The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I agree with you that a lot of this is on those doing the hiring - that's the point, that society overvalues that piece of paper. As to the why, this is hardly the only aspect of life where we haven't progressed with changes in the world fast enough, wouldn't you say? People have a different list as far as that's concerned, but I would chalk most of it up to tradition/reflexive thinking. There are all sorts of examples of successful entrepreneurs who were college dropouts. It is often a stand-in for a low-grade background check; i.e. if you have a degree we know you aren't a total screwup.

I think you are shortsighted in your view, a degree gets you an entry level job with benefits (end of list). The fact that you equate to a low grade background check is ludicrous...

Our society values education, which is why getting a degree matters (nowadays, you need to be smarter and get a degree that's valued).

If you go the trade route, you will be poor for a long time, as I think you would deal with unions or seniority at most corporations, and you'd be competing with seniority outside. You'd basically be an apprentice for a number of years before earning.

I love that you brought up dropouts like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Zuckerburg (btw Gates and Zuckerburg dropped out of Harvard so I'm sure they were slumming it before that) are just like us right...I mean if they can do it, so can we...just like any kid could be the next best athlete or anybody with stage presence could be the next greatest actor....

the failure rate is high...and the majority of us, will be those failures, not success stories...for every success story there are millions of failures, some ultimately succeed, some scrape to normalcy and the rest live hand to mouth.

It's not just tradition, the higher learning experience does churn out sheep, but those sheep get jobs, benefits, pay taxes and perhaps then weigh where their life takes them rather than drop out fail and live off parents or unemployment (for a short while anyway).

Just like an MBA or Masters is the next tier for most corporate jobs, not having it tends to get you eliminated from consideration.

I have three kids, one is in honors and going to become a teacher, my boys are still young but we already have a plan for college for both of them. I'd prefer them take a STEM major (I was Biology and History double major).

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I qualified it with



Also, the opposition leader is an idiot. He was home free and purposely went back to the lion's den with a miscalculated sense of self-worth. You play in the big leagues, you make a poor bet, you pay for it.

Putin is an evil shit whose only purpose was to put Russia back into a place of power by stealing, subverting, killing and invading...he deserves no recognition as anything but that. Considering that Putin was killing people abroad and getting away with it, there really wasn't an alternative for Navalny. What you see as stupidity other could see as forcing Putin to show fear by reprisals and restrictions. Imagine the balls of a guy who gets poisoned abroad, shows up to challenge on enemy turf, gets railroaded to a gulag and then goes on hunger strike (Guess you like MLK was a fool for marching in Selma too).

China wants to expand for resources and create a benevolent image while consolidating and controlling power beyond its borders. It's too late to contain them.

Russia wants to present an image of power when it basically has the economy of Texas. It wishes it could be like China.

So while China has placed itself into a giant role with the world economy and supply chain; Russia can only wield influence through smoke and mirrors, espionage and militarization.

[BYU 14]

I would argue you can get entry level jobs and work your way up without a degree, having a degree doesn't define work ethic, aptitude or the ability to advance to a level that gives you a comfortable income.

I have no degree and have carved out a very nice 30+ year career in health insurance, starting as a claims processor and holding positions in lower and mid level management, fraud investigation, and provider liaison.

Our 5 kids have exactly 0 degrees combined and they have the following jobs
1-Director over pharmacy claims at his company
2-14 year Navy vet who can write his own ticket in security when he retires
3-IT project manager (self taught programming skills)
4-Supervisor at a fortune 500 loan company
5-Financial planning with Mass Mutual

My wife has an advanced degree in accounting and also does financial planning with Empower. But, myself and two of our kids make more money than her without the burden of a massive student loan like she had. There are still plenty of paths to success by earning your way once you get your foot in the door.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Our society values education, which is why getting a degree matters (nowadays, you need to be smarter and get a degree that's valued).

My point is that it no longer makes sense to tie the value of a person's education to the degree though. There was a time when it made sense. That time ended decades ago. I'm not saying we shouldn't value education, I specifically posted earlier that I'm of the opinion it should be viewed as a constant, lifetime normality so this reaction makes me curious if you are reading what I've posted.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

If you go the trade route, you will be poor for a long time, as I think you would deal with unions or seniority at most corporations, and you'd be competing with seniority outside.

This is just flat-out false. We literally can't find enough truck drivers at any price, and they currently pay above the median wage in America. Millions of jobs that pay reasonably well, in some cases quite well, go unfilled because nobody is willing to do them, and part of that is the excessive pushing of everyone into college, some of whom will come out with degrees that they won't be able to use in the work force and will saddle them with debt for a long time. I think Mike Rowe has put it well: "We are lending money we don't have to kids who will never be able to pay it back, to educate them for jobs that no longer exist".

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I mean if they can do it, so can we...just like any kid could be the next best athlete or anybody with stage presence could be the next greatest actor....

That's not the point. I'm not saying everyone can be Zuckerberg or Gates. I'm saying that we as a society overvalue a piece of paper that isn't the only way to become educated, and I think a strong argument can be made it isn't even the best way. You're right that many aspects of corporate America value that piece of paper highly. I'm saying it makes little sense for them to do so, and it's an antiquated way of thinking.

[JPhillips]

What is a degree that can't be used in the workforce? I can list a number of people that got theatre degrees when I did. Some are working in theatre, some not, but all of them are using things they learned as part of that major. The title of the degree doesn't matter much if you learn skills.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think this is the same flawed approach to thinking about education that we often have in healthcare. The world simply isn't the same as it was. Using your 50-year timeline, we spend more as a % of GDP on education now than we did in 1970, at which time it was sharply on the rise from previous levels.

Specialization of labor, training, overdependence on college education as compared to vocational skills as I've talked about in the past, all of these have had an impact. It simply isn't true to frame it as 'too bad we won't invest like we did in the past'. To do free college for everyone or whatever you have to be willing to invest several orders of magnitude more than has been done before.

There's definitely an argument to be made for that, but this isn't it. Some aspects of life cost more now largely because of the advances we've made - there are possibilities available that simply weren't there a half-century ago at *any* price.

Healthcare is a good comparison. We have the same FYGM approach from the older generation to the younger ones. They got everything they wanted and now that they don't need it, fuck young people.

The argument that we should shift to vocational training if you're poor is a cop-out. Another cynical move to avoid competition in the workforce and maintain the status quo for those on top. The equivalent of tossing breadcrumbs to the peasants.

And yes it would require a massive investment. Just like the massive investments that were made after WW2 up till the 80's. Something that led to us becoming a world leader in education and an economic powerhouse with a strong middle class.

Make a few less planes that can't fly in the rain and you pay for it. Guess which one has the better ROI?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I would argue you can get entry level jobs and work your way up without a degree, having a degree doesn't define work ethic, aptitude or the ability to advance to a level that gives you a comfortable income.

You can, but it's much harder. Most jobs require a college degree and we have data showing that income over a lifetime is dramatically larger for those with degrees.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is just flat-out false. We literally can't find enough truck drivers at any price, and they currently pay above the median wage in America. Millions of jobs that pay reasonably well, in some cases quite well, go unfilled because nobody is willing to do them, and part of that is the excessive pushing of everyone into college, some of whom will come out with degrees that they won't be able to use in the work force and will saddle them with debt for a long time. I think Mike Rowe has put it well: "We are lending money we don't have to kids who will never be able to pay it back, to educate them for jobs that no longer exist".

I guarantee you if a trucker made $500k a year, there would be no shortage of drivers. If you can't fill a job, it means you aren't paying enough. Basic economics.

[albionmoonlight]

When the Great Recession hit, a lot of companies got used to labor outstripping job supply and being able to hire highly qualified people without having to incentivize them. The normal dynamic of raising salaries to attract talent went away.

And a lot of companies have not gone back to that normal dynamic. They are offering salaries significantly too low and then complaining that "lazy Millennials" aren't willing to work or somehow blaming it on the fact that some college students get art degrees.

[thesloppy]

Somewhere in there was a significant shift to the culture of college/higher learning as well. When I was young going to college meant living in bunker-style concrete dorms and living off of Top Ramen, but at some point that shifted and some schools practically market themselves as resorts these days, with luxury dorms & 'lifestyle perks'.

[ISiddiqui]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/06/us-c...-olympics.html

It appears the Biden Administration is chatting with allies for a joint diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Chinese winter olympics

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

My point is that it no longer makes sense to tie the value of a person's education to the degree though. There was a time when it made sense. That time ended decades ago. I'm not saying we shouldn't value education, I specifically posted earlier that I'm of the opinion it should be viewed as a constant, lifetime normality so this reaction makes me curious if you are reading what I've posted.

Oh please, I'm not reading into much to your bullshit. You keep harkening to that was then this is now and that it was decades ago. Yet I would argue the main reason there is such college student loan debt is because the alternatives are poor and the demand is high for students to go to college and get a four year degree [bold] because it is the most successful way for someone to get a job [/bold]

This is just flat-out false. We literally can't find enough truck drivers at any price, and they currently pay above the median wage in America. Millions of jobs that pay reasonably well, in some cases quite well, go unfilled because nobody is willing to do them, and part of that is the excessive pushing of everyone into college, some of whom will come out with degrees that they won't be able to use in the work force and will saddle them with debt for a long time. I think Mike Rowe has put it well: "We are lending money we don't have to kids who will never be able to pay it back, to educate them for jobs that no longer exist".

Truck drivers is not really a trade like an electrician or a plumber. I'm glad when we talk about the future, the highest job we could aspire to I guess is the noble truck driver. Good thing they cannot afford to stay in business.

Btw Mike Rowe is a fucking moron...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-an-80000-job/

For my examples (plumber, electrician):

Guide to Plumbing Apprenticeships: What to Expect and How to Prepare

Do I Need an Apprenticeship to Get an Electrician Job?

So in both of these, you could potentially bypass trade school to become an apprentice but it's like a 2-5 year process and I'm unsure of pay and benefits.

I mean even those who go to culinary school tend to get uninsured grunt jobs for several years before finally scrapping together enough cash to survive on their own....I mean Bourdain wrote about it, and god help I watched enough "Chopped" to hear the sob stories of no insurance and not enough cash.

That's not the point. I'm not saying everyone can be Zuckerberg or Gates. I'm saying that we as a society overvalue a piece of paper that isn't the only way to become educated, and I think a strong argument can be made it isn't even the best way. You're right that many aspects of corporate America value that piece of paper highly. I'm saying it makes little sense for them to do so, and it's an antiquated way of thinking.

You are using outliers....can it happen, of course, I could win the lottery too or get struck by a bus or have both happen.

I would only agree that you and a very small percentage of people view a degree as worthless or outdated, but the majority of people think and know otherwise.

By the way, both Jobs and Gates created corporations that the multitude of positions require, get this, a degree to work. Now, I would also agree that they probably have a few entry level, non-degree required jobs too, but the majority of positions at minimum would require that outdated mode of thinking you imply college degree.

I would argue that you could potentially bypass a degree for a decent job outright in only one way, joining an armed force and going to officers school or having the armed forces pay for your degree...

Amazing though, that degree thing keeps popping up. Seems pretty relevant in this day and age still. But please, let me know how this antiquated thinking is going...

Here's some data...I would like to see where it is sourced, but this was eyepopping to me:

Page not found - EducationData.

Report Highlights. College graduation statistics indicate that while graduation rates increase at an annual rate of 2%, just 1-in-4 of this year’s college freshmen will have a degree in 4 years. ([italics] I assume this means they're staying longer in school[/italics])

The national college graduation rate is 46%; bachelor’s degree seekers graduate at a rate of 60%.
41% of bachelor’s degree earners graduate within 4 years.
4 million or 18% of all college students graduate each year.
2 million or 49% of all college graduates earn bachelor’s degrees.
College graduation rates at public institutions have increased 15% since 2010.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Somewhere in there was a significant shift to the culture of college/higher learning as well. When I was young going to college meant living in bunker-style concrete dorms and living off of Top Ramen, but at some point that shifted and some schools practically market themselves as resorts these days, with luxury dorms & 'lifestyle perks'.

I would argue to that, it's marketing. Obviously the more prestigious the college the more built in the marketing...but small liberal art schools or tech schools would have to fight to entice students as bunker dorm and Ramen ain't gonna cut it.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What is a degree that can't be used in the workforce? I can list a number of people that got theatre degrees when I did. Some are working in theatre, some not, but all of them are using things they learned as part of that major. The title of the degree doesn't matter much if you learn skills.

Example 1:

I'll give two great examples. My fraternity brother spent seven (SEVEN) years at our liberal arts school for Theatre, decided he didn't want to work in stage production, and opted to lay cable line for Xfinity. He did graduate.

I love him, but he rants and complains about the pain, the divorce and the stresses of life...
and all I can think is, why did you go to college for theatre for seven years?

Example 2:

My wife is an art degree major who works for a large firm now after more of a decade and has risen up the ranks and is making over 70k a year, works from home, and has a great benefit and 401k package. She is a training coordinator, nothing to do with art.

Now she was against joining the corporate world at the start, but I knew her work ethic would allow her to thrive...but she needed a degree to get that job. She really didn't want to use her art degree for anything, but she could use it to get a corporate job.

I think it is all about how you apply yourself...and I think I would tell my kids, go to school for what you love, but make sure it can put food on the table for you. Make it count, if you go to college to figure it out, it's going to be very expensive, you go to college to put the finishing touches on your academics, and prep you for a career.

[cuervo72]

While we're talking about art degrees...

My youngest for a while wanted to be a vet. Of course that comes with a lot of schooling and a LOT of tuition.

They recently switched majors to...Art. Which, ok. if you don't think you want to be a vet, don't go down that very expensive (and stressful) vet school road. There are things you can do with an Art degree. Limited and not all lucrative, but do what makes you happy. Of course there is a goal in mind, and it can be debated if a degree will help or not. I have seen some opinions that it would, and I do like the idea of having any degree to fall back on.

That goal? Tattoo artist.

[GrantDawg]

And when trucks become automated, and there are many, many truck drivers looking for jobs....

[GrantDawg]

She ate his lunch.

PETER DOOCY: Is the WH concerned MLB is moving their All Star Game to Colorado, where voting rules are very similar to Georgia?

PSAKI: Let me refute that. CO has same-day registration, universal mail voting... it's important to remember the context. The GA bill is built on a lie pic.twitter.com/TaDLU0mYNP

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 6, 2021

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's not the point. I'm not saying everyone can be Zuckerberg or Gates. I'm saying that we as a society overvalue a piece of paper that isn't the only way to become educated, and I think a strong argument can be made it isn't even the best way. You're right that many aspects of corporate America value that piece of paper highly. I'm saying it makes little sense for them to do so, and it's an antiquated way of thinking.

Gates had rich parents that afforded him the option to drop out of school and take a risk on a new company. Zuckerberg had a rich friend fund his business and dropped out when his company was worth a billion dollars on paper.

Not a lot of people have a wealthy family or rich friends to launch their careers.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Gates had rich parents that afforded him the option to drop out of school and take a risk on a new company. Zuckerberg had a rich friend fund his business and dropped out when his company was worth a billion dollars on paper.

Not a lot of people have a wealthy family or rich friends to launch their careers.

Oh, come on! Just pull yourself up by the bootstraps and such...


Actually, they are proof not everybody needs college. Some people can educate themselves. The percentage that can do that is very small, though.It would be pretty silly to restructure education because of an handful of outliers.

[Qwikshot]

I guess when I see an argument that "college degrees are antiquated", I think what I'm reading is an argument for embracing anti-intellectualism.

"See you could be a truck driver and be fine"...blue collar jobs (in my view) are dead jobs, they are outsourced, they have very little upward mobility and they will stifle you if innovation eliminates that work.

Now that can go for any job, but non-degree jobs are I would argue far more volatile for long term survival...

My example 1 from the above post, his body is breaking down from the heavy lifting, climbing up poles, digging holes...etc....the man is 45 like me. Now I can't evaluate his work ability, but I do know he is anti-union and yet works for a union...

So where does he go when he wants to move on from the job, I doubt he can...so he's probably staring down disability at some point.

Einstein worked in a patent office, he dropped out of school and flunked an entrance exam for a polytechnic school...but he was Albert Fucking Einstein...I think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell are all just brilliant people, they dropped out not because it was hard, but it was probably boring...they knew what they needed to do to become successful.

So I guess, the argument that college degrees are antiquated because super smart successful people did so and became successful puts me in a frenzy because I think it proves going to college is a smart thing to do if you aren't a super smart successful person because it may give you the tools to survive in life until you find what you enjoy to do.

Counter arguments: Stephen Hawkins graduated Oxford and was one of the most brilliant people that ever lived. Neil deGrasse Tyson graduated too. And for business, Warren Buffett graduated college and he's pretty fucking successful.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

By the way, both Jobs and Gates created corporations that the multitude of positions require, get this, a degree to work. Now, I would also agree that they probably have a few entry level, non-degree required jobs too, but the majority of positions at minimum would require that outdated mode of thinking you imply college degree.

This both is and isn't true. The tech sector in general is actually very forgiving about not having a degree & many job listings will include specific requirements in-lieu of having a degree. Source: I don't have a degree or any certifications, but I have an engineering title, worked for 5 different orgs as such & made a (barely) six-figure income (in funny California money).


That said, a degree is not worthless, and typically worth 2-3 years of work experience according to the listings I've seen & in particular at high-value companies like Microsoft & Apple, where hiring is very competitive, it is probably very difficult to get a job without a degree AND top-level experience.


The tech sector also has a unique path for success through certification, which is kind of like bite-sized trade schooling, focusing on very particular disciplines, without requiring the general studies that come with traditional higher learning. That realm may evolve further in the future, and Google is putting in some significant effort on that front:

Tech jobs without a college degree? Try Google certification

[molson]

Someone should start a college where they skip all of the boring academic stuff and focus entirely on the components of the real learning experience of college - being away from home, drinking, dating, trying to figure out what time it is when you wake up, etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I guess when I see an argument that "college degrees are antiquated", I think what I'm reading is an argument for embracing anti-intellectualism.

Not just that, but it's a way to look down on those jobs. Why can't a truck driver have a formal education in arts or humanities? Why is learning something that you don't use in a job a bad thing? I mean what 18 year old knows what they want to do for the rest of their life?

It's about preserving generational wealth and limiting competition. And when certain politicians rely on their base being dumb as shit, it's an added perk.

[GrantDawg]

My sister works in HR, and worked in her job for 20 years without a degree. She had made pretty decent money, and worked her way up. Then she hit a wall. No matter if she stayed in her current job or tried to go elsewhere, she was not going any higher without a degree. Eventually, she was the highest paid person in her piston, which made her a target, because she could be replaced by cheaper labor. Then she was let go. She eventually found a new job, with a demotion and lower pay. She also started working on her degree. 5 years later, she has a higher position than before and makes considerably more money. That piece of paper does mean something very often.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Putin is an evil shit whose only purpose was to put Russia back into a place of power by stealing, subverting, killing and invading...he deserves no recognition as anything but that.

This is where we'll agree to disagree. I do believe he deserves recognition for pulling his country out of a disastrous Yeltsin/Gorby period. He did it in ways the west would not agree with, no question.

I do not believe western democracy/ideals work for many (probably majority) of countries in the world.

China wants to expand for resources and create a benevolent image while consolidating and controlling power beyond its borders. It's too late to contain them.

I don't think it's too late. But I'm not sure we have the will or foresight. So possibly same difference. China plays the long game really well. But who knows, a 90's Japan bubble pop could happen. Japan was the China before China was the China.

Russia wants to present an image of power when it basically has the economy of Texas. It wishes it could be like China.

So while China has placed itself into a giant role with the world economy and supply chain; Russia can only wield influence through smoke and mirrors, espionage and militarization.

Agree. Not an economic threat, more military and espionage.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Someone should start a college where they skip all of the boring academic stuff and focus entirely on the components of the real learning experience of college - being away from home, drinking, dating, trying to figure out what time it is when you wake up, etc.

I've said there's a group of students who would be thrilled to get As without having to learn anything. There is a business opportunity there if you can figure out how to handle the accreditation groups.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've said there's a group of students who would be thrilled to get As without having to learn anything. There is a business opportunity there if you can figure out how to handle the accreditation groups.

Or sell it as a gap year thing. $80,000 for a holistic, enriching, mind-exploring, non-traditional, socially-conscious, educational experience where we close the books....and open our hearts.

Might be hard to secure government education loans for it, or the bankruptcy exception for student loans, but maybe there are private loan companies we could partner with. Or do all the financing in house.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I guess when I see an argument that "college degrees are antiquated", I think what I'm reading is an argument for embracing anti-intellectualism.

"See you could be a truck driver and be fine"...blue collar jobs (in my view) are dead jobs, they are outsourced, they have very little upward mobility and they will stifle you if innovation eliminates that work.

Now that can go for any job, but non-degree jobs are I would argue far more volatile for long term survival...

My example 1 from the above post, his body is breaking down from the heavy lifting, climbing up poles, digging holes...etc....the man is 45 like me. Now I can't evaluate his work ability, but I do know he is anti-union and yet works for a union...

So where does he go when he wants to move on from the job, I doubt he can...so he's probably staring down disability at some point.

Einstein worked in a patent office, he dropped out of school and flunked an entrance exam for a polytechnic school...but he was Albert Fucking Einstein...I think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell are all just brilliant people, they dropped out not because it was hard, but it was probably boring...they knew what they needed to do to become successful.

So I guess, the argument that college degrees are antiquated because super smart successful people did so and became successful puts me in a frenzy because I think it proves going to college is a smart thing to do if you aren't a super smart successful person because it may give you the tools to survive in life until you find what you enjoy to do.

Counter arguments: Stephen Hawkins graduated Oxford and was one of the most brilliant people that ever lived. Neil deGrasse Tyson graduated too. And for business, Warren Buffett graduated college and he's pretty fucking successful.

That's not my argument. My argument is that there are many things we all have been told is the way life should unfold (go to college, get married, have kids, own a home, etc.) that don't work for everyone. With college, it seems to me many people go to college because they think they have to or are told that's just the way it works, ending up in debt with a degree they can't use (stupid majors with very few practical jobs in related fields other than, I guess, teaching other people the same useless things) or don't end up using because they can't find a job in that field, decide they don't want to work in that field, suck at it, or end up working fairly menial jobs that never required a degree to begin with.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Oh please, I'm not reading into much to your bullshit.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I guess when I see an argument that "college degrees are antiquated", I think what I'm reading is an argument for embracing anti-intellectualism.

I specifically said that I was doing no such thing twice now, so yes, you are reading way too much into it. Leaving aside the gratuitious sarcasm and gross distortions, you make some points that are worth discussing and I am interested in that discussion. Until you are willing to recognize that there's a difference between being anti-intellectual and believing our current education model is largely archaic, such discussions would be pointless.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why can't a truck driver have a formal education in arts or humanities? Why is learning something that you don't use in a job a bad thing? I mean what 18 year old knows what they want to do for the rest of their life?

As I've said before, it's not a bad thing, and the idea of an 18 yo not knowing their future is an argument against college for everyone, not an argument for it. Entering the work force doesn't mean you can't go to college later, after you've made a decision on what you want.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Some people can educate themselves. The percentage that can do that is very small, though.

How do you know it's small? How is it easier/better to get a formal education in a university than to self-educate through other means?

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

when trucks become automated, and there are many, many truck drivers looking for jobs....

White-collar jobs get eliminated by changing technology too. That's an economy-wide problem, not a blue-collar job problem.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guarantee you if a trucker made $500k a year, there would be no shortage of drivers. If you can't fill a job, it means you aren't paying enough. Basic economics.

There's also an upper limit on how much you can pay for a particular job, just as there is a limit on how much consumers will pay for the product. This is also basic economics.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Healthcare is a good comparison. We have the same FYGM approach from the older generation to the younger ones. They got everything they wanted and now that they don't need it, fuck young people.

Just as with the education example, this is also false; it's false though to a greater degree. We spend a lot more on health care than we used to. Your anti-boomer rhetoric is entertaining, but as for me I'll stick with the facts. They don't back up your argument.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What is a degree that can't be used in the workforce? I can list a number of people that got theatre degrees when I did. Some are working in theatre, some not, but all of them are using things they learned as part of that major. The title of the degree doesn't matter much if you learn skills.

You can't just assess those skills in a vacuum though. They would have learned skills if they spent that time in the workforce also, skills that would have come without the cost of college (regardless of who pays for it, there's a cost somewhere). The point isn't that the degree is useless in the workforce, it's that if you aren't working in what you majored in, there's a better path available, whether it's a different major, entering the labor force directly, whatever.

[JPhillips]

You don't know where you'll end up and statistics say you'll change careers multiple times over your working lifespan. The key is transferable skills, and for those, the title of the degree isn't that important. I really push back on the idea that there is a single right diploma for an individual.

[GrantDawg]

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/20...ation-pays.htm
As long as the numbers look like that, this is really a pointless arguement. Way more pay on average with a bachelor's degree than without it, and half the unemployment rate. So in real and tangible way, a bachelor's degree is worrh more money and you are less likely to have a problem finding a job. Argue all you want whether it should be. The facts are that it is valuable, and a degree is just more likely to lead to better financial security. Higher degrees even more so.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really push back on the idea that there is a single right diploma for an individual.

I totally agree with this.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Way more pay on average with a bachelor's degree than without it, and half the unemployment rate. So in real and tangible way, a bachelor's degree is worrh more money and you are less likely to have a problem finding a job.

A. Correlation is not causation. We could talk for example about the fact that 40% of recent graduates have a job that doesn't require a degree - a number that goes down some but isn't eliminated as those graduates get older. Or that there are other differences besides the degree in people who have one versus people who don't. There's a lot more nuance here than your stat suggests.

B. It's also like saying there's no point in discussing climate change because most people don't want to make the necessary changes. It's a discussion about how things should be, which is often on many subjects not the way they actually are. I mean, as long as corporations value the diploma, sure you're going to make more by having one. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to value.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There's also an upper limit on how much you can pay for a particular job, just as there is a limit on how much consumers will pay for the product. This is also basic economics.

Economies adjust. If the cost for truckers skyrocketed, you'd see consumers adjust their priorities when purchasing as well as innovation in the field. Maybe even people buying local. Doubling a truckers salary doesn't mean you won't get toilet paper anymore.

Shortage of skilled workers in a field is a compensation issue, not a societal one.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Just as with the education example, this is also false; it's false though to a greater degree. We spend a lot more on health care than we used to. Your anti-boomer rhetoric is entertaining, but as for me I'll stick with the facts. They don't back up your argument.

Baby boomers paid a considerably lower amount of their household income to health care. They are the ones who have been voting for the past few decades for the policies in place that has led to this. They don't give a shit because now they're on Medicare and probably made a mint on their investments by having the government suck off the industry to maximize profits while fucking over the next generation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You can't just assess those skills in a vacuum though. They would have learned skills if they spent that time in the workforce also, skills that would have come without the cost of college (regardless of who pays for it, there's a cost somewhere). The point isn't that the degree is useless in the workforce, it's that if you aren't working in what you majored in, there's a better path available, whether it's a different major, entering the labor force directly, whatever.

It's education, not job training. Who gives a shit if you study something in school that you don't use in your career? It's a perversion of education.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Baby boomers paid a considerably lower amount of their household income to health care. They are the ones who have been voting for the past few decades for the policies in place that has led to this. They don't give a shit because now they're on Medicare and probably made a mint on their investments by having the government suck off the industry to maximize profits while fucking over the next generation.

Wrong comparison. The cost of healthcare worldwide in developed nations has increased considerably over the last several decades. You're right that everybody paid less for it, but that goes back to a previous point I made; there's lots of healthcare available now that couldn't be had in 1970 at any price.

Even if we had 100% publicly-funded healthcare, we'd still be paying more for it than we did then. Everybody is, because it's not same the healthcare anymore. That's why we have a problem even with drastically increased public spending.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's education, not job training. Who gives a shit if you study something in school that you don't use in your career? It's a perversion of education.

That's an argument with the others in this thread, not me. I'm not the one making the argument that you need a college education to do well in life financially. I completely agree that the two are largely separate concerns; that's been a significant part of what I've been saying.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If the cost for truckers skyrocketed, you'd see consumers adjust their priorities when purchasing as well as innovation in the field. Maybe even people buying local. Doubling a truckers salary doesn't mean you won't get toilet paper anymore.

Essentials would still get shipped, no doubt about it you are correct there. But it's just not as simplistic as you are making it out to be. There's a limited amount of people willing to do certain jobs at any reasonable price, there's issues of infrastructure - i.e., educating and training enough professionals in the health care field included nurses - there are all manner of reasons why sometimes you can't just wave a magic 'pay them more' wand and fix the problem.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Shortage of skilled workers in a field is a compensation issue, not a societal one.

It can be and sometimes is both. Economics and societal dynamics are interrelated, they aren't two distinct issues. That can easily be seen, for example, in the price we've paid for discrimination against women, minorities, etc. It's had a considerable negative economic impact due to companies, thankfully to a lesser degree in our time, not hiring the most qualified candidates and therefore hurting their bottom line and the overall economy.

[Ksyrup]

If a degree is so valuable, then what we're dealing with is people just complaining because they don't want to pay for their degree? The pandemic is a (hopefully) short-term blip on jobs, so these are just people who are (or would otherwise be) getting good paying jobs but don't want the debt that got them there?

The narrative can't run both ways from a 50K foot view (obviously, you'll find numerous individual stories to support both sides, but we're talking in general here).

[albionmoonlight]

Part of the issue is that "degree" covers a lot of very different pieces of paper.

You can go into a ton of debt to get an engineering degree from MIT
You can go to a little debt to go to a moderately-priced state university
You can go into a ton of debt to get a degree from a fourth-tier private college that no one had heard of

Those are all very different experiences/outcomes, but they are all seen as "getting a degree"

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's education, not job training. Who gives a shit if you study something in school that you don't use in your career? It's a perversion of education.

I would argue that specialization is becoming more prevalent, not less. So it matters quite a bit what path you go down.

It amazed me a few years ago when our high school started putting kids into career paths beginning in 9th/10th grades. It was like a pre-college career course path - essentially a HS "major" that concentrated all of the electives into a particular career path to fill in around the state-mandated general courses.

So yeah, it absolutely matters what you study given that the learning curve will be that much steeper if you study one thing and end up in a completely different field. There are some generally applicable courses that one can take that will translate across fields, of course, but the deep knowledge that makes one valuable to an employer comes from specialization.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Wrong comparison. The cost of healthcare worldwide in developed nations has increased considerably over the last several decades. You're right that everybody paid less for it, but that goes back to a previous point I made; there's lots of healthcare available now that couldn't be had in 1970 at any price.

Even if we had 100% publicly-funded healthcare, we'd still be paying more for it than we did then. Everybody is, because it's not same the healthcare anymore. That's why we have a problem even with drastically increased public spending.

We're talking about cost per household, not total cost of healthcare. If you're paying 2-3 times what the previous generations did, you're at a position of weakness.

Also while Obamacare was seen as a positive in general, it screws over young, healthy individuals who may otherwise not get health insurance. It requires those people to subsidize others.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Essentials would still get shipped, no doubt about it you are correct there. But it's just not as simplistic as you are making it out to be. There's a limited amount of people willing to do certain jobs at any reasonable price, there's issues of infrastructure - i.e., educating and training enough professionals in the health care field included nurses - there are all manner of reasons why sometimes you can't just wave a magic 'pay them more' wand and fix the problem.

It can be and sometimes is both. Economics and societal dynamics are interrelated, they aren't two distinct issues. That can easily be seen, for example, in the price we've paid for discrimination against women, minorities, etc. It's had a considerable negative economic impact due to companies, thankfully to a lesser degree in our time, not hiring the most qualified candidates and therefore hurting their bottom line and the overall economy.

There is no such thing as "reasonable price". The cost is what the market says it is. If there is a shortage of truckers, it's because not enough people feel it's worth their labor to perform that task at that pay. Those jobs would be filled if you increased pay.

As someone mentioned earlier, it's an argument used by billionaires to justify not paying more. Just call them "lazy" for not wanting to do a crappy job for crappy pay.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also while Obamacare was seen as a positive in general, it screws over young, healthy individuals who may otherwise not get health insurance. It requires those people to subsidize others.

Presumably young, healthy individuals grow old and then benefit from new young, healthy individuals subsidizing their care.

[cuervo72]

Which in theory is good. Unfortunately it seems like most of the money is in the hands of (some of) the old.

[Edward64]

Header perked my interest but there is not a lot of substance/details on what the policies are (or at least in the CNN article). Enforcing existing gun laws is good but article seem to indicate more/better background checks (assume like at gun shows or giving weapons to family/friends).

Biden seems to be rushing this. I think the country is ready for something more robust than his limited executive actions. May be surprised though, so I'll wait and see his proposal on Thu.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/07/polit...uns/index.html

President Joe Biden plans to announce new executive actions on guns on Thursday, a person familiar with the plans said, fulfilling a commitment he made in the aftermath of two deadly shootings last month.
:
Biden has been considering requiring background checks on so-called ghost guns along with other measures that would strengthen existing gun laws.
:
The administration had also been considering action in other areas, including to alert law enforcement agencies when someone fails a federal background check. Gun control advocates say background check alerts could potentially flag troubled or criminal individuals who are trying to access weapons.
:
The Democratic-controlled House passed gun legislation that would expand background checks on all commercial gun sales last month, but the bills face tougher paths in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim 50-50 majority and would need significant Republican support to overcome a legislative filibuster.
:
While campaigning, Biden had said he would task his attorney general with instituting better enforcement of existing gun laws as a means of slowing gun violence. He also made a campaign pledge to send $900 million for community programs meant to combat violence, something the administration is sorting out how to fulfill.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We're talking about cost per household, not total cost of healthcare. If you're paying 2-3 times what the previous generations did, you're at a position of weakness.

Cost per household is an unserious comparison. Cost per capita, or relative to GDP are far better. Household sizes vary based on a variety of factors.

There's no question we are in a position of weakness in terms of health care cost compared to before. The question is why. As mentioned, it's true in all developed nations regardless of the approach they've taken.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

he cost is what the market says it is. If there is a shortage of truckers, it's because not enough people feel it's worth their labor to perform that task at that pay. Those jobs would be filled if you increased pay.

According to the US Dept of Labor, as of early 2019 there were a million-plus more unfilled jobs than there were people looking for work. Now let's assume that all of those jobs offered an eight-figure salary immediately and were filled with everyone who wanted a job, nevermind the fact that most of those people aren't qualified for the jobs available and wouldn't want many of them anyway due to factors like stress, location, hours requirements, responsibilities, and so on.

There's still a million-plus unfilled positions. Hmm. Well, let's have them increase their price to nine figures. We'll start shifting around where people work, but the math's never going to work out to the point where we don't come up short somewhere. There simply aren't enough qualified and interested workers to go around, to add on top of the other issues. This is a simplistic and in some ways extreme thought exercise, but it's a very straightforward way to demonstrate the reality that there is *way* more going on than 'pay them more and you will have enough workers'. No, there's a lot more to it than that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

According to the US Dept of Labor, as of early 2019 there were a million-plus more unfilled jobs than there were people looking for work. Now let's assume that all of those jobs offered an eight-figure salary immediately and were filled with everyone who wanted a job, nevermind the fact that most of those people aren't qualified for the jobs available and wouldn't want many of them anyway due to factors like stress, location, hours requirements, responsibilities, and so on.

There's still a million-plus unfilled positions. Hmm. Well, let's have them increase their price to nine figures. We'll start shifting around where people work, but the math's never going to work out to the point where we don't come up short somewhere. There simply aren't enough qualified and interested workers to go around, to add on top of the other issues. This is a simplistic and in some ways extreme thought exercise, but it's a very straightforward way to demonstrate the reality that there is *way* more going on than 'pay them more and you will have enough workers'. No, there's a lot more to it than that.

Higher wages increases the labor participation rate.

Unfilled jobs is a useless statistic when you don't factor in wages. I would like to hire 1000 doctors at minimum wage. I wouldn't fill any because no doctor is going to work for minimum wage. It's a statistic that shows the dream scenario for businesses without factoring in the labor side.

[Brian Swartz]

Higher wages do increase the labor participation rate, but the point is there is a finite amount of labor, a finite amount within that subset that are have the willingness and ability to qualified for a specific task, etc. I wasn't intending to state that it wouldn't have any impact on the available labor pool, but pointing out that your approach disregards many economic realities and limitations.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Unfilled jobs is a useless statistic when you don't factor in wages. I would like to hire 1000 doctors at minimum wage. I wouldn't fill any because no doctor is going to work for minimum wage.

The inverse is true as well. Higher wages are a useless consideration when you don't factor in the availability of qualified labor and other fundamentals of the economy.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Higher wages increases the labor participation rate.

Or you can go the Republican route, cutting any sort of a social safety net to force people to work for inadequate wages!