the housing market

[kiryan]

so im late to the party, but

fair is getting what you are entitled to based off an agreement.

people bitch all the time that they aren't paid enough and its not fair ect ect ect, but its what they agreed to, how is that not exactly fair? if you are "forced" to work, you are forced to because of your own decisions to not live under a bridge or to have gucci bags or an Internet connection.

there is no free market, we like to think we practice capitalism / free market / democracy but in reality we become more controlled and socialist every day. government health care, the fed ect...

[Sarvis]

if you are "forced" to work, you are forced to because of your own decisions to not live under a bridge or to have gucci bags or an Internet connection.

I love when the alternatives to working are so very <i>realistic</i>. :roll:

[Kifle]

so im late to the party, but

fair is getting what you are entitled to based off an agreement.

people bitch all the time that they aren't paid enough and its not fair ect ect ect, but its what they agreed to, how is that not exactly fair? if you are "forced" to work, you are forced to because of your own decisions to not live under a bridge or to have gucci bags or an Internet connection.

there is no free market, we like to think we practice capitalism / free market / democracy but in reality we become more controlled and socialist every day. government health care, the fed ect...

Who knew that living in the matrix could actually make you retarded. You agree to work for a certain wage, not because it's fair, but because that is the work you could find. I don't control the intrest rates on car or housing loans, but I have to get one anyway -- which is implicit coercion. If I have a gun, point it to your head and say, "Ok I'm not forcing you to do anything, but you can either toss my salad or I shoot you." After you toss my salad, do you really feel like you had a real choice in the matter? Would that mean that you are gay afterwards? There is so much wrong with your line of "thought" that I am at a loss for words.

As with the free market -- you're right about that. It's a mixed market economy still driven by capitalism. You know why we have a mixed market instead of a free market society? Because somebody has to protect your dumb ass rights to private property... but I'm sure you'd rather have Mr. Smith's invisible hand protect that instead, right? Also, do you have any idea what the economy would look like if the majority of this country didn't get some assistance from the government? Did you get student loans, or did you pay for college out of pocket? Do you think you would have went to college if the intrest rates on student loans were at 30%? Were your loans subsidized or unsubsidized? Did your school get government funding? Did your "free" education in public schools give you the opportunity to go to college, did it help your parents? Will it help your kids? Say thanks to socialism for all that. I could go on with the myriad examples of how your life has improved from socialism and "leftist" movements, but I honestly don't think it would matter -- because you got to where you are with no help.

[sok]

you make living under a bridge sound so bad. don't mock it until you try it.

man oh man. my co-worker just showed me flyers for new homes being build in texas, and i'm feeling down.

for basically 300k, you can get a 5 bed 5 1/2 bath 5 living (media, study, game, family & living room) 2 dining (kitchen & dining) 2 car garage 4,700 sq ft home. you know what i got? 2 bed 2 bath a carport 974 sq ft.

i'm just saying keep sharp objects away from me. can u collect life insurance if you almost die?

[Lathander]

Ah, Kifle likes to remove responsibility from people. I completely disagree with the job argument. Maybe I'm just special or something, but when I talk to people about joining us, the conversation always gets to what the salary, benefits and other positives of the job our. That candidate then compares it to other firms, and finally, they make a decision where to work. I wish I could force everyone I wanted to join my office.

Let me give you another example. I just bought a car a month ago. I could take a 36 month loan or a 60 month loan. Instead, I decided against the dealer financing and just used my home equity because I used to have one at prime, but setup a new line with a different bank for 50 bps below prime. Seems like I had alot of choices.

[Kifle]

Ah, Kifle likes to remove responsibility from people. I completely disagree with the job argument. Maybe I'm just special or something, but when I talk to people about joining us, the conversation always gets to what the salary, benefits and other positives of the job our. That candidate then compares it to other firms, and finally, they make a decision where to work. I wish I could force everyone I wanted to join my office.

Let me give you another example. I just bought a car a month ago. I could take a 36 month loan or a 60 month loan. Instead, I decided against the dealer financing and just used my home equity because I used to have one at prime, but setup a new line with a different bank for 50 bps below prime. Seems like I had alot of choices.

Right, and most people will go for what suits them best; however, best does not automatically imply good. The best job you can get out of highschool w/o a college diploma, for most people, is anywhere between minimum wage and $12/hr here. $12/hr does not support a family. If one were in college at the time, with a family, that $12/hr (the best they could get) is going to put them somewhere between poverty and almost poverty.

Now, lets live in Kiryan's world for a minute. Everybody worked hard and everybody went to college. Most people are roughly 30-50k in the hole after this. All the labor jobs have shipped off to other countries. This leaves gas stations, fast-food, grocery, bank teller jobs, car rental places, restraunts, bars, etc. etc.. left to the college community and those above the age of 14 (in most states).

Now, I'm guessing it wouldn't take very many college graduates to take all the dwindling "white collar" jobs left in the US market here. I mean, we're talking everybody 21yrs and older have college degrees. I'm not going to research the math, but it's pretty common sense to realize there would not be that many jobs available. The ratio between unemployed and employed college graduates would be disturbingly unbalanced towards the unemployed. Lets face it, with new technology, IT systems, etc., jobs in the white collar sector are dwindling so I don't see the creation of many more -- even if we were getting overall cheap labor from shiping over seas.

Tack on the fact that the people who get the good jobs are the ones going to Ivy league schools. Then comes the ones at the top of the class. I hate to be all slippery slope on you here, but the chances of your average american (due to genetics, parenting, public schools) is not going to do well in college. Eventually, these graduates at the mid-bottom of the class are going to be forced into poor jobs at the grocery stores, bars, etc... because there are none left. And we can say these people worked just as hard because the degree of their work is moot. Ivy league schools mandate so many turnaways and acceptions per year -- same with other colleges. Even if we marginalize everybody's work ethic and say everybody in the country got a 4.0 because they worked so damn hard, the job market would be anybody's game depending on the school they got accepted to at this point. So, myself, kiryan, lath, dartan, etc.. are all on the same job market (as far as pay level goes). Chances are, no matter how hard each of us worked, there will not be a job available for a percentage of us. We will be forced into lower paying jobs that we are overqualified for. If Kiryan were one of the unfortunate many that got displaced in this whole mess, I'm sure he'd be humming a different tune.

The fact is, our economy can not support having 100% college graduates. It can not support a country full of "hard workers" and the like. Your argument boils down to nothing more than the ramblings of a selfish, snobbish prick that is so self-centered, they get nauseous at the slightest though of having to help anybody but themselves. The fact is, not everybody's life starts at 0... some start at -10, -100, etc.

As far as foreign investors go... that's a very large debate right now. We've already witnessed an influx of people getting out of the American market; however, it hasn't been very much. Some are attributing it to the profiteers realizing their gains just now; however, I don't buy that argument. Like everything in economics, only time will tell... everything else is just a guess at this point. I, personally, don't expect very good outcomes of the whole mess for a while.

[Corth]

I think you missed Kiryan's point from the other thread, Kifle. He was not saying that everyone should go to college. He was merely saying that if you do not have anything particularly impressive to offer in the way of expertise or skill, then you shouldn't expect to be paid a whole lot. Thats more or less fair. Why should anyone pay you more than your skills justify? Certainly there are many people who did not go to college and yet make a very good living because they have some sort of skill that they can sell for more than $12 per hour. I cannot take anyone who complains about not getting paid a decent wage seriously when they have never bothered to learn a skill worth selling for decent money. If you make $12 an hour, you deserve it.

[Lathander]

Good lord, you really believe that nonsense? You might as well kill yourself now and get over the depression.

Seriously though, the median income is about 42K. That's 20 bucks an hour so your 12 does not make sense. I don't know where you live so I can't research the demographics, but I'll use the MD/VA/DC area. An entry level clerical position starts at 12.69 an hour here. That does not include overrides, cut ins, or bonuses. Also, there is overtime available as well. Anyone that says they can not make $20 an hour by the time they are 30 is either mentally challenged, lazy, or had some bad luck. Why in the world would someone try to support a family on minimum wage by the way? That's one of those bad choices in life.

If someone is trying to have a family with low paying jobs, then usually both parents work. That means they should be able to make 60 to 80K a year total. They would have to make sure that one works during the week and the other works on the weekend. Once again, this assumes they found the right partner to marry and build a life with and not some idiot.

Unemployment is at or near all time lows. Companies are begging for qualified people to work jobs. I know finding good clerical people for 12.69 an hour is damn hard. It is even harder to find good folks that then want to work more than just 40 hours to build something. You're wrong about white collar jobs going away. If anything, it is the available employees going away as we go through a huge demographic shift in our population. Plenty of jobs, not enough people.

People are only condemned to low paying jobs because they make bad choices. Yes, there are jobs that are near impossible to get. With a BS in Finance from MD and being in my mid 30's, I could never get a job at Goldman Sachs, but there are lots of fantastic jobs out there. The key is wanting to succeed and making the sacrifices to achieve it. Education is a component but not the most important one. Give me a person out of the military with passion and I'd hire them before some dope with a degree from Harvard.

People getting out of the American market? Who would that be and why do you believe that? I'll agree that you don't know much about economics though.

[Sarvis]

Good lord, you really believe that nonsense? You might as well kill yourself now and get over the depression.

Seriously though, the median income is about 42K. That's 20 bucks an hour so your 12 does not make sense. I don't know where you live so I can't research the demographics, but I'll use the MD/VA/DC area. An entry level clerical position starts at 12.69 an hour here. That does not include overrides, cut ins, or bonuses. Also, there is overtime available as well. Anyone that says they can not make $20 an hour by the time they are 30 is either mentally challenged, lazy, or had some bad luck.

Or they don't live in your area.

Managers at my company don't even make $20/hour.

Why in the world would someone try to support a family on minimum wage by the way? That's one of those bad choices in life.

Because their higher paying job was outsourced and it's all they could get since competition for jobs increased due, again, to the outsourcing? Let's put it this way: You have a town with a plant which employs 3000 workers, and the plant closes. Suddenly there are 3000 people competing for all the other jobs in that area... what happens to the price of labor?

Oh yeah, it goes down. Exactly as it should. The problem is that the price of food and shelter doesn't go down, and your family doesn't just disappear. Your family can't wait around for 4-5 years while you go to school and learn a new skillset, either... and even if they all did you just have 3000 educated workers driving down "white collar" wages while food/shelter/transportation prices go up.


Now, can you explain why someone who has worked hard his entire life and contributed everything he is capable of to society shouldn't be able feed and shelter his family?

Market forces explain that, sure. In a very Darwinian sense. The problem is we're humans, we're supposed to have evolved. We should be beyond such rabid animalistic behavior, shouldn't we?

If someone is trying to have a family with low paying jobs, then usually both parents work. That means they should be able to make 60 to 80K a year total. They would have to make sure that one works during the week and the other works on the weekend. Once again, this assumes they found the right partner to marry and build a life with and not some idiot.

Which means you have a full half of the job force competing for jobs during specific hours, driving the wages for things such as weekend/overnight work down. You also keep the spouses from ever really seeing each other, which tends to lead to divorce and a breakdown of the family unit in general.

That seems healthy.

Unemployment is at or near all time lows. Companies are begging for qualified people to work jobs. I know finding good clerical people for 12.69 an hour is damn hard. It is even harder to find good folks that then want to work more than just 40 hours to build something.

Why should they want to? We're alive to live, not to slave away for someone elses profit. Especially at companies where they don't pay overtime!

(I say this having worked 50 hours this week, of course...)

You're wrong about white collar jobs going away. If anything, it is the available employees going away as we go through a huge demographic shift in our population. Plenty of jobs, not enough people.

You act as if the hiring process is an exact science, when just as often it's more about personality and first impression than actual skill. I can't count the number of programming positions I was turned down for after college, while I worked as a temp doing data entry. I "wasn't qualified" for those positions, yet I got a lucky break at my current company and now handle almost all of the programming for our Buffalo office... at a point in my career where I should be a junior programmer fixing the senior programmers' bugs.

See, the point here is that even though companies are complaining about being unable to find worthwhile people... they are probably turning away plenty of great employees because they had a weak handshake or stuttered during an answer.

People are only condemned to low paying jobs because they make bad choices.

Yeah, I'm sure the economic realities of the world have nothing to do with it. :roll:

[Kegor]

Just commenting on the very last part of the very last post above me here.

Yes. Making bad job choices does condemn you to low wages. Wake up!

Apparently you are not familiar with economics at all. Didn't even pay attention when the covered this in the high school version? Minimum wage is an ideal economics blockade. There should be no minimum wage. Supply and demand should find the wages for itself. Or stupidity and/or lack of ambition.

[Corth]

The economic reality of the world, Sarvis, is that because things are scarce, not everyone can have everything they want or even need. If I had magical powers to just create things out of thin air, then I would give everyone in the world the best of everything. Since that isn't about to happen, we need a FAIR way of assigning things to people. People who contribute more than others, either by having more valuable skills, putting in more time, or a combination of both, reap greater economic rewards. Anyone making a low wage is getting exactly what they deserve. If they could make a greater contribution (or chose to make a greater contribution), they would be getting more.

Look, there is a reason that a lot of people are screwed because of outsourcing. They're contributions lost value when technology allowed a huge pool of labor (not subject to minimum wage restrictions) to do the same work for a lot less money. They made a bad choice in developing skills that could be so easily replicated by low income workers on the other side of the world.. maybe they had no way to anticipate what would happen, but it still ended up being a bad choice. Now they have to choose whether to work for less, or find something else of value that they can sell to an employer. Its just the way that it is. The alternative is to have government mandate that employers compensate these people more than their contribution would otherwise justify. A completely UNFAIR way of redistributing wealth.. and ultimately one that will destroy a nation's wealth over the long haul.

[Sarvis]

The economic reality of the world, Sarvis, is that because things are scarce, not everyone can have everything they want or even <b>need.</b>

See, now I take issue with that last part. I think we DO have enough resources here, in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, to ensure everyone's basic needs are met. Especially someone who works hard and contributes back to society.

As for "wants," well that's where working to get ahead should come in.

If I had magical powers to just create things out of thin air, then I would give everyone in the world the best of everything.

I'm not advocating the best of everything, either. Shelter does not equate to Mansion on the hill. Food does not equate to filet mignon.

Since that isn't about to happen, we need a FAIR way of assigning things to people. People who contribute more than others, either by having more valuable skills, putting in more time, or a combination of both, reap greater economic rewards.

What about those who just know the right people? Those who live off the fame of their parents? Those who contribute nothing but weasel their way into well paid positions? (Every office has at least one!)

The problem with your version of "fair" is that it depends on humans to be cold, logical thinking machines instead of the emotional animals we are. Jobs are offered to people the interviewer likes rather than to the most skilled, pay is commensurate with negotiating ability and posturing rather than ability and hard work.

How is it "fair" that a man who bankrupted every business he ran got elected president?

No, your description of "fair" leaves much to be desired. There is no computer out there calculating what each person contributes to society and doling out resources commensurate with that.

Anyone making a low wage is getting exactly what they deserve. If they could make a greater contribution (or chose to make a greater contribution), they would be getting more.

Really? That's odd... because I could SWEAR I was making less than half the average rate for a programmer for nearly 2 years because my interviewing/negotiating skills were inferior. Yet the moment I had another job offer my contribution to the company magically doubled? No, it stayed the same... they just decided it was time to pay me properly rather than lose me.

See, no computer... just humans screwing each other over. Nothing gaurantees you recompense appropriate for the work you do.

Look, there is a reason that a lot of people are screwed because of outsourcing. They're contributions lost value when technology allowed a huge pool of labor (not subject to minimum wage restrictions) to do the same work for a lot less money. They made a bad choice in developing skills that could be so easily replicated by low income workers on the other side of the world..

Ok, name me some skills that CAN'T be duplicated by someone halfway across the world?

CEOs are safe because they are making the decision, and they aren't going to give up their own jobs. But there's no reason that any level of company employee can't be outsourced.

maybe they had no way to anticipate what would happen, but it still ended up being a bad choice.

Yes, funny how you can use hindsight to condemn anyone you want. Someday we'll be condemning you for being a lawyer. :P

Now they have to choose whether to work for less, or find something else of value that they can sell to an employer. Its just the way that it is. The alternative is to have government mandate that employers compensate these people more than their contribution would otherwise justify. A completely UNFAIR way of redistributing wealth..

But it's fair to compensat epeople LESS than their contribution?

Again, a strange notion of fair.

and ultimately one that will destroy a nation's wealth over the long haul.

Really? Because we've become the most powerful country in the world WITH minimum wage laws. I guess I'm confused by how reality conflicts with everything you just said.

[Kegor]

Sarvis. I think you need to take a good look around and look a little deeper into the way things are the way they are in those respects. Capitalism isn't a pretty picture for the uncontent lazy and/or worthless. Competition is what makes free market thrive. If you made an unsatisfactory wage to your profession for 2 years, you should have done something about it a lot sooner if it was that big an issue for you. That is a choice you made to be lazy (or stupid) and capitalism will not reward that. Sounds like all it would have taken is a well worded discussion to fix it in the first place.

I am a very competative person. I love being rewarded for working smarter and harder than most people do. I think that is a pretty good outlook on the situation, being the way the game has been laid out. Pretty hard to teach work ethic and comminication skills though. Those two things are one of the major degenerations of our generation, making it that much easier to be competative in the work place and go climb the ladder.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis. I think you need to take a good look around and look a little deeper into the way things are the way they are in those respects. Capitalism isn't a pretty picture for the uncontent lazy and/or worthless. Competition is what makes free market thrive. If you made an unsatisfactory wage to your profession for 2 years, you should have done something about it a lot sooner if it was that big an issue for you. That is a choice you made to be lazy (or stupid) and capitalism will not reward that. Sounds like all it would have taken is a well worded discussion to fix it in the first place.

wow, so you're not even reading half of what I write are you? I mentioned already that I WAS INTERVIEWING and that I am not good at it. I WAS doing something about it, I was looking for other jobs and constantly asking my boss for more money and pointing out the average wages for my profession.

Capitalism isn't a pretty picture for ANYONE except the winners, with the winners being defined as often by image as by intelligence or hard work.

You say I was being lazy and stupid while I was working 60 hour weeks? Your basis for this is that I wasn't well liked enough by the HR idiots at the various companies I interviewed with?

And you wonder why I can't believe a single thing Libertarians/Conservatives say?

I am a very competative person. I love being rewarded for working smarter and harder than most people do.

So how does it feel when the lazy guy gets a better raise for kissing the boss's ass?

I think that is a pretty good outlook on the situation, being the way the game has been laid out. Pretty hard to teach work ethic and comminication skills though. Those two things are one of the major degenerations of our generation, making it that much easier to be competative in the work place and go climb the ladder.

Yet you feel qualified to question my work ethic from half-read posts on a BBS?

Like I said, they chose to double my salary rather than lose me. You don't do that with someone who has a poor work ethic. The thing is, work ethic didn't get me what I deserved...

[Kegor]

Right. Going out and competing did. I am happy for you that you managed to do that, and I would be willing to bet you are a better person for it. The way things are laid out, you either have to prove you are worth more by going to another company or comminicating. Or you can SFU and take it. That is all I meant. Was just using your situation as an example of job competition.

Didn't mean to call you lazy or stupid, even though you are raising suspision to that degree on the other thread about the government and/or the people having a say in what private owners can do with their own publicly operated property.

[Sarvis]

Right. Going out and competing did. I am happy for you that you managed to do that, and I would be willing to bet you are a better person for it. The way things are laid out, you either have to prove you are worth more by going to another company or comminicating. Or you can SFU and take it. That is all I meant. Was just using your situation as an example of job competition.

All your saying is that there is no gaurantee of being paid what you are worth, which certainly raises exception to the idea that anyone making low wages is stupid/lazy.

Didn't mean to call you lazy or stupid, even though you are raising suspision to that degree on the other thread about the government and/or the people having a say in what private owners can do with their own publicly operated property.

If you don't mean to insult someone then don't. It's a similar concept to not doing things around other people that might cause them to catch a deadly incurable disease.

[Kegor]

I take it back. I did mean to insult you and I do think you're stupid. You caught me trying to be polite again. Exuse me for that. Hope I can give you lung cancer sometime if you choose to come and sit by me for a really, really long time every day for many years in a very, very small enclosed space. Peace.

[Kifle]

I think you missed Kiryan's point from the other thread, Kifle. He was not saying that everyone should go to college. He was merely saying that if you do not have anything particularly impressive to offer in the way of expertise or skill, then you shouldn't expect to be paid a whole lot.

And all I'm saying is that if everybody took your, and every other conservative's, advice they would go to college and take your jobs. Then you'd be complaining. I'm saying that the economy here, or anywhere for that matter, could not facilitate everybody working as hard as they could. You need people to run cash registers. I just find it a bit rediculous to say "work hard, get rewards" and then say "well, some people shouldn't work that hard -- just learn how to make spreadsheets."

As you said, maybe in this thread or another, economics depends on scarcity of resources -- I mean, isn't that the first thing that is taught in first year econ? If everybody worked hard, they would be competing in a market of scarcity. For every hard working college student, they have to rely, inadvertantly, on those not working as hard for their own hard work to be meaningful.

Now, lets be honest here. Law school isn't hard; it's busy work. It requires dedication for 6 years. The average person could do it if they had the time, money and desire. There are much more complex professions out there. To be honest, again, I would say becoming a physics professor is tougher than becoming a lawyer. The average person would have to work harder (2 more years + doctoral presentation); however, the lawyer, through less work, is paid more. How does harder work = more money in this example? Sure, you can tell me that if he wanted more money, he would have become a lawyer or doctor (M.D.), but at some point, rationally, you're going to have to see where the line between hard work and higher wages breaks down and it becomes arbitrary based on societal dictation.

[Corth]

Sarvis,

<img src="http://rathipon.com/pedantic.png">

You earned it again!

I don't have the time or energy to address each of your little quotes that are quoting me. Lets just say that I think you are wrong on all counts. :)

[Kifle]

Good lord, you really believe that nonsense? You might as well kill yourself now and get over the depression.

Seriously though, the median income is about 42K. That's 20 bucks an hour so your 12 does not make sense. I don't know where you live so I can't research the demographics, but I'll use the MD/VA/DC area. An entry level clerical position starts at 12.69 an hour here. That does not include overrides, cut ins, or bonuses. Also, there is overtime available as well. Anyone that says they can not make $20 an hour by the time they are 30 is either mentally challenged, lazy, or had some bad luck. Why in the world would someone try to support a family on minimum wage by the way? That's one of those bad choices in life.

If someone is trying to have a family with low paying jobs, then usually both parents work. That means they should be able to make 60 to 80K a year total. They would have to make sure that one works during the week and the other works on the weekend. Once again, this assumes they found the right partner to marry and build a life with and not some idiot.

Unemployment is at or near all time lows. Companies are begging for qualified people to work jobs. I know finding good clerical people for 12.69 an hour is damn hard. It is even harder to find good folks that then want to work more than just 40 hours to build something. You're wrong about white collar jobs going away. If anything, it is the available employees going away as we go through a huge demographic shift in our population. Plenty of jobs, not enough people.

People are only condemned to low paying jobs because they make bad choices. Yes, there are jobs that are near impossible to get. With a BS in Finance from MD and being in my mid 30's, I could never get a job at Goldman Sachs, but there are lots of fantastic jobs out there. The key is wanting to succeed and making the sacrifices to achieve it. Education is a component but not the most important one. Give me a person out of the military with passion and I'd hire them before some dope with a degree from Harvard.

People getting out of the American market? Who would that be and why do you believe that? I'll agree that you don't know much about economics though.

The Per capita income (the important one here) is 18k/yr which would equal to 36k/yr in a two income family. That's roughly 7k/person. The two working adults, to get a better position would need to go to school to get a better job. Here we have three posibilities.

1) One person works, the other goes to school. That leaves the family of five 18k/yr. Subtract the 7k/year it would take to house this family and you're left with 11k/year. Now, for the one person to go to school, per year, that is (at my school) 7k + books/gas (not including summer semester). If I chose to go to the private school here, it would be even more. Books are roughly 500/semester. Gas equals up to around 1.3k to commute. So the total cost of school (minus the opportunity cost of working) is 9.3k/year. That leaves the family with 8.7k a year. Now, tack on car insurance (lets assume the car is paid off just to be nice). I pay 400/year in car insurance on one car I've paid off. That leaves 8.3k per year. This family would need two cars (one for the worker, one for the student). That's 7.9k/yr left. Utilities cost me (minus internet/cable) 3.1k/yr (electric/water/landline). that's 4.8k/yr left over. Now, with three kids, that's around 120/week in groceries (buying the cheap shit). That's ~6.2k/year. That leaves the family with -1.6k/yr. Now lets tack on the child's education (book rentals, field trips, lunch money, etc.) Per child I pay 80/yr in book rentals. That's 240/yr. Lunch is like ~10/week. That's ~1k/yr. We're now roughly at -2.6k/yr. Note that this breakdown does not include birthdays, Christmas, toothfairy, weekend gas expenditures, etc... This doesn't work w/o government assitance.

2) Both adults work, one/both goes to school. You no longer have the financial issues, but you do, as Sarvis ponted out, have the issues of the family structure imploding. Children being neglected, parents divorcing... it doesn't help society at all.

3) Either two with federal assistance. Here is where #1 could work but #2 would still end in the family being damaged.

As to your comments about making $20 an hour by the time you're 30... lol stop living in a dream world, jackass. If I had one wish in the world it would be for you to grow up black in a shit neighborhood in Chicago. If you even LIVED to 30, the chances, no matter how hard you worked, are very slim to fucking none. They have sub-par education in a country where education is already very sub-par. They live in a society that is not middle-class white-american. This means that you do other things to survive at a young age. You live w/o parents in the house for most of your life. This means you rely on other adults in your area to raise you -- meaning the school system. These teachers don't care usually... they get jaded. Most kids don't want to go to school. A lot drop out. To combat this, you need adults that either have the time or actually care. Parents don't have the time, teachers don't care. The police don't care. These kids already have a shit start to life. So put yourself in the mind of a 7yr old black child living in the projects attending an underfunded school.

At 7yrs old you're already introduced to gangs (no parents makes it easier to join), drugs (yes, there are actually 7yr old dealers), and the rest of what most kids have to go through in school -- only worse. The bully doesn't just punch you in the stomach and take your 50c for lunch; he pulls a knife on you and steals your shoes. The teacher stops teaching if the class acts up (something an individual can't control). At this point you can't say that the child has really any choice in the matter -- and if he does, he's way too young to really make rational decisions about his future (this is why we have parents). He joins the gangs for family, protection, friends. He sells drugs because that's what his new family does. He steals, fights, etc...

So now we're at age 14 in highschool. At this point he's been selling drugs for 7yrs. He doesn't listen to his parents (why should he? He makes more money than them (her... single parent families are abundant there), he's a teenager (what teen listenst to their parents), and he's found a new family). He rarely goes to school (what's the point). Now, lets just say that he does go to school still (clientele). The fact that he's still alive is pretty nice. The fact that he isn't missing entire semesters of school due to crime/fights/lack of attendance is pretty nice. So now this kid is a teenager. Remember how fucking stupid you were as a teenager. Remember the stupid shit you did as a teenager? You may have sold some weed or smoke some. This kid is selling crack and smoking it (unless he's smart). Remember when you stole a candy bar at Walmart? This kid is stealing cars.

Can you realistically... ok, I think I need to write this twice so you don't grab a text book or give me some answer in ideal conditions or assume that humans are robots and the effects of poor parenting and society don't play a large role in decisions (especially at impressionable ages). Can you REALISTICALLY tell me that you and this hypothetical child had the same chances of making $20/hr at a legit job by the time you were 30?

Now here's a question I'd like you to answer -- even if nothing I've written before sets in.

What can a 58yr old man who holds two bachelors degrees and 30 years of experience at very reputable companies do to get a job when nobody will hire him? See, in your world he would submit his resume and get a job. I mean 30yrs experience in an area that is not outsourced while having two bachelors degrees (one in the last three years), this man should easily be able to get a job, right? Technically, if you were in the same market as him, his labor would be worth more than yours, yes? So, why can he not find a job? He's worked hard his entire life. Why will nobody hire this man?

[Lathander]

Kifle, I'll start at the end.

It is tough for a 58yr old man with 2 bachelors degress and 30 yrs experience to get back into the workforce assuming they have gotten laid off or something. First, if one is in that situation, you would expect they would be bright enough to keep up their network and not allow themselves to get in the situation where they are laid off. I know in my industry, folks keep up contacts all the time and if they feel their company is in bad shape, they jump ship. The company has no loyalty to the worker, so why should the worker go down with the ship?

Now the smart 58yr man would likely have saved up a big nest egg and would not have to be desperate for work. Let's assume that the 58yr old wants to work though. You did not mention degrees, but I know many older folks that go into consulting for the field they worked for. It is not just about "having a job". Having a career and keeping to your plan is what is important.

See Kifle, you always use the worst case scenario for examples like the person in Chicago. Let's set aside the issue that the hip hop culture is a negative for those kids and the governement's distraous results from welfare programs. If anything, a minority kid has a big advantage over a white kid assuming they are equal or near equal in their desire to work hard and smart.

I'll give you an example, I just interviewed an El Salvadorian young man with an MBA. It is one of those online MBA's so doesn't mean a ton, but it shows some passion. He was in the Merrill training program but failed out. I interviewed him, and I came away impressed with his passion for our field. We talked about the trouble he had, and we came up with a business plan that we had to submit to my superiors to get him approved. I am happy to say he'll be starting in a couple of weeks.

I have an African American that works in my office as well. He came from a single parent family. His mother kept him on the straight and narrow. He was going to get cut at Morgan, but joined our firm in 2002. Since then, he has done really well and this year, he'll make about 100 to 110K. Also, if he wanted to go to another firm, he could easily get a check for a quarter million to move.

See, in the end, I don't believe that is important if you get knocked down. Everyone gets knocked down some time. What determines someone's character is if they keep getting back up and try even harder afterwards.

For the married couple making 36K/yr with three kids, why the hell did they have three kids? That just doesn't make sense, does it to anyone? Let's forget for a minute the making sense thing. Let's assume they want to better themselves. I would recommend they look at careers in demand. One of those would be nursing. Most nurses start out at 35 to 40K per year. That would be a big help to them. One or the other should get an AA to get into the field and then continue to get their RN. In that low tax bracket, they would most likely not have to pay any tuition at all.

So what's the difficulty? Well, they'd have to work their ass off to make it happen. That is the problem. Many people have desires but not the determination to make it happen.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis,

<img src="http://rathipon.com/pedantic.png">

You earned it again!

I don't have the time or energy to address each of your little quotes that are quoting me. Lets just say that I think you are wrong on all counts. :)

Ah yes, I'm wrong about everything but you just can't tell me why. That's such a believable defense! I can see you doing this in front of a judge:

"My client is innocent, but the opposing laywer is just nitpicking and I don't feel like telling you why!"

[Lathander]

Sarvis, the problem with you is you hack posts apart sentence by sentence. You seem incapable of actually writing rebuttals as proper paragraphs. Your hacked up posts are annoying to read because you don't put any thought into actually writing something compelling.

[Kifle]

Kifle, I'll start at the end.

It is tough for a 58yr old man with 2 bachelors degress and 30 yrs experience to get back into the workforce assuming they have gotten laid off or something. First, if one is in that situation, you would expect they would be bright enough to keep up their network and not allow themselves to get in the situation where they are laid off. I know in my industry, folks keep up contacts all the time and if they feel their company is in bad shape, they jump ship. The company has no loyalty to the worker, so why should the worker go down with the ship?

Now the smart 58yr man would likely have saved up a big nest egg and would not have to be desperate for work. Let's assume that the 58yr old wants to work though. You did not mention degrees, but I know many older folks that go into consulting for the field they worked for. It is not just about "having a job". Having a career and keeping to your plan is what is important.

See Kifle, you always use the worst case scenario for examples like the person in Chicago. Let's set aside the issue that the hip hop culture is a negative for those kids and the governement's distraous results from welfare programs. If anything, a minority kid has a big advantage over a white kid assuming they are equal or near equal in their desire to work hard and smart.

I'll give you an example, I just interviewed an El Salvadorian young man with an MBA. It is one of those online MBA's so doesn't mean a ton, but it shows some passion. He was in the Merrill training program but failed out. I interviewed him, and I came away impressed with his passion for our field. We talked about the trouble he had, and we came up with a business plan that we had to submit to my superiors to get him approved. I am happy to say he'll be starting in a couple of weeks.

I have an African American that works in my office as well. He came from a single parent family. His mother kept him on the straight and narrow. He was going to get cut at Morgan, but joined our firm in 2002. Since then, he has done really well and this year, he'll make about 100 to 110K. Also, if he wanted to go to another firm, he could easily get a check for a quarter million to move.

See, in the end, I don't believe that is important if you get knocked down. Everyone gets knocked down some time. What determines someone's character is if they keep getting back up and try even harder afterwards.

For the married couple making 36K/yr with three kids, why the hell did they have three kids? That just doesn't make sense, does it to anyone? Let's forget for a minute the making sense thing. Let's assume they want to better themselves. I would recommend they look at careers in demand. One of those would be nursing. Most nurses start out at 35 to 40K per year. That would be a big help to them. One or the other should get an AA to get into the field and then continue to get their RN. In that low tax bracket, they would most likely not have to pay any tuition at all.

So what's the difficulty? Well, they'd have to work their ass off to make it happen. That is the problem. Many people have desires but not the determination to make it happen.

As for the older man, he has a bachelors in both electronics and robotics. 23yrs at Zenith (they went banrkupt, his stocks went to shit, he lost nearly 20k). 7yrs at USSI (defense contractor). He was laid off. He has maintained his network, they have tried to help, the best he has been able to find through his network is as a subcontractor making 15/hr with no 401k or healthcare.

Now, he was smart enough to save a nest egg. That was blown through in three years (mortgate, bills, etc...). Through that time he was able to substitute teach.

This man is my father -- a spanish, vietnam vet. He is a very hard working, intelligent man. I can find no fault in what he did the past few years looking for a job, trying to make ends meet. I do not blame him for his position in life at this moment. He made the right decisions when he had a choice in the matter; yet, somehow, he is in the financial position he is in now. How is this "fair?"

As to me using the worst case scenerios. Well, it is a scenerio. Unfortunately, it is a scenerio that millions of children in this country are in. It is reality. And, this scenerio really beats the shit out of your very idealistic world view that if you work hard, you will make it.

Also, great, you found two guys that made it through. Two out of how many? How many white males that had a good start to life has your business hired? See the imbalance there? I could start listing all the people I know that have worked hard their entire lives and still have shit to show for it. I wont, but I could. Would it matter? Nah. You'll just give me another best case scenerio to where some poor 10lb., 26yr old Ethiopian came to your business. So, between your best case scenerios and my worst case scenerios, you will find a median. That median is the middle class... now becoming the lower-middle class. For these median people, it isn't as easy as working hard to get ahead. At some point, you have to admit there is luck involved. And I'm sorry that I don't really like a system where success is largely determined by where you grew up, your parents, and luck. It works for you because it worked for you. It worked for me, but I still don't agree with it.

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, the problem with you is you hack posts apart sentence by sentence. You seem incapable of actually writing rebuttals as proper paragraphs. Your hacked up posts are annoying to read because you don't put any thought into actually writing something compelling.

Your problem is that you're incapable of saying anything sensible or logical, and can't even properly cite the points you make anyway. You justify this by claiming large blocks of text barely held together in a cogent fashion are a good thing, and attack my style of argument rather than the substance of what I said.

But hey, quote blocks are annoying so it's ok... right? :roll:

[Vigis]

I stopped reading part way through the last page. Sorry, the pedantic nitpicking got to me :)

One thing that people on both sides of the issue are forgetting is local market forces. I'll use Sarvis as an example. Back when he was having trouble finding a good paying job in NY, I suggested moving to a place with less competition for him, specifically North Dakota. North Dakota loses approximately 80% of their college graduates to out of state jobs. The problem has gotten so large that the state has actually begun conducting job fairs in places like Minneapolis, Denver, etc. Interestingly enough, they have required that any company participating in said job fair must be offering positions paying a minimum of $30k per year. I believe I read that they had 80 companies participating in the Denver career fair.

One thing to remember, $30k per year in North Dakota is a helluva wage. Houses often sell for $40k in the town I went to college. In fact, I lived quite well on a job paying $9 per hour while supporting my family.

I have since moved and now work for a company where I make more than the average person my age, but it did not start that way. I began as a temp, was hired by the company for the lowest position they offered, and have been promoted 6 times in 3 years and have nearly tripled my salary.

Getting a job or a promotion is not about putting in your time and grinding through your duties. It is about selling. You buy the best product you can afford right? Your duty to yourself is to make yourself the best product on the market. You go above and beyond, you give yourself some shiny packaging (be it through going to college, learning new skills, or giving yourself some more self-confidence), or you go to a market in which your particular skills are in short supply.

Snow shovels don't sell in Florida, and animal trainers don't sell in San Diego. Move somewhere that it will sell.

[Sarvis]

Move somewhere that it will sell.

Easier said then done when you're so broke you're forced to live with your parents. :P

[Corth]

Sarvis,

<img src="http://rathipon.com/pedantic.png">

You earned it again!

I don't have the time or energy to address each of your little quotes that are quoting me. Lets just say that I think you are wrong on all counts. :)

Ah yes, I'm wrong about everything but you just can't tell me why. That's such a believable defense! I can see you doing this in front of a judge:

"My client is innocent, but the opposing laywer is just nitpicking and I don't feel like telling you why!"

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am not trying to convince you that I am right and that you are wrong. I am simply withdrawing from any debate with you. I do not wish to explain and defend every sentence that I write. Its not fun, its not interesting to myself or anyone else on this forum, and I choose not to do it. If I were to go through each and every quote of you quoting me, the point I was making in the first place would become obscured. I am not sure if that is your intention or not, but regardless, I choose to let my original post stand on its own.

[Corth]

Ok, for shits and giggles, Sarvis, I will actually parse all of your little quotes that are quoting me. After reading it below, tell me if you actually even remember what we were talking about in the first place.

[Sarvis]

Ok, for shits and giggles, Sarvis, I will actually parse all of your little quotes that are quoting me. After reading it below, tell me if you actually even remember what we were talking about in the first place.

The housing market, silly.

But hey, if you don't want to participate don't let me force you. If you don't want to respond in the way I did then don't.

More importantly, if you feel the need to attack my style of debate rather than what I said... go join Lathander in the corner, and cite something that disagrees with you so you can tell us how your interpretation is better.

In the meantime I'm going to go for a walk, then go grocery shopping, then probably work a few hours tonight so that I can come back and hear more from you guys about how people who don't make $20/hr are stupid and lazy, which is not only an attack on me but on my family and many of my friends who have worked their asses off their entire lives.

But yeah, it's about the use of quote blocks. :roll:

[Corth]

The economic reality of the world, Sarvis, is that because things are scarce, not everyone can have everything they want or even need.

See, now I take issue with that last part. I think we DO have enough resources here, in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, to ensure everyone's basic needs are met. Especially someone who works hard and contributes back to society.

As for "wants," well that's where working to get ahead should come in.

I said the economic reality of the world. Not of the US.

If I had magical powers to just create things out of thin air, then I would give everyone in the world the best of everything.

I'm not advocating the best of everything, either. Shelter does not equate to Mansion on the hill. Food does not equate to filet mignon.

Did I say that you advocate that? My point was that if there was no scarcity, we would have no reason to debate this topic. Everyone would have whatever they want. However, that, of course, is a pipe dream, so we need to have SOME way of determining what gets what.

Since that isn't about to happen, we need a FAIR way of assigning things to people. People who contribute more than others, either by having more valuable skills, putting in more time, or a combination of both, reap greater economic rewards.

What about those who just know the right people? Those who live off the fame of their parents? Those who contribute nothing but weasel their way into well paid positions? (Every office has at least one!)

The problem with your version of "fair" is that it depends on humans to be cold, logical thinking machines instead of the emotional animals we are. Jobs are offered to people the interviewer likes rather than to the most skilled, pay is commensurate with negotiating ability and posturing rather than ability and hard work.

How is it "fair" that a man who bankrupted every business he ran got elected president?

No, your description of "fair" leaves much to be desired. There is no computer out there calculating what each person contributes to society and doling out resources commensurate with that.

I am compelled to disagree. In the vast majority of cases, people are paid based upon the market value of the skills they can offer to employers. Sure there are some infrequent exceptions. However, the exceptions are just that. Very few people in this world will give you something for nothing.

Anyone making a low wage is getting exactly what they deserve. If they could make a greater contribution (or chose to make a greater contribution), they would be getting more.

Really? That's odd... because I could SWEAR I was making less than half the average rate for a programmer for nearly 2 years because my interviewing/negotiating skills were inferior. Yet the moment I had another job offer my contribution to the company magically doubled? No, it stayed the same... they just decided it was time to pay me properly rather than lose me.

See, no computer... just humans screwing each other over. Nothing gaurantees you recompense appropriate for the work you do.

"They just decided it was time to pay me properly rather than lose me." Thank you for making my point for me, Sarvis.

Look, there is a reason that a lot of people are screwed because of outsourcing. They're contributions lost value when technology allowed a huge pool of labor (not subject to minimum wage restrictions) to do the same work for a lot less money. They made a bad choice in developing skills that could be so easily replicated by low income workers on the other side of the world..

Ok, name me some skills that CAN'T be duplicated by someone halfway across the world?

CEOs are safe because they are making the decision, and they aren't going to give up their own jobs. But there's no reason that any level of company employee can't be outsourced.

Ok, here is a skill that can't be duplicated by someone halfway around the world. The person who serves me fries at McDonalds.. there is no way someone from across the world will be able to serve me fried in an expedited manner. Lawyers too are safe. You aren't allowed to practice law in a New York court unless you pass the New York bar exam. And even if that weren't the case, its very difficult to appear in a New York court from halfway across the world. Want me to list a few more thousand examples?

maybe they had no way to anticipate what would happen, but it still ended up being a bad choice.

Yes, funny how you can use hindsight to condemn anyone you want. Someday we'll be condemning you for being a lawyer. :P

Did I condemn anyone? I just said that in retrospect, people who chose to do things that can easily be outsourced made a bad choice. I didn't condemn anybody.

Now they have to choose whether to work for less, or find something else of value that they can sell to an employer. Its just the way that it is. The alternative is to have government mandate that employers compensate these people more than their contribution would otherwise justify. A completely UNFAIR way of redistributing wealth..

But it's fair to compensat epeople LESS than their contribution?

Again, a strange notion of fair.

There is no such tthing as compensating people less than their contribution. The free market determines the value of someone's contribution. If you could make more money at a different employer, then a rational person would leave.

and ultimately one that will destroy a nation's wealth over the long haul.

Really? Because we've become the most powerful country in the world WITH minimum wage laws. I guess I'm confused by how reality conflicts with everything you just said.

We became the most powerful country in the world BEFORE minimum wage laws. The minimum wage, along with other socialist interventions into the free market, are a relatively recent phenomenon. You saw the beginning of it during FDR's new deal.. and then it was expanded at a very fast rate by LBJ. Of course, by the time Reagen became president, the US economy was stagnant. Reagan's conservative revolution was about deregulation, and it once again returned the US to its position of economic prominence.

History demonstrates that the US became economically powerful because of its reliance upon the free market, and in spite of socialist interventions along the way.

[Corth]

Ok, now I will repost the original message that started all of that.. Notice it was a response to your post, Savris, in which I did not bother to parse any of your sentences.. and yet was able to make a coherent response to your main point nonetheless.

The economic reality of the world, Sarvis, is that because things are scarce, not everyone can have everything they want or even need. If I had magical powers to just create things out of thin air, then I would give everyone in the world the best of everything. Since that isn't about to happen, we need a FAIR way of assigning things to people. People who contribute more than others, either by having more valuable skills, putting in more time, or a combination of both, reap greater economic rewards. Anyone making a low wage is getting exactly what they deserve. If they could make a greater contribution (or chose to make a greater contribution), they would be getting more.

Look, there is a reason that a lot of people are screwed because of outsourcing. They're contributions lost value when technology allowed a huge pool of labor (not subject to minimum wage restrictions) to do the same work for a lot less money. They made a bad choice in developing skills that could be so easily replicated by low income workers on the other side of the world.. maybe they had no way to anticipate what would happen, but it still ended up being a bad choice. Now they have to choose whether to work for less, or find something else of value that they can sell to an employer. Its just the way that it is. The alternative is to have government mandate that employers compensate these people more than their contribution would otherwise justify. A completely UNFAIR way of redistributing wealth.. and ultimately one that will destroy a nation's wealth over the long haul.

[Sarvis]

The economic reality of the world is certainly different than the economic reality of the US, or a small town. We're talking about the US here though, where there is no reason we cannot take care of our populace rather than leave them to starve because they are not "useful enough" to multinational corporate entities.

Did I say that you advocate that? My point was that if there was no scarcity, we would have no reason to debate this topic. Everyone would have whatever they want. However, that, of course, is a pipe dream, so we need to have SOME way of determining what gets what.[/quote]

You argued that we could not provide everyone's wants and needs, but no one here is advocating wants. As I said earlier "wants" is where you need to work harder, and be a better person to differentiate yourself while NEEDS is the basics of what people need to survive. Frankly, as a species we have advanced to this point BECAUSE we help each other survive, not because we laugh and point at the guy who couldn't outrun the wolf.

You disagree with me about the recompense people face, but you are flat out wrong. You should see the turnover rate in my office because our managers are not paying what our employees consider a fair amount. The problem is that jobs around here are not common enough that everyone can leave, and even then sometimes people simply interview poorly which leaves them at the underpaid position. Your salary is based as much on your negotiating skills as on your work ethic, dedication, or performance. That's all there is to it. If you do a great job but stammer in front of your boss when you ask for a raise, you won't get one.

Your boss will not pay you what you are worth unless he has to. Why should he? His job is to increase profit not to ensure fair compensation.

When I said that they decided to keep me rather than lose me, you have to remember that it was after 2 full years of paying me less than half the average rate for a programmer in my area. I fail to see how this proves your point that people are paid what they are worth, when they clearly thought I was worth more than twice what they were paying me and <i>did not offer that compensation</i>.

Now, you have these people who are already underpaid because they aren't good negotiators and they don't interview well, then you outsource their jobs to Bangladesh. What happens? Suddenly more people need those McJobs that require face to face service. What then? Oh right, the price of labor for those jobs goes down, though not the price of food. So somehow because programmers can be outsourced, service jobs became less valuable. Apparently they contribute less now than they did before. But that's ok, because we're almost certainly working on robots for that.

So we have fry cooks which will eventually be replaced with robots and laywers. You know that doctors already ship some work off to Bangladesh, right? Why wouldn't law firms have the research and case studies done overseas, then feed it back to someone who was more of a good public speaker than a lawyer?


I guess you made some bad choices then, since your job could go away. I know you run your own law firm, but certainly a larger firm could outsource it's non-face-time work and save money then undercut you. Then you will have made a bad choice, and while you feel like you are saying that without condemnation your vibe through this whole forum is that anyone who didn't make exactly the right choices essentially deserves to starve to death in a gutter because they weren't good enough to make themselves more valuable to society.

So, you say, it's impossible to compensate someone less than their contribution? This is a funny statement from a man who once said something to the effect of "I'm getting ready to hire someone and he'd damn sure better bring in more money than I pay him." You see, then you were arguing that labor value is based on market forces, and that the price of labor was defined by it's availability rather than it's contribution.

It's all too easy to just say the person should leave and go to a better job, but to say that you have to once again ignore all the real factors that affect these things. People can't just pick up and move, they can't always get the job they interview for, and when they do they won't always do well in the salary negotiation.

You are taking incredibly complex issues and trying to boil them down to a simplistic, pithy equation that magically solves everything.

You cap this off with a reference to history that is in no way shown or proven, and expect us to just believe you. What I know of history is that after the Great Depression FDR's new deal turned things around, restored consumer and lender confidence and allowed us to prosper again. I know that we've seen the greatest economic growth under Clinton, and that you yourself are constantly saying the economy is about to tank when we've had 8 years of conservative leadership!

So which is it, does the economy do great under Conservatism, or is it about to tank?



---------------


There, was that better?

[Sarvis]

Ok, now I will repost the original message that started all of that.. Notice it was a response to your post, Savris, in which I did not bother to parse any of your sentences.. and yet was able to make a coherent response to your main point nonetheless.

You know what though? If by some magical reason I couldn't comprehend a thread of conversation, I could scroll back and look. In fact, it's IN the quote blocks, so that's not even necessary! :shock:

I certainly wouldn't resort to insulting people with images and mocking the form of their argument rather than dealing with the substance.

[Lathander]

A business is not about only profit since many things contribute to making a profit. One of those is retaining your best people. To do that, you pay them very well and pay them in ways that make them more sticky to the firm. If your firm has alot of turnover then they are constantly training new people just to see them leave to other firms once they are compent. In the long run, that doesn't work so well. In regard to bad interviewers or just don't understand their own worth, it sounds like they need to improve themselves. Some idiot stuttering through an interview is not going to get a job that requires a well spoken person. Stuttering tends to be perceived as the speaker not being sure of what they are saying. What I do with new folks that have a problem speaking is I tell them at home to give their pitch to themselves in the mirror until they perfect it.

Sarvis, you are advocating communism.

[Sarvis]

You know Lath, it's funny. When I first started tours for new customers tended to stop right next to my desk while the CEO gave his sales pitch.

Over the months I heard a couple interesting things:

1) "We train all these people and get them certifications only to see them leave us."

2) "How do we provide help desk cheaper than you could for yourself? We pay them less!"

So yeah, when you go on and on about how the market is fair you need to consider that not everyone runs things the way they should be run and that in some areas jobs are scarce enough people have to take it.

As for being unsure of oneself during an interview... well yeah, of course I am. How many IT people do you know that have good social skills? In how many cases do programmers NEED good social skills to do their job? Oh, right... almost never.

Someone stuttering through an interview probably shouldn't get a salesman or public speaking position, but can you tell me why it should really matter for a position that doesn't require interaction with your customers?

[Vigis]

Sarvis,

Your CEO is a complete moron. I'd find a new job.

If he is saying things like that to customers in front of employees, he is not the brightest of guys.

Hell, my CEO has personally fired people for making statements like that. It brings down morale and gives the customer absolutely no confidence in the company's abilities.

Poorest example of leadership I have heard in awhile...

[Sarvis]

Sarvis,

Your CEO is a complete moron. I'd find a new job.

If he is saying things like that to customers in front of employees, he is not the brightest of guys.

Hell, my CEO has personally fired people for making statements like that. It brings down morale and gives the customer absolutely no confidence in the company's abilities.

Poorest example of leadership I have heard in awhile...

Yeah, well that's just another reason I was putting so much effort into leaving.

Right now though this is a really good position for me, and the experience should definately help out when I am ready to leave. Especially if I can get a couple people helping me out so I'm managing a team...

[Xisiqomelir]

Renting for now, will buy after the jokulhaups

[Ambar]

hehe Sarvis has been bitching about his low income job(s) for years :) First I think it was Fed-ex during school then this one, wherever it is .. after school

[Sarvis]

hehe Sarvis has been bitching about his low income job(s) for years :) First I think it was Fed-ex during school then this one, wherever it is .. after school

No, FedEx was after school. During school was mostly security guard work and computer lab work, both of which took less skill than FedEx but security work paid about the same, oddly enough.

I'm doing ok now, but it's been 4 or 5 years since I graduated, and lack of money delayed my graduation by a couple years since I couldn't pay for my last few classes. (I only finally graduated because my mom put my last semester on a credit card. So yeah, I love that "live within your means" concept because it's just so easy to do in this country!)

[Ambar]

Yeah putting my lazy poor graded daughter thru community college now, I put the first term on our credit card too .. UGH .. .. I told her we'd pay this semester but she STILL hasn't turned her FAFSA (i know i have that wrong) in! The cow had the nerve to be pissed when I told her we werent paying for her books (several years ago my dad said any grandchild who went to school he'd provide books for .. and she is too (DUMB) to call him and ask) We've already qualified for the financial aid she just has to turn the papers in to see how much we qualify for .. if she doesn't turn them in this will be her first .. and last semester!

[Sarvis]

Yeah putting my lazy poor graded daughter thru community college now, I put the first term on our credit card too .. UGH .. .. I told her we'd pay this semester but she STILL hasn't turned her FAFSA (i know i have that wrong) in! The cow had the nerve to be pissed when I told her we werent paying for her books (several years ago my dad said any grandchild who went to school he'd provide books for .. and she is too (DUMB) to call him and ask) We've already qualified for the financial aid she just has to turn the papers in to see how much we qualify for .. if she doesn't turn them in this will be her first .. and last semester!

Actually, I think FAFSA is correct.

At least it's community college, my last quarter was at a big expensive private school... heh. Though I'd probably not do a first semester for my kids, they can stay home, get a job and pay rent so they learn a lesson. Keep that thought in mind for next semester...

[kiryan]

boy did I get the gold prediction wrong. gold at $757 an ounce 7% increase from what 6 weeks ago? man and the dollar continues to slide against the euro.

i got a scholarship to go to college for very little effort on my part really. i suppose i studied, but i didnt work hard like a lot of people did. it was a private college so im sure somebody subsidized my education but it wasn't as much the public as is with public schools.

i forget who asked that and why.

[Kifle]

boy did I get the gold prediction wrong. gold at $757 an ounce 7% increase from what 6 weeks ago? man and the dollar continues to slide against the euro.

i got a scholarship to go to college for very little effort on my part really. i suppose i studied, but i didnt work hard like a lot of people did. it was a private college so im sure somebody subsidized my education but it wasn't as much the public as is with public schools.

i forget who asked that and why.

Gold, like oil, goes up when the dollar slides.

So, by not working that hard, do you think you may have taken away a scholorship that somebody else worked harder than you for? Do you think you got the scholorship over the hypothetical person because of labor input? Was that fair? And, even though it wasn't subsidized as much, it was still subsidized. You benefited from a social service without being a free-rider. This basically implies that social services are not inherently detrimental to society, but, rather, they system they are implimented under is either corrupt or inefficient. Don't hate the game, hate the player.

[Corth]

I think he said it was a private college that gave him his scholarship. How exactly is that a social service? Private colleges make business decisions to attract students of a certain caliber or background. Helps them justify the ridiculous tuition they charge to people who are paying full price.

[Kifle]

I think he said it was a private college that gave him his scholarship. How exactly is that a social service? Private colleges make business decisions to attract students of a certain caliber or background. Helps them justify the ridiculous tuition they charge to people who are paying full price.

...it was a private college so im sure somebody subsidized my education...

social service
n.
1. Organized efforts to advance human welfare; social work.

[Sarvis]

Helps them justify the ridiculous tuition they charge to people who are paying full price.

Doesn't the fact that without a good college degree you're doomed to work minimum wage, easily expendable jobs and have Libertarians mock you for making bad choices justify that price, anyway?

[Ambar]

Helps them justify the ridiculous tuition they charge to people who are paying full price.

Doesn't the fact that without a good college degree you're doomed to work minimum wage, easily expendable jobs and have Libertarians mock you for making bad choices justify that price, anyway?

another poor example .. ANY job is expendable .. there is someone available to fill any spot in the workplace, ANY workplace

[Corth]

I don't think that you need a college degree. Hell, I think they are way overrated. Its gotten to the point that college is just another (albeit expensive) hoop to show you know how to play the game. College degree is the new high school degree. My sister-in law makes 28k with her useless piece of paper. Now you need a post-graduate degree to look impressive. Some of the most succesful people I know never graduated college. In fact, there is a big advantage to saving years of your time and tens of thousands of dollars, and instead using that time to learn something that you can make a lot of money doing, and getting paid to learn it.

Regardless, you didn't address my point that a private scholarship at a private university is simply a business decision and is not a 'social service'.