Slog
News & ArtsThursday, November 10, 2011
Occupy Why Students Have an Iron-Clad Justification for Shouting, "Banks Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out!"
Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:12 PM
- Alex Miller
- Yesterday in the University District.
You can make a case—and I'm not saying I'd agree with you if you did—but you can make a case for feeling no sympathy for people in the 99 percent who got in over their heads in the real estate market and are now being foreclosed upon, or invested too much in the stock market and now feel poor, or have needed for some time to stop being so choosy about what kind of work they're willing to do.
Like I said, I probably wouldn't agree with you. But the case can be made (and if you'd like to hear it, just turn on conservative talk radio).
Where you can't make a case for zero sympathy is when it comes to the students, in Seattle and around the country, who have been merging with the Occupy movement to shout: "Banks Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out."
These students have a pretty much iron-clad case for outrage. Just about all of them were in high school—not buying property, or trading stocks, or staying put in a job in a risky industry—when the financial crisis was building and then hit. And when the banks that helped cause the financial crisis got bailed out, the students literally did get sold out.
There was money to help the banks then, but now, because of the banks' behavior and its consequences, there's less and less money to help students get a college degree.
I suppose you could say these students should have seen this coming and gone to a college they can afford without any government help (even if that means no college). I know plenty of people make this argument in our comment threads.
But if you were getting ready to head to college in the years leading up to (and even briefly after) 2008, you were being told to follow your dreams, worry about the money later, and trust that reasonable governmental assistance would be there to help you live the American ideal of upward mobility through education and hard work. On top of that, you were being told that a college degree is a minimum necessity these days, the equivalent of a G.E.D., something you can't expect to get a good job without.
Given that, I don't see how anyone can be unsympathetic to the students currently shouting in the streets—including the Washington State Legislators they're shouting at, who are actually in a position to do something to help these students (by closings tax breaks instead of further slashing higher ed funding) during the upcoming special session.
1
This is deeply relevant:
5 Ways We Ruined The Occupy Wall Street ….
And for what it's worth, people say variations on, "Too bad, not my problem, should've done something you could afford" because they are small, scared people too worried about their own potential losses to be generous, empathetic, or even reasonable. It is understandable to be scared and cautious, but it ought to make you take a second look at yourself when you can't even muster up some sympathy for young people who did everything they were told they needed to do to succeed, then got dumped into a world where the only paths available to them were ones they were told were essentially failure, growing up.
5 Ways We Ruined The Occupy Wall Street ….
And for what it's worth, people say variations on, "Too bad, not my problem, should've done something you could afford" because they are small, scared people too worried about their own potential losses to be generous, empathetic, or even reasonable. It is understandable to be scared and cautious, but it ought to make you take a second look at yourself when you can't even muster up some sympathy for young people who did everything they were told they needed to do to succeed, then got dumped into a world where the only paths available to them were ones they were told were essentially failure, growing up.
2
I'm pretty sure the right to protest was not in the Constitution, at least the one I got from Clarence Thomas that starts:
"We the Citizens and Corporations of the United States (tm) of America, do hereby offer up the sum of One Dollar for each Protest Share, ..."
"We the Citizens and Corporations of the United States (tm) of America, do hereby offer up the sum of One Dollar for each Protest Share, ..."
3
No.Sympathy.
Fuck those spoiled obnoxious brats.
"follow your dreams, worry about the money later, and trust that reasonable governmental assistance would be there to help you live the American ideal..."
exactly the Liberal bullshit that got us where we are.
lets fix that:
"make a practical life's plan; work your way through school and learn to depend on yourself...."
that is what made America great and after we get finished dismantling the HomoLiberal Socialist Welfare State that's the formula that will make us great again...
Fuck those spoiled obnoxious brats.
"follow your dreams, worry about the money later, and trust that reasonable governmental assistance would be there to help you live the American ideal..."
exactly the Liberal bullshit that got us where we are.
lets fix that:
"make a practical life's plan; work your way through school and learn to depend on yourself...."
that is what made America great and after we get finished dismantling the HomoLiberal Socialist Welfare State that's the formula that will make us great again...
4
You don't need a college education to get a good job in this country. If you falsely believe this I will not feel sorry for you. Instead of pity how about some encouragement for the youth of today?
5
So would these students be better off if no bailout had occurred? And didn't the federal government make a profit on the bailout, which has largely been paid back? I understand that the behavior of these banks receiving bailouts has been not-so-great in most cases, but I'm far from convinced it would have been in the best interest of these students or the economy as a whole to let the banks fail. But I'm with you about closing tax breaks.
6
@3: If everyone works their way through school, not relying on student loans, scholarships, or government aid, only the children of the rich will be able to attend Ivy League-level schools. I'll take a meritocracy over a plutocracy, thanks.
7
Not only did students do nothing to fuck up this situation to begin with, they are now facing skyrocketing tuition costs thanks to massive state budget cuts, not only here in WA, but in many other states too. If I remember correctly, UW tuition went up 18% this year, and that on top of big tuition increases in previous years. For anyone who went to college years ago, you wouldn't believe how expensive it is now.
Plus, thanks to NAFTA and mega-corporations, we've been hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs for decades (which used to be a big source of decent paying jobs for people with no college degree). This means you now have to get a degree or work a minimum wage service job, with little option in between.
I totally with the students on this one.
Plus, thanks to NAFTA and mega-corporations, we've been hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs for decades (which used to be a big source of decent paying jobs for people with no college degree). This means you now have to get a degree or work a minimum wage service job, with little option in between.
I totally with the students on this one.
8
Im pretty sure, that if the bailout didnt happen, they wouldnt have had a school to attend at all. A nasty depression would have set in and that would have made things FAR worse than they are now.
9
"There was money to help the banks then, but now, because of the banks' behavior and its consequences, there's less and less money to help students get a college degree."
I think it is a bit of a stretch to blame the entire economic downturn on fraudulent sales of subprime mortgage derivatives. Did the shenanigans of larcenous Wall Street banksters contribute to the crash of 2008? Yes, but it was one of many reasons. Americans spent the entire Bush administration living beyond their means. Our government paid for two wars and a medicare prescription drug benefit with debt. The subprime mortgage industry financed an unsustainable real estate boom.
Young people struggling to find jobs and finish degrees are in a bad situation and it is certainly not their own doing. However, there are many reasons for their predicament and simply blaming Wall Street is counterproductive.
I think it is a bit of a stretch to blame the entire economic downturn on fraudulent sales of subprime mortgage derivatives. Did the shenanigans of larcenous Wall Street banksters contribute to the crash of 2008? Yes, but it was one of many reasons. Americans spent the entire Bush administration living beyond their means. Our government paid for two wars and a medicare prescription drug benefit with debt. The subprime mortgage industry financed an unsustainable real estate boom.
Young people struggling to find jobs and finish degrees are in a bad situation and it is certainly not their own doing. However, there are many reasons for their predicament and simply blaming Wall Street is counterproductive.
11
I think the point Sanders is trying to make is that the government was willing to help the banks when it came down to it, but they are not helping out the future generation of workers. This is evident in the massive cuts to higher education that are happening in WA (and pretty much everywhere), alongside increasing tuition. Class sizes are larger, entire classes are being cut, and professors are having to shorten their curriculum. Students are paying more for lower quality education, and yet the state legislature is meeting on the 28th of November to cut higher education budgets even more.
12
@7 Have you ever personally known anyone in the service industry? The only ones who make minimum wage are teenagers or someone just starting out. There is good money in retail if you are motivated, hard working and most importantly have a good attitude. Someone who is out protesting tuition hikes probably has a pretty bad attitude.
14
Jesus Christ. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and join the real world.
The only ones who make minimum wage are teenagers or someone just starting out.
Jesus Christ. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and join the real world.
16
@14 I don't like Rush Limbaugh, he is an ass and not very pragmatic. Ideologues on both the right and left annoy me, yet I cannot get enough of it from SLOG. :)
17
I was lucky enough to get a college education without debt. Good for me.
I also hung around in my college town for a few years, because it was fun hanging out with my friends. Of course, my college is in a pretty economically depressed area, even back in 2006 when I graduated. There weren't enough good jobs for everyone, so I ended up working very briefly at a Target (making $7/hr, how depressing) and then switching to Costco, which was way better than Target but still wasn't that good. I sure wasn't going to work there for 15 years to get the cushy $19/hour cashier jobs or what have you. I also didn't fit into the "culture" and did NOT want to end up being a supervisor/manager there.
So I left. Came to Seattle and right away got another service job. A union job at a great workplace. Now I make almost as much as my wife, who is a private school teacher. I think that's messed up.
The point of this boring little story time is that while yes, you can make a decent living working a front-lines service job, it is not easy and there are NOT many out there. Most service jobs are terrible and poorly paid and won't ever be any better. My starting wage at Costco was HIGHER than what long time supervisors at Target were making.
Another moral of the story: if you want to work in the service industry, GO UNION. You will be treated and paid better.
I also hung around in my college town for a few years, because it was fun hanging out with my friends. Of course, my college is in a pretty economically depressed area, even back in 2006 when I graduated. There weren't enough good jobs for everyone, so I ended up working very briefly at a Target (making $7/hr, how depressing) and then switching to Costco, which was way better than Target but still wasn't that good. I sure wasn't going to work there for 15 years to get the cushy $19/hour cashier jobs or what have you. I also didn't fit into the "culture" and did NOT want to end up being a supervisor/manager there.
So I left. Came to Seattle and right away got another service job. A union job at a great workplace. Now I make almost as much as my wife, who is a private school teacher. I think that's messed up.
The point of this boring little story time is that while yes, you can make a decent living working a front-lines service job, it is not easy and there are NOT many out there. Most service jobs are terrible and poorly paid and won't ever be any better. My starting wage at Costco was HIGHER than what long time supervisors at Target were making.
Another moral of the story: if you want to work in the service industry, GO UNION. You will be treated and paid better.
18
6
Right.
Cause the Ivy League boys have done such a great job.
Didn't W Bush go to Yale? and got an MBA from Harvard?
awesome......
We'll take less Ivy League and more of Steve Jobs.
(didn't Bill Gates drop out of Harvard?)
Right.
Cause the Ivy League boys have done such a great job.
Didn't W Bush go to Yale? and got an MBA from Harvard?
awesome......
We'll take less Ivy League and more of Steve Jobs.
(didn't Bill Gates drop out of Harvard?)
19
@17 I agree that most entry level retail jobs suck, but a lousy job can be a lot better than no job. Most people who work at Target for $7 an hour have few marketable skills. You have to start somewhere.
21
Hard to tell whether Occupy is a political statement, or a National Temper Tantrum.
Banks got bailed-out because it was felt, and agreed by politicians of the left-ish flavor as well, that the consequences of not doing so were untenable.
Before you complain about banks being bailed-out, you first must accept the consequences of the alternative. Would you rather have NOT had the banks bailed-out – and had a staggering depression, 15% unemployment, deflation followed by hyper-inflation, an even deeper slash in social services and a wipeout of most working class nest eggs?
Because hardly any economists debate those.
Now onto students: Yes, in relative terms, kids are getting hosed. But the term relative is important. In relative (developed country) terms, they have far more freedom to choose or not choose a school. And the freedom to choose or not choose a degree. And choice of schools. And geography. And all sorts of other choices – still.
But nowhere in our social contract is there an entitlement for cheap/free tuition, to study whatever the fuck you want.
With the unbridled promise of a living wage on the other end.
The kids that studied hard in school, got a technical education or trade skill, and lived frugally to avoid excessive debt? They aren't having a hard time, because that's what markets do.
The kids that skated in high school, got an art history degree, did a semester abroad and signed loan papers without reading them? They're the ones who are fucked.
But they were fucked despite the banks - not because of the banks. Because that's the way markets work.
Nobody is going to hire a young person who mumbles, says "like..." every 4 seconds, spends all day texting, can't get to work properly without hand-holding, and wants a trophy every day to put next to their music therapy certificate.
Ask any employer and they'll tell you there are shitload of particular jobs in the market (in healthcare, sciences, analysis, engineering, systems, etc.) just too few skilled and prepared young people to do them.
They may not be the jobs you want. But that's how markets work. And if you want to study something that won't prepare you for the workforce, you can do that on your own nickel.
When it comes to student loans and their outputs: Buyer beware.
Grow. The. Fuck. Up.
More...
Hard to tell whether Occupy is a political statement, or a National Temper Tantrum.
Banks got bailed-out because it was felt, and agreed by politicians of the left-ish flavor as well, that the consequences of not doing so were untenable.
Before you complain about banks being bailed-out, you first must accept the consequences of the alternative. Would you rather have NOT had the banks bailed-out – and had a staggering depression, 15% unemployment, deflation followed by hyper-inflation, an even deeper slash in social services and a wipeout of most working class nest eggs?
Because hardly any economists debate those.
Now onto students: Yes, in relative terms, kids are getting hosed. But the term relative is important. In relative (developed country) terms, they have far more freedom to choose or not choose a school. And the freedom to choose or not choose a degree. And choice of schools. And geography. And all sorts of other choices – still.
But nowhere in our social contract is there an entitlement for cheap/free tuition, to study whatever the fuck you want.
With the unbridled promise of a living wage on the other end.
The kids that studied hard in school, got a technical education or trade skill, and lived frugally to avoid excessive debt? They aren't having a hard time, because that's what markets do.
The kids that skated in high school, got an art history degree, did a semester abroad and signed loan papers without reading them? They're the ones who are fucked.
But they were fucked despite the banks - not because of the banks. Because that's the way markets work.
Nobody is going to hire a young person who mumbles, says "like..." every 4 seconds, spends all day texting, can't get to work properly without hand-holding, and wants a trophy every day to put next to their music therapy certificate.
Ask any employer and they'll tell you there are shitload of particular jobs in the market (in healthcare, sciences, analysis, engineering, systems, etc.) just too few skilled and prepared young people to do them.
They may not be the jobs you want. But that's how markets work. And if you want to study something that won't prepare you for the workforce, you can do that on your own nickel.
When it comes to student loans and their outputs: Buyer beware.
Grow. The. Fuck. Up.
22
@21 I agree that a liberal arts degree isn't worth much in the job market. I spent four years getting a BA and then got a job doing janitorial work for $9 an hour. This was many years ago when $9 an hour was pretty good money, but that's not the kind career you go to college for.
23
Fuck you db, fuck you. No one on my mother's side of the family went to college and they all struggle to make ends meet. For years, one of my aunts has worked full-time at a diner to support herself and her husband, who had to take an early retirement from his job as a firefighter for due to health issues. My other aunt works full-time and then some in her lower-management position at a sports supply store to keep the modest 2-bedroom house she owns with her traveling salesman husband in a run-down part of town. One of her sons has worked in a warehouse for a decade, and the other does road repairs - neither can work full-time due to injuries received on the job. Both of my brothers, who are in their 30s, work construction, and can only make ends meet because our mother can afford to help them with the income from her job as an insurance broker (which, were she just starting out today, would not be able to have without a college education).
Contrastingly, everyone on my father's side of the family is comfortable economically. A few members even number among the 1%. They aren't where they are though because they are somehow better people or harder workers, but because they have all been given better opportunities afforded to them by their college educations.
More doors to more profitable enterprises open to those with college educations than to those without. My 23 year old cousin on my mother's side of the family has now been working at the same diner her mother has for the past seven years. My 23 year old cousin on my father's side of the family is trying to decide whether to pursue a doctorate in neurosurgery or research medicine. So kindly db, go fuck yourself.
Contrastingly, everyone on my father's side of the family is comfortable economically. A few members even number among the 1%. They aren't where they are though because they are somehow better people or harder workers, but because they have all been given better opportunities afforded to them by their college educations.
More doors to more profitable enterprises open to those with college educations than to those without. My 23 year old cousin on my mother's side of the family has now been working at the same diner her mother has for the past seven years. My 23 year old cousin on my father's side of the family is trying to decide whether to pursue a doctorate in neurosurgery or research medicine. So kindly db, go fuck yourself.
24
@23 I don't think there is any doubt that studying science or engineering pays off, but is a BA a wise investment of resources? Either for the student or the larger society.
25
@_db_
There is one job available for every six unemployed individuals right now.
I'm confused about how "working hard" and "the right attitude" balance out that equation. But hey, it's easier to mouth smug platitudes than acknowledge your own vast unearned privilege, right?
There is one job available for every six unemployed individuals right now.
I'm confused about how "working hard" and "the right attitude" balance out that equation. But hey, it's easier to mouth smug platitudes than acknowledge your own vast unearned privilege, right?
27
@24, Well, the fortune that allowed my father, his four siblings, and two half-siblings to go to school and get their degrees in comparative religion, law, Spanish, and food-styling (hey, some of those are BAs!) came from the skills my step-grandmother's first husband learned with a degree in art history. Incidentally, the ones with the BAs are doing just as well economically as the ones with higher degrees. There is no reason a BA can't be profitable.
In more general terms, considering a college degree of any kind is requisite for so many jobs today, even for ones that don't arguably need a college education to perform (like, how about, brokering insurance), it is wise to get any college degree.
As far as the utility of the BA for society in general? What would become of our society's cultural wealth without the people trained to maintain and further grow it? And it's not as if cultural wealth is an intangible nothing. Ask Sotheby's or Penguin Group, cultural wealth is real world money.
In more general terms, considering a college degree of any kind is requisite for so many jobs today, even for ones that don't arguably need a college education to perform (like, how about, brokering insurance), it is wise to get any college degree.
As far as the utility of the BA for society in general? What would become of our society's cultural wealth without the people trained to maintain and further grow it? And it's not as if cultural wealth is an intangible nothing. Ask Sotheby's or Penguin Group, cultural wealth is real world money.
28
@27, did you notice that you're citing the success of your parents' generation as example of what people supposedly need today to be successful?
Do you see why that might not be appropriate evidence that earning a BA today is worth the cost?
And as an aside, have you considered that the family privilege that you mention might be more responsible for the success of those BA-holding relatives than the degree?
I'm not arguing that there's no reason for people to get a BA, mind you. I just don't think you're making the case that you think you're making. It is valuable for society to have some BAs, but the degree in general is so inflated as to be almost worthless, on average, to the career-seeking individual.
Do you see why that might not be appropriate evidence that earning a BA today is worth the cost?
And as an aside, have you considered that the family privilege that you mention might be more responsible for the success of those BA-holding relatives than the degree?
I'm not arguing that there's no reason for people to get a BA, mind you. I just don't think you're making the case that you think you're making. It is valuable for society to have some BAs, but the degree in general is so inflated as to be almost worthless, on average, to the career-seeking individual.
29
@26 Yep, $22 an hour to pick apples, such a rip off.
@27 About half my co-workers have bachelor's degree or more, the other half have some college or no college. The college graduates do tend to move up faster but that's mostly because they are more ambitious. Your account of working class life as endless toil in a dead end job doesn't match my experience. Barbers, mechanics, and systems administrators all make good livings and you don't need four years of training to any of those things.
@27 About half my co-workers have bachelor's degree or more, the other half have some college or no college. The college graduates do tend to move up faster but that's mostly because they are more ambitious. Your account of working class life as endless toil in a dead end job doesn't match my experience. Barbers, mechanics, and systems administrators all make good livings and you don't need four years of training to any of those things.
30
@18: Dude, what?
I made the point that the brightest students should go to the best schools, rather than just people from rich families. You gave an example of one such Ivy League rich boy who fucked the country over. Thank you for making my point!
I made the point that the brightest students should go to the best schools, rather than just people from rich families. You gave an example of one such Ivy League rich boy who fucked the country over. Thank you for making my point!
31
Cultural "wealth" is only a value to the extent that someone is willing to give-up something, to get something. What you might regard as "cultural touchstones" doesn't compel anyone to subsidize what they might think of your "pet rocks."
There's nothing wrong with a BA. (Got one myself.). The market will let you know when there's too many BAs. And it has.
It comes-down to a simple idea. The market will decide. You don't have to like it. But the market will decide. And the job of government isn't to distort the market, but to make sure it's open, transparent and respectful of rights.
Yes, get a BA. That's your choice. But don't presume the consequence of that choice creates an obligation for the rest of us.
Cultural "wealth" is only a value to the extent that someone is willing to give-up something, to get something. What you might regard as "cultural touchstones" doesn't compel anyone to subsidize what they might think of your "pet rocks."
There's nothing wrong with a BA. (Got one myself.). The market will let you know when there's too many BAs. And it has.
It comes-down to a simple idea. The market will decide. You don't have to like it. But the market will decide. And the job of government isn't to distort the market, but to make sure it's open, transparent and respectful of rights.
Yes, get a BA. That's your choice. But don't presume the consequence of that choice creates an obligation for the rest of us.
32
I had written a thoughtful response about how @28 is for the most part right and how I hadn't thought everything through @27. But then I refreshed the page and read @31. That's it, I'm out. Sometimes you eat the SLOG, and sometimes the SLOG eats you. You win, underpass dweller. You're not right, but you win.
33
I even had cited stats about income by degree and income for degree holders vs. HS diploma/GED holders. Excuse me while I pout.
34
@31 Right now the market is saying there are too many people making enough money to afford to buy a house and put a child through college. Oh, wait, is that just the way the market is being steered because the 1% are telling their captive politicians that is how it must be?
35
Graduated in 2007, spent the summer in an extremely small town in SE Alaska doing seasonal work, came home to news of credit default swaps -- yeah I felt gypped. But at least I never saw a 22% increase in tuition.
36
From the article linked to by balderdash (and originally posted on Reddit, as far as I know):
"I just get so pissed off by the older generation."
"Why?"
"Because when I grew up, we were force-fed the idea that if we 'didn't want to be flipping burgers at McDonald's' then we better go to college."
"And?"
"And now we've gone to college, have degrees, can't get a damn job, and the same people call us entitled assholes because we refuse to flip burgers!"
"Touché."
IMO, this sums it up pretty accurately, and I completely agree.
"I just get so pissed off by the older generation."
"Why?"
"Because when I grew up, we were force-fed the idea that if we 'didn't want to be flipping burgers at McDonald's' then we better go to college."
"And?"
"And now we've gone to college, have degrees, can't get a damn job, and the same people call us entitled assholes because we refuse to flip burgers!"
"Touché."
IMO, this sums it up pretty accurately, and I completely agree.
37
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates quit college a lonnnnnnng time ago. Back when being a computer wizard was helpful because there were about 5 of them around. There are now probably hundreds of thousands, and many of them are working retail or service jobs (which are not the same, except that most of either are not union jobs).
I do wonder, though, whether college students who decided to get masters' degrees because they couldn't find a well-paying job in their particular field deserve a lot of sympathy when they now complain about their student loans. $50K in student loans just doesn't speak much toward anyone's intelligence. What about "loan" did they not understand?
I do wonder, though, whether college students who decided to get masters' degrees because they couldn't find a well-paying job in their particular field deserve a lot of sympathy when they now complain about their student loans. $50K in student loans just doesn't speak much toward anyone's intelligence. What about "loan" did they not understand?
38
@32-34
C'mon. Stop kidding yourself. For over three decades (not the past few years of the banking sector's behavior) employers, government and academia have all been screaming that not enough students are taking the types of courses to prepare them for the future workforce and increasing global competitiveness.
Guess what? Are you surprised?
Really?
A BA is a college degree. But a college degree is not a hall pass. If you thought "Get a college degree" meant "Get any college degree." then you – news flash – are an idiot.
Write this down:
1) Get an education in a marketable skill or transferable expertise. Or don't.
2) Work your ass off. Someone else will.
3) Stop blaming everyone else for your problems. Not banks, the 1%, or politicians. It's quite marginally part of the way life is turning-out for you, and frankly it's cringe-worthy embarrassing to see someone allegedly intelligent whining and boo-hooing that evil external forces are defining their existence.
Your future is asking you to: grow. the. fuck. up.
@32-34
C'mon. Stop kidding yourself. For over three decades (not the past few years of the banking sector's behavior) employers, government and academia have all been screaming that not enough students are taking the types of courses to prepare them for the future workforce and increasing global competitiveness.
Guess what? Are you surprised?
Really?
A BA is a college degree. But a college degree is not a hall pass. If you thought "Get a college degree" meant "Get any college degree." then you – news flash – are an idiot.
Write this down:
1) Get an education in a marketable skill or transferable expertise. Or don't.
2) Work your ass off. Someone else will.
3) Stop blaming everyone else for your problems. Not banks, the 1%, or politicians. It's quite marginally part of the way life is turning-out for you, and frankly it's cringe-worthy embarrassing to see someone allegedly intelligent whining and boo-hooing that evil external forces are defining their existence.
Your future is asking you to: grow. the. fuck. up.
39
@38 - If I'm to play the game by the rules, then rating agencies have to also. Plenty of people played by the rules and now they are in their 40's & 50's and have jack shit for retirement.
40
Jesus people.
Ratings agencies give opinions. Period. Why do you feel particularly compelled to believe an unregulated, for-profit, non-standardized reporting firm? (Particularly if you're skeptical of financiers). No, really? Why?
"Hello?" (Hey @39. It's Charles Darwin on the phone. He has something to tell you.)
The stock market has never ever been an analog of retirement "savings." Just because people mindlessly treat it that way doesn't mean its all-of-a-sudden true. For 50 fucking years every independent financial analyst and business journalist has said: "The stock market is for wealth accumulation, not wealth preservation. As you get close to retirement, wind-down your equity portfolio and risk exposure." Nothing new there.
(Or did you not get the memo?)
If someone in the market is 40 or 50 years old, and their retirement is "jack shit" -- fine -- because they aren't retired!
Keep investing, work your ass-off, and then - over 20 years - manage your risk portfolio and you're all good.
Would you like someone to come-over and wipe your nose too?
Jesus people.
Ratings agencies give opinions. Period. Why do you feel particularly compelled to believe an unregulated, for-profit, non-standardized reporting firm? (Particularly if you're skeptical of financiers). No, really? Why?
"Hello?" (Hey @39. It's Charles Darwin on the phone. He has something to tell you.)
The stock market has never ever been an analog of retirement "savings." Just because people mindlessly treat it that way doesn't mean its all-of-a-sudden true. For 50 fucking years every independent financial analyst and business journalist has said: "The stock market is for wealth accumulation, not wealth preservation. As you get close to retirement, wind-down your equity portfolio and risk exposure." Nothing new there.
(Or did you not get the memo?)
If someone in the market is 40 or 50 years old, and their retirement is "jack shit" -- fine -- because they aren't retired!
Keep investing, work your ass-off, and then - over 20 years - manage your risk portfolio and you're all good.
Would you like someone to come-over and wipe your nose too?
44
@39 I think that what has made America great is that, for the most part, people don't get ahead simply by mindlessly following the rules. Guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't make it big by finishing college, getting a job at IBM, and doing whatever the boss told them. American capitalism is hard on people who can't change with the times, but it also rewards innovation with showers of gold (not to be confused w/ golden showers).
45
Let's see, only 25% of Americans have college degrees, they have an unemployment rate half the national average (4.2%), they earn 40% more than non-degreed workers over a lifetime.
Looks like the 25% doesn't enjoy their privilege enough.
Btw whiners, UW still costs less than a year in daycare but judging by some of the flaky liberals farts majors you meet, at least in day care you learn something.
Looks like the 25% doesn't enjoy their privilege enough.
Btw whiners, UW still costs less than a year in daycare but judging by some of the flaky liberals farts majors you meet, at least in day care you learn something.
46
@40: It's doesn't matter if WE trust rating agencies... it's whether other people in the economy do, and collapse the economy based on those decisions.
And sure, I don't think that subsidizing education in EVERYTHING for EVERYONE is wise public policy by any means, or that people that engaged in speculation over responsible investment should be rewarded. But when "market adjustments" involve extended hardship and economic disruption for a lot of people at a time when deregulation and tax cuts are the only strategies the rich want to entertain, it's hard to see how "suck it up, buttercup" is a good public policy approach.
And sure, I don't think that subsidizing education in EVERYTHING for EVERYONE is wise public policy by any means, or that people that engaged in speculation over responsible investment should be rewarded. But when "market adjustments" involve extended hardship and economic disruption for a lot of people at a time when deregulation and tax cuts are the only strategies the rich want to entertain, it's hard to see how "suck it up, buttercup" is a good public policy approach.
47
Well, Occupy Seattle's latest demands include FREE education for all, FREE healthcare for all and more social services (i.e.. welfare). Apparently they haven't even removed the Bush tax cuts (which will lower the deficit by only 25%) and they're already on a spending spree. If you think the 1% can pay for all your wet utopian dreams I have some Greek and Italian bonds I'd love to sell you.
48
We've got some polar views here on how the system should work:
a) Some believe people should get fucked by their poor financial judgment, presuming a hard fucking-over will encourage smarter decisions in the future. Nobody should be obligated to anybody, and nobody should feel entitled to others' hard earned winnings.
b) Some believe people should get helped back up even when their own stupidity gets them fucked, presuming that throwing folks under the bus hurts us all. Everybody should be obligated to everybody as everybody's entitled to the winnings.
Further, there seems to also be a lot of wrangling over whether it's the younger generation's fault that they're fucked. In group a's eyes, if you're fucked you deserved it. In group b's eyes, the fucked need to be helped. Fault doesn't matter to either group, so lets stop trying to place blame.
BTW, I fall into group b - it seems a sustainable long-term strategy for improving median quality of life. I consider folks in group a to be shirking their responsibility to others in exchange for short-term personal gain. They're improving *mean* quality of life at the expense of the median.
a) Some believe people should get fucked by their poor financial judgment, presuming a hard fucking-over will encourage smarter decisions in the future. Nobody should be obligated to anybody, and nobody should feel entitled to others' hard earned winnings.
b) Some believe people should get helped back up even when their own stupidity gets them fucked, presuming that throwing folks under the bus hurts us all. Everybody should be obligated to everybody as everybody's entitled to the winnings.
Further, there seems to also be a lot of wrangling over whether it's the younger generation's fault that they're fucked. In group a's eyes, if you're fucked you deserved it. In group b's eyes, the fucked need to be helped. Fault doesn't matter to either group, so lets stop trying to place blame.
BTW, I fall into group b - it seems a sustainable long-term strategy for improving median quality of life. I consider folks in group a to be shirking their responsibility to others in exchange for short-term personal gain. They're improving *mean* quality of life at the expense of the median.
49
@48 I'd put myself midway in between those two polar views. I guess that makes me Type A-B. I'm a pessimist, so call me AB -.
50
To summarize:
1. if you suffer, it's because you are stupid.
2. If you're successful, it's because you are AWESOME!
3. Markets are all knowing and infallible.
1. if you suffer, it's because you are stupid.
2. If you're successful, it's because you are AWESOME!
3. Markets are all knowing and infallible.
51
well, my own personal story here. sometimes it is about personal accountability. i went to college and got a degree. i got plenty of financial aid, grants, and scholarships. i worked a part time job making 12 bucks an hour. even though my tuition and books were pretty much covered with grants and scholarships, i managed to rack up 45k in financial aid debt by the time i got my degree. basically, i lived it up on loan money while in college. i'm not using my degree at the moment but i'm making close to 50k a year, and may be making a lot more soon. so i'm doing fine. however, if i lost my job i would be fucked, and would only have myself to blame. the wife and i are also underwater in our 450k house, but we can make the mortgage comfortably so it's ok. again though...who can we blame but ourselves? we knew that taking out a half mil mortgage was stupid but we did it anyway.
52
It doesn't simply end at "we had to bail the banks out, or it would be worse." It is true that all along the political spectrum, people realized that letting the idiotic banks fail would have been an epic disaster for the economy. HOWEVER it is entirely their investment decisions that put them in that position to REQUIRE THAT THEY get bailouts.
The exact sort of tongue clucking that some of you are hoisting upon college students past and present to exercise market responsibility in their choice of majors should actually be applied to the banks, and I believe the reason for the comparison slogan "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out." Had the banks actually employed people who exercised critical-thinking skills, such as cautiousness, belief in the wisdom of investing in product rather than investing in the exchange of money--they would not have required massive bailouts. And as a result, the U.S. economy might not have very nearly imploded.
Banks employed group-thinkers trained and educated in schools of business who operated very much in line with what "market forces" demanded in order to make money. Clearly anyone who thought differently was eliminated or at the very least ignored by the massive supply of stupid dickheads at these banks who repeated the mantra "no, all the money is in default swaps."
So quit being concrete, narrow-minded thinkers. Going to school with the intent of taking advantage of the current market demand insures nothing and as evidenced by the current condition, not terribly productive. (By the way liberal arts study does include mathematics and the sciences so also get a grip on what is included in liberal arts.) If all these business school types who who chose those fields of study based on market forces alone had any sort of meaningful exposure to the academic areas of History, the arts, Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Cultural Studies, they may have been able to be more wholistic in their thinking and exercised skepticism about the conventional wisdom and "best practices" crowd at all these banks.
I wonder how many bankers and hedge fund managers even have a clue about how they repeated the steps that led up to the Great Depression? I wonder how many of them even knew when it had occured? I wonder if any of them understood what got us out of it? Clearly not. Just think of how much better we would be as a country if these assholes took more history courses in college.
People who have studied in the liberal arts are more likely to see through things like push polling, pie chart statistics, understand that Rush Limbaugh is in fact, a big fat idiot. They understand that a great education prepares a person to be an informed citizen who can think independently and prizes something other than people-pleasing groveling.
More...
The exact sort of tongue clucking that some of you are hoisting upon college students past and present to exercise market responsibility in their choice of majors should actually be applied to the banks, and I believe the reason for the comparison slogan "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out." Had the banks actually employed people who exercised critical-thinking skills, such as cautiousness, belief in the wisdom of investing in product rather than investing in the exchange of money--they would not have required massive bailouts. And as a result, the U.S. economy might not have very nearly imploded.
Banks employed group-thinkers trained and educated in schools of business who operated very much in line with what "market forces" demanded in order to make money. Clearly anyone who thought differently was eliminated or at the very least ignored by the massive supply of stupid dickheads at these banks who repeated the mantra "no, all the money is in default swaps."
So quit being concrete, narrow-minded thinkers. Going to school with the intent of taking advantage of the current market demand insures nothing and as evidenced by the current condition, not terribly productive. (By the way liberal arts study does include mathematics and the sciences so also get a grip on what is included in liberal arts.) If all these business school types who who chose those fields of study based on market forces alone had any sort of meaningful exposure to the academic areas of History, the arts, Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Cultural Studies, they may have been able to be more wholistic in their thinking and exercised skepticism about the conventional wisdom and "best practices" crowd at all these banks.
I wonder how many bankers and hedge fund managers even have a clue about how they repeated the steps that led up to the Great Depression? I wonder how many of them even knew when it had occured? I wonder if any of them understood what got us out of it? Clearly not. Just think of how much better we would be as a country if these assholes took more history courses in college.
People who have studied in the liberal arts are more likely to see through things like push polling, pie chart statistics, understand that Rush Limbaugh is in fact, a big fat idiot. They understand that a great education prepares a person to be an informed citizen who can think independently and prizes something other than people-pleasing groveling.
53
@46
I full expect that you won't take the time to open and read the links I'll provide, because they're inconvenient to the liberal-ish Occupied minds. So I'll dare ya' to read and respond:
You wrongly repeat the great lie that is conservatives who sought the deregulation of the financial sector. In fact it was Republicans (and John McCain in particular) who sought to reign in the runaway mortgage mess driven by the NGOs.
Further: It was Bill Clinton, Hillary and liberal icon Barney Frank who were in fact the most complicit in governments malfeasance to regulate --- because they were encouraging home ownership among those they knew couldn't pay under conventional lending.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/baro…
And how important were these government-ish entities in crashing the system?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12221294…
@42 - No, I'm not proposing social darwinism (in the pejorative post-Malthusian sense that you intend.). It's economic darwinism (the free market) certainly and there's nothing wrong with that.
@46
I full expect that you won't take the time to open and read the links I'll provide, because they're inconvenient to the liberal-ish Occupied minds. So I'll dare ya' to read and respond:
You wrongly repeat the great lie that is conservatives who sought the deregulation of the financial sector. In fact it was Republicans (and John McCain in particular) who sought to reign in the runaway mortgage mess driven by the NGOs.
Further: It was Bill Clinton, Hillary and liberal icon Barney Frank who were in fact the most complicit in governments malfeasance to regulate --- because they were encouraging home ownership among those they knew couldn't pay under conventional lending.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/baro…
And how important were these government-ish entities in crashing the system?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12221294…
@42 - No, I'm not proposing social darwinism (in the pejorative post-Malthusian sense that you intend.). It's economic darwinism (the free market) certainly and there's nothing wrong with that.
54
Zok, I don't think 46 was putting a political party label on the problem. The regulation issue is well-known...I hope.
55
Hey @52...
So the financial system is run by business school automatons? Really?
Lloyd Blankfein CEO of Goldman Sachs: English Literature and Law major.
Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase Bank was a Psychology major at Tufts.
Brian Moynihan CEO of Bank of America was a History major at Notre Dame.
Harold McGraw from Standard & Poor's was a liberal arts major at Tufts.
Richard S. Fuld, Jr., former CEO of Lehman Brothers – BA degree from Colorado.
Joseph Cassano, the guy that trashed AIG? Poli-Sci major at Brooklyn College.
If you believe the Occupier storyline, a liberal arts education could be a very dangerous thing indeed.
Hey @52...
So the financial system is run by business school automatons? Really?
Lloyd Blankfein CEO of Goldman Sachs: English Literature and Law major.
Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase Bank was a Psychology major at Tufts.
Brian Moynihan CEO of Bank of America was a History major at Notre Dame.
Harold McGraw from Standard & Poor's was a liberal arts major at Tufts.
Richard S. Fuld, Jr., former CEO of Lehman Brothers – BA degree from Colorado.
Joseph Cassano, the guy that trashed AIG? Poli-Sci major at Brooklyn College.
If you believe the Occupier storyline, a liberal arts education could be a very dangerous thing indeed.
56
@53: So what's the difference between social and economic Darwinism? By the way, any kind of Darwinism is going to be post-Malthusian, because Malthus was dead and buried over a decade before Darwin published his theory, and Darwin actually drew on Malthus's ideas quite a bit when formulating his own. Cut the hipster jibber-jabber and level with us; I could play a game of Buzzword Bingo with the tripe you've been spouting so far.
57
@52 Except that GSEs were only responsible for a sliver of the housing collapse. Greed took care of the rest.
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/0…
Which of course not to say that it wasn't to some degree Clinton-era errors that bears blame for the catastrophe. But the effect is hardly as large you make it seem.
I think the broader point people are making here -- and the point of the post -- is that the banks and bankers responsible were not subject to the full negative force of the market. Their bad behavior went largely unpunished in the name of the "greater good," which, to the market, is the good of the wealthy.
Also, please find me any low-level crappy office job pushing papers or answering phones that requires less than a B.A. They might exist, but there aren't many.
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/0…
Which of course not to say that it wasn't to some degree Clinton-era errors that bears blame for the catastrophe. But the effect is hardly as large you make it seem.
I think the broader point people are making here -- and the point of the post -- is that the banks and bankers responsible were not subject to the full negative force of the market. Their bad behavior went largely unpunished in the name of the "greater good," which, to the market, is the good of the wealthy.
Also, please find me any low-level crappy office job pushing papers or answering phones that requires less than a B.A. They might exist, but there aren't many.
59
@56 and @57
Economic Darwinism is the moral principle that – in a free market where people are have their liberty – stronger ideas survive, weaker ones don't. Social Darwinism is the amoral social principle that it's everyone for themselves, (lassaiz-faire without state protection for the weak). It's the kid-brother of eugenics.
The relationship between them is that you're going to enjoy/suffer from the choices you make with respect to competition in the market (how hard you work, what you study, how you adapt). And people that make better choices will move further ahead. That's Economic Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is society not giving a shit whether you starve and freeze to death, because the only the fittest deserve to survive. (I don't subscribe.)
You'll have a hard time finding evidence that the U.S. is driving Occupiers into extinction.
In relative global terms, they are the 1%.
As for the role of liberal politicos in fueling the shit show that is the housing crisis: Let's recall that the GSE's were behing 40%! of all US mortgages. Is 40% really "a sliver?"
- Then let's look at the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, signed by President Clinton.
- And Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagel Act of 1933.
- And it was Clinton who initiated the 1994 "National Homeownership Strategy."
- And Clinton initiated and approved the Riegle-Neal act of 1994.
The poor and minorities are getting fucked because of their fealty to the Democratic party. They keep promising that they're gonna' help you – so you vote for them – and then FOR DECADES get fucked over by them, and yet here you are again. Hope and Change. This time it's for real right? They aren't bullshitting you now, right? This time it's all different.
No, at least the republicans know that government isn't going to help you. Because over the long course of time, government have only served their own interests.
How many more elections before Occupiers figure that out?
More...
@56 and @57
Economic Darwinism is the moral principle that – in a free market where people are have their liberty – stronger ideas survive, weaker ones don't. Social Darwinism is the amoral social principle that it's everyone for themselves, (lassaiz-faire without state protection for the weak). It's the kid-brother of eugenics.
The relationship between them is that you're going to enjoy/suffer from the choices you make with respect to competition in the market (how hard you work, what you study, how you adapt). And people that make better choices will move further ahead. That's Economic Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is society not giving a shit whether you starve and freeze to death, because the only the fittest deserve to survive. (I don't subscribe.)
You'll have a hard time finding evidence that the U.S. is driving Occupiers into extinction.
In relative global terms, they are the 1%.
As for the role of liberal politicos in fueling the shit show that is the housing crisis: Let's recall that the GSE's were behing 40%! of all US mortgages. Is 40% really "a sliver?"
- Then let's look at the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, signed by President Clinton.
- And Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagel Act of 1933.
- And it was Clinton who initiated the 1994 "National Homeownership Strategy."
- And Clinton initiated and approved the Riegle-Neal act of 1994.
The poor and minorities are getting fucked because of their fealty to the Democratic party. They keep promising that they're gonna' help you – so you vote for them – and then FOR DECADES get fucked over by them, and yet here you are again. Hope and Change. This time it's for real right? They aren't bullshitting you now, right? This time it's all different.
No, at least the republicans know that government isn't going to help you. Because over the long course of time, government have only served their own interests.
How many more elections before Occupiers figure that out?
60
@12- "There is good money in retail if you are motivated, hard working and most importantly have a good attitude."
No. There's mediocre money for those people. I'm not making this up, do a wage comparison between manufacturing and service. Service workers have less hours, less pay, and less benefits.
No. There's mediocre money for those people. I'm not making this up, do a wage comparison between manufacturing and service. Service workers have less hours, less pay, and less benefits.
61
@52, thanks for cutting through the bullshit.
@53, there is everything wrong with "economic darwinism". More so, in fact, than with social darwinism. All the downsides of social darwinism transfer to your economic version (chiefly: that it is an untrue, absurd application of biological theory, used primarily to rationalize injustice). Then you can add that it incorrectly assumes that markets are natural processes. They aren't; they are dependent on institutions like governments and banks. The market forces which define the "fittest" in this context can be, and have been, designed explicitly to benefit one group (those already in power) at the expense of another.
The most obvious (but not at all the only) example in the last few years is that banks which form a fundamental part of the financial infrastructure are able to issue massive amounts of risky loans, . These things happen all the time, systematically; banks in rich countries issue loans to third world countries (often dictatorships) because, though a combination of IMF bullying and foreign aid, their interests will be protected. This is, in part, what is going on in Greece. In those cases, the same rhetoric about "personal responsibility" surfaces with respect to entire nations, even when a dictator runs up the debt in campaigns of oppression or for his personal coffers.
The moralizing is tiresome. As others have pointed out, the exact same logic you use applies in reverse: the banks issued risky loans. In your imagined natural market what happens when a debtor can't or even doesn't want to pay a loan? He/she walks away in default and the loan holder eats the loss. Tough shit, right? Should have evaluated the risk. But the power is in the hands of the banks, so instead we talk only about the "personal responsibility" of the little guy.
More...
@53, there is everything wrong with "economic darwinism". More so, in fact, than with social darwinism. All the downsides of social darwinism transfer to your economic version (chiefly: that it is an untrue, absurd application of biological theory, used primarily to rationalize injustice). Then you can add that it incorrectly assumes that markets are natural processes. They aren't; they are dependent on institutions like governments and banks. The market forces which define the "fittest" in this context can be, and have been, designed explicitly to benefit one group (those already in power) at the expense of another.
The most obvious (but not at all the only) example in the last few years is that banks which form a fundamental part of the financial infrastructure are able to issue massive amounts of risky loans, . These things happen all the time, systematically; banks in rich countries issue loans to third world countries (often dictatorships) because, though a combination of IMF bullying and foreign aid, their interests will be protected. This is, in part, what is going on in Greece. In those cases, the same rhetoric about "personal responsibility" surfaces with respect to entire nations, even when a dictator runs up the debt in campaigns of oppression or for his personal coffers.
The moralizing is tiresome. As others have pointed out, the exact same logic you use applies in reverse: the banks issued risky loans. In your imagined natural market what happens when a debtor can't or even doesn't want to pay a loan? He/she walks away in default and the loan holder eats the loss. Tough shit, right? Should have evaluated the risk. But the power is in the hands of the banks, so instead we talk only about the "personal responsibility" of the little guy.
62
@59 "The poor and minorities are getting fucked because of their fealty to the Democratic party." Are you suggesting that poor people would be better off w/o Social Security, unemployment benefits, the statutory minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid, or Head Start? Please.
63
Second paragraph of @61 should say:
...are able to issue massive amounts of risky loans, but externalize the risk to the government.
...are able to issue massive amounts of risky loans, but externalize the risk to the government.
64
I received my BA back in the mid-90s. Tuition was lower and more affordable (especially in-State) and the interest rates on student Direct Loans was fixed at 2 to 3%. I worked for years after graduating waiting tables, etc. Low pay. Nothing to do with my degree. That's life.
I eventually started working for non-profits in the cultural sector. Fell in love with museums, historic preservation, community-based project work, outreach. For 10 years in a professional capacity, still low pay, but happy. I rode two recessions out, downsizing, outright hemorrhaging. My former department at one of the leading institutions in the country had 18 1/2 FTE positions in 2001. As of three weeks ago, it's at 3.
The cultural sector has been professionalizing over the years. An MA plus experience is a prerequisite. In 2008 I applied to grad school at the UW and got in. As opposed to the 90s, when I was an undergrad, the cost of an education today has tripled, quadrupled ... basically skyrocketed. I took out Direct Loans, good debt., through the U.S. Dept. of Education. This time, interest rates are fixed at 6.8% for Stafford (unsubsidized/subsidized) and 7.9% for Graduate Plus.
Smartly in retrospect, a small part of the loans I took out were set aside to ride out the tough(est) job market during the job search process post-graduating. Students don't qualify for unemployment. Or health insurance. Just food stamps ... which I'm on for the first time in my life.
Six months after graduating, I'm still aggressively/desperately job searching. My low-paying, part-time job at a local museum is being cut due to the State's revenue shortfall right before Christmas. (And, yes, I worked part-time through my MA and burned through my savings to off-set the costs.)
Anywho, I took the risks and I'm still hoping it will pay off ... so I can pay it off.
In an somewhat more ideal world, a world say before 2001, the cost of an advanced education would be affordable, more easy to stomach. Tuition would be waaaaay less; interest rates would be fixed at a lower rate 2/3% rather than the 6.8/7.9% today. And there would be jobs that you could work your way to.
Instead, an advanced education is too much of a risk for students today. It's not a safe investment. It's not good debt. Right now, there are too many qualified and capable people out there applying for the same, and very few, jobs available. And you'll need that job to make those monthly repayments.
You might not agree, but the opportunity to a cost affordable education is a good thing. It helps better our work places, our families, our communities, and our country. It's called positive growth, and it should be a part of everyone's life.
And for those that see things in terms of winners and loser. Right now, everyone loses.
More...
I eventually started working for non-profits in the cultural sector. Fell in love with museums, historic preservation, community-based project work, outreach. For 10 years in a professional capacity, still low pay, but happy. I rode two recessions out, downsizing, outright hemorrhaging. My former department at one of the leading institutions in the country had 18 1/2 FTE positions in 2001. As of three weeks ago, it's at 3.
The cultural sector has been professionalizing over the years. An MA plus experience is a prerequisite. In 2008 I applied to grad school at the UW and got in. As opposed to the 90s, when I was an undergrad, the cost of an education today has tripled, quadrupled ... basically skyrocketed. I took out Direct Loans, good debt., through the U.S. Dept. of Education. This time, interest rates are fixed at 6.8% for Stafford (unsubsidized/subsidized) and 7.9% for Graduate Plus.
Smartly in retrospect, a small part of the loans I took out were set aside to ride out the tough(est) job market during the job search process post-graduating. Students don't qualify for unemployment. Or health insurance. Just food stamps ... which I'm on for the first time in my life.
Six months after graduating, I'm still aggressively/desperately job searching. My low-paying, part-time job at a local museum is being cut due to the State's revenue shortfall right before Christmas. (And, yes, I worked part-time through my MA and burned through my savings to off-set the costs.)
Anywho, I took the risks and I'm still hoping it will pay off ... so I can pay it off.
In an somewhat more ideal world, a world say before 2001, the cost of an advanced education would be affordable, more easy to stomach. Tuition would be waaaaay less; interest rates would be fixed at a lower rate 2/3% rather than the 6.8/7.9% today. And there would be jobs that you could work your way to.
Instead, an advanced education is too much of a risk for students today. It's not a safe investment. It's not good debt. Right now, there are too many qualified and capable people out there applying for the same, and very few, jobs available. And you'll need that job to make those monthly repayments.
You might not agree, but the opportunity to a cost affordable education is a good thing. It helps better our work places, our families, our communities, and our country. It's called positive growth, and it should be a part of everyone's life.
And for those that see things in terms of winners and loser. Right now, everyone loses.
65
@64 I'm sorry to hear your going to lose your job. What do you think of Zok's argument that you should have recognized that your field wasn't a growth industry and picked something more practical?
66
@65, did you read the post you've invoked? @64 claims to have been successful in the field for over a decade. How early must one predict economic crashes and draconian state budget cuts, exactly? And where is the mystical practical field long-time around which public employees should flock?
Can someone produce numbers to back up this meme that a BA is a worthless pursuit, even in the limited sense of employment outcomes? What is the unemployment rate for people with a BA vs. someone with a BS? MA? MS? AA? High School Diploma? I'm not saying it isn't true, but it sounds to me like some of the people in this thread are just being anti-intellectual.
Can someone produce numbers to back up this meme that a BA is a worthless pursuit, even in the limited sense of employment outcomes? What is the unemployment rate for people with a BA vs. someone with a BS? MA? MS? AA? High School Diploma? I'm not saying it isn't true, but it sounds to me like some of the people in this thread are just being anti-intellectual.
67
@66 He said that his discipline's department at the UW had shrunk from 18 professors in 2001 to 3 three now. I doubt all those reduction occurred in the last couple of years.
68
Economic darwinism summarized: If you suffer, you are stupid! If you are successful, you are awesome! Markets are infallible.
Apparently it also means, that if the Bush Administration gives tax dollars to banks, it is Clinton's fault or some other liberal's fault.
Apparently it also means, that if the Bush Administration gives tax dollars to banks, it is Clinton's fault or some other liberal's fault.
69
@66 - BA's aren't inherently worthless. Broadly speaking the unemployment rate is lower for those who've attained the most education. Lifetime earnings are higher too for those with higher education. As of 2011 a BA takes a lot more up-front investment than it used to, but ostensibly there's a pretty good return on investment.
There are those esoteric worths also. During discussions of the John T Williams shooting I read that cops with just even a few quarters of higher edu were statistically less apt to pull their weapon compared to their fellow officers with no higher edu at all.
In the grand scheme of things, only ~6.7% of world pop has a college degree. If 94% of the world can do alright w/o one then they're not necessary; but this low percentage paints higher edu as something that is rare and should be cherished.
There are those esoteric worths also. During discussions of the John T Williams shooting I read that cops with just even a few quarters of higher edu were statistically less apt to pull their weapon compared to their fellow officers with no higher edu at all.
In the grand scheme of things, only ~6.7% of world pop has a college degree. If 94% of the world can do alright w/o one then they're not necessary; but this low percentage paints higher edu as something that is rare and should be cherished.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (69) RSS