Occupy Wall Street

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

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 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.

************
repetitve vent/

That also speaks to how this Occupy (Someone's) Street movement has way too much going on. There are tons of submovements within this movement. People are pretending that many of those within this 99% are not responsible for some of the conditions that people are complaining about (which can be linked to why anti-capitalists like Marx's working class revolt against the capitalists never happened). For instance, if people want to complain about gender and race discrimination in the workplace, the top 1% are not the only ones to blame for that. People want to say "we're marching around the nice houses of those who make more money than we do...but we're not mad at you all, we're mad at the owners of your companies." In that case...get the hell away from my neighborhood and stalk those owners of our companies.

I just see so much irony and hypocrisy in this 99% movement. As I told my colleague who gave me a flyer for our city's "occupy," I don't mind "occupying" something but I'm not going to silently pretend that this 99% has been a united front across race, gender, social class, and other demographics and dynamics. They may prefer I stay my ass at home that week. LOL.

/repetitve vent

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

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.

I agree.

That is one reason why it is so difficult to make structural and institutional changes that will have individual-level impact. We know that discussing patterns and making generalized statements is never intended to apply to 100% of cases. Many people seem to understand that when discussing things that impact and/or are attributed to 99% of America but can't seem to grasp that when discussing the 1%.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

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).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

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.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.