I see a lot more 'attitude' in your post than the the ones you're seemingly addressing.
Truth hurts?
Nords said it well enough, I won't go on.
Ok, then don't.
I see a lot more 'attitude' in your post than the the ones you're seemingly addressing.
Nords said it well enough, I won't go on.
There are people who need jobs and jobs who need people.
1. Move to where the jobs are available
2. Change your skillset / expectations to match available jobs in your area
I agree with you for the most part. One thing that I think may set them apart from us is that they may have racked up a huge amount of debt to get to the degree.
Yes, there are jobs for the unemployed - not the unemployable - albeit probably not in their current locale or in their skillset.Are you suggesting that there ARE plenty of jobs available for those who are unemployed?
Yes, there are jobs for the unemployed - not the unemployable - albeit probably not in their current locale or in their skillset.
What's your solution?15 million jobs? Add in the part-time underemployed count of about 8 million and we need about 23 million jobs. Where are these 23 million jobs that are out there for the taking?
I liked the part of the article where the bureaucrat said "Your business model is broke. You need a new one." It'll be interesting to see how they work it out.Alabama farmers are finding out what happens when they pay an illegal laborer only $60 (no employment taxes needed!) for 10-12 hours of work and then try to do the same to a legal employee.
Even if we are all way above average, most people aren't. We can whine about their whining and how they're lazy do-nothings...or we create jobs for them.
Yep, it's oversimplified. But I think there's an inherent contradiction between "doing the right things" and "still unemployed". They might have been the right things at some other time & place, but no longer. At some point something different needs to be tried... hence the "persistence" part of the oversimplification.But there are many more that are doing the right things, not getting results and frightened that the outcome may be permanently bad.
I see a lot of [-]fumbling[/-] well-intentioned efforts in this area. Our state U has an office of technology transfer to get good ideas out of the lab and into the hands of the business students. The govt has killed off an entrepreneurship tax credit that, frankly, encouraged too many marginal businesses. Now they're trying tech incubators and investing alongside angel groups. Our daughter's high school does exactly that two-track system, and local unions are reaching down as low as the sophomores for apprenticeship programs leading to journeyman certification. Nationally there are programs like Jumpstart and Kickstart. But more could be done.Colleges and Universities must get more involved - they have no skin in this game. Require them to hold half the total debt any student incurs and make that debt eligible for bankruptcy. Also make them liable for half of gov’t aid if their graduates fall into financial trouble. That will get them to sit up and take notice.
Set up a two track high secondary school system. One for college bound students and the other for direct to work or technical school students.
New housing construction is a critical component of employment and economic growth. To stabilize it and allow it grow at a more naturally sustainable level it needs to be freed of stimulus and gov’t incentive. The busts are so harsh because the boom was overstimulated.
My street is filled with neighbors who have leaky faucets, burned-out lightbulbs, unpainted houses, unkempt yards, unhung pictures, balky/dirty appliances, disorganized closets, unwalked dogs, unscooped poop, and a raft of other "handyman specials". They might be unemployed too, but they don't mind spending a little to fix some things.Are you suggesting that there ARE plenty of jobs available for those who are unemployed?
The unemployment rate is 9.1%. The underemployment rate and long-term rates are higher. Do you have any numbers to this theory that there are plenty of jobs? In other words, please provide evidence of ~15M vacant jobs that no one is taking. Thanks.
Our niece's husband dropped out of med school to be a full time pilot. He now flies corporate, and is going back to school - photography. I can't figure that one out - can't see where the secure jobs are. Nor can I figure out why at the age of 56 I want to go back and get a degree in history. I'm not looking for a job. Maybe one's passion for a degree isn't related to their need for employment as much as I once thought it was.
Sometimes I think this board should be called, "The Glass House ER Forum". When you were in college, in the good old days, everyone studied hard and joined "worthwhile" groups like student government and never skipped class or did anything crazy? That tells me that you missed the 60s. It also tells me that no one here graduated during the 70s oil crisis, or the 80s crisis, or the 90s recession, or the 00 dot bomb. Or, perhaps, everyone here is an economic automaton, always making the correct decisions since they were 3 years old.
Empathy isn't a four letter word.
Early '80s, before fully emerging from the recession, yes, I can believe that. But from about 1984 to the rest of the decade?I graduated in the 80s when it was hard to get a job right out of college...
Alabama is finding out what happens when them durn illegal immigrants (and their legal friends) are driven outta town:
Why Americans Won't Do Dirty Jobs - Businessweek
.
Not to try and talk you out of a degree, but usually auditing a course is cheaper than taking them for credit... and you get the same knowledge...
Since you do not need the degree for employment, why get one
The problem now is that that period of struggling seems to be extended and that student loan load is not real forgiving.
True. But those of us who were "old" enough to know better drank the Kool-Aid about the need to get a degree from the best college in order to have a chance -- and we passed it down to our kids. We encouraged *all* our kids to go to college, spiking demand and thus college costs, we made it seem so necessary that any sacrifices were just necessary in order to get that piece of paper -- beg, borrow or steal to get it.I guess the real problems are the folks that were foolish enough to go $100K or more into debt for a career that pays really low money - that is a hard lesson in the reality of economics for some folks.
I don't quite see how a $25K loan is really much of a burden. $25K is the cost of a new car, and if you were to finance 25K for a 5 year loan you'd be paying around $425/month....and student loans have much longer terms, so presumably the monthly payment would be even less.
I graduated in the 80s when it was hard to get a job right out of college... in fact, almost everybody in all directions that I could talk to during graduation did not have a job...
I think the difference between then and now is that within a year most of the people I knew had a job... now, I do not think so.... I think the labor market has changed drastically since the 70s and most people struggle to get a decent job...
Early '80s, before fully emerging from the recession, yes, I can believe that. But from about 1984 to the rest of the decade?
It's certainly true that there are challenges and demands met by every generation and every graduating class. But I don't think anyone of working age today (especially over the age of 30) has had to endure anything close to what recent grads (and current students) are looking at, especially in terms of the duration of the malaise. And if someone told us that we had to jump through all the hoops and endure all the crap that today's new grads have to subject themselves to in order to get even a lousier-than-usual entry level job, we'd feel ripped off too, compared to what we saw our elders get. Yet that's what many folks are telling today's young graduates. It feels a little "let them eat cakey" to me.
Fair enough -- my editing was for brevity's sake alone.Maybe if you quoted my whole statement you can see that I said it is different today than back then..... your post on my comment seems to make it look like I did not... (ie, you are qouting me out of context)... I bolded mine to show that I did address the difference...
True. But those of us who were "old" enough to know better drank the Kool-Aid about the need to get a degree from the best college in order to have a chance -- and we passed it down to our kids. We encouraged *all* our kids to go to college, spiking demand and thus college costs, we made it seem so necessary that any sacrifices were just necessary in order to get that piece of paper -- beg, borrow or steal to get it.
And now that the "rules" we established for the young generation no longer apply -- rules we taught them -- we blame them for listening to us? Odd.
I learned the time value of money in my first finance course. That began my long trek to understanding how valuable basic financial knowledge can be the key to one's financial peace. I don't know if the Rule of 72 is taught is even taught these days. I can do a PV by hand (takes me awhile) and could probably do an IRR manually (would take weeks). My college education was heavy on finance and economics with just enough liberal arts courses to make me more rounded. I have a 30 year old BA35 calculator and if the house burns down and I can only get one thing - that's the one thing. Well, I'd have to get two things because I'd need to get my spouse and the calcultor. Hopefully in that order.