instructors and dog walkers. Scanners and computerized logistics systems have reduced the relative quantity of labor power in grocery markets, but now instead of the servants or the wife making the coffee with sugar, people go to Starbucks for latte. Armies of people are deployed doing all sorts of IT related tasks that never existed before.
In theory at some point satiation of needs can be reached, but historically what seemed like reasonable predictions of future satiation have always failed to pan out. Human beings appear to be endlessly creative in creating new wants and needs, notwithstanding the tut-tutting of the Frankfurt School. As long as that continues, and I can think of no reason it won't, your futurist scenario won't come to be.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 07, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:33:30 PM
I agree, but that doesn't really address my argument, which is a somewhat specualtive, futurist one.
It could happen - Keynes wrote an essay about this, which I know you read from another discussion. But you need to consider that at least in the West the level of affluence has already passed that at which Keynes imagined a transformation of social attitudes towards leisure.
What has happened instead is a cultural and economic response that has generated new demands for new kinds of services and goods to replace those that can now be produced more efficiently through machinery. So for example, modern household conveniences have had the effect of significantly reducing middle class demand for household servants, but now that demand is channelled to other kinds of services like personal trainers, yoga instructors and dog walkers. Scanners and computerized logistics systems have reduced the relative quantity of labor power in grocery markets, but now instead of the servants or the wife making the coffee with sugar, people go to Starbucks for latte. Armies of people are deployed doing all sorts of IT related tasks that never existed before.
In theory at some point satiation of needs can be reached, but historically what seemed like reasonable predictions of future satiation have always failed to pan out. Human beings appear to be endlessly creative in creating new wants and needs, notwithstanding the tut-tutting of the Frankfurt School. As long as that continues, and I can think of no reason it won't, your futurist scenario won't come to be.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it is a worthwhile perspective that time out of the workforce has increased dramatically since the 1950s visions of a future with very little work. We spend much longer in school, and much longer in retirement. Our workday may not have been reduced to 4 hours, but some of those efficiencies that were envisioned have been captured as leisure time as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it is a worthwhile perspective that time out of the workforce has increased dramatically since the 1950s visions of a future with very little work. We spend much longer in school, and much longer in retirement. Our workday may not have been reduced to 4 hours, but some of those efficiencies that were envisioned have been captured as leisure time as well.
People are not retiring as early as they used to. In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.
Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased. For many people that increase is unpaid. Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.
If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it is a worthwhile perspective that time out of the workforce has increased dramatically since the 1950s visions of a future with very little work. We spend much longer in school, and much longer in retirement. Our workday may not have been reduced to 4 hours, but some of those efficiencies that were envisioned have been captured as leisure time as well.
People are not retiring as early as they used to. In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.
Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased. For many people that increase is unpaid. Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.
If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.
:yes:
You're right about retirement (though I'm not sure if your reasons for the changes are right) and about the communications thing, but I'm almost certain that the length of the work day is not increasing, at least in the US.
Quote from: dps on October 07, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
You're right about retirement (though I'm not sure if your reasons for the changes are right) and about the communications thing, but I'm almost certain that the length of the work day is not increasing, at least in the US.
I didnt give any reasons for it. I simply told you how the law has adjusted to that reality.
Why are you certain that people in the US are not working extra unpaid time?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it is a worthwhile perspective that time out of the workforce has increased dramatically since the 1950s visions of a future with very little work. We spend much longer in school, and much longer in retirement. Our workday may not have been reduced to 4 hours, but some of those efficiencies that were envisioned have been captured as leisure time as well.
People are not retiring as early as they used to. In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.
Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased. For many people that increase is unpaid. Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.
If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.
The internet, however, has increased leisure time at work, surely.
I mean, this place keeps going through working hours.
:huh: I never post while I'm working.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
:huh: I never post while I'm working.
What do you do all day then?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
People are not retiring as early as they used to. In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.
Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased. For many people that increase is unpaid. Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.
If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.
But I think you are misunderstanding the point I'm driving at:
say in the 1930s, the retirement age may have been 65 in the US, but life expectancy was less than that. The average person never retired and started work at 18. That is 70% of life working.
Today the life expectancy is roughly 80. If the average person starts work at 20 and retires at 68, that is just 60% of life working.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2011, 11:17:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2011, 10:29:38 AM
I think a lot of office workers are still way overpaid.
Well I know one who is. ZING!
For what I do - likely. However, I do it well, so there you go. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
People are not retiring as early as they used to. In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.
Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased. For many people that increase is unpaid. Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.
If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.
But I think you are misunderstanding the point I'm driving at:
say in the 1930s, the retirement age may have been 65 in the US, but life expectancy was less than that. The average person never retired and started work at 18. That is 70% of life working.
Today the life expectancy is roughly 80. If the average person starts work at 20 and retires at 68, that is just 60% of life working.
:bleeding: With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.
Quote from: WarspiteThe internet, however, has increased leisure time at work, surely.
I mean, this place keeps going through working hours.
I'm pretty sure Toronto, for example, ain't on the Greenwich Mean.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
:bleeding: With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.
I realize that isn't all that accurate, but no one on this forum is going to sort through life expectancy and other tables to perform a rigorous analysis. It illustrates the point I was trying to make.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:21:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
:bleeding: With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.
I realize that isn't all that accurate, but no one on this forum is going to sort through life expectancy and other tables to perform a rigorous analysis. It illustrates the point I was trying to make.
It did prompt me to pull up some of the info and think hmm, he's talking out of his ass with that example.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:21:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
:bleeding: With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.
I realize that isn't all that accurate, but no one on this forum is going to sort through life expectancy and other tables to perform a rigorous analysis. It illustrates the point I was trying to make.
Ok, granted with those caveats, although this is bound to be a very inaccurate approximation. You're still missing another huge piece, though: the drastically increased labor participation rate for women.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:21:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
:bleeding: With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.
I realize that isn't all that accurate, but no one on this forum is going to sort through life expectancy and other tables to perform a rigorous analysis. It illustrates the point I was trying to make.
Ok, granted with those caveats, although this is bound to be a very inaccurate approximation. You're still missing another huge piece, though: the drastically increased labor participation rate for women.
Oh I thought about that too. :hug:
I should add though that feminist in me didn't really know which direction to take that in. Women's work and all that. :contract:
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:21:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
:bleeding: With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.
I realize that isn't all that accurate, but no one on this forum is going to sort through life expectancy and other tables to perform a rigorous analysis. It illustrates the point I was trying to make.
Ok, granted with those caveats, although this is bound to be a very inaccurate approximation. You're still missing another huge piece, though: the drastically increased labor participation rate for women.
I don't necessarily agree that increased labor participation for women means decreased leisure.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:34:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:21:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
:bleeding: With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.
I realize that isn't all that accurate, but no one on this forum is going to sort through life expectancy and other tables to perform a rigorous analysis. It illustrates the point I was trying to make.
Ok, granted with those caveats, although this is bound to be a very inaccurate approximation. You're still missing another huge piece, though: the drastically increased labor participation rate for women.
I don't necessarily agree that increased labor participation for women means decreased leisure.
indeed. Office "leisure" has surely increased :perv: :P
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2011, 05:29:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:21:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
:bleeding: With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.
I realize that isn't all that accurate, but no one on this forum is going to sort through life expectancy and other tables to perform a rigorous analysis. It illustrates the point I was trying to make.
It did prompt me to pull up some of the info and think hmm, he's talking out of his ass with that example.
I didn't fact check the numbers, but the trend is there. On average we spend more time in retirement, and more time obtaining an education.
Anyway, you may be right in comparison of 1930 vs. 2010, but I don't think that 1930 is regarded by anyone as the peak of leisure. I would guess that 1950ies or 1960ies are more stereotypically leisurely decades.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:41:48 PM
Anyway, you may be right in comparison of 1930 vs. 2010, but I don't think that 1930 is regarded by anyone as the peak of leisure. I would guess that 1950ies or 1960ies are more stereotypically leisurely decades.
Does that change anything though?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:49:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:41:48 PM
Anyway, you may be right in comparison of 1930 vs. 2010, but I don't think that 1930 is regarded by anyone as the peak of leisure. I would guess that 1950ies or 1960ies are more stereotypically leisurely decades.
Does that change anything though?
I don't know, but it might. At least the stereotype of 1950ies is that a man went to work for 8 hours, while his wife stayed home. That would kind of compare well to both working 10 hours a day, from a leisure perspective.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 07, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
In theory at some point satiation of needs can be reached, but historically what seemed like reasonable predictions of future satiation have always failed to pan out. Human beings appear to be endlessly creative in creating new wants and needs, notwithstanding the tut-tutting of the Frankfurt School. As long as that continues, and I can think of no reason it won't, your futurist scenario won't come to be.
You can see the point of satiation now. It depends a lot on individuals. There are millions on welfare or living from their parents or trust funds that do not to work.
And there are others who continue working when they don't really need to. For example, I know a doctor, very good at what he does, who makes obscene amounts of money -- yet works pretty much all day. He just loves his job.
As for the creation of new wants and needs, that doesn't necessarily imply a sizable workforce has to be employed in the sufficiently far future. The Steve Jobs of the future would still be there to figure out what people want, as well as his engineers and the like. But the iPod of the future could be assembled, shipped and distributed entirely without human intervention.
Many people think that would free millions of workers to become entrepreneurs, engineers or whatever themselves. I quite frankly doubt even a sizable minority of the population has the required mental abilities (and will) to do such a thing. In my experience creativity is a fairly scarce resource.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:51:57 PM
I don't know, but it might. At least the stereotype of 1950ies is that a man went to work for 8 hours, while his wife stayed home. That would kind of compare well to both working 10 hours a day, from a leisure perspective.
Do both work 10 hours now? Sure some do, but I don't think regular 50 hour workweeks are that common. It is hard to generalize without data on this though.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 07, 2011, 05:58:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 07, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
In theory at some point satiation of needs can be reached, but historically what seemed like reasonable predictions of future satiation have always failed to pan out. Human beings appear to be endlessly creative in creating new wants and needs, notwithstanding the tut-tutting of the Frankfurt School. As long as that continues, and I can think of no reason it won't, your futurist scenario won't come to be.
You can see the point of satiation now. It depends a lot on individuals. There are millions on welfare or living from their parents or trust funds that do not to work.
And there are others who continue working when they don't really need to. For example, I know a doctor, very good at what he does, who makes obscene amounts of money -- yet works pretty much all day. He just loves his job.
As for the creation of new wants and needs, that doesn't necessarily imply a sizable workforce has to be employed in the sufficiently far future. The Steve Jobs of the future would still be there to figure out what people want, as well as his engineers and the like. But the iPod of the future could be assembled, shipped and distributed entirely without human intervention.
Many people think that would free millions of workers to become entrepreneurs, engineers or whatever themselves. I quite frankly doubt even a sizable minority of the population has the required mental abilities (and will) to do such a thing. In my experience creativity is a fairly scarce resource.
Indeed. That's my take on it. Humans are not fungible.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:34:10 PM
Quote from: dps on October 07, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
You're right about retirement (though I'm not sure if your reasons for the changes are right) and about the communications thing, but I'm almost certain that the length of the work day is not increasing, at least in the US.
I didnt give any reasons for it. I simply told you how the law has adjusted to that reality.
Why are you certain that people in the US are not working extra unpaid time?
I didn't say they weren't. I said that the length of the workday isn't increasing. But I haven't seen any evidence that large numbers of people are working extra unpaid time, either. Now, if you want to count people on salary or straight commission sales as working extra unpaid time, sure, people do that. But that's always been the case for salaried professionals and for salesmen; I've seen nothing to indicate that people in those types of jobs work longer hours than they did in the previous generation, and the rules about who can be on salary have changed, so there are lots of jobs that were once filled by salaried employees that have to be filled by hourly workers now. For example, my mom was on salary as a secretary, and my stepfather worked on salary at a non-commission sales job. Those positions would be hourly now. And if you're talking about hourly positions rather than salaried or commissioned positions, then it's quit against the law to have people working "off the clock". Now, that doesn't mean it doens't happen--I am aware of some cases where it has--but I don't see any reason to believe that it's widespread of that it is becoming more common.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 08:21:50 AM
This being my point - but just like not every law student ends up as a big-time rainmaker (or even a middling regulatory lawyer ;) ), not every plumbing apprentice ends up owning their own company - I actually have no idea which course, if pursued today, would on average lead to the money.
True, but I think my great-grandfather and his dad did so well because they were intelligent, well-educated (by the standard of the day) men. so they weren't just your average Joe plumbers but were capable of expanding beyond just the physical acts of plumbing into managing workers, money, etc.
I would guess anyone on this board who went into a trade like that could be more than just Joe Plumber or Joe Carpenter, too.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2011, 08:52:39 AM
But they guy who owns a plumbing company also gets to sit in an office ... ;)
Nope. :P Dunno about g-g-grandfather, but my great grandfather worked lots of jobs himself, and when he wasn't onsite he was in his workshop (outbuilding on their property). I'm not sure what percentage of the time spent in his workship was devoted to working vs. drinking out of sight of his crazy Baptist wife, though. :ph34r:
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
:huh: I never post while I'm working.
Same (not amymore). My new company treats me so well I'd feel too bad about being non-productive while I'm at work.
To vastly oversimplify, Keynesians would say unemployment is caused by insufficient demand, whereas a Monetarist or member of the Austrian school would say it's caused by the slowness with which the supply of and demand for labor react to changes in conditions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:09:38 PM
To vastly oversimplify, Keynesians would say unemployment is caused by insufficient demand, whereas a Monetarist or member of the Austrian school would say it's caused by the slowness with which the supply of and demand for labor react to changes in conditions.
And a rational person would say that Keynesians have it right, and that members of the Austrian school are charlatans.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2011, 03:16:24 PM
And a rational person would say that Keynesians have it right, and that members of the Austrian school are charlatans.
Damn good point. Wish I had considered that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:31:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2011, 03:16:24 PM
And a rational person would say that Keynesians have it right, and that members of the Austrian school are charlatans.
Damn good point. Wish I had considered that.
I wish lots of Republicans had considered that.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2011, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:09:38 PM
To vastly oversimplify, Keynesians would say unemployment is caused by insufficient demand, whereas a Monetarist or member of the Austrian school would say it's caused by the slowness with which the supply of and demand for labor react to changes in conditions.
And a rational person would say that Keynesians have it right, and that members of the Austrian school are charlatans.
:)
I work from 0545 to 1700. No overtime.
The military sucks.
Quote from: Siege on October 09, 2011, 02:49:53 AM
I work from 0545 to 1700. No overtime.
The military sucks.
My usual day is also 11+ hours of work, no overtime.
Ironic that the mighty Mart admits to being the same as the loser brutes in the military he despises so much.
Quote from: Siege on October 09, 2011, 02:49:53 AM
I work from 0545 to 1700. No overtime.
The Army sucks.
I work from 0755 to 1500. (with a 1hr 20 minute lunch)
And maybe an hour or two of homework. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2011, 05:30:36 AM
Quote from: Siege on October 09, 2011, 02:49:53 AM
I work from 0545 to 1700. No overtime.
The Army sucks.
I work from 0755 to 1500. (with a 1hr 20 minute lunch)
And maybe an hour or two of homework. :P
When do you do PT?
Quote from: Siege on October 09, 2011, 06:44:24 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2011, 05:30:36 AM
Quote from: Siege on October 09, 2011, 02:49:53 AM
I work from 0545 to 1700. No overtime.
The Army sucks.
I work from 0755 to 1500. (with a 1hr 20 minute lunch)
And maybe an hour or two of homework. :P
When do you do PT?
PT?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 06:22:40 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:06:26 PM
I have a degree from a decent state school, 3.49 GPA, Honors Program, 6 months studying abroad, internship experience, 2 years working as an English teacher abroad, and conversational skills in German and Korean. I've applied to government jobs, contractor jobs, admin assistant, secretarial, and landscaping jobs, and gotten none of them. Tell me what job I should apply for, since I apparently feel "entitled" to those jobs and don't deserve them. And I'm not alone in my position.
Stop whining! Work harder! THE SOD MUST FLOW.
:lol:
And while I'm ranting and raving, I want to register my absolute disgust at the current Republican party. Their entire response to this mess has been to blame the victims (unemployed) and push only for tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporations. Fuck them, and double-fuck Rep. Cantor, who tried to prevent FEMA disaster relief even for the counties in his district suffering from flooding.
Well, at least he isn't being a hypocrite.
Quote from: Siege on October 09, 2011, 06:44:24 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2011, 05:30:36 AM
Quote from: Siege on October 09, 2011, 02:49:53 AM
I work from 0545 to 1700. No overtime.
The Army sucks.
I work from 0755 to 1500. (with a 1hr 20 minute lunch)
And maybe an hour or two of homework. :P
When do you do PT?
At whatever time I choose.
What is Air Force PT like? Education on proper posture while sitting?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 09, 2011, 09:39:06 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2011, 06:22:40 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 06:06:26 PM
I have a degree from a decent state school, 3.49 GPA, Honors Program, 6 months studying abroad, internship experience, 2 years working as an English teacher abroad, and conversational skills in German and Korean. I've applied to government jobs, contractor jobs, admin assistant, secretarial, and landscaping jobs, and gotten none of them. Tell me what job I should apply for, since I apparently feel "entitled" to those jobs and don't deserve them. And I'm not alone in my position.
Stop whining! Work harder! THE SOD MUST FLOW.
:lol:
And while I'm ranting and raving, I want to register my absolute disgust at the current Republican party. Their entire response to this mess has been to blame the victims (unemployed) and push only for tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporations. Fuck them, and double-fuck Rep. Cantor, who tried to prevent FEMA disaster relief even for the counties in his district suffering from flooding.
Well, at least he isn't being a hypocrite.
Not anymore: he decried Occupy Wall Street as "dangerous" and "divisive" while supporting the Tea Party protests.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 09, 2011, 05:16:31 PM
Not anymore: he decried Occupy Wall Street as "dangerous" and "divisive" while supporting the Tea Party protests.
I could see it. The Wall Streeters with their camping out and bathing in public restrooms are causing a health hazard.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2011, 03:45:04 PM
What is Air Force PT like? Education on proper posture while sitting?
"Not be 27 years of age, hope for the best."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:09:38 PM
To vastly oversimplify, Keynesians would say unemployment is caused by insufficient demand, whereas a Monetarist or member of the Austrian school would say it's caused by the slowness with which the supply of and demand for labor react to changes in conditions.
The problem that neo-classical theorists (which monetarists fall under along with "neo-Keynesians" and much of mainstream academic economics) have is that they begin with a theory that presumes full employment. The Austrians don't really have this precise problem, because they utilize a disequilibrium model that takes into account cyclical activity. But the neo-classicals don't have even this so they have come up with various explanatory kludges like cartels, unions, "sticky wages," unintended effects of regulations, etc. Some of these things may indeed have some effect on employment, but the bigger problem is that the underlying premise that capitalistic economies have a natural tendency to full employment equilibrium is a fantasy based on unreal assumptions that would only make sense for barter economy populated entirely by automotons - or as one distinguished Nobel laureate expressed it - "a mechanical artificial world populated by . . . interacting robots."
Mainstream academic economics has evolved in such a way because operating with such theories facilitates generating complex forecasting models and interesting research programs, and that helps economists get jobs in investment banks and government, and make tenure at universities. And for certain purposes and certain periods, these kinds of models have functional uses, which is why the underlying theory can persist despite its obvious shortcomings. But in terms of answering big questions like what causes unemployment, or answering the Queen's question about crises, the neo-classical theory has little useful to say, and indeed, doesn't really even really address the question.
I would be tempted to respond if I knew what the hell kludge meant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 04:06:02 PM
I would be tempted to respond if I knew what the hell kludge meant.
A fudge factor, essentially.
The difficult question for those arguing that labor markets never clear in the absence of Keynesian pump priming is how to explain those periods of full employment prior to the introduction of fiscal policy.
The fact is labor markets do eventually clear, supply and demand do eventually intersect. The only real issue is the tradeoff between the costs of unemployment in the short and medium term vs. the costs of adding to the national deficit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 04:31:28 PM
The difficult question for those arguing that labor markets never clear in the absence of Keynesian pump priming
It's not a difficult question because that isn't the theory. The theory is that there is no natural tendency to equilibrium; that on the contrary there is a natural tendency to cyclicality and that it can be possible for economies to get stuck for significant periods of time in the stagnation phase. But Keynes himself admitted that during the stagnation phase there are internal dynamics that eventually will push the economy back into expansion even under conditions of laissez faire; the question is how long one must wait for those forces to exert themselves, and how much economic potential is lost through the wait.
QuoteThe fact is labor markets do eventually clear, supply and demand do eventually intersect.
Individual markets for labor may clear in that sense; but THE "Labor Market" in the economy-wide sense never really does because it is just a theoretical construct, not a reality. There is no agora where all the nations workers can come together bid out their services (and be bid upon) by all employers. One can only speak of periods of relative full employment and periods of relative unemployment.
QuoteThe only real issue is the tradeoff between the costs of unemployment in the short and medium term vs. the costs of adding to the national deficit.
That tradeoff may be illusory because if economic activity (employment) is allowed to stagnate, then the national deficit tends to increase even as spending is held steady or even contracted. Similarly, to the extent government spending successfully offsets economic contraction and returns the economy to a growth path the long-term debt position of the government may be improved, at least as measured in % of GDP terms.
In any case, one may legitimately question the efficacy of particular Keynesian measures without putting into question the overall validity of the critique and analysis of the underlying causes of unemployment.
No disagreement with anything there Joan. Though I would like to highlight the heavy use of qualifiers in the last paragraph.
Now if only Guller and his friends read your post.
Guller has friends?
I was diagnosed with a fear of Agoras. So I've stayed clear of Greece ever since.
I like Dguller. I'd even invite him to my birthday party. If I had one, and he promised lavish gifts.
I'd invite you all over, and then push y'all into a pit filled with snakes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2011, 06:54:27 PM
I'd invite you all over, and then push y'all into a pit filled with snakes.
Why does it have to be snakes ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 10, 2011, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2011, 06:54:27 PM
I'd invite you all over, and then push y'all into a pit filled with snakes.
Why does it have to be snakes ?
Because his pit full of rabbits is reserved for under-performing vegetables.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2011, 06:54:27 PM
I'd invite you all over, and then push y'all into a pit filled with snakes.
I like snakes. :wub:
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 10, 2011, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2011, 06:54:27 PM
I'd invite you all over, and then push y'all into a pit filled with snakes.
Why does it have to be snakes ?
punji sticks are on backorder.
I did a little looking on Wikipedia, and I was little surprised to find that I am a small but significant cause of unemployment in the world. .8% of all unemployment is caused by me. Even had my name and a bunch of graphs and mathematical formula to prove it.