GreekChat.com Forums
Page 7 of 13 « First 3456 7 891011 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Occupy Wall Street (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=122340)

AGDee 10-13-2011 07:45 PM
I think they're talking more about the power that the money brings. That power (political power, etc.) shouldn't be dependent on how much money you have, or don't have. We each have one vote, but the real power belongs to that 1% because they buy the power by buying our politicians.

That's what I'm gleaning from what I'm reading as the root of this grass (haha). The other things are side effects of that initial problem. But, I'm not entirely sure I'm right in my interpretation either.

FWIW, Detroit's mayor has pretty much said they have no intention of trying to stop them. It's as close to an endorsement as I've seen in the movement.

DrPhil 10-13-2011 08:23 PM
Quote:
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).

Exactly.

Munchkin03, there was nothing smartass about your post. LOL.

PiKA2001 10-13-2011 09:11 PM
Quote:
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.
I never said that everyone who is unemployed is unskilled, uneducated, lazy or wants welfare. We are just in the middle of a changing economy, with changing employment demands and a workforce that is having a somewhat difficult time adjusting to it.

Quote:
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.
That is pretty much spot on with what I'm saying.

Munchkin03 10-13-2011 09:16 PM
Quote:
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).
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.

DrPhil 10-13-2011 09:32 PM
Quote:
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.
Yes, if people continue to expect more than high school diploma-GED-level jobs and low income.

At the aggregate, true socioeconomic mobility has requirements.

PiKA2001 10-13-2011 09:37 PM
Quote:
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."
I saw the string of posts but there was too much I agreed with to try to reply ;) I really think we need to drop our uppity views of trade schools, apprenticeships, community colleges, alternative job training, etc . They really are a good option for a large segment of society. The idea that we need to saddle kids with $70,000 in student loan debt just so they can get a job making $35,000 a year is absurd.

I also believe that you need to go where the money is. I'm originally from the rust belt myself, but I've been living in TX the past few years because of my job. It was tough decision that took me out of my comfort zone but it's a lot better than being laid off. I personally know a few people back in MI who chose to stay (in MI) than move and lost their job because of that decision.

DrPhil 10-13-2011 09:44 PM
Quote:
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.
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?

amIblue? 10-13-2011 10:33 PM
Quote:
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?
It would be fair to say that some people have uppity views regarding trade schools, etc. It would also be fair to say that we all can't go to the schools that people with uppity views find acceptable.

I suppose people who go those routes to employment have tracked themselves into X job/career, but if they are in a career that they enjoy and that they are satisfied with, then to heck with people with said uppity views. There's nothing shameful about having a useful skill and supporting yourself and your family with it.

katydidKD 10-13-2011 10:41 PM
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.

PiKA2001 10-13-2011 10:56 PM
Quote:
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?
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)?

DrPhil 10-13-2011 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amIblue? (Post 2099869)
...but if they are in a career that they enjoy and that they are satisfied with....
One of the many premises of movements like People's Organization for Progress in New Jersey (their People's Daily Campaign for Jobs, Peace, Equality, and Justice began on June 27 and has been going for 109 days), labor unions, and Occupy Some Street is that the average American is in a career (most often, a job with no real concept of a career) that:

1. She/he theoretically enjoys but is overworked and underpaid

or

2. She/he does not even theoretically enjoy for whatever reasons

If the average American of the low to middle socioeconomic status (many of whom have trade schools/apprenticeships/community colleges/alternative job training on their resume`) found enjoyment and happiness in their jobs, these movements need to take their ball and go home. Leave the top 1% the hell alone.

DrPhil 10-13-2011 11:22 PM
Quote:
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)?
Not employers in companies where trade schools, apprenticeships, community colleges, and alternative job training are considered competitive. Therefore, scoffing only matters when they scoff at someone who is submitting a resume` or job application. People have opinions on a range of things but those opinions only TRULY matter when they impact someone's life chances. If that trade school or nontraditional school degree is competitive for that job or career field, then it is what it is. If those degrees are not competitive, partly because the employers (ya know, those whose opinions REALLY count) are scoffing, then so many Americans need to think twice before getting training and degrees from those institutions.

I don't have a negative opinion of trade schools, apprenticeships, community colleges, and alternative job training programs. However, I do have a negative opinion of for-profit institutions like University of Phoenix. (I don't dislike Strayer for certain degrees therefore I consider it a higher tier for-profit than University of Phoenix.) We have an entire thread filled with scoff over schools like University of Phoenix. As an educator, I can say that University of Phoenix is one of the worst for-profit schools for a number of reasons. That is why schools like University of Phoenix need to stop lying to people and telling them that their degree is competitive across disciplines and across jobs and careers. That just isn't true. Schools like University of Phoenix need to find their niche and stick with that. Stay in your lane, nontraditional for-profit schools. But, they won't do that which is why they are for-profit. :)

KSig RC 10-14-2011 01:25 AM
Quote:
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.
Obviously, "under-educated" isn't a technical term or anything (although it goes without saying that nearly 50% of people are of below-average education) ... but "education" isn't just schooling, it includes trade work and knowledge of a skilled trade or field, too.

I'd consider a HS dropout who is a plumbing tradesman to be, on the whole, ahead of the average HS graduate in terms of applicable jobs "education", wouldn't you?

Let's not limit education to schooling.

DrPhil 10-14-2011 01:50 AM
Undereducated is a "technical" term that is commonly used in the social sciences, by some community-based organizations, some education organizations, and so forth. It can also be found in the dictionary. It is often considered synonymous with "uneducated" but "undereducated" denotes that there is not a complete absence of formal education.

*winter* 10-14-2011 07:56 AM
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!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 AM.
Page 7 of 13 « First 3456 7 891011 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.