Occupy Wall Street

[*winter*]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

The interesting thing about the college/American Dream argument is that I think it's becoming clear to many that a college education (in general) is no longer an automatic key to success...instead in seems like it is now certain majors at certain colleges OR a master's that will guarantee success. College degrees are just so saturated amongst the population that it seems like just about everybody has one (although I know that's not the case), so I think to be really impressive both the school and the major now need to be impressive, not just the degree in and of itself.

I graduated from a school currently in the top 25 according to US News, and those of my pledge brothers/friends who graduated with majors that have practical applications (business, engineering mostly) are all successfully employed in great jobs (despite the market). Those that had majors that have less practical application (liberal arts types mostly) are really, really struggling despite their top 25 degree...one struggled for so long that he is currently coaching high school sports as his only source of income. My major began as history and I eventually switched it to business, and although I probably would have enjoyed my classes in the history major more, I am infinitely glad I switched...I was lucky enough to get more or less my dream job out of college, and I know I would be incredibly hard pressed to find adequate employment had my major been history.

It's to the point that somebody I know who is just beginning college was told by their parents that they would only be paying for their education if they have a practical major...this person is free to double major with a more liberal arts degree if they choose, but they have to have a major with immediate practical application. I can't say I blame them. I'm not agreeing with the state of things, I just think that for those beginning college the question of major practicality should be heavily thought about.

The thing that does bug me about these protests (and as we've discussed there is not really a cohesive message amongst the protestors and supporters, so this is a message that is admittedly not shared by all) is that there seems to be an underlying current of "the 1% was fed with a silver spoon, etc." While my family could only be called upper middle class, I went to school with several incredibly wealthy kids that were easily in that "1%". So many of them completely blew it, and so many of them that are doing an average job with their careers are not progressing despite their connection with the "1%". The ones who are wildly successful worked their asses off and made huge sacrifices for their careers. Sure, they had connections that others didn't that helped them, but they still worked damn hard for their current success. Many other people also had those connections and were not able to work hard and/or smart enough to utilize them correctly. To act like the majority of those with power and wealth were just handed it is fundamentally and reprehensibly incorrect. Like I said, not all protestors share this opinion and it's not a central message of these protests, but it seems to be an underlying current amongst some and I just do not agree with it.

I agree, esp with the bolded. It's time for all of us in this country to start making repsonsible financial decisions. And a college degree isn't always one of them, unfortunately. If I do become a teacher, I want to instill that in the students' heads- don't just "go to college" but really think about what it is you want to do, and find a way to do it without incurring a ridiculous amount of debt you'll have little chance of paying off in under 30 years!

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by *winter*

I agree, esp with the bolded. It's time for all of us in this country to start making repsonsible financial decisions. And a college degree isn't always one of them, unfortunately. If I do become a teacher, I want to instill that in the students' heads- don't just "go to college" but really think about what it is you want to do, and find a way to do it without incurring a ridiculous amount of debt you'll have little chance of paying off in under 30 years!

I agree. I was on the East Coast this year and a very distant acquaintance of ours (best friend of a cousin) was telling me she was going to a school that is not known for being an academic powerhouse by any stretch of the imagination, and on top of that she was planning to major in a field that is far from immediately applicable after graduation. She was also taking out massive loans to do this. You almost have to wonder if she would be better off going to community college for two years or even going to a trade school. This is not a knock on universities that are not highly regarded or on "non-practical" majors, but rather a knock on the tuition balloons for higher education that, even at Ivy League institutions, are not necessarily going to add enough to your desirability as an employee to repay themselves in a practical amount of time. She is going to incur a lot of debt paying for a university and a major that will teach her a lot and give her a fine education, but essentially just barely give her even a miniscule edge in the job hunt.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I agree with part of this. I think that practical use of your major is important. Where you get that degree...not so much. If you have a desirable skill set, it doesn't matter where you got those skills. For example, my brother went to the biggest nothing school in the state of Louisiana, a directional school, just like me, and majored in computer science. They didn't even have a computer engineering major. He got an interview with Google in college but didn't get the job. He worked in Mississippi for 5 or 6 years for a nationally known computer company improving his resume. He starts a new job as a Facebook engineer in November. Silicon Valley looks for talent everywhere. It doesn't matter where you go to school in medicine. If you are looking at academics, where you go makes a difference, but making it in the local workforce is a whole different story.

You're absolutely correct and I probably should have specified. There are some careers or career path where the school (as well as the degree) really does matter which is why I say that it's not just having a degree overall that matters anymore. For example, top investment banking firms are realistically only scouting certain level schools. But I think in many cases, like your brother's, you can be wildly successful out of college no matter what the school if you can prove you have a very specific set of skills you've acquired. I think that not only do the more "practical" majors (business, economics, hard sciences, engineering) produce more specifically transferable skills than liberal arts majors, but also the skills gained from liberal arts majors are harder to quantify or explain efficiently in a short period like an interview or a resume.

Also I should have distinguished between immediate, "straight out of college and got my dream job" success vs. a path like your brother's. I think certain jobs or fields are only really open to candidates from "top universities" directly out of graduation, but if you work your way up and strengthen your resume anything is obtainable. It does mean though that you have to work harder and smarter than those with a Princeton degree to get there, which I think is where some of the resentment towards the "1%" is coming from in the first place...although I still stand by that the majority of those in the 1% still earned it even though they were lucky enough to have those connections.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

I agree. I was on the East Coast this year and a very distant acquaintance of ours (best friend of a cousin) was telling me she was going to a school that is not known for being an academic powerhouse by any stretch of the imagination, and on top of that she was planning to major in a field that is far from immediately applicable after graduation. She was also taking out massive loans to do this. You almost have to wonder if she would be better off going to community college for two years or even going to a trade school. This is not a knock on universities that are not highly regarded or on "non-practical" majors, but rather a knock on the tuition balloons for higher education that, even at Ivy League institutions, are not necessarily going to add enough to your desirability as an employee to repay themselves in a practical amount of time. She is going to incur a lot of debt paying for a university and a major that will teach her a lot and give her a fine education, but essentially just barely give her even a miniscule edge in the job hunt.



You're absolutely correct and I probably should have specified. There are some careers or career path where the school (as well as the degree) really does matter which is why I say that it's not just having a degree overall that matters anymore. For example, top investment banking firms are realistically only scouting certain level schools. But I think in many cases, like your brother's, you can be wildly successful out of college no matter what the school if you can prove you have a very specific set of skills you've acquired. I think that not only do the more "practical" majors (business, economics, hard sciences, engineering) produce more specifically transferable skills than liberal arts majors, but also the skills gained from liberal arts majors are harder to quantify or explain efficiently in a short period like an interview or a resume.

Also I should have distinguished between immediate, "straight out of college and got my dream job" success vs. a path like your brother's. I think certain jobs or fields are only really open to candidates from "top universities" directly out of graduation, but if you work your way up and strengthen your resume anything is obtainable. It does mean though that you have to work harder and smarter than those with a Princeton degree to get there, which I think is where some of the resentment towards the "1%" is coming from in the first place...although I still stand by that the majority of those in the 1% still earned it even though they were lucky enough to have those connections.

Agreed.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Rick, Brian Terry was good friends with a lot of people I know. The truth is coming out little by little.



UGH where is this going to be? If they disrupt my commute and my friend's wedding, I will run them down.

They are meeting at the park across from the train station and I know they intend to target the Federal Reserve building. The Facebook page says now that they are voting on all of this at an organizational meeting on Monday and will post more then. Just check out that page when you can. It's just Occupy Detroit and it's an open FB page.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by *winter*

I think, honestly, there just aren't enough jobs. And we're unloading the ones we hav left. I'm not sure what the outcome is, or how to change it...do we line our streets with factories so we can make things again? Could we afford to make things again with the cost of health insurance and wages? It's almost too late to turn back the clock in some ways.

I think the movement of industries overseas began many of the problems we have in our country today. Look at cities- they were dealt the death blow by the outsourcing, and haven't recovered. I don't think it's a coincidence that after the availability of work for the average joe dried up that gangs and drug dealing became rampant. When people knew that if they finished high school, there were options available for them, we didn't have the level of problems we do nowadays.

So, instead of learning that we're accomplishing nothing by stripping away people's chance to work, we continue at it, and now it's hitting the college grads and professionals. Which chips further away at the American Dream- you do what you're "supposed" to do (althewhile accumulating large debts, for the average college student) and when you graduate, it's not even worth it.

There ARE enough jobs. They just pay lower than a certain person's unemployment does. I work at a staffing company. There are jobs constantly being put out there but people are either not qualified, won't take it because of the pay, or get the job and it doesn't work out for whatever reason.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

There ARE enough jobs. They just pay lower than a certain person's unemployment does. I work at a staffing company. There are jobs constantly being put out there but people are either not qualified, won't take it because of the pay, or get the job and it doesn't work out for whatever reason.

The "not qualified" is a biggie though. When Quicken Loans had that job fair to fill 500 positions in Detroit, 2500 people showed up. That's not indicative of their being "enough jobs". They were all jobs that required higher education too: finance and IT focused types of jobs. My ex has had a lot more interviews over the past month. *keeping fingers crossed*

And really, not many jobs pay less than unemployment. The max unemployment rate in Michigan comes to about $9 an hour. And there are lots of 99ers out there (exhausted all unemployment benefits) who would take that, but can't get it. My ex has been told outright at places like Walmart that they aren't going to hire an MBA to be a cashier because they know he'd leave as soon as he got something in his field.

Since being unemployed, he has gotten his boiler operator license and his CPA. Now he's working on a Masters in Information Systems, hoping that gets him something. Some companies are saying outright that they will only hire people who are already employed. This is a crazy economy.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

There ARE enough jobs. They just pay lower than a certain person's unemployment does. I work at a staffing company. There are jobs constantly being put out there but people are either not qualified, won't take it because of the pay, or get the job and it doesn't work out for whatever reason.

So you know more than the economists who have enumerated the number of jobs lost and the paucity of jobs created that cannot decrease the unemployment percentage projecting that the rate will remain high for several more years at this rate. I guess it's all just the fault of the workers.

[amIblue?]

My ex has been told outright at places like Walmart that they aren't going to hire an MBA to be a cashier because they know he'd leave as soon as he got something in his field.

This. My husband has run into this same attitude.

Some companies are saying outright that they will only hire people who are already employed. This is a crazy economy.

Also this. Because everyone who is unemployed must automatically be lazy and a horrible employee, right? No one has ever lost a job through no fault of his/her own, right?

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

There ARE enough jobs. They just pay lower than a certain person's unemployment does. I work at a staffing company. There are jobs constantly being put out there but people are either not qualified, won't take it because of the pay, or get the job and it doesn't work out for whatever reason.

It can be asinine to take a job that pays lower than your unemployment does. Working such a job makes it more difficult to pursue a career in a person's chosen field because of the time required to actually be present at the job. Generally speaking, jobs paying less than unemployment are minimum wage type jobs. (There's nothing wrong with a minimum wage job, but they are typically not the jobs people have pursued qualifications to get.)

Taking a job that pays less than unemployment makes it even that much more challenging to keep a roof over one's head and food on the table. Do people exist for which unemployment is a pay raise? Perhaps, but I would imagine them to be the exception rather than the rule.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDee

My ex has been told outright at places like Walmart that they aren't going to hire an MBA to be a cashier because they know he'd leave as soon as he got something in his field.

That is why people have more than one resume`/c.v. You market yourself based on the positions.

Why would someone give Walmart a resume` with an MBA on it for a cashier position? Save the MBA for a Walmart corporate position that requires that education level, experience, and has a much higher salary.

[DrPhil]

Obama employment bill would prohibit companies from turning down unemployed applicants**

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44836466...iness-careers/

**But we know that it really only prevents companies from overtly discriminating on this basis.

**Should the government be intervening in this regard, though? There are pros and cons to everything and I see some cons to an employment bill that prohibits companies from (admittedly) turning down unemployed applicants. There are occupations and careers where being unemployed for a number of years means that you need to be retrained, re-educated, etc. (Does the reason behind the unemployment matter? Are they going to say that all reasons for being unemployed are equal? For example, for generations, stay-at-home mothers who went back into the labor force have been denied employment because they were unemployed, lacked job history, lacked experience, etc. Is that also going to be covered with this bill? Or will gender and other forms of discrimination be kept under the rug in preference of "unemployed discrimination"?)

What say you, GCers?

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Obama employment bill would prohibit companies from turning down unemployed applicants**

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44836466...iness-careers/

**But we know that it really only prevents companies from overtly discriminating on this basis.

**Should the government be intervening in this regard, though? There are pros and cons to everything and I see some cons to an employment bill that prohibits companies from (admittedly) turning down unemployed applicants. There are occupations and careers where being unemployed for a number of years (for whatever reasons--are they also going to say that all reasons for being unemployed are equal?) means that you need to be retrained, re-educated, etc.

What say you, GCers?

Enacting this kind of legislation is going to accomplish nothing.

IMHO, the only thing that the government can do to encourage corporations to prefer the unemployed over the employed in their hiring practices is to show them the money by offering some short term tax break for hiring an unemployed worker. It may not change the mind of a person who thinks that the only reason that someone could possibly be out of work is that the job seeker is somehow unworthy, but it couldn't hurt.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That is why people have more than one resume`/c.v. You market yourself based on the positions.

Why would someone give Walmart a resume` with an MBA on it for a cashier position? Save the MBA for a Walmart corporate position that requires that education level, experience, and has a much higher salary.

I'm pretty sure that you don't have to bring a resume to Walmart to apply for a job. You do, however, have to complete an application that gives your prior education and employment.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That is why people have more than one resume`/c.v. You market yourself based on the positions.

Why would someone give Walmart a resume` with an MBA on it for a cashier position? Save the MBA for a Walmart corporate position that requires that education level, experience, and has a much higher salary.

When the only jobs you've had for the past 25 years are as an accountant/financial analyst, what would you put on the application? That you've never worked? I don't think they'd hire that person either.

[*winter*]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

There ARE enough jobs. They just pay lower than a certain person's unemployment does. I work at a staffing company. There are jobs constantly being put out there but people are either not qualified, won't take it because of the pay, or get the job and it doesn't work out for whatever reason.

Um, I live in the Rust Belt. Where are the jobs at here?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

There are pros and cons to everything and I see some cons to an employment bill that prohibits companies from (admittedly) turning down unemployed applicants. There are occupations and careers where being unemployed for a number of years means that you need to be retrained, re-educated, etc. Does the reason behind the unemployment matter? Are they going to say that all reasons for being unemployed are equal?

What say you, GCers?

For me, at least, comes down to the reason for the sustained unemployment. I've been hearing about this on NPR and I have mixed feelings too.

I don't know too many people who have been unemployed for long periods of time involuntarily. I have a few friends (unmarried without children) who were laid off, but had handsome severance packages and unemployment benefits, which allowed them to find a job at their own leisure without having to dip into savings. Even then, many of them still took freelance work in order to keep their skills up or bumped up their volunteer involvements. Some took pay cuts because they needed the insurance and the income. I know that our experience is a result of where we live and our education level, so I can't apply that to someone who's in Detroit or Cleveland--where the jobs just aren't there. Maybe in places like that a bill is more important?

BUT...I have two friends who have been unemployed for years and it's through their own actions. I'm not sure a bill would--or should--help them. One left her job without a back-up in early 2008...she worked for a small company where she had a C-level position in name only. So, she spent two years looking for a C-level position without the qualifications. Some of our other friends have urged her to lower her sights but she refuses. She's gotten some freelance work here and there, and she moved back in with her dad so she's not paying crazy rent, but her pride is keeping her unemployed.

Another friend/former co-worker, one of our admins, was laid off two years ago this week. She temped here and there for a few months, but she hasn't had any work that stuck. She doesn't have a college degree--and this is in a town where receptionists have bachelors degrees--and she feels that since she had admin experience at our company that she should be hired at the same position anywhere else. Right now, she's living off unemployment.

They have completely unrealistic expectations of what positions they should be applying for, and neither of them really have a good explanation for why they've been unemployed for years. I'd love for both of them to have jobs but I really don't think they're going to do so without a real re-assessment of their situations.

-----

Also, I wonder if widespread unemployment in certain groups and regions is related to lack of other marketable skills. In some cities, you could go directly from HS to working at the factory without developing any real skills. This is probably hurting workers with a decade or two until retirement, since there's no place else to go and developing new skills is logistically or financially impossible (or seems that way). Growing up, they were never encouraged to develop skills or hobbies because they were "unnecessary," since you could work at the plant and make a decent living and get a pension too.

But--sometimes it's those outside skills and hobbies that make a difference. I had several sorority sisters who were dancers and opted not to pursue it as a career, but they were able to teach dance and yoga/pilates part-time in college and into their adulthood, supplementing their young professional incomes. One of my friends played piano for decades--when people in his hometown in California were unable to continue to pay for private lessons, he was able to offer his services at a lower price. Every job interview I've ever had has been through a connection--through organizations I belonged to. Those outside skills and hobbies can open up a world of networking and potential sources of income.

The new generation of workers will have to learn to think outside of the 20-years-and-a-gold-watch-and-a-pension box and develop innovative ways to earn an income and to supplement it. Parents will have to encourage their kids to develop hobbies and interests outside of the classroom since a college degree or vocational training alone may not be enough to keep one competitive in this market. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes down.

Eeek! This was long.