Printable View
I added a reply to another one of your posts... but anyway, Loki, if $20K is the cutoff point for you... well, that's a problem. How do you buy a $500K house (which is often low range price) in the suburbs with a $20K salary? You'd be hard-pressed to buy half the junk-crap in my city's central area for a family making $50K. And that $500K house? It's junk, too.
Edit: Maybe I am just too high-brow for you people. I guess most mansions wouldn't be good enough for me.
Too many broad, undefined terms, Professor. "Many", "wealth", "prefer", "problem", "handful", "middle class".Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're also using a national metric to define true poverty-income ($20K). Maybe you should look at national numbers of recipients for food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, unemployment benefits. Or look at the growing numbers of people without health insurance, numbers of medical bankruptcies, or the millions of foreclosures. There are real people behind all those numbers, and it's not painting a pretty picture.
:donkey:Quote:
I know reading isn't your specialty
The last person here you should be calling a CHAMPAGNE SOCIALIST is Illusions. Excuse me for saying so. You donkey.
Median salaries in the suburbs are substantially above the national average. And if you still can't afford it, maybe you shouldn't be living in suburbs where houses cost $500k. Or maybe you shouldn't own a house. Last I checked, it wasn't a constitutional right, despite many Americans treating it like one. I'm from Brooklyn. Most people in Brooklyn don't own houses (house ownership is at about 32%) and don't have much of a shot of getting them. The world hasn't ended, people aren't committing suicide en masse, or going on a crime spree.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Maybe you should make sense. Too much to ask, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Your comparison is invalid. You brought up college education as the cure-all to being poor. I showed you a flaw in your argument. No comparison with non-grads will prove your argument correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It is a cure all for being poor because it gives you better job prospects than someone without a college degree. And making broad conclusions about a college education based on labor conditions following a severe recession is idiotic even by your standards.
I'm fairly certain an anecdote war isn't going to be productive, and neither is the tired fallacy of "I did it, others should be able to as well". I also don't see how being realistic is champagne socialism. I'm also fairly certain that there are people with backgrounds similar to yours who are much better off than you are or are more successful than you (monetarily). Does that imply that you are somehow lazier than they are, dumber, less motivated, not as hard working, less desiring of success, etc.? No? Then why do you choose to view it that way for people less successful than yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Edit: Suggestions for an alternative to "Fairly certain"...I need a new phrase...
It suggests that there's an easy way out of poverty (albeit one that requires hard work), and that the only problem is that most poor people choose not to take it. You made it seem like poor people find impenetrable obstacles when it comes to getting a college education, and that's simply a lie. Hell, as of 2005, a poor person New York state was actually paid money to go to the CUNY system (most New Yorkers I knew not only didn't pay tuition, but received a check of ~$500 every year).Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
I have absolutely no idea where your rant comes from. I don't see where I said anything negative about people "less successful than myself". My entire point was that we have low social mobility because many poor people do not go to college (and many drop out of high school), in contrast to the view of several others here that being poor somehow precludes one from advancing in society.
There's a difference between renting decent housing and living in (and owning!) squalid housing. And btw, in my city at least it seems like crime is edging up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Edit:
Well, I don't think that at all. It's what comes after the college education that's the troubling part.Quote:
You made it seem like poor people find impenetrable obstacles when it comes to getting a college education, and that's simply a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Maybe you should make sense. Too much to ask, I know.
I see. Your pieces of data are undermining your own argument.Quote:
An existence proof (i.e. one piece of data) undermines his hypothesis.
What's your argument, again? That income inequality doesn't affect our power structure, because YOU pulled yourself up by your Brooklyn Bootstraps?
Back to median income. You could live the lifestyle of a Manhattanite, on an income of about $30,000, but you'd have to live in Mississippi to do that. It's obviously not so easy to transfer a Mississippi education to a NYC job, though. The barista and cashier jobs are filled. Any open applications for a hot dog cart or t-shirt street vendor?
If you think the houses in your town are crap, what exactly is preventing you from getting a house in another town?Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Crime always edges up when unemployment goes up. It's not because of people not owning houses.
Did you read the links in the OP? Anyways, the Gini coefficient, while an interesting measure, is a somewhat flawed statistic for these purposes. Comparing apples to oranges is pretty meaningless in terms of consumption, and more importantly, a Gini coefficient can easily be thrown out of whack by a small proportion of very rich or very poor. That doesn't really tell you anything about whether the living conditions of most Americans have improved in the last 40 years. That's not even taking into account the more esoteric problems with using the Gini coefficient as some rubric of income inequality, since the distributions aren't very well represented by a single number. Lastly, I'd bet that demographics have more to do with shifting Gini distributions rather than any underlying inequality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
These are complex issues, which is why I brought it up in the first place. It is by no means clear that the standard trope of flat or declining real wages is true.
Because even if every HS graduate in the US attended college, there still wouldn't be enough jobs for them. There aren't even enough jobs for the stream of new college grads. Plenty decide to go to graduate school, to wait it out or increase their chances, even though that may not increase their odds of actually finding a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I say we borrow our way out of this. And since we're borrowing anyway, let's give tax cuts to everybody. Let's sell our wealth to China. Let's become Squanderville.
:bored: Thinking in anything but absolute terms is hard, isn't it? Going to college doesn't guarantee you a well-paying job (or any job for that matter). It does significantly increase your chances of getting such a job. By not getting a college degree (at least an associate's), these people are almost guaranteeing themselves a life of poverty (or something approaching it). And it's ridiculous to speak of only conditions right now. The labor market will improve in a few years, and college grads will go back to having an unemployment rate of 2-3%. Why anyone would willingly pass that up is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Or let's make 1,830 inane posts on a forum without ever engaging in a serious conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Because all the other towns have higher house prices unattainable to those making a low wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's not what I was saying... poor housing (and poor city planning) causes problems, which causes crime. That in turn creates poor housing areas (think noise from unemployed vagrants and being unable to walk outside, even in the daytime, near your house), which makes living there even worse and causes even more crime.Quote:
Crime always edges up when unemployment goes up. It's not because of people not owning houses.
We have a large community college in our city, but that really does not make a dent in average education here. Better housing is often unattainable for these people. I won't go into why; I'm just saying that the divide is not between the super-rich and everyone else: it's between the poor and those who managed to get "away" from the poor.
The median cost of a house in the northeast is currently $240k. Clearly you're looking in the wrong towns.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
I'm not going to disagree with that. There are plenty of areas I wouldn't walk in at night. And while people living there face structural problems, it's ultimately individuals who make the choice to commit crimes, get knocked up, take drugs, not finish school, etc. If enough people in these areas wouldn't make these stupid decisions, then those areas wouldn't be nearly as bad as they are now.Quote:
That's not what I was saying... poor housing (and poor city planning) causes problems, which causes crime. That in turn creates poor housing areas (think noise from unemployed vagrants and being unable to walk outside, even in the daytime, near your house), which makes living there even worse and causes even more crime.
We have a large community college in our city, but that really does not make a dent in average education here. Better housing is often unattainable for these people. I won't go into why; I'm just saying that the divide is not between the super-rich and everyone else: it's between the poor and those who managed to get "away" from the poor.
Then you should stop doing that. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
We all hope the labor market will improve. Current conditions will affect the future, surely you know that. Maybe check back here after your PhD is completed, and you tell us how this advanced degree has helped you land a better job, than having worked with your undergrad degree for the past X years.Quote:
Going to college doesn't guarantee you a well-paying job (or any job for that matter). It does significantly increase your chances of getting such a job. By not getting a college degree (at least an associate's), these people are almost guaranteeing themselves a life of poverty (or something approaching it). And it's ridiculous to speak of only conditions right now. The labor market will improve in a few years, and college grads will go back to having an unemployment rate of 2-3%. Why anyone would willingly pass that up is beyond me.
His point was about borrowing money for an education, hoping for the best. When in doubt, promise a tax cut. Similar to borrowing money from China, hoping for the best. When in doubt, promise tax cuts. That's not inane. That IS part of the serious conversation we're (supposedly) conducting.Quote:
Or let's make 1,830 inane posts on a forum without ever engaging in a serious conversation.
The kind of jobs you could get in my field without a Ph.D. are extremely limited (unless you're willing to take a job not strictly in the field). So having work experience with a job that required a BA would not in any way improve my future job prospects.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You're reading far too much into it. When it doubt, assume he's trolling.Quote:
His point was about borrowing money for an education, hoping for the best. When in doubt, promise a tax cut. Similar to borrowing money from China, hoping for the best. When in doubt, promise tax cuts. That's not inane. That IS part of the serious conversation we're (supposedly) conducting.
Clearly. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Hello? The structural problems are why people end up making bad choices. You're deluded if you think "those people" (who grow up in poverty with crappy schools and crappy role models, gang powers and constant violence), have the same type of individual choices that others "more fortunate" have.Quote:
I'm not going to disagree with that. There are plenty of areas I wouldn't walk in at night. And while people living there face structural problems, it's ultimately individuals who make the choice to commit crimes, get knocked up, take drugs, not finish school, etc. If enough people in these areas wouldn't make these stupid decisions, then those areas wouldn't be nearly as bad as they are now.
You make it sound like they're victims by choice, and just have to choose to be smarter to do better. If enough of "them" could just see the err of their ways, the world would be ponies and butterflies.
:donkey:
That would be perhaps misleading, for a number of reasons. If that figure you're giving me is the price of a house sold in 2010, here's one way it can get distorted--Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There are many houses being sold that are very cheap, bringing both the mean and the median down. (who would sell -- or buy -- a decent house in this economy, with housing prices artificially depressed because of the deteriorated neighborhood quality? Not many.)
Anyway, just go on homes.com and search houses in Massachusetts inner cities and suburbs. You'll find a clear and enormous disparity.
Silly you, for picking a BA major with no way to get work experience, let alone good job prospects. Maybe you should have been more willing to take a job not strictly in your field. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You mean like how you troll around here? Stop being silly Mister Pot. :rolleyes:Quote:
You're reading far too much into it. When it doubt, assume he's trolling.
That number was $260k in 2008, which implies that you are not looking in the right places.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
I have no knowledge of the housing market in Mass. But if it's that bad in the entire state, you should consider moving.
No, I'm saying those factors make it more difficult to succeed, but they don't prevent people from succeeding. Even though the deck might be stacked against them, they still have to make the individual decision to do stupid things. A decent portion don't make those choices, and they're the ones who get out of poverty.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Let's not forget also about the insane amount foreclosures that are still going on. That really drives down the mean prices, especially when if one were to (incorrectly) utilize mean square footage -- small shacks will have very cheap per-sq.foot price, just like cheap CPUs have incredible per-score-point-value, but are not actually able to run anything.
And people do seem to use this measure, especially when these people are actually enormous government-owned mortgage holders requiring ridiculous appraisal schemes for refinancing.
Because of course the number of jobs out there is a fixed number...Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
That being said, *everyone* going to college just means going to college does not give anyone a leg up since everyone would have done that. But not everyone is going to do it. Some people will make bad choices. *NOTE* As an aside I think college education is fairly worthless in 80% of jobs in terms of having the technical and mental ability to do the job. However its a sad reality that you will command a better wage with a college degree then without one even if person without a college degree may do the job better. So unless you plan on starting your own business (and if so more power to you!!) the intelligent choice is to get a degree.
If you ever go to college, take an English class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You have no knowledge of housing markets at all, let alone regional COL or job markets. T'would make this discussion much better if you'd just admit that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Otherwise, you sound Lewkowskian, throwing the premise out there, that if people just moved where the jobs are, or took any available job, or took community college classes in-between their two part-time jobs, or just saved their money, everything would be just fine.....
And I'm saying certain structural flaws in our educational system do, indeed, render a "decent portion" of our society helpless. Victims of circumstance, unable to overcome the odds stacked against them, destined to repeat the cycle of poverty with its consequences.Quote:
No, I'm saying those factors make it more difficult to succeed, but they don't prevent people from succeeding. Even though the deck might be stacked against them, they still have to make the individual decision to do stupid things. A decent portion don't make those choices, and they're the ones who get out of poverty.
Point of reference: our national capitol, DC. Home to all our branches of government, the White House, the Supreme Court, our congress. Also home to abject poverty and crime. A real disconnect between power and poverty, education and livelihood. The two polar extremes right there, side-by-side. Stray too far from Georgetown, or get the street map wrong, and you're in a different world. Any tourist can confirm that, and even say WTF?
If nothing else, going to college sends a signal to potential employers that you're serious about improving your skills, have a long time horizon, can deal with people, can meet deadlines, etc. You can't see all of those qualities during an interview, so it's not unreasonable for HR people to take a shortcut and look for the college degree instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You just pulled that out of your ass, didn't ya? Make you feel better about plodding away for your doctorate, or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There are now web sites designed to help degree holders in dumming down their education and work experience when they write a resume. That's how desperate the situation has become. Talented, educated, experienced people are trying to learn how to write a resume, without sounding too qualified, or too desperate. And that's just to GET an interview.
There's an entire literature in economics about signaling and how it applies to the job market. :bored: Why do you think your average frat boy with a college degree is still going to be more employable than a hard-worker without one? If you're in Human Resources, you're going through hundreds of resumes each day. You can't stop long enough to look at a particular case to see if there's a reason they don't have a degree. That resume just gets tossed in the trash. The HR people know that someone without a degree can still be qualified, but they also know they don't have enough time to find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And getting a Ph.D. doesn't necessarily send the best signals in terms of salary expectations. There's a reason most professional degrees pay better than doctorates.
Do your academic economists also figure in how HR operations has changed? Are you stuck on large corporate employers, and how they've decided to find new employees? They don't pay HR people to sit at a desk and thumb through resumes. Not any more. Depending on the place hiring, a degree may not even matter. When time is money, they don't bother paying HR people. They'll just hold a cattle-call type of group applications, and work their way up from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Loki, when's the last time you applied for a job?
I love how you always assume you know better than the experts. If you thought of something, chances are some economist thought of it decades ago. The economists who study this know far more about the current HR process deal with HR people far more than you do.
Probably after you started assuming that you're the only wise person on the planet.
I see why in some instances people do that but it seems silly when your looking at internal promotions and flat pay increases just for having X degree. To move into a management position at my job its a requirement to either have a 4 year degree or taking classes to complete a 4 year degree. While that helps me out personally I find it absurd that its a requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I mean its not like getting a 4 year degree requires any amount of real academic effort. At least not at state universities.
And I love how you claim to know the experts, while trying to become one. Maybe that feeds your chutzpah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I've never claimed to have one single original thought, not once. Not on economy, politics, or philosophy. I'm not that intelligent. Not even clever enough to pretend.
Still, I can read. You've mentioned HR a few times, in a couple of threads. I don't think you really know how HR works today from an employer view, let alone employment from an applicant view. New college grads have an automatic benefit that old college grads have lost. Universities partner with employers to weed out extraneous applicants, their job fairs are more specific, certain schools have preference.
When's the last time you applied for a job?
While college or graduate degrees are of course at times unnecessary to do a job, that's not true for a wide range of professions. Generally, the wage premium of an education goes much higher for so-called 'useful' degrees (e.g. STEM) rather than more fluffy ones (e.g. Music Theory). That means that even though there's some minimal value placed on the more vague things you learn in college, there's a lot of value placed on the specific skill sets and knowledge you learn in application-oriented coursework. We have a great deal of specialization in society, and that level of specialization frequently requires more knowledge and skills than are imparted to a high school student.
I personally don't think that a 4-year degree is necessary or even a good idea for everyone, but there definitely are reasons for the wage premium.
I guess this goes here. It gives an opinion about why unemployment extensions are more important than extending tax cuts for the rich.
The Unemployed Held Hostage, Again
Quote:
Other opponents would have you believe that the nation cannot afford to keep paying unemployment benefits: a yearlong extension would cost about $60 billion. The truth is, we cannot afford not to. The nation has never ended federal benefits when unemployment is as high as it is now, and for good reason: Without jobs, there is inadequate spending, and that means ever fewer jobs. A wide range of private and government studies show that unemployment benefits combat that vicious cycle by ensuring that families can buy the basics.
Quote:
Nor do jobless benefits bust the budget. Just the opposite. They do not add to dangerous long-term deficits because the spending is temporary. And because they support spending and jobs, they contribute powerfully to the economic growth that is vital for a healthy budget. Extending the Bush high-end tax cuts would be budget busting, because they are likely to endure, adding $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years. Tax cuts for the rich provide virtually no economic stimulus, because affluent people tend to save their bounty.
Being, you should really stop linking to the NYT. It's a left wing liberal propaganda machine. Their experts have an agenda! tsk.
Also, you and I should be ashamed for posting in this forum. Our spam *and absurdity* is keeping current members from posting, and holding back new people from joining, too!
Let's go sulk in the corner, with our tails between our legs. Master Loki says we are bad dogs, and haven't learned the proper tricks. He will show us the way, though....soon, very soon.
I know what you mean. But that also means sharing a value system based on need, not just knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Example: most of us can find medical help on the internet. Diagnosing rashes or sore throats, migraines, back pain or obesity. Plenty of that information can empower us, and we can act on recommendations. We can learn how our bodies work, and how to make them work at optimum levels. That's a good thing.
However, other things aren't so easy, like cars. I can learn what bad suspension sounds or feels like, or how performance suffers from misaligned steering, but I can't fix that by changing fuel or keeping the tires inflated. I really need a mechanic for my car. A car isn't like a human body, where prevention and self-help or nutrition goes a long way.
Based on that, auto mechanics should earn more than physicians.
Are you kidding me?! Car trouble is far easier to diagnose than body trouble, and much easier (and cheaper and safer) to fix. The level of knowledge and expertise doesn't even come close.
I'm not talking about physician specialists or surgeons. They are a highly specialized group of doctors. I'm talking about the basics.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
We all know basic health screening and level I diagnostics can be done by an RN or PA, often by the patient themselves. You can't say the same about your car. Not many people have the computer diagnostics, or the lift, or the materials. Most people can't even change their own oil even if they wanted to.
Apples and oranges. The fanciest car repairs require expert help (though said help doesn't require as much knowledge or training as an MD), but the vast majority of stuff can be done on your own with fairly basic tools. If you want to compare the fanciest and most expensive car repairs to routine medical treatment, you can, but that's extremely disingenuous.