The Next President is...

[jazzdude]

Sorry but all I hear is a lot of excuses. 
Is there risk, absolutely but there are many thousands of millionaires and hundreds of billionaires that started with nothing.  Immigrants who arrived with $100 in their pocket and they somehow overcame all the drag of no college degree, low wages, housing and poor transportation. 
 

And there are many more who just don't make it, or just get by, but their stories aren't ones that books get written about.

Those aren't excuses, just obstacles that need to be overcome. Sometimes they can be overcome by hard work alone, sometimes it requires some fortunate timing and a little luck to overcome those obstacles. And no one likes to talk about what happens when risks are realized, it's much easier to celebrate taking a chance and winning.

But you are right in that our country offers great opportunity, and probably the most economic mobility.

At the same time, businesses need to work harder too. If they have staffing shortfalls, stop complaining and do the work to invest in recruiting and retaining talent. If people don't want to do the job you have open, you're probably not paying enough to deal with the job. And if you can't afford to pay what the workers are demanding, well, your business model probably has flawed assumptions and you're on the path to failure.

[busdriver]

About 6-9 months ago I was curious about this debate and dug into average annual pay on manual labor jobs in 1969 compared to the 2007.  Those years didn't have any real significance, other than having data that was easy to grab.

The average annual pay of all manual labor jobs had risen very slightly in real terms (43k to 44.5k).

The average cost of healthcare had risen 5.5% to 22% of that annual pay.  

The median home value had risen from about 400% to 3500%.

An average college degree has gone from 22% to about 100%.

Average car cost had gone from 60 to 69%.

Everything else stayed the same cost or got cheaper.

 

So there is a real something in medical costs, home costs, and college costs.  Any discussion about addressing those needs to actually look into the root cause of why the cost went up.  Throwing government money around doesn't inherently do that.

 

[Lord Ratner]

2 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

And there are many more who just don't make it, or just get by, but their stories aren't ones that books get written about.

Those aren't excuses, just obstacles that need to be overcome. Sometimes they can be overcome by hard work alone, sometimes it requires some fortunate timing and a little luck to overcome those obstacles. And no one likes to talk about what happens when risks are realized, it's much easier to celebrate taking a chance and winning.

But you are right in that our country offers great opportunity, and probably the most economic mobility.

At the same time, businesses need to work harder too. If they have staffing shortfalls, stop complaining and do the work to invest in recruiting and retaining talent. If people don't want to do the job you have open, you're probably not paying enough to deal with the job. And if you can't afford to pay what the workers are demanding, well, your business model probably has flawed assumptions and you're on the path to failure.

 

Another fallacy in this line of reasoning is that all bottoms are equal. If you lack the timing and luck that are allegedly required to succeed in america, you still end up in a vastly better position than if you lack the timing or luck required in another country. And if you take one step up from the absolute bottom, you see an even bigger disparity. The second from the bottom quintile in America lead dramatically wealthier and more opportunistic lives than the second to the bottom quintile in European countries. And whereas our citizens in that quintile pay no taxes effectively, European lower and middle class workers pay quite a bit of taxes.

 

So while this system isn't perfect when compared to a non-existent perfect system, it is thoroughly more beneficial to those at the bottom than other systems that do exist.

 

There are only two valid comparisons. That which exists in other countries today, and that which existed in our country in the past. By both metrics, our citizens come out way ahead. Add in the opportunities for upward mobility, and the competition isn't even close.

 

I do agree with the problems regarding college debt, housing prices, and wage stagnation. But the boom times of the 1950s did not come remotely close to the level of regulation and interference we have today. College debt can be directly traced to government backing student loans. That seemingly well-intentioned policy completely decimated a lot of millennial and gen z lives with astronomical debt as teenagers. And we effectively derailed the progress black Americans were making with a series of well-intentioned but ultimately catastrophic programs such as affirmative action. Decades of progress making up for a true evil, completely lost. And now no one on either side has a solution for the glaring racial problem that everyone sees but is uncomfortable verbalizing.

 

The disconnect is that liberals generally see conservative resistance as some sort of lack of compassion. Incorrect. It's generally a realization that second and third order effects of seemingly innocuous (to liberals) government action can have quite devastating effects.

[ClearedHot]

Just now, jazzdude said:

At the same time, businesses need to work harder too. If they have staffing shortfalls, stop complaining and do the work to invest in recruiting and retaining talent. If people don't want to do the job you have open, you're probably not paying enough to deal with the job.

 

Do you have any idea how hard this is?  Maddening brother!

It is so easy to just wave a hand and say "just pay more" or "fix your business model."  Not trying to insult you but have you ever run a business? 

First, you have the federal government telling you who you can and can't hire and crawling up your ass if the employee population is not a perfect reflection of society.  I have seen companies go to extraordinary lengths to meet these government quotas but fall short and be punished when the reason the goal can't be achieved is there simply were no qualified applicants. 

Second, American kids are far more enamored with a liberal arts degree from Berkley that allows them the time to "find themselves" and identify social injustice rather than investing in the hard sciences and technical degrees.

For the record we have invested in recruiting and retaining talent.  We have gone to HBCs, opened paid internships ($23-$25 an hour for College Juniors), and offered to hire 30-40% of those interns.  We offer free lunch on site via catering and food trucks, tuition assistance, excellent benefits, box seats to sporting events and concerts.  In certain jobs we give $30K spot bonuses to keep talent and we still can't keep up. 

35 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 And if you can't afford to pay what the workers are demanding, well, your business model probably has flawed assumptions and you're on the path to failure.

 

Simply not true...absolutely not true.  The government dictates many business models and I am sorry but I can't waive my hand and have a Berkley female studies major perform the same duties as a C++ or C Sharp Dev.  And, while I pay many new college grads 6+ figures eventually I run into the brickwall of the government telling me what my profit can and can't be.

[jazzdude]

It's straight supply and demand. If you want engineers, you have to attract them, whether it's based on mission, location, or compensation, or a combination of the three. And there are many large companies competing for the same talent, on the software side places like Amazon/Google/Facebook/etc. Just like any other limited resource, the scarcer it gets the more it costs. And it's not like the US is producing less engineers with bachelor's degrees than in the past, just that there's more competition for them. Or you have people with engineering degrees exiting the field to go do something else (like fly military jets...)

Plus, I'd wager that many software development jobs don't actually require a comp sci degree, and that a lot of coding can be successfully be done by someone who's self taught. The trouble is it's hard to measure/gauge the abilities of someone that doesn't have a formal degree. I know when I interned at a major defense contractor that most of the work I did don't really have anything to do with my (EE) degree, outside of a few classes where we happened to use C and Java. But there's no vocational equivalent for software development, and unless you're needing to develop better methods of sorting data, a comp sci degree is probably overkill.

Plus there's a lot of other drags on business. Look at USERRA protections-great for manning the reserves (and I think we can all agree good for the country as a whole), and protecting a traditional reservist's primary civilian job helps ensure participation with their unit. But it's a cost that the business has to bear. Oh, and not hiring someone because of their reservist status is also illegal.

You point out going to Berkeley and getting a soft degree; it's a free country, individuals can study whatever they want (though some degrees have better returns on investment with less risk than others). And most engineering programs are competitive, with more applicants than seats available, so the pool of applicants is still strong. Yes, it would be great for our country to produce more engineers, but the incentives aren't there for colleges to rapidly expand their engineering programs, and the federal government can't really mandate colleges produce more engineers. And any federal incentives would cost money aka tax revenue, so that's got to come from somewhere.

Also, reaching kids in k-12 to encourage studying math and science is important, as well as teaching those subjects in k-12. Because if that educational background isn't built then, it limits the pool of students qualified to begin technical field of study. So investment in primary/secondary education is important, and funded through tax revenue (though at the local/state level). And students generally are only as good as their teachers.

[ClearedHot]

32 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

You point out going to Berkeley and getting a soft degree; it's a free country, individuals can study whatever they want (though some degrees have better returns on investment with less risk than others).

100% agree, but don't expect a living wage this choice.  As you said, supply and demand and there is very little high paying demand for the overwhelming pool of soft degrees.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

You point out going to Berkeley and getting a soft degree; it's a free country, individuals can study whatever they want (though some degrees have better returns on investment with less risk than others). And most engineering programs are competitive, with more applicants than seats available, so the pool of applicants is still strong. Yes, it would be great for our country to produce more engineers, but the incentives aren't there for colleges to rapidly expand their engineering programs, and the federal government can't really mandate colleges produce more engineers. And any federal incentives would cost money aka tax revenue, so that's got to come from somewhere.

Also, reaching kids in k-12 to encourage studying math and science is important, as well as teaching those subjects in k-12. Because if that educational background isn't built then, it limits the pool of students qualified to begin technical field of study. So investment in primary/secondary education is important, and funded through tax revenue (though at the local/state level). And students generally are only as good as their teachers.

Your perspective is interesting, because I think the incentives are there. The incentives and consequences are showing up in our massive and mounting student debt crisis. That *is* the signal. It's a signal our government is sending by virtue of providing effectively unlimited student loan debt for degrees that provide no meaningful ability to receive a higher standard of living. Individuals who attain degrees that provide massive remuneration (CS, engineering, etc) are not having a hard time paying off their student loans. The solution is to get the government out of distorting the market for these other worthless degrees. There is that there is no market for much of what colleges produce. The *only* reason these colleges get away with it is because the government provides a funding stream for what is otherwise valueless.

So you're right, while the government can't *mandate* a school produce more engineers, they can certainly shape the incentive structure that these schools inherit.

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, busdriver said:

The average cost of healthcare had risen 5.5% to 22% of that annual pay.

I'd be interested to see more complete data, but I think our (American) average waistlines have increased by a similar proportion. Expect the cost of healthcare to continue to increase in proportion to how unhealthy we continue to become: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-29220000

[Alpharatz]

On 10/1/2021 at 10:29 PM, Day Man said:

where did you learn the "ellipses > proper sentence structure" system?

I dunno...my memoirs?

[ViperStud]

6 hours ago, busdriver said:

The median home value had risen from about 400% to 3500%.

Might wanna check this math. 3500% of $44.5K means a median home value upwards of $1.5M. 

[Guest nsplayr]

Just as an aside...I know why y'all are using UC Berkeley* in examples, but it's really a poor choice for "these graduates have worthless/useless degrees."

Berkeley is one of the very best universities in the country. It's top-20 in terms of "best universities" by whatever formula Payscale uses, #22 in US News rankings, and produces 42% STEM-related degrees.

So I mean yea, a BA in Underwater Basket Weaving from the University of Phoenix paid for by unsubsidized federal loans is probably the more apt example of what we need less of 🤷‍♂️

Another funny aside from that Payscale data...the military academies all score really well because of honestly quite high "early career salary" i.e. O3 pay, high-meaning career fields, and high % of STEM degrees, however anecdotally I have yet to meet a single academy grad that recommends their alma mater to anyone else 🤣

*I did not go to Berkeley nor do I know anyone who did.

Edited October 11, 2021 by nsplayr

[RASH]

Just as an aside...I know why y'all are using UC Berkeley* in examples, but it's really a poor choice for "these graduates have worthless/useless degrees."
Berkeley is one of the very best universities in the country. It's top-20 in terms of "best universities" by whatever formula Payscale uses, #22 in US News rankings, and produces 42% STEM-related degrees.
So I mean yea, a BA in Underwater Basket Weaving from the University of Phoenix paid for by unsubsidized federal loans is probably the more apt example of what we need less of 🤷‍♂️
Another funny aside from that Payscale data...the military academies all score really well because of honestly quite high "early career salary" i.e. O3 pay, high-meaning career fields, and high % of STEM degrees, however anecdotally I have yet to meet a single academy grad that recommends their alma mater to anyone else 🤣
*I did not go to Berkeley nor do I know anyone who did.

As an Academy grad who has never recommended his alma mater…it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of the education or the post-graduate pay, and everything to do with the integrity of the organization it was tied to. Just one data point…


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

100% agree, but don't expect a living wage this choice.  As you said, supply and demand and there is very little high paying demand for the overwhelming pool of soft degrees.

As someone with a social science (Political Science) bachelors, a STEM masters (Cybersecurity), and worked for Apple and a software company I can tell you that “soft skills” of just being a people person completely outweigh any technical ability. I can always tell you to read a book and get smarter, I can’t teach you people skills.

I see this a lot of project managers in IT fields, the dorks that have people skills because they can speak nerd, yet know how to management projects and people. Reference Tim Cook with an industrial engineering degree from Auburn and an MBA from Duke.

Also, the push for nothing but STEM majors always made me laugh. Do you want a society of STEM majors? I sure as shit don’t.

In my experience the STEM educated pilots were the worst ones to fly with because they were over-analytical to a fault and had terrible skills. The good ones usually came from a “social science” background.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Sua Sponte

[VMFA187]

5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

I can always tell you to read a book and get smarter, I can’t teach you people skills.

People are born with people skills?

[Sua Sponte]

26 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

People are born with people skills?

Let me rephrase, not born per se, but some people naturally have them. Some people can develop them due to certain events in their lives. People can’t sit down and and learn them in a formal environment like and execute them well. YMMV

Edited October 12, 2021 by Sua Sponte

[jazzdude]

Your perspective is interesting, because I think the incentives are there. The incentives and consequences are showing up in our massive and mounting student debt crisis. That *is* the signal. It's a signal our government is sending by virtue of providing effectively unlimited student loan debt for degrees that provide no meaningful ability to receive a higher standard of living. Individuals who attain degrees that provide massive remuneration (CS, engineering, etc) are not having a hard time paying off their student loans. The solution is to get the government out of distorting the market for these other worthless degrees. There is that there is no market for much of what colleges produce. The *only* reason these colleges get away with it is because the government provides a funding stream for what is otherwise valueless.
So you're right, while the government can't *mandate* a school produce more engineers, they can certainly shape the incentive structure that these schools inherit.

I agree that easy government loans contribute to the student debt problem, particularly since it's not tied to a degree program. Easy money also probably also contributed to the rapid rise in the cost of college, an unintended effect of trying to increase access.

A way to shape or workforce is to provide incentives, for example, only providing loans for certain courses of study (like engineering or hard sciences). Or changing proportions of degree programs that are eligible for government loans (more loans for technical degrees than for soft degrees). Though it's admittedly hard to determine how many of each degree to fund via loans. (Is business or poly sci a soft degree not worth finding via government loans?)

[lloyd christmas]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

In my experience the STEM educated pilots were the worst ones to fly with because they were over-analytical to a fault and had terrible skills. The good ones usually came from a “social science” background.

Interesting analysis.  I’ve known where most of the folks I’ve flown with went to school but not all of them.  I couldn’t tell you what any of their majors were in college.  The biggest difference I’ve seen is who was a prior E.  

[Guest nsplayr]

Me working at the same company as CH with my measly degrees in social science 🤣

Edited October 12, 2021 by nsplayr

[Sua Sponte]

41 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

Interesting analysis.  I’ve known where most of the folks I’ve flown with went to school but not all of them.  I couldn’t tell you what any of their majors were in college.  The biggest difference I’ve seen is who was a prior E.  

Flying long deployed tanker sorties sometimes leads to discussions other than “would you rather…” 😂

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

I agree that easy government loans contribute to the student debt problem, particularly since it's not tied to a degree program. Easy money also probably also contributed to the rapid rise in the cost of college, an unintended effect of trying to increase access.

A way to shape or workforce is to provide incentives, for example, only providing loans for certain courses of study (like engineering or hard sciences). Or changing proportions of degree programs that are eligible for government loans (more loans for technical degrees than for soft degrees). Though it's admittedly hard to determine how many of each degree to fund via loans. (Is business or poly sci a soft degree not worth finding via government loans?)
 

 

Just stop fucking with college loans entirely. Like you said, supply and demand. If the government keeps destroying one side of the equation, we can't expect the other side to balance. If the world needs more xxxxx degrees, the market will incentivize those degrees. The problems with advanced education are entries caused by government intervention. The trend line is not good. 60% of college kids today are women. 60% of the workforce is not women. Another imbalance.

 

If you want to make social change you have to get to the chosen minority as toddlers. If they fall behind as small kids then no amount of college loans, affirmative action, or fake degrees will make up for it. But fixing those problems would completely unravel the current social justice narrative that many people are making millions from, so don't expect it anytime soon.

[Lawman]

I agree that easy government loans contribute to the student debt problem, particularly since it's not tied to a degree program. Easy money also probably also contributed to the rapid rise in the cost of college, an unintended effect of trying to increase access.

A way to shape or workforce is to provide incentives, for example, only providing loans for certain courses of study (like engineering or hard sciences). Or changing proportions of degree programs that are eligible for government loans (more loans for technical degrees than for soft degrees). Though it's admittedly hard to determine how many of each degree to fund via loans. (Is business or poly sci a soft degree not worth finding via government loans?)

If you want to see the self licking ice cream cone of debt that Soft “Science” degrees invented for themselves look no further than criminal justice/criminology/justice studies/etc…

Go interview at either a major state or federal agency involved in law enforcement with that degree field. It will yield you little to nothing in a field that literally has its name in your BA degree… or right.. it’s not actually a science.

The Ohio State patrol awarded rated grades based off certain circumstances to their initial entry exam. Having a Bachelors degree awarded 10 points, a social science like CJ or Psych awarded 15… you know who got 20? The Army Cook who did 4 years and got a 214 with an ASVAB score measured in single digits.

Yeah… gotta spend 80k of government money on that program. What a big help.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jazzdude]

Just stop ing with college loans entirely. Like you said, supply and demand. If the government keeps destroying one side of the equation, we can't expect the other side to balance. If the world needs more xxxxx degrees, the market will incentivize those degrees. The problems with advanced education are entries caused by government intervention. The trend line is not good. 60% of college kids today are women. 60% of the workforce is not women. Another imbalance.

While I used to take this line, we can't leave it up to the market-there's a lag between demand and supply. From a national security standpoint, it makes sense for the government to invest in talent, especially in STEM, to create a pool of talent for industry to draw on. This helps keep the US at the forefront of technology and innovation, which helps us both economically and in equipping our warfighters with equipment and technologies that give them an unfair advantage when they go to fight for our country.

If you want to make social change you have to get to the chosen minority as toddlers. If they fall behind as small kids then no amount of college loans, affirmative action, or fake degrees will make up for it. But fixing those problems would completely unravel the current social justice narrative that many people are making millions from, so don't expect it anytime soon.

K-12 is an important investment in our country's future, especially in minority populations for the reason you state. But that takes money, especially if you want better teachers. But that alone won't fix it, it takes support from the families and embracing academic success as a good thing (rather than labeling kids who want to do well in academics as nerds...). So while money is probably needed, throwing only money at the problem won't work.

[busdriver]

6 hours ago, ViperStud said:

Might wanna check this math. 3500% of $44.5K means a median home value upwards of $1.5M. 

Mea culpa.

618% is what I should have wrote if I hadn't F'd up in excel.

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

As someone with a social science (Political Science) bachelors, a STEM masters (Cybersecurity), and worked for Apple and a software company I can tell you that “soft skills” of just being a people person completely outweigh any technical ability. I can always tell you to read a book and get smarter, I can’t teach you people skills.

I see this a lot of project managers in IT fields, the dorks that have people skills because they can speak nerd, yet know how to management projects and people. Reference Tim Cook with an industrial engineering degree from Auburn and an MBA from Duke.

Also, the push for nothing but STEM majors always made me laugh. Do you want a society of STEM majors? I sure as shit don’t.

In my experience the STEM educated pilots were the worst ones to fly with because they were over-analytical to a fault and had terrible skills. The good ones usually came from a “social science” background.

I agree on people skills, you either have them or you don't and  you certainly can't teach them at Berkeley.

I never said we should push for nothing but STEM majors, the world needs artists.  The problem comes when people with good people skills can't do basic math, as you know and underlying requirement for high end IT/Cyber/programing. 

I was a STEM major pilot, I guess I am the exception 🙂

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Me working at the same company as CH with my measles degrees in social science 🤣

Almost like that episode was written for you and your measly* social science degree.

 

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Just as an aside...I know why y'all are using UC Berkeley* in examples, but it's really a poor choice for "these graduates have worthless/useless degrees."

Berkeley is one of the very best universities in the country. It's top-20 in terms of "best universities" by whatever formula Payscale uses, #22 in US News rankings, and produces 42% STEM-related degrees.

So I mean yea, a BA in Underwater Basket Weaving from the University of Phoenix paid for by unsubsidized federal loans is probably the more apt example of what we need less of 🤷‍♂️

Another funny aside from that Payscale data...the military academies all score really well because of honestly quite high "early career salary" i.e. O3 pay, high-meaning career fields, and high % of STEM degrees, however anecdotally I have yet to meet a single academy grad that recommends their alma mater to anyone else 🤣

*I did not go to Berkeley nor do I know anyone who did.

I know several including a classmate from ASG.  He was brilliant and spoke terribly of his time there being and brainwashed.  Yes, it is a prestigious school but as he said "that nice sheepskin also came with a health dose of ultra liberal dogma brainwashing."

6 hours ago, jazzdude said:

K-12 is an important investment in our country's future, especially in minority populations for the reason you state. But that takes money, especially if you want better teachers. But that alone won't fix it, it takes support from the families and embracing academic success as a good thing (rather than labeling kids who want to do well in academics as nerds...). So while money is probably needed, throwing only money at the problem won't work.

 

1000% agree.  The pay we give teachers is a national crime, this is our future and it is horrible don't make a better investment.  That being said teachers unions have become far too political which is not making the problem any better.

What do you think about some liberal school districts cancelling and discouraging gifted programs in the name of "equity"?