Cracked: The Occupy Wallstreet Generation

There's at least as much self-centered/me-first/self-entitled whining and misplaced blame in this thread as there is in the OWS protests. It isn't entitlement to want to have a say in the direction of your own society, or to want people with power to be accountable for their actions. And if you're going to be honest, what could possibly be more self-centered than the desire to accumulate wealth far in excess of one's needs?

It sincerely makes me want to vomit that so many members of perhaps the most technologically advanced, wealthy, smartest, most capable society in the history of humanity seem to think that things like literature, arts, philosophy, non-commercially-focused scientific study, or pretty much any activity that isn't undertaken in direct pursuit of wealth is worthless, only pursued by irresponsible people, and might as well be abandoned. To anyone who thinks like this, from the bottom of my heart, berkeley that. berkeley that a thousand times over. You're completely tossing aside the most wonderful, amazing thing about humanity, maybe the defining thing that makes us human, which is that we have the capacity (and thus the duty) to do things that aren't motivated purely by our basic needs. That we have the ability to DECIDE what is important, to DECIDE, individually or collectively, that maybe there are worthwhile goals beyond simple security and self-preservation (which is all wealth is, after all).

500 years ago, when most of humanity E36 M3 on the ground and could barely manage to feed, clothe and shelter themselves, WE STILL MADE ART. We still wrote literature. We still studied the world around us. We still concerned ourselves with significant work beyond "what will I eat today" or "how much stuff do I own". And we continue to derive great value from that art/science/literature today. So how on earth did we get to the point where such pursuits are worthless?

When you ridicule the very notion of humans devoting themselves to arts or literature, or any other pursuits undertaken without a clear economic goal, you're essentially mocking the idea of humanity itself. Rejecting this notion that money is the only worthwhile goal is a significant motivation behind the current protests. Funding for the arts? Don't need it, gotta cut rich folks taxes. Funding for space exploration? Don't need it, gotta cut rich folks taxes. Funding for education? Nope, gotta cut rich folks taxes. Funding for academic research? Nope, gotta cut rich folks taxes. Funding for health care? Nope, gotta cut rich folks taxes (besides, what do you need that for, can't you just go work for a corporation like everyone else?).

A lot of people have become convinced that not only is pure profit motivation the best way to allocate ALL of humanity's resources, it's the ONLY valid one, ONLY the things that this system spontaneously creates are worth humanity's effort, and exploiting this system is the highest value activity that humans can undertake. I hope we don't get to see where another few generations of that path take us.

As a current student, this topic resonates quite strongly with me.

I began my education in 2006. I had a full-ride scholarship, but I screwed up and lost it all. I floundered around in engineering, then I put in my full effort in architecture. Unfortunately, I worked 32 hours/week at the same time, so I ended up getting declined from the upper-division course in the program. This was more of a blessing than anything, because that would have been about the worst field to graduate in.

After a year or two of floundering around, I began back summer of '10. I work full-time, and go to school part-time. I pay for my classes out of pocket. Thankfully, I go to an affordable public university, so those 10 credits "only" cost me $1800.

I am sure that the low tuition costs are in part because of state funding, but the class is also made affordable by increasing the student:teacher ratio. Lower-division courses oftentimes have hundreds of students for a class taught by a graduate student. These courses help pay for the small classes taught by tenured professors. Speaking of tenured professors, for every aging tenured professor on campus, there are ten professors without tenure waiting for gramps to die. These professors make significantly less than the tenured professors.

As students, why would anyone want the tenured professors to make a pittance? That would only move them to the private market, where, in scientific fields at least, they would make just as good a living. These professors are experts in the field that they teach, and serve as direct liaisons to the industry that the students want to enter upon graduation. The student can either sign up to intramural flag football or volunteer in a lab. I want to get a damn job, so I chose the latter.

Considering that my education is still in progress, we'll see if I join the employed or the occupiers once I graduate. At the rate I'm taking classes, I'm slated for graduation in a little over a year. In the meantime, I plan to milk the school for all of the contacts that I can possibly get.

Bobzilla wrote: As for the college football coach, a good one will have a successful football program.

LOLOL clearly you arent talking about Illinois's football team!

In reply to Josh:

What are you talking about???

And who are you talking to???

I was an art major.

Is a successful football program measured by the win-loss record or alumni dollar intake?

Bobzilla wrote: So what I am reading is we should feel sorry because people did not research their intended career path to realize that it is oversaturated? Hmm.... nope. Sympathy, not feeling any.

That may be so, but its also a huge thing to ask 17 or 18 year olds to choose a major for college. And if you decide to switch majors two years in, that can mean a 5+ years in college. I expect my major to work out fine for me (mech. eng.) but how many people out there are english majors simply because they got As in english class in highschool and didnt know what they wanted to do with their life yet. Choosing a career path in your teens is a hard thing to do.

In reply to MitchellC:

I was just taking a jab at my school's football team in terms of win loss.

Josh wrote: It sincerely makes me want to vomit that so many members of perhaps the most technologically advanced, wealthy, smartest, most capable society in the history of humanity seem to think that things like literature, arts, philosophy, non-commercially-focused scientific study, or pretty much any activity that isn't undertaken in direct pursuit of wealth is worthless, only pursued by irresponsible people, and might as well be abandoned.

I don't think anyone was saying pursuit of the arts are folly. The point was that if you can't afford to pay for the school, mayhap you should find another way to make art rather than leverage yourself deep into debt then complain that it is a burden you cannot bear on the earnings of an artist. I like to draw. I bought a pencil and some paper... even a drafting table and some books. I did not spend $60k on a 4yr immersion in the Arts. I went to engineering school and I got a job because that is what I needed to do to eat/live/raise a family.

There is a reason that in the old days the wealthy went to the Arts and the working poor learned a trade. There was no way the poor could afford or justify it - nobody gave an unsecured loan to poor people to go get a degree in musical arts.

In reply to Josh:

Nobody was ridiculing the arts. Nobody.

The word entitlement was wholly and completely used in the correct context throughout this thread.

Webster on entitlement.

It is a belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges, which is EXACTLY what several people have responded to. The expectation that they are entitled to the privilege of a promise of a job from an educational institution.

Beyond that, I have no idea what you are talking about.

So all this time I thought higher education was a privelege not a right. Ya know a reason to work hard or maybe join the military for the gi bill. Those kids need a dose of reality.

oldsaw wrote: Greed isn't a vice exclusive to Wall Street.

Quoted for truth.

93EXCivic wrote: Except I am talking about state colleges, they aren't trying to make a profit. Both the states I have experience in have cut funding for higher education recently. Doesn't like make sense that these also increase the cost of education?

Maybe not.. but I know the State College I went to doubled it's administration staff during my time there.. at the expense of things like the library.

The joke in the school paper was that the underfunded library would be turned into the new Administration tower.

I recent trip to my old school saw me shocked to see they had renamed "college drive" to honour the woman who did her utmost to keep that school from becoming a state university. She was more known for her vast collection of hats and her connections to the company that won the contract to supply the cafeteria... than she was for her devotion to education

In reply to Josh:

I support art every time I buy a picture. I support literature every time I buy a book. I support music every time I buy a song. I support actors every time I buy a movie. How much more support do they need.

People make millions as artists. I guess I'm missing your point on that one.

I support my local church, I support my local SCCA chapter. Should I be allowed to make taxpayers support it too. I don't think so. Who gives you or anyone the right to tell me what to do with my money. Why don't you support what you want with your dime, and I'll support what I want with mine. Those that can't get funding will be fondly remembered in history books.

Just in case you haven't noticed, this country is 15 trillion dollars in debt. Pissing money away on "The Arts" or studying some obscure scientific fact, or even building weapons, or fighting in some desert, is just that, pissing money away. Money we are borrowing 40% of. It takes the feds less than ten seconds to spend my annual income adding to the debt. The rich might not mind paying the higher taxes if they thought the government would stop wasting the money.

Just for your edification.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

There were many posters using similar "if you studied something that isn't in economic demand, then quit whining, you deserve to be unemployed" arguments, but I was speaking a bit more generally rather than to anyone in particular. My point is just that this movement is as much cultural as it is economic. If you're looking at it purely as a bunch of people who are asking for a handout, you're not paying attention. At some level it's also about trying to shift government's focus toward doing what's best for people rather than letting everything be ruled by money.

Let's say you're an artist, or a scholar, or an educator, or any number of other capable individuals, doing the sorts of things humans have been doing for centuries, whose place in society are often dependent on resources being allocated toward their work in contradiction of pure economic logic. Things are not going so well for you right now - but there's more than one way that can change. You might be able to find a way to get someone in the free market to pay you for your skills, but you might not. The free market doesn't value every pursuit, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those pursuits have no societal value. You've got the government telling you that there's just not enough money to pay for art teachers or a symphony orchestra or NASA or whatever, because those things aren't deemed "essential", while at the same time they're spending like mad on wars and bank bailouts, and the wealthiest people have the greatest proportional wealth and the lowest tax rates that they've had in any of our lifetimes.

It's not "entitlement" to call bullE36 M3 on this situation, and at this point changing it is not as simple as supporting one political candidate or another because BOTH of the major parties are currently dominated by wealthy people who make policy decisions based on expanding their wealth often at the expense of those they are elected to serve (anyone else see that Pelosi story?). So you've got people protesting because, well, what else can you do? It's not a particular policy or representative or situation that's failing, it's the structure of the system, and how exactly do you change that? At the very least the protests are making people more aware and perhaps less tolerant of the real motivations of their leaders.

In reply to Josh:

You want to change it? Take the power away from the government. They can not abuse what they don't control.

All I hear from the occupy crowd is regulate this, regulate that. I cant, so I want help. Take from this person to help me. That the bullE36 M3 right there.

Recently there was an expose' of the local state university's complete screwup of a $20 million 'green energy' plant. I'm not knocking green energy, I am knocking them pissing away $20 million on something which did NOT contribute squat to the university's bottom line. http://www2.wspa.com/news/2011/oct/10/3/20-million-green-energy-plant-usc-closed-over-prob-ar-2535442/

Oh BTW, as soon as the lottery in this state became law (it's to fund higher education), all the state universities immediately jacked up their tuition costs to grab some more of that lottery funding for in state students. The increases had NOTHING to do with real world costs. http://www.scpolicycouncil.com/images/pdf/155.pdf

I think that money should have gone to help fund the public schools that funnel kids into these diploma factories, but what do I know?

Back to the thread subject: these Occupy types strike a chord with me, based on the 'me first' greed I see out there which makes me want to puke sometimes. But they have either chosen the wrong way to go about it or they have been taken over by outside elements.

ransom wrote: I'm woefully short of a plan about what we should do (hence my grasping at "how do we make practical decision making more popular" ideas).

Loans should be given based on ability to repay. A $30k engineering or accounting degree has a reasonable expectation of generating income that can repay it. A $100k cultural studies degree does not have that expectation. If you want it, go for it, but you won't be able to finance it.

Of course, this will never be done in an environment where the government controls the student loan market.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

ransom wrote: I'm woefully short of a plan about what we should do (hence my grasping at "how do we make practical decision making more popular" ideas).

Loans should be given based on ability to repay. A $30k engineering or accounting degree has a reasonable expectation of generating income that can repay it. A $100k cultural studies degree does not have that expectation. If you want it, go for it, but you won't be able to finance it. Of course, this will never be done in an environment where the government controls the student loan market.

This makes sense.

Although good luck finding a $30k engineering program.

Toyman01 wrote: I support art every time I buy a picture. I support literature every time I buy a book. I support music every time I buy a song. I support actors every time I buy a movie. How much more support do they need.

You're kind of making my point for me. The free market does an astonishingly terrible job at allocating resources in these areas. For every artist who gets rich, there are thousands of equally or more talented people who don't. It's usually pretty arbitrary which do. If the only motivation for creating art were economic profit, the world would end up creating very little of it, most of it pandering and awful.

Think about a company like Google. They famously let their workers devote a portion of their time to self-directed projects that aren't obligated to have a profit goal or to pursue a particular result. A lot of their most profitable work has come out of these projects, and it all runs completely counter to economic logic. They don't NEED to do any of these projects, you couldn't economically justify funding most of them before they start, but they still produce tremendous value, seemingly out of nowhere. That's how I think about things like public art, scholarly research, space exploration, arts education... we don't strictly NEED any of it, and you could never make a hard economic case that thoroughly justifies spending money on such things before the fact, but we also can't measure what we lose when we don't do it, or how much less amazing our lives might be if we had never pursued anything that didn't have a predictable payoff.

93EXCivic wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: So.... who here purchases a car without knowing how they are going to, or even IF they are going to pay for it? Go to the grocery store, put $500 of food on the cnveyor belt and not know if or when you can pay it off? How about your electric bill? Do you run every light on in the house, set the thermostat at 90 and then not know how you're going to pay your bill next month?

That wasn't my point. Tuition rose a bit above 20% in the 4 years I was at college. That isn't exactly something that you can plan for. It isn't like inflation. The state government can change its mind on how it wants to fund the schools or the school can randomly change what it requires in terms of cost. I went to a cheaper college. Currently the in-state tuition for 15 hours is $4050. When I started it was around $3200 for 15. Then you add on to that they started requiring all freshmen and sophomore who don't live with their parents within a 5 mile radius to live on campus (only exceptions are if you are married or over 25) which cost at least $5260 a semester. Plus they recently started requiring all students (no matter what) to have an overpriced meal plan (starting at $200 but that hardly gets any meals) but if you live on campus as a freshmen or sophomore you have to $1230 meal plan. This is a college which is considered a deal in the south east. I agree there are a lot of people act entitled but the cost of education has gotten way out of hand.

While I agree that E36 M3 ain't right.

That said, I went to a college that "required" a meal plan and on campus housing. I went to them and said "You can have my tuition money, or you can not. I can't afford all this other crap. Waive the requirement, or you miss out on my tuition money." Guess who didn't pay that crap. Negotiation is part of education...

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

The problem is that it is one of the cheapest colleges in the state and certainly the cheapest mechanical or aerospace engineering program in the state. Most colleges now require that stuff to encourage "school spirit".

In reply to Josh:

You in turn are also making my point.

A company like Google that is flush with cash can afford to let their employees spend time on projects like that.

Our country which is broke, has better things to spend the money on. Like maybe, I don't know, Paying Down The Debt!!!

Priorities, we as a society don't have them. We want what we want and damn the consequences. Those with $100K+ degrees in Renaissance Art are finding out the hard way that's not always the best plan.

In reply to Josh:

You could have picked no worse example than Google.

They've got more money than God, so they are infinity capable of funding anything they darned well please (unlike most companies, schools, or government who work with limited resources), and they also completely understand that whatever creative benefits come from the "freedoms" they allow will virtually ALL turn into enormous profits for them sooner or later.

You forget, that every one of those "free" spirits working on their "own" self-directed projects have signed confidentially agreements which make everything they produce the property of Google.

You are suggesting that organizations without the funding or capability of returning a profit on the investment pour money into efforts that will bring absolutely nothing into their coffers, while using the example of a company that has turned creativity into the ultimate commercialized capitalistic commodity, and will profit enormously from the investment. Where's the similarity??

Google's business model is now to pour the vast sums of money it has into projects solely so they can capitalize on the ancillary benefit. Because they can.

Schools have no such goal, nor should they.

Governments who do so do it at the peril of alienating those who are not receiving a similar benefit.

93EXCivic wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

ransom wrote: I'm woefully short of a plan about what we should do (hence my grasping at "how do we make practical decision making more popular" ideas).

Loans should be given based on ability to repay. A $30k engineering or accounting degree has a reasonable expectation of generating income that can repay it. A $100k cultural studies degree does not have that expectation. If you want it, go for it, but you won't be able to finance it. Of course, this will never be done in an environment where the government controls the student loan market.

This makes sense. Although good luck finding a $30k engineering program.

http://www.spsu.edu/tuitionfees/undergradtuition/index.htm

Looks like $33k +/- for the MET degree I got. Should be an ROI of 2 years or so

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

That doesn't count living expenses though.