Recession's Mark on Millennials

[razztazz]

I'm quite sure there are good folks of every political persuasion who feel that it's morally wrong for MegaCorp to "screw" the employees just because it can.

Different political persuasions would define "screw" differently even though they all say they are against "screwing" and they don't want to get "screwed." Just as they define many other things differently. That's where the politics comes in

 

[HadEnuff]

It's not stealing, of course. Yet, that poster has to tag my post as a 'non starter'! Wow.

-ERD50

Yes it is. It's weaponizing one's economic position to exploit the other actor. Not a free market transaction

I wouldn't call it stealing. Immoral, unethical, rotten....all of those things, but not stealing.

 

[Winemaker]

I take nothing away from anybody who said "pshaw!', and recognize that my experience is anecdotal (N=1). However, I did witness 40% of my entering class drop out because of the circumstances I cited.

In July 1976, my freshman class faculty professor who had been assigned to "teach" seminar, a non credit required class, spoke to us during orientation. The auditorium was filled with about 1000 students, anxious to prove their worth to the world. He told us to look to our left, right, behind and in fron.t of ourselves, and that over the next 4 years, only one would graduate with an engineering degree. And he was dead on right.

 

[jimbee]

In July 1976, my freshman class faculty professor who had been assigned to "teach" seminar, a non credit required class, spoke to us during orientation. The auditorium was filled with about 1000 students, anxious to prove their worth to the world. He told us to look to our left, right, behind and in fron.t of ourselves, and that over the next 4 years, only one would graduate with an engineering degree. And he was dead on right.

Yep, I started engineering school in 1977. The initial dropout rate at that time was 50%. The 50% occurred during sophomore year, once the initial engineering classes started. Many more dropped out during the following years, including two out of my three room mates at the time. It was brutal.

 

[NW-Bound]

I say engineering schools here are easier than in many other countries. Here, there's nothing to prevent a student from taking fewer classes to take longer to graduate, or to try again if he fails. In many countries, one has to take entrance exams, and they have an entrance quota.

Typically, many thousands of students apply for the entrance exam, and they cull out but the top 1,000 based on the Baccalaureate test grade, something similar to the use of the SAT here, except that the Baccalaureate is a more comprehensive test of Math, Physics, Chemistry, History, Biology, Literature, Foreign Language, etc..., or the general knowledge that a HS graduate should have.

Those top students are then given an exam in Math, Physics, and Chemistry. An engineering school may admit only 50 students for each department of Electrical, Civil, etc...

The nice thing is once you get in, you rarely fail because they say that these are the cream of the crop, and failure would reflect badly on the instructors. Still, a higher standing in the graduation class would get the pick of nicer job offers in the government or industries, so students still try hard.

 

[ERD50]

I wouldn't call it stealing. Immoral, unethical, rotten....all of those things, but not stealing.

I wouldn't even go that far.

Are any of us immoral, unethical, or rotten for buying something on sale, or using a coupon, or shopping around for the best deal? IOW, we don't want to pay any more for something than we have to. Employers are the same when they purchase our labor.

Seems like a double standard to complain when they do the same things we do.

-ERD50

 

[HadEnuff]

I wouldn't even go that far.

Are any of us immoral, unethical, or rotten for buying something on sale, or using a coupon, or shopping around for the best deal? IOW, we don't want to pay any more for something than we have to. Employers are the same when they purchase our labor.

Seems like a double standard to complain when they do the same things we do.

-ERD50

I see a difference. Certainly, employers have to watch costs. I was an employer. I could have been more miserly towards my employees, but I wanted them to have a chance at a decent life, and a decent retirement. I took satisfaction from that.

I couldn't look at myself in the mirror and like what I saw if I was knocking down tens of millions of dollars, and my employees didn't have a decent life.

 

[jane_sm1th73]

I say engineering schools here are easier than in many other countries. Here, there's nothing to prevent a student from taking fewer classes to take longer to graduate, or to try again if he fails. In many countries, one has to take entrance exams, and they have an entrance quota.

Typically, many thousands of students apply for the entrance exam, and they cull out but the top 1,000 based on the Baccalaureate test grade, something similar to the use of the SAT here, except that the Baccalaureate is a more comprehensive test of Math, Physics, Chemistry, History, Biology, Literature, Foreign Language, etc..., or the general knowledge that a HS graduate should have.

Those top students are then given an exam in Math, Physics, and Chemistry. An engineering school may admit only 50 students for each department of Electrical, Civil, etc...

The nice thing is once you get in, you rarely fail because they say that these are the cream of the crop, and failure would reflect badly on the instructors. Still, a higher standing in the graduation class would get the pick of nicer job offers in the government or industries, so students still try hard.

Let us be very clear. In a top ten engr school in this country, the entrance requirements are not for the faint of heart. I can only speak empirically for mine, in the DC-Boston corridor. At that, only for the MS program.

1. Clip level is 600 students in the entering class (all disciplines)
2. Prerequisite requirements. Accepted when they are from undergraduate institutions that rank in a similar tier
3. Recent GREs
4. Non-trivial work experience
5. Faculty assessment about capability to successfully complete the capstone project: a stem to stern design of a system that integrates the various aspects of the curriculum. Some people designed "next gen" auvs and uavs, some designed satellite systems. I designed a powerline comm sensor system to integrate emergency notifications in large-scale developments with municipal/first responder/property management entities.
6. Degree was contingent on academic standing and presentation/defense of the project in an open forum. After an academic defense before the board of advisors.

Candidly, I'm surprised that the attrition rate was (only) 40%. The program brought me to my knees, and I am not generally viewed as a wuss. I still occasionally wake up in a cold sweat at 3 AM, thinking that I've missed a question on a problem set.

My degree is the reference model for "marginal returns", lol! At a minimum, if I get kicked to the curb prematurely, I've got a choice about whether or not to keep w*rking. Although I LIKE having choices, this may have been a tad (err...umm...cough-cough) extreme, in retrospect. The (former) company paid for it. Never could stand leaving money on the table.

Joke was on me.

 

[Al in Ohio]

I'm not necessarily against raising the minimum wage, but the idea that you're supposed to be able to live off it is silly. Minimum wage jobs are a stepping stone to better jobs. If working at a fast food joint is all you intend to do in life, you have other problems.

Nice attitude. Tens of Millions of fellow Americans work for minimum wage or slightly higher in the service and restaurant industries. For many this is a lifelong career. There's no way I would choose that path, and I earned millions in the Engineering field. But I started at age 15 in those service industries and worked from 15-21 paying my full tuition side by side with with many of those career restaurant workers. They work extremely hard and they provide a service that is essential in our society. It's not like everyone is born with genes to get above a 16 on an ACT test, or perhaps were lucky enough to set aside 4 years for college before needing to earn. There are a lot of variables out there. Fact is, The current minimum wage adjusted for inflation, couldn't buy half what that minimum wage of my era would buy.

 

[NW-Bound]

Let us be very clear. In a top ten engr school in this country, the entrance requirements are not for the faint of heart. I can only speak empirically for mine, in the DC-Boston corridor. At that, only for the MS program...

I am sure that admissions to top grad schools are difficult anywhere. Now they have something to consider: undergraduate performance, work experience, etc...

I was comparing the admission to the undergraduate program at American universities to some other countries. The American high school system has nothing equivalent to the Baccalaureate test in other countries for high school graduates. And admission to American universities is not based on a competitive and objective entrance exam, but on the SAT which is not comprehensive like the Baccalaureate, and an essay and some not-clearly-defined criteria.

I have read of a recent story where a student with a near perfect SAT score got rejected by several California universities and had to attend community college, while his older brother was admitted earlier with a lower score. That's some willy-nilly subjective aspect of getting admission that I never understand.

PS. The confusion came from my use of the word Baccalaureate, which can mean a college bachelor degree. The test I was talking about is the test many countries have that is modeled after the French high school education system, called the Baccalauréat for high school graduates. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baccalauréat.

 

[CaptTom]

I wouldn't even go that far.

Are any of us immoral, unethical, or rotten for buying something on sale, or using a coupon, or shopping around for the best deal? IOW, we don't want to pay any more for something than we have to. Employers are the same when they purchase our labor.

Seems like a double standard to complain when they do the same things we do.

-ERD50

I would choose a different analogy.

People are not a commodity. It used to be employees were considered stakeholders, along with customers and stockholders.

Think about what the word "company" means. It's supposed to mean people working together toward a common goal. The goal is not only to make money, but to somehow better society and its members. True, you need to provide a reasonable return on investment if you want to borrow (sell stock or attract venture capital) to grow your business. But the goal is supposed to be growing the business, not selling stock or making a few investors fabulously wealthy.

Once your business reaches a point where you can't do it all yourself, you have to hire employees. Your employees become a critical component. They are one of the factors of production. Treat them right and they will treat your plant, your equipment, your finances right. They will care about your product, your customers, your goals. They will make your business strong.

They will reflect back whatever attitude you take toward them. Treat them with disdain, distrust and disloyalty, and they will treat you the same at every opportunity. They may not actually quit in a down job market, but they will certainly not share the goals of the business, and you won't be getting as much value from them.

Would you buy the cheapest machinery, then constantly cut back on maintenance to save a buck? To me, that's a sure sign of a failing business.

 

[Amethyst]

I may have misinterpreted the post. I took the post to mean "old employees who should get out of the way." Geezer, to me, implies a useless old windbag who spouts off at regular intervals (like a geyser).

And if they are making money for the company, then there's no need to replace them.

Who says they aren't producing?

..

 

[Luck_Club]

As someone who has had proverbial chip on his shoulder his entire life, this is a subject dear and near to my heart. I am of genX, and did the CC to University program self funding my degree in 7 years. For many reasons I've always felt slightly behind my pear group. Took longer to get through school, came out in debt, delayed first house, delayed children, on and on it went. With that being said, I do believe that it is much more difficult today, on a relative basis, then it was for my graduating class in 1993, and I thought I had it tough!

The numbers::
Tuition in 1992 about= $15,000
Pell grant =$2300
GS9 Salary about =$32,000

Tuition in 2017=$51,950 3.14 times higher 214% increase
Pell Grant 2017=$5,775 2.5 times higher 150% increase
GS9 Salary 2017=$42,823 1.3 times higher 30% increase

Given the inflation, lower wages, and harder to obtain independent student status (age 27), I couldn't complete school today, without military or some other vehicle to obtain the degree. The schools require financial aid (discounting) to make them affordable.

My daughter much brighter than I got accepted to multiple ivies. During one of the tours the opening line was "let me start off by answering the most often asked questions. Budget $75K per year, no there isn't any aid for academics, and yes on campus housing is required for two years even if you live next door to campus."

 

[engprodigy]

As a millennial (I guess...) I have a very bright outlook, the more pervasive the "woe is me" attitude the easier for me to set myself apart from the rest of the herd.

 

[engprodigy]

The idea that one can get a degree in engineering or any of the lab sciences, while working, is preposterous.

Not at all, I did, my sister did, probably 1/3 of the engineers in my jr and sr courses did.

I read somewhere (no cite - apologies - don't have time to look it up) that the typical engineering undergrad degree in the 2010s era takes six years - not four. I attribute this entirely to the workload.

Seems like more of the "woe is me" stuff... I did undergrad in 4 and MS in 1.5.

 

[jane_sm1th73]

Not at all, I did, my sister did, probably 1/3 of the engineers in my jr and sr courses did.



Seems like more of the "woe is me" stuff... I did undergrad in 4 and MS in 1.5.

...but then again, you ARE a prodigy, lol! Similar trip is not a slam dunk for others.

Pls. refrain from insult. I cited anecdotal evidence, plus observations about the drop-out rate, plus a peer-reviewed article. Looking at the content with a skeptical eye, I don't discern any "woe is me", lol!

 

[engprodigy]

Pls. refrain from insult. I cited anecdotal evidence, plus observations about the drop-out rate, plus a peer-reviewed article. Looking at the content with a skeptical eye, I don't discern any "woe is me", lol!

Insult?

Read my post above... the "woe is me" is referring to the attitude that is becoming more rampant in our society regarding things just being too hard or impossible now.

You attribute it taking six years to get an engineering degree now to the work load... I doubt the workload is any greater and I attribute it to the attitude changes of our society as we continue to tell people things aren't fair and too hard.

 

[ERD50]

I would choose a different analogy.

People are not a commodity. ...

Would you buy the cheapest machinery, then constantly cut back on maintenance to save a buck? To me, that's a sure sign of a failing business.

And if a business owner chooses (or is ignorant) to buy the cheapest machinery and cut back on maintenance, and this negatively affects his business, he/she will go out of business.

Same with hiring practices. If they don't offer enough total compensation (not simply measured by $), they won't attract high quality workers. That may actually work for some businesses, and not for others. I think that choice can also be left up to the business owner, and the people who apply (or chose not to apply) for jobs there.

It used to be employees were considered stakeholders, along with customers and stockholders.

Think about what the word "company" means. It's supposed to mean people working together toward a common goal. The goal is not only to make money, but to somehow better society and its members. True, you need to provide a reasonable return on investment if you want to borrow (sell stock or attract venture capital) to grow your business. But the goal is supposed to be growing the business, not selling stock or making a few investors fabulously wealthy.

And if you aren't paying enough to attract good employees, you probably won't succeed in any of the above. And if you pay higher than your competition for the same quality of employee (or raw materials, machinery, etc), you probably won't succeed in any of the above either.

Once your business reaches a point where you can't do it all yourself, you have to hire employees. Your employees become a critical component. They are one of the factors of production. Treat them right and they will treat your plant, your equipment, your finances right. They will care about your product, your customers, your goals. They will make your business strong.

Treat them wrong and they will leave, and/or you won't attract good employees. You will learn the balancing point or likely fail altogether, and then you aren't creating jobs for anyone.

They will reflect back whatever attitude you take toward them. Treat them with disdain, distrust and disloyalty, and they will treat you the same at every opportunity. They may not actually quit in a down job market, but they will certainly not share the goals of the business, and you won't be getting as much value from them.

I think successful businesses fully realize this, and act accordingly.

And I still don't see you offering to pay more than the stated price for routine purchases (the kind you don't normally negotiate for). Do you throw in an extra 10% on your bill at the grocery store, you know, to help all those people? Don't you share in your vision of the way things should be as a customer?

As a reference point, in my dealings with retail outlets and service providers, I fully expect them to charge me a reasonable price - one that assures they can attract good people and good equipment and maintain it. If they are doing good work for me, I want them to stay in business. I'm not going to try to undercut their price such that they can't survive - that hurts me in the long run, I won't have a quality service available to me.

But it's a moot point - they set their price, I can take it or leave it. If I find someone at a lower price, but find their quality not to be up to my standards, I will not use them in the future. But if I find they are offering good quality at that price, it is up to their competition to learn and improve. If it didn't work that way, we would never advance in efficiency, and just accept the status quo.

Be careful what you ask for.

-ERD50

 

[Amethyst]

With one slight edit. Social media are indeed powerful attitude influencers.

I thought times wuz hard in 1980, but how many people could I tell about it? Maybe a dozen? Now, one can hit a button and send an "Old Economy Steve" meme to thousands, who pass it along to thousands more, until it becomes received truth simply because so many people have seen it.

I attribute it to the attitude changes of our society as we continue to tell [-]people[/-] each other things aren't fair and too hard.

 

[Al in Ohio]

I don't see how paying a competitive rate (and not more) is stealing. I agree with Robbie that companies have an obligation to their shareholders to not overpay for any resources they need, including their employees.

Withholding a competitive rate for employees across the entire company is now the norm, yet that same corporation will let its board of directors vote themselves astronomical stock options and raises that are over 1000 times higher than what the standard of board member compensation 30 years ago. You could double the pay of the entire staff of non executive personell and not come close to the compensation of the key executives. How is that not stealing from you Mr. Shareholder? The executives of today are not 1000 times better than those of 30 years ago, in fact, many are total failures, only to last 3-5 years and exit with a huge compensation package, with no truthful gain to the company in the entire tenure. The problem is NOT with higher pay for the average worker, its the extremely high unfair compensation for those at the top.

 

[LOL!]

Tuition in 2017=$51,950 3.14 times higher 214% increase

No one is forced to pay $51,950 a year in college tuition. There are certainly state flagship universities where tuition is one-fifth that amount.

 

[Texas Proud]

I would choose a different analogy.

People are not a commodity. It used to be employees were considered stakeholders, along with customers and stockholders.

Think about what the word "company" means. It's supposed to mean people working together toward a common goal. The goal is not only to make money, but to somehow better society and its members. True, you need to provide a reasonable return on investment if you want to borrow (sell stock or attract venture capital) to grow your business. But the goal is supposed to be growing the business, not selling stock or making a few investors fabulously wealthy.

Once your business reaches a point where you can't do it all yourself, you have to hire employees. Your employees become a critical component. They are one of the factors of production. Treat them right and they will treat your plant, your equipment, your finances right. They will care about your product, your customers, your goals. They will make your business strong.

They will reflect back whatever attitude you take toward them. Treat them with disdain, distrust and disloyalty, and they will treat you the same at every opportunity. They may not actually quit in a down job market, but they will certainly not share the goals of the business, and you won't be getting as much value from them.

Would you buy the cheapest machinery, then constantly cut back on maintenance to save a buck? To me, that's a sure sign of a failing business.

I think your argument is a straw man.... who said you cannot treat your employees well and still pay them the market wage (which might be low)... nobody is saying you have to treat them with disdain, distrust and disloyalty when they have a low salary... IMO, quite the opposite...


And again, from what I have read, we are talking about paying them market rates, not half.... and if you look at job wage brackets, they can be pretty large... say a job can be a low of $30K and a high of $60K....

 

[Al in Ohio]

No one is forced to pay $51,950 a year in college tuition. There are certainly state flagship universities where tuition is one-fifth that amount.

Name just 5 in the USA? Provide documentation. Include room and board, since for 95% of students that usually applies.

We just went through this process with our son, so I know you are going to have trouble with your facts.

Cheapest state Universities in a low COLA state with room and board run $25,000 per year minimum. That's one hundred grand for a cheap in-state school after 4 years. And with rates rising 7-9% each year, it will be $30,000-$35,000 per year before the student is done unless that state puts a temporary freeze on rate hikes.

COST PER YEAR TUITION AND EXPENSES FOR "THE" Ohio State University
Cost of Attendance In-state: $25,539 Out-of-state: $44,731
Tuition and Fees In-state: $10,037 Out-of-state: $29,229
Room and Board $11,666
Books and Supplies $1,234
Other Expenses $2,602

(Other expenses include NON-optional fees assessed for anything from lab fees to internet access to bus services)

I spreadsheeted all the choices for our son from over a dozen schools from private liberal arts to in-state schools.

These days on the low end you can get a four year degree from a state University for about $100,000 (unless you have scholarships) to a high end at a private institution for over $300,000. These prices rise by the year at a pace that is 4- 5 times inflation, so any research one might have done 5-10 years ago, is way off target in today's terms.

 

[ERD50]

Name just 5 in the USA? Provide documentation. Include room and board, ...

Look back at the quote - the "$51,950 a year in college tuition" he replied to was for tuition only.

....

Tuition in 2017=$51,950 3.14 times higher 214% increase

I don't know if it is accurate or not, but that was what he was replying to.

-ERD50

 

[engprodigy]

IDK...

If the price of something is outrageous stop paying it. I suspect based on the nature of this board, most people would assume what bimmers and benzs cost is outrageous (or at least not worth it) so they don't pay it, they opt for the honda or something.

I just looked up the state school where I received my BS, total estimated annual cost $24k. Of course that includes the school's estimate of $9k a year for room and board, which is absurd IMO since that's $1k a month, but I guess the standards of what college kids need is much higher today...

There are so many other options than paying absurd prices for college. Do the first two years a junior college, go to smaller state schools, have roommates and live in <gasp> a mediocre apartment. I guess saying your kids going to State U Jr College the first two years might not sound as impressive as <insert big fancy impressive> College, but C'est la vie, choices and consequences.

Meh... like I said the more prevalent this attitude becomes the better as far as I'm concerned, being a shining star just keeps getting easier