Originally Posted by DTD Alum (Post 2099672)

I agree completely. I think that's why there is a sense of "get real" frustration against many opponents of Occupy _____________ (Occupy Palo Alto just started yesterday, it's getting absurd). Silver spoon or not, to maintain a spot in the top 1% you need to have an incredible balance of experience, skills and education. Even those (athletes, celebrities, etc) who don't necessarily have the education part down clearly have some irreplaceable qualities they have worked for that adds value to their resume. So when the average member of the 99% asks, "Why not me?" the answer is pretty simple: "Because you can't do it and haven't earned it."

Now I think where the problem lies is that 99% of the population is an outrageously broad spectrum, and there is no one "reason" for the fact that they "can't do it and haven't earned it". Some people don't have the skills necessary to get them to the top 1% because they partied too hard in college (if they even made it that far), didn't take school seriously, refuse to think about long term goals, don't have the willpower or determination to develop a skill over a long period of time, are entitled, etc. Some people don't have the skills necessary to get them to the top 1% because they spent their adolescence supporting their struggling family, or because obstacle after obstacle was thrown at them due to whatever factor (poverty, race, physical disability, mental health problems, failing school system, language barriers). And then still there are those who are harder to define...those who had enough obstacles thrown at them to feel sympathy for, but still made choices that would drastically affect their ability to overcome them. Do you sympathize, chastise, or both?

There is a definite "one size fits all" viewpoint being used on either side of the issue...some denounce all those in the 99% as being stupid, lazy, unrealistic, etc. Some seem to be advocating that everybody in the 99% is a great person who just fell upon hard circumstances and therefore they have no responsibility for where they are now. The truth, like always, is somewhere in the middle. There is no "aggregate" reason for the inequality because it is going to differ so much from one person in the 99% to the next.

I think unemployed skilled people are the minority of the 99% as well. Their situations are beyond tragic, but I don't think their plight is really what these protests are about.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2099713)

The notion of "irreplaceable skills" in relation to the type(s) of skills that are rewarded with absolute top-dollar in the modern American economy is borderline laughable ... how many of the richest 50 or 100 Americans are doctors or laboratory researchers or Nobel winners?

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2099555)

Where are the skills? I think we need a reality check in this country. The days of study whatever you want to study because the economy will make room for you and give you your dream job is over.
http://news.yahoo.com/many-u-manufac...211104184.html

Originally Posted by DTD Alum (Post 2099743)

So you don't find the technological vision of somebody like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to be an irreplaceable skill? Or the revolutionary intuition towards investment that Warren Buffett has to be an irreplaceable skill? The ability to think outside the box and redefine how the entire world interacts with each other a la Mark Zuckerberg isn't an irreplaceable skill? You're a fool if you don't think that the vision, determination and experience required to guide a Fortune 500 company to the top isn't an "irreplaceable skill".

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2099754)

The plural of anecdote isn't "data" ...

You're a fool if you think 500 Fortune500 CEOs are a large part of the 3,000,000 that comprise the top 1%, to start. And second, you're ignoring the substance of my post almost entirely, in favor of weird single examples ... of course "business acumen" is a powerful skill, and I'm not saying those folks shouldn't be rewarded.

However, that skill is rewarded disproportionately in comparison with other skills, many of which people would argue are more "useful" in everyday life. Unless you want to argue cardiologist versus Facebook? Come on.

Additionally, it's not clear "Fortune500" CEOs aren't eminently replaceable - after all, the majority of those companies stay on the list year after year, even with turnover among executives, right?

You named a handful of revolutionary thinkers - that's not who I'm talking about at all, and I think that was clear. At no point did I fault CEOs for making huge money. If anything, I took issue with your language in relationship to market realities.

Originally Posted by DTD Alum (Post 2099766)

Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.

Now if we want to talk about examples of greedy CEOs with abnormally large salaries we can. However in your post(s) you seem to be pushing the ridiculous attitude that those who are successfully wealthy are only there because they started wealthy. I think that's bullshit. They are there because of hard work and skills. Perhaps their status gave them opportunities that would be harder for others to obtain, but ignorance and disrespect as to what these people are bringing to the table is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by DTD Alum (Post 2099766)

Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2099665)

The average American is under-educated, under-skilled, under-experienced, and lives paycheck-to-paycheck by chance (and in many instances by choice). This is a result of many factors including America's education system; and correlated with social class, gender, and race and ethnicity.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2099793)

What do you consider "under-educated and under-skilled?" I'm not being a smart-ass--I just wonder if I'm in some sort of bubble.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2099802)

DP can correct me if I'm wrong, but national stats show that under 40% of Americans have a degree, and trade/vocational school entrance rates have stagnated or declined recently as well. The largest portion of the workforce is in unskilled/service/blue-collar jobs as well.

It's not a stretch to say the 50th percentile American has no degree or trade skills, and little to no job experience in a "skilled" profession (or anything other than unskilled/service jobs).

Originally Posted by amIblue? (Post 2099657)

Do you seriously not know skilled people who have lost jobs in this economy? Do you truly believe that everyone who is unemployed is just living in HPRL thinking that they are special snowflakes around whom the world revolves?

I'm not saying that there aren't some shiftless, spoiled people who are in this group because clearly, there are those people who are just pitiful. That being said, the majority of people that I have known that have lost jobs and who are struggling to find ANY job are experienced, middle-aged or older professionals that companies have let go.

There is thought in the corporate world that younger employees are simply cheaper to have on the books due to having to pay a lower salary and lower benefit costs. (It costs less to provide health insurance for a worker in his/her 20s than a worker in his/her 40s/50s.) This trend starts a chain reaction. Experienced employee loses his/her job, applies everywhere possible, loses out to younger employee in the hiring process at alternate job, and then gets even older as the job search lengthens. The companies then suffer because they lack bench strength from seasoned employees. There are things that come up in the work world that only time and experience can teach. (This would be why doctors have to intern in hospitals after graduating from medical school - theoretical knowledge only gets a person so far.)

The current economic situation is not so easily cut and dried as you purport with your comment about skills. I believe the broad spectrum of issues is why OWS is having such a difficult time getting its arms around what they're trying to accomplish. There is a wealth of skills and knowledge out there looking for work, not welfare.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2099665)

I don't think this is what PiKA is talking about. I also don't think he's talking about shiftless, spoiled people. There are a lot of skilled, educated, and experienced unemployed people.

But, 99% is a whooooooooooooole lot of people, so:

The average American is under-educated, under-skilled, under-experienced, and lives paycheck-to-paycheck by chance (and in many instances by choice). This is a result of many factors including America's education system; and correlated with social class, gender, and race and ethnicity.

When people talk about this 99%, they need to understand what the average person in that 99% has on her/his resume`. Those who are well skilled, well educated, and highly experienced are the minority of that 99%. This is why people need to be realistic about the types of jobs that this 99% expect to have access to in this global economy. I think that is what PiKA2001 is saying.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2099802)

DP can correct me if I'm wrong, but national stats show that under 40% of Americans have a degree, and trade/vocational school entrance rates have stagnated or declined recently as well. The largest portion of the workforce is in unskilled/service/blue-collar jobs as well.

It's not a stretch to say the 50th percentile American has no degree or trade skills, and little to no job experience in a "skilled" profession (or anything other than unskilled/service jobs).

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2099850)

I think it's even lower--something around 27% of the general population has a 4-year college degree? Since most jobs don't require a college degree or more than a few semesters of technical training, is it fair to call those people "under-educated?" When I hear that term, I typically think of people who didn't finish HS.

Originally Posted by *winter* (Post 2099751)

Wait...is it just me, or did we already discuss this subject on this thread? ;) I agree- people need to go where the money is, so to speak.


The point I was making is, just because an agency has "jobs" to offer does not mean there are jobs abounding everywhere. Around here, the temp agencies are just that- temps. 90% of the jobs are not permanent. Like now, you could get into any warehouse/shipping job around here for the holidays (provided you have experience) but as of 1/1/2012 you'll be laid off again.

There really aren't a ton of jobs, so today's HS and college students, and job-career changers need to keep this in mind, moreso than in the past. There are always lists of professions most in demand, that's where people need to be concentrating. If I got laid off tomorrow, I would be taking that route, personally. I'm not trying to spend 2 more years in school to get out and not have a job.

The rules have changed. I think people should be grateful that for most, the American Dream is still achievable. They days of absolutely living your dream, buying a house for several hundred thousand dollars, driving a brand-new car and getting granite countertops are over. Remember what it's all about- living a better life, a comfortable life, the lives our ancestors dreamed of when they struggled through world wars, depression, factory jobs, immigrat housing. I don't think the change in values is bad- it's time to get back to basics and off of this absurd idea that the next generation has to blow away the past one to the point that we're in Mc Mansions and ultra-giant SUVs.

I know that is not ALL of what it's about, and I still think that there aren't enough jobs...but thinking with that logic I can understand why the movement would annoy people or come across as whiny. You are inherently privledged in order to be so disenfranchised in the first plac: "Oh I went to college and now I can't get a job." Hm, in many cities over 50% of the students graduate from HIGH SCHOOL...The soldier who has been to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times and now has severe PTSD and cannot function in a classroom setting because of his issues will not be able to attend college. It's all relative. Many of those protesting are, as my mom would say, "crying with a loaf of bread under their arm."

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2099859)

I really think we need to drop our uppity views of trade schools, apprenticeships, community colleges, alternative job training, etc.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2099860)

Do people have uppity views regarding those? People who need those for whatever reason will continue to use those for whatever reason.

Is it uppity to acknowledge that most of the people who use those options (in general) have tracked themselves (i.e. tracking doesn't end in K-12 grades) into certain types of jobs and occupations? Is it uppity to acknowledge the social class (and its correlates) implications of that?

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2099860)

Do people have uppity views regarding those? People who need those for whatever reason will continue to use those for whatever reason.

Is it uppity to acknowledge that most of the people who use those options (in general) have tracked themselves (i.e. tracking doesn't end in K-12 grades) into certain types of jobs and occupations? Is it uppity to acknowledge the social class (and its correlates) implications of that?

Originally Posted by amIblue? (Post 2099869)

...but if they are in a career that they enjoy and that they are satisfied with....

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2099875)

So you've never seen or heard someone who holds a 4-year degree from a traditional school scoff or look down on someone who went to a trade school or received a degree from a non traditional school (University of Phoenix)?

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2099850)

I think it's even lower--something around 27% of the general population has a 4-year college degree? Since most jobs don't require a college degree or more than a few semesters of technical training, is it fair to call those people "under-educated?" When I hear that term, I typically think of people who didn't finish HS.

Originally Posted by katydidKD (Post 2099872)

Haven't read all of the posts, but there is something to be said for trade-type jobs. People have uppity views.
A lot of those jobs are incredibly secure. Many skilled workers make more than people with four year degrees. Some people are just "above" being a plumber, even though they make relatively good money. Not to mention, you cannot outsource electricians and plumbers. As long as people use toilets and electricity, you need them and their special skills. Moreover, if you do well, you can move up into a supervisory position or even start your own business and have unlimited potential. Those are just two examples.

Originally Posted by *winter* (Post 2099942)

Trade schools here are hurting for people to apply- while 4 year college population grows each year, to the point that new dorms and buildings are being constructed to handle the overflow.

Irony is...the trades are screaming for applicants. We have an electrical program here (the technical name escapes me.) It was started in this area specifically to address the unemployment and/or untrained issue, and it was tailored around the needs of the employers, who were begging for qualified applicants. Still...every year, they face low enrollment. :confused:

How much easier, how much clearer does it all have to be? In the articles I've read, they always mention students (HS seniors) "looking down" on trade schools, as if this represents settling, or taking the "dumb" path in life. Nothing could be further from the truth! "Dumb" is paying out the wazoo with LOANS to finance an education that is obsolete, just to prove to the world that you got a Bachelors' degree.

One of the "scarier" aspects of some of these programs (and the water/wastewater industry, which I am closely involved) is that it involves...dun dun dunnnnn...MATH and SCIENCE! And people run screaming in droves from that. The applicants I've worked with in water plants, who were dedicated to learning the profession and passing the certification exam, have generally had few issues. It's not such a steep learning curve that it's impossible, but it seems to be very intimidating to people who don't like math and science.

Just in general, this whole protest is starting to bug me.

As a veteran, it really p*sses me off to see people whose avitars are upside down flags (when we still have soldiers in active war zones ATM!) I know it's "freedom of speech" but have some freaking respect- people are currently fighting so you can sit and complain that millionaires don't pay enough taxes.

Then there is some video of people pushing through a police barracade, and the police being, well- police. All the cries of lawsuits and (this really set my teeth on edge) "it's as bad as it was in the 60s!" No...in the 60's people were shot. In the 60's people had fire hoses turned on them when they were simply peacefully protesting. Nice try, though.

So...now we have the cost of daily police of these areas, AND the lawsuits which will arise. How much is this costing?!?! When we did the G20 crowd control in Pittsburgh, for less than a week, the price tag was (if memory serves) around 5 million, maybe more. What else could a city do with 5 million dollars? Hm, maybe beef up its science and math education so people won't be afraid to enter technical programs which require these skills? :rolleyes: As a government employee, I freaking wish someone would hand me a 5 million dollar grant- I could make a lot of things happen for a lot of people. Permanent things- water lines, permanent access to clean water, sewage, fire protection.

I just can't get past the idea that it's wasting precious resources. All the 99 percent who pay the taxes are going to have to pay even more. Genius!

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 2099987)

Well, that part was a joke, DrPhil. I think my sarcasm is broken.

Originally Posted by *winter* (Post 2099991)

The problem comes in when the municipalities are already distressed to the point that overtime is going to really take its toll.

And I just hate stupid lawsuits in general, I imagine they will abound from this mele. People antagonize the police until they have to use force, then they cry about it. The reason we didn't have to use force in PGH is because the protests were peaceful. Yeah a few dumb college students broke a few windows, but that was the extent of it. The actual protesters were very respectful.

Hey, I go paid to sit in a tent for 5 days...so it wasn't a bad deal for me. Plus 5 days of training that I never had to use.

The training is tailored around NOT using force if possible. It gets to the point where you are praying everyone does what they are supposed to, because if a soldier has to take someone down...that is actually dreaded, because you know you will be on YouTube as the new face of government brutality.

I know there are some crooked cops who just want to beat someone with a club, but the majority would rather be doing their regular job...they are part of the 99% too but in these situations they get lumped into the "enemy" category by some...

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 2099999)

Thanks, *winter*, for the black text. I appreciate it.

IIRC, some of the arrests in relation to the OWS protest happened when the police corralled them into a small area on a bridge. What to do there? Had they not been corralled, I don't think they would have "antagonized" the police.

But of course, that's if you think they did the antagonizing. I happen to think that in that case, the city/police did it.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2100042)

Are you talking about the Brooklyn Bridge arrests? I wouldn't say that the police corralled them.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/01/140983...rooklyn-bridge

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2100143)

Occupy Someone's Street goes international. Demonstrators in Rome torch cars and smash shop windows. Arrest those idiots. Tell those idiots that doing violent protests and acting stupid only provides "I told ya so" evidence to those who think this is a stupid movement.