Cracked: The Occupy Wallstreet Generation

I think what burns me the most is I have more real world experience than 95% of the management coming out of our colleges and I will never be looked at as management type material because I lack a degree. Because somehow, that magic piece of paper makes me more intelligent. Never mind the fact that I voluntarily take any classes, online webinars etc that I can get my hands on to further my own knowledge and how to properly take car of my customers and expand my knowledge of our product line.

I also can handle most of the customer issues better than they will ever think about because of my experience in dealing with the public and being in multiple positions throughout my life. But because I don't have that degree, I am dumb.

Is there a popcorn smiley?

Regarding hiring:
Managers want to know that a person can do the job they give them, but they don't have lots of time to sift through the chaff to find the wheat. That's why HR will cut out people without degrees, etc. The mitigating factor, of course, is knowing someone. If a manager knows that xyz can do the job and is responsible, then he'll likely hire xyz because he represents the least risk.
Goal in resumes:
Optimizing a resume, then, is an exercise in appearing to be competent and being unlikely to jump ship (either because you do a bad job, or you can get snapped up in a better job easily)

PS If someone wants a job doing SQL programming/data analysis in Michigan at a Catholic company, get in touch with me via the contact link. I think my company might be hiring.

Education:
Frankly, it seems like educational institutions don't have a lot of business sense. It's like they're all trying to outdo each other in facility X and building Y and such, and they're handing off the bills to the students. Plus, they spend lots of money on groundskeeping, etc. so that the average college campus looks like versailles back yard. Hrm... where'd the money come from for that fancy marble fascia? I think they get caught up in the wining and dining set (pinkies out!) Of course, how is that any different than those people who are swimming in debt for their McMansion?

I think the fundamental issue that I have with bailouts, with universal healthcare, with government payback of student loans, long-term welfare, etc is that, fundamentally, they disconnect failure from the pain of failure. The other issue I have is that it makes everyone pay for the failure of the few. By doing so, it encourages businesses, individuals, education institutions, etc. to take risks that they would not take otherwise.

Easy credit is a drug that's hard to resist.

Bobzilla wrote: I think what burns me the most is I have more real world experience than 95% of the management coming out of our colleges and I will never be looked at as management type material because I lack a degree. Because somehow, that magic piece of paper makes me more intelligent. Never mind the fact that I voluntarily take any classes, online webinars etc that I can get my hands on to further my own knowledge and how to properly take car of my customers and expand my knowledge of our product line. I also can handle most of the customer issues better than they will ever think about because of my experience in dealing with the public and being in multiple positions throughout my life. But because I don't have that degree, I am dumb.

Bob, regardless of the back and forth you and I may have had in this thread before, your post is pretty much exactly my point...now expand on that idea: that paper degree is useless - its a tool that HR folks use to "weed out the lesser candidates", except having a degree, as you just said, makes you no better a candidate than a degree-less candidate. Its not doing its job in as much as its supposed to teach you how to be better at the profession you just learned about.

but I guess Ive changed my mind a bit...its not guaranteeing you anything, just getting that paper. Its your job to determine whether or not the formula works for you...degree x times cost y divided by likelihood of employment a times potential salary b yadda yadd...I guess you have to do your own math, and thats where the responsibility bit kicks in. The university isnt telling you that you must undertake a specific major, and no one is tellign you which university you must attend.

Im willing to concede that I hadnt really taken off my pissed-off-youth colored glasses, and really assessed my role in the equation. I still think theres a lot about the whole higher-ed system that sucks, royally. But I also see that I have a lot of options once I sit down and really weigh the factors.

I see a whole lot of the "I'm all right, Jack, it sucks to be you" mentality here. I guess all those Art History majors with 100K student loan debts can fight the illegal immigrants for the minimum wage jobs and work four of them until they are 90 years old to pay off those loans. So if you see somebody on the side of the road bleeding to death do you not stop to help them for the same reason, that they need to feel the 'pain of failure' because they did some damned fool thing to get injured, and it's not your responsibility to be your brother's keeper. Hey, if you are an atheist and that's what you believe, that's fine. If you are an objectivist, it's ok for you to be selfish, and have a nice day. But don't try to tell me that you believe in any kind of religion and still want other people to feel the 'pain of failure'. There is no holy book out there that condones your beliefs. So don't go to church on Sunday and believe that you can turn your back on others who are in trouble. That just makes you a hypocrite.

And don't think that all of those people out there protesting are namby pamby Art History and Communications majors either. Some of these guys are unemployed veterans who have knowledge of weapons and explosives and they are frustrated because they can't find work. The guy injured in Oakland was a veteran of Iraq. Remember, Timothy McVeigh was once a frustrated unemployed veteran as well. Those guys in the Middle East who are overthrowing their governments now are young college graduates who could not find work. I see the police pushing the OWS guys harder now. Do we really want these to turn this into an American Tiananmen Square?

In reply to Snowdoggie:

While I sympathize with some of the OWS complaints, I still don't really know what they want in concrete terms.

Snowdoggie wrote: I see a whole lot of the "I'm all right, Jack, it sucks to be you" mentality here. I guess all those Art History majors with 100K student loan debts can fight the illegal immigrants for the minimum wage jobs and work four of them until they are 90 years old to pay off those loans.

I agree that the education system is screwed up but what are we supposed to do for the people already deep in debt? Just bail out all the student loans? That will really help the current state of the economy so much. Why would lenders give money to anyone especially new people going into college? Or just give them jobs because they "deserve it"? The simple fact is that maybe people should have thought before taking on those massive student loans about what they were doing. What we need to be worried about is working on fixing the problem so future generations won't have go thru this.

And as far as unemployment, maybe if the US had competitive corporate tax rates, we would be able to attract new business to the US.

Also it would be nice if we knew what the OWS people wanted.

scardeal wrote: Easy credit is a drug that's hard to resist.

Wisdom.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: While I sympathize with some of the OWS complaints, I still don't really know what they want in concrete terms.

I have actually gone out an talked to some of them at the Dallas camp. I don't know about the ones protesting in other places but here they are a mixed bag. There are a lot of young people there seeing very clearly that the middle class lifestyle their parents had is going away. They an oligarchy at the top who don't know or don't care. It may be a lot like the Hoovervilles of the 1930s and the government might eventually handle it in the same way. The one thing I did sense is that there isn't a whole lot of trust there. I also see a lot of fear. I lot of them wouldn't talk to me because I am over 50, wear a suit to work, have short hair and look like one of their oppressors. Bringing a dog with me one weekend made some of them a little more trusting and willing to talk.

I think what they want most is a dialog. They want the guys running things to listen to them. Some of them just want work. A place in society. Some of them don't know what they want. Not a whole lot different from the Tea Party, but a different generation. It would be a shame for the powers that be to just sent the police out to whack them.

In reply to Josh:

You apparently know me better than I know myself.

You'll find this shocking, but I have voted "liberal" more times than "conservative". I have spent time on picket lines and in jail for "trendy" causes similar to OWS, as real as the Vietnam War, and as frightening as Civil Rights. I have seen lynchings. I have been an active member of N.O.W., and supported the Equal Rights Amendment. I've been shot at for defending the environment, and done sit-ins in front of bulldozers waiting to clear eco-habitats. I've been a long time subscriber to Mother Earth News, installed solar panels, worked with the Peace Corps, and lived in a third world village. I have been a supporter of the pro-choice movement, and have utilized the services of Planned Parenthood. Oh, and I drink free-trade coffee.

But I've also done a lot of growing up, and soul searching.

I have no problem with your viewpoints. I have spent a great deal of my life with identical views.

I am living my life making the best choices I can with the life experiences I have. But the greatest lesson I've learned is to open my mind to other opinions. Sometimes, they are right.

You can choose to discount my input as just a "hostile conservative", but you really do not know me very well. Some of my viewpoint comes from maturity and an understanding of some of the mistakes I've made.

I understand where you are coming from very well, because I've been there. You do not hold a monopoly on doing "the right thing". But life mandates compromise, and one of those compromises is finance. Some nice stuff simply can't be afforded, and it's not someone else's job to provide for me. My job.

Part of the current financial mess the country is struggling grew from the entitlement thinking of me and my generation that we passed on to our children like you. The fact that we contributed does not mean it was a good idea. Entitlement thinking was a bad idea in the 1930's. It was a bad idea in the 1960's. And it is still a bad idea.

93EXCivic wrote: I agree that the education system is screwed up but what are we supposed to do for the people already deep in debt? Just bail out all the student loans? That will really help the current state of the economy so much. Why would lenders give money to anyone especially new people going into college? Or just give them jobs because they "deserve it"? The simple fact is that maybe people should have thought before taking on those massive student loans about what they were doing. What we need to be worried about is working on fixing the problem so future generations won't have go thru this.

If these guys can't find jobs, you won't have to worry about it. They won't pay the loans back and it will be the bank's problem, or the government's problem for backing the bank. The next mortgage crisis.

A generation that doesn't trust the system will have no qualms about stiffing the government they don't trust for a few student loans. At a certain point, you don't care what your credit score is anymore because you aren't going to be able to afford to buy anything that requires a good one. Hey. The government sent the police out to beat the crap out of them, then they want them to be nice and pay their loans back so they can have a good credit score. How is this going to work?

So, are you suggesting that ALL student loans are forgiven, rather than SOME be defaulted on?

Default was always a risk of lending. So, now that the borrowers don't trust the lenders (as if they ever did), we should forgive the loans because they might default?

This thread keeps getting weirder.

SVreX wrote: So, are you suggesting that ALL student loans are forgiven, rather than SOME be defaulted on? Default was always a risk of lending. So, now that the borrowers don't trust the lenders (as if they ever did), we should forgive the loans because they might default? This thread keeps getting weirder.

Exactly. I know that school is overpriced and it is a situation that needs to be fixed ASAP somehow. But forgiving all these loans will only make it more expensive for future generations to go to school. Forgiving student loans is a short term fix for a bigger problem. That is what we have been doing for years and it has really put us in a great situation. Some of us will be able to pay back the loans. Some will default.

SVreX wrote: So, are you suggesting that ALL student loans are forgiven, rather than SOME be defaulted on? Default was always a risk of lending. So, now that the borrowers don't trust the lenders (as if they ever did), we should forgive the loans because they might default? This thread keeps getting weirder.

They already have a program in place where your payment is adjusted according to what you make. I don't see any reason to send somebody a $1,200 a month bill when they make $1,500 a month. They aren't going to pay it. But letting them pay $300 a month and raising it when they make more money and the bank will get some of it's investment back. Maybe in some cases they could write off some of the interest in order to get them to pay the principal. Negotiations like that go on in business all the time. You really do have to do this on a case by case basis. Lets face it. If somebody went to school late in life and borrowed a lot of money to get an Art History degree, you might just have to write that one off. You can jump up and down and rant and say it's not fair that you had to pay your loan off and this person didn't but so what. Life isn't fair, and taking half of somebody's social security and forcing them to eat cat food won't make you whole again and may not even pay the cost of collection. Banks and collection agencies make these decisions all the time about who they can reasonably collect from and who they should just write off. Why make student loans any different.

Going forward, how about no more student loans for Art History degrees. If you are rich, get any degree you want and pay for it yourself. If you aren't, you submit your degree plan to the bank like a business plan and they decide if they want to take the risk. If we need more engineers and science majors to compete with China and India, subsidize them. Apply to a college with high math and science scores and promise to study what everybody wants to hire and you get free tuition, board and a cafeteria ticket.

The system isn't working. Let's admit it. Write of what we have to, and make the changes we need to make. Isn't that what any reasonable business would do?

Josh wrote: In reply to SVreX: Look, I know this place has become increasingly hostile to all but the most right-wing views lately, but the truth is that the opinion presented by most of the people here is NOT anywhere near aligned with the general public. In polls, a majority of people consistently support universal health care. Approval numbers for the OWS movement are double that of the Tea Party. A majority support raising the top tax rates. Approval ratings for the current Congress are dismal.

I found this website that has the poll ratings of congress overall, the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress from a number of polls. The ratings for Congress overall are all well under 20%. For the Democrats, around 26% and the Republicans 20%. What confuses me is no one likes these bastards and yet we keep voting for them?

From Wiki said: National polls over October and November 2011 were mixed, with agreement/approval ratings for Occupy Wall Street varying from 59% to 22%, but approval was fairly consistently larger than disapproval, with large numbers often not giving an opinion. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released October 12th found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the occupy movement, while 18 percent "tend to oppose" it.[90] An October 13 survey by TIME magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while 23 percent have a negative impression. An October 18 Gallup poll found that 22 percent of Americans agree with the protest's goals, while 15 percent disapprove and the remaining 61% say they don't know enough to decide. Gallup found that Democrats, Independents and Republicans all follow the news about OWS in equal numbers, and those who closely followed OWS were more likely to approve of its goals and methods.[91] An October CBS News/New York Times polls found 43% of Americans agree with Occupy Wall Street while 27% disagree.[92] An October Rasmussen poll found an almost even split, shows that 33 percent of Americans have a favorable view, while 27 percent are unfavorable and 40 percent have no opinion.[93] An October United Technologies/National Journal Congressional poll found that 59 percent of Americans agree with the movement while 31 percent disagree.[94] A November 3 poll done by Quinnipiac University found that just 30 percent of American voters have a favorable view of the protests, while 39 percent do not. The same poll found that among independent voters, 29 percent have a favorable view opposed to 42 percent who have an unfavorable view.[95][96] However, an ORC International poll released the same time found an increase in recognition and support of “Occupy Wall Street” from early October. 36% said they agreed with the overall positions of Occupy Wall Street, while 19% say they disagreed.[97]

The numbers for Occupy Wall Street are all over the place. I don't think there will be good numbers until someone actually comes out with goals.

Snowdoggie wrote: So if you see somebody on the side of the road bleeding to death do you not stop to help them for the same reason, that they need to feel the 'pain of failure' because they did some damned fool thing to get injured, and it's not your responsibility to be your brother's keeper. ... don't try to tell me that you believe in any kind of religion and still want other people to feel the 'pain of failure'. There is no holy book out there that condones your beliefs. So don't go to church on Sunday and believe that you can turn your back on others who are in trouble. That just makes you a hypocrite.

I'll tell you right now. I go to Church on Sundays and often enough on weekdays. I hold a minor in theology. I also have practical experience in life.

Part of loving one's neighbor is in "teaching a man to fish." A corollary to that is in correcting the sin. By taking away the pain of failure, you're effectively allowing them to think, "gee, if I screw up, someone's gonna swoop in and rescue me, no matter how stupid that is." You become an enabler. By allowing someone to reap what they sow, they learn that their decisions make a difference, they learn personal responsibility for their actions, and hopefully that translates to the spiritual realm as well. It's better to cut his hand off than for him to go to hell.

The issue with your analogy is that we're not talking about mortal wounds here. We're just talking about a crapload of debt. It is a heavy weight, but it is something that they can deal with, for the most part. I recently heard of a family whose yearly income was roughly $36k per year, and they were able to pay off over $30k of debt. IN 3 YEARS.

Josh wrote: Look, I know this place has become increasingly hostile to all but the most right-wing views lately, but the truth is that the opinion presented by most of the people here is NOT anywhere near aligned with the general public. In polls, a majority of people consistently support universal health care. Approval numbers for the OWS movement are double that of the Tea Party. A majority support raising the top tax rates.

I am amazed that you can't seem to see that these statements are completely unprovable. They CAN'T be true, because they can't be proved.

Josh wrote: In polls, a majority of people consistently support universal health care.

Who wouldn't support something they don't have to pay for? If the question is, "Do you think we should have universal health care?" EVERYONE would say yes. If the question was, "Are you willing to pay for universal health care?" well, different story.

Josh wrote: Approval numbers for the OWS movement are double that of the Tea Party.

Approval by whom? USAToday Readers? Teamsters? How would you even word the question? "Do you agree with the people who don't know what they want??" Again, if asked, "Do you agree with the people who think this country is in a mess" obviously everyone would agree. The Tea Party has a platform. It's easy for some people to disagree with it. How about they define what they want, and then we'll do some comparisons if it's still important (though I really don't care which group has the most support).

Josh wrote: A majority support raising the top tax rates.

Um, perhaps because a majority are not in the top income rate? Sure, it's a great idea, as long as someone else is paying for it.

The Tea Party had a purpose they were able to rally behind and convert it into votes. The problem with the OWS is that the only thing they seem to be able to agree on is that they are unhappy. It will be very difficult to turn that into votes, other than the fact that some Democratic politicos are jumping on the band wagon hoping there are more unhappy Democrats that Republicans.

Who will they vote FOR?

A burger flipper can become a chef that can start his own restaurant.

Dumb construction workers can build million dollar companies.

Its all in what you make of it and what you want out of life.

I know college kids that can tell you anything from a book but cannot do anything themselfs.

joeya wrote: Dumb construction workers can build million dollar companies.

Umm...probably not, but SMART ones can (whether or not they went to college)!

In reply to SVreX:

I think its a joke to pay 20+40,000 per semester for a college.

Price gouging and inflating are reaching back to the days when people were surfs who only live day by day and pay debits till they die.

We are on our way back to kings ruling over the poor.

In reply to SVreX:

Alot of construction workers are in the 100k range.

Why trades people are looked so down on and the media acts like they are poor people is beyond me.

scardeal wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: So if you see somebody on the side of the road bleeding to death do you not stop to help them for the same reason, that they need to feel the 'pain of failure' because they did some damned fool thing to get injured, and it's not your responsibility to be your brother's keeper. ... don't try to tell me that you believe in any kind of religion and still want other people to feel the 'pain of failure'. There is no holy book out there that condones your beliefs. So don't go to church on Sunday and believe that you can turn your back on others who are in trouble. That just makes you a hypocrite.

I'll tell you right now. I go to Church on Sundays and often enough on weekdays. I hold a minor in theology. I also have practical experience in life. Part of loving one's neighbor is in "teaching a man to fish." A corollary to that is in correcting the sin. By taking away the pain of failure, you're effectively allowing them to think, "gee, if I screw up, someone's gonna swoop in and rescue me, no matter how stupid that is." You become an enabler. By allowing someone to reap what they sow, they learn that their decisions make a difference, they learn personal responsibility for their actions, and hopefully that translates to the spiritual realm as well. It's better to cut his hand off than for him to go to hell. The issue with your analogy is that we're not talking about mortal wounds here. We're just talking about a crapload of debt. It is a heavy weight, but it is something that they can deal with, for the most part. I recently heard of a family whose yearly income was roughly $36k per year, and they were able to pay off over $30k of debt. IN 3 YEARS.

...so what about the the University who promised to teach them to fish and didn't do the job, or what about the situation where there are no fish to catch. Life experience from 20 years ago doesn't prepare you for the current situation. A college education is more expensive now than it ever has been, white collar jobs are being outsourced and you have to fight immigrants both legal and illegal for jobs that don't require a college degree. Yeah. I'm sure that you heard about somebody on a radio show who paid off $100,000 in credit card debt in 5 years by clipping coupons and driving a 10 year old car. But that person who did that already had a job, experience and a house he bought in 1981 at 1981 prices. How does that help somebody who just graduated in 2011 with student loan debt in the current job situation. Should they sell their blood to pay the bankers? These are not families. These are young single college graduates with no job experience. I heard one woman state that nobody would marry her with her debt. It's hard to be judgmental when you are not in that person's shoes.

And quite honestly, I'm not sure what you are teaching these students other than to become debt slaves. It's not like any of them are going to go back and borrow a whole bunch of money to do college over again if they get a cut in their interest rate or get to pay a payment in line with their income, or have part of their loan written off.

Come on, Doggie. The school taught them to fish just fine. It's not the school's fault that someone poisoned the pond.

Nor, is it the fault of the guy who loaned him the money to buy his first fishing pole.

And it's not the Fishing License Bureau, or the Commissioner of All Things Fishy, or the President of the United Fishes fault either.

Time to find a new pond...

SVreX wrote: Come on, Doggie. The school taught them to fish just fine. It's not the school's fault that someone poisoned the pond. Nor, is it the fault of the guy who loaned him the money to buy his first fishing pole. And it's not the Fishing License Bureau, or the Commissioner of All Things Fishy, or the President of the United Fishes fault either. Time to find a new pond...

The Wall Street Bankers poisoned the pond. That is who they are protesting.

Wall Street got a bailout. The car makers got a bailout. The guys who got their houses trashed by a hurricane got a bailout. Why not these kids. At least until they can find a job in the current economy.

In reply to Snowdoggie:

Well said snowdoggie

So, the bailouts were a stupid idea- let's have more!!

I've been in construction 35 years. No industry has taken a bigger dive than mine.

But it was not the Wall Street bankers who poisoned the pond. It was me. And it was you. With our unreasonable expectations and our willingness to go so far into debt that we couldn't manage it anymore. The only thing the bankers did was oblige our lusts and our greed.

My government enabled the bankers to make a profit by encouraging our corporate lusts and greed for bigger houses, nicer cars, and big screen TV's. American dream, right? We deserve it, right?

Now I am supposed to complain about it and cry for a bailout from the same government that let me down the first time? I'm supposed to cry about the banker's greed and not recognize my own?

berkeley that. I'm finding a new pond.

Enjoy your pity party.