>> ^ghark:


Yes I agree that he's consistent, but consistency only matters so much, his tax policies would widen the already-disastrous income maldistribution problems in America, the consequences of his education policies would further destroy the education system - go research Chile's education system if you want to see how much of a disaster privatizing an education system is. And that's just the beginning. He's a trojan horse my friend.


Well, his tax policy is mostly "less taxes", which seems like a good idea for a battered economy. Why would you use taxing to solve "maldistribution of income"? What is maldistribution of income anyways? Is income something supposed to be distributed? In a market, aren't people usually paid on a supply/demand basis or depending on how productive they are to society?

I'm guessing you're a progressive taxation guy, which I happen to think is not a very fair tax policy. Whenever you tax the rich by a larger percentage, you discourage or punish them for being more productive to society, which is a moral hazard and bad economics (according to austrians anyway).

What I could gather from Chile's education system (Wikipedia) is that it's pretty hybrid, a lot of private and public schooling and many gradations in between, mostly with state funding of education at many levels. I don't think Ron Paul is proposing anything to that effect.

To my knowledge, he'd probably shut down federal student loans as a way of directly lowering college tuition costs. While in Chile, everything education, whether public or private, seems to be state funded. So I fail to see the comparison sorry

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

Land of the thieves, home of the debt slaves.

Who is the thief? The gov't has taken from all the workers.

Who are the debt slaves? Presumably, the students who got themselves into debt with student loans. But the gov't has taken over all student loan processes.

So why are these people complaining to Wall St? Why aren't they on the Mall?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

@laura and @Sagemind, I'm not sure you understand what the word "protest" means.
"to give manifest expression to objection or disapproval; remonstrate."
If you do it silently and without causing a fuss, you're doing it wrong.


What you are describing is called civil disobedience. That can be good too, but it has a time and place. Most importantly, everyone involved should know that arrest is among the risks they are taking on, and be prepared for that eventuality. I've argued other places that this action would have been fine if the headline read "two dozen willing to be arrested to voice discontent over Citi's handling of student loans." Instead the headline read "mean old cops wouldn't let us shut down a business." Do you see how one can garner support and the other makes you look either clueless or manipulative.

Citibank statement -- “A large amount of protesters entered our branch at 555 La Guardia Place around 2:00 PM today. They were very disruptive and refused to leave after being repeatedly asked, causing our staff to call 911. The Police asked the branch staff to close the branch until the protesters could be removed. Only one person asked to close an account and was accommodated.”


From what I read only two of the protesters went to close accounts. The other 28 stood there chanting and shouting stuff about student loans. They didn't leave for about 5 mins when the bank then locked some of them in that didn't leave.

What is shocking is, how can you arrest someone OUTSIDE the bank for trespass? and then forcibly drag them inside. Also, didn't CITI violate illegal imprisonment laws? I mean how can someone be trespassing if you lock them inside? So you call 911 because you are ?scared and then lock them inside with you?

@chilaxe @artician
Not to get too involved in you diatribe, there are a few points I'd like to throw in.
1). Sleeping in your car is fine, in a pinch, Congrats to you for pushing through the strife. Fact is, you shouldn't to live like a third world refuge to get an education. Quite a few people out there have families, so this solution is not a solution. Living in one's car is by definition, "Homeless." No respectable employer will hire you without a permanent address. Besides that, for a person with a wife and one or two kids, this is NEVER an option.

2). Although student loans are extremely helpful, they aren't as easy to get as one might think. Without an address, next to impossible. Once you have the loan, paying it back is hard. It took me 13 years to pay back my loan (with interest). It''s one more expense on top of all the other living expenses. Getting an education does not automatically get you a good job right away. For me, it took years of stepping up job to job, working min-wage jobs and changing cities 3-4 times to get where I am. I'm finally in what would be considered a semi-decent job and I still can't afford decent food for my family and clothing. I myself have a couple pairs of shorts and no pant's at all - winter's coming and it's getting cold. (I'm not complaining, just stating facts.)

3). life's tough out there, and there is no denying that the economy is slouching, governments are mismanaged and corporations are running things. It's fact that the banks and leaders in charge are corrupt and stuffing their own pockets while the majority are all struggling to get half way up the pile that everyone is living on.

4). Race..., why race? race is irrelevant to this crisis. Yes it sucks that some white people have an advantage while it is also true that there are non-white people that have it better than some whites. Who cares. It's not race that determines this crisis, it's scruples. Those that have no problem stealing and screwing over others prosper first, while those who "would never do that," end up lower in the pile. It's the classic story of "Nice guy finishes last<./i>" If you don't screw someone over before they screw you over, they get ahead of you. If you are smart enough, are without scruples and have the fierce determination to crush others on the way up - you prosper. The rest of us wallow in our own goodness because we didn't see the car that hit us. Now we are angry and want recompense.

That's where we are now. the scales are out of balance and they need to be straightened. So who's going to do it, when is it going to happen, and at what cost?

@ajkido said: "By the way, life doesn't have to be that rough. It might not "build one's character" like living in a car, though..."

If people can't pay off their student loans, that means the increased benefits to society of their education were not as high as the increased costs to society of paying for their education. When you make something "pretend free" you distort it's consumption.

Keep in mind that student loans often have interest rates so low they're below the inflation rate, so you're basically being paid to have the loan.

Solution: Everybody who takes out a student loan to go to a 4 year school instead of transferring from a community college is being dumb. Become an advocate of that. Also, don't major in dumb majors.



@ajkido said: "There are countries where students get paid to go to school (even the best universities) and those countries are doing pretty good even in international competition."

Wait, as college-educated people, we know why those countries do well, right? Because those countries are full of White or Asian people. White Americans do better at academics than other White countries, and Asian Americans do better than other Asian countries.

"1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs."

The point is there are a small group of people that have a large amount of welth and are using that wealth to control the political and legal system and have basicly hijacked the democracy. That is what the 99% ers are protesting.

until You remove control from people who have a compleat conflict of interest then you cannot address the core aspect of job creation.
If these protests have the desired effect , the knock on result would be that government and industry can rationally approach things in a way that might work and would in the end result in a better quality of life for more people and most likely more jobs.

"2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, "

They blame fox news because it is a media outlet owned by the small % of super rich people and a part of there method of using wealth to control the nation. fox news is also entirely disingenuous and presents its self as a news station and fair and balanced when in fact it solely exists to push the agenda of the very rich in society.

They blame republicans more so than democrats because republican policy benefits the super rich more so than the democrats policy , having said that I think most people don't even see this as a republican or democrats issue the fact is both governments are largely as bad as each other. Fact is if you have enough money you can simply lobby things into existence evan if they are a detriment to the society at large.

"3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan"

there game plan and what they want is ridiculously clear and simple they want wealth to be more evenly spread and for policy and laws to be made based on what is good for the majority of people in the country not a select few that happen to be super wealthy.

The reason why they are having to protest and kick up a fuss how they are is because democracy is so fundimentaly broken and tilted towards wealth deciding things that unless you are rich or in a high up cooperate position you cannot have any influence to gain traction.







>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.
I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.
I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.
One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.
I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).
Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.
My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.
To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^artician:
>> ^chilaxe:
Wait, isn't it obvious how to avoid student loan debt?
Go to any of the excellent community colleges for the first 2 years, then transfer to a public college.

There are a lot of people in this country who can't even afford that.

Then get a job?
Classes can be taken online now from most schools, so if people are willing to work hard and keep themselves disciplined, they can save a lot of time.


You, sir, are obviously a white American.

>> ^chilaxe:

I worked in unskilled jobs when I was in college (because I was unskilled), and I learned a lot about life. I also shared rooms and lived simply. You're too good to do the same? I've even voluntarily slept in my car while a student in order to save on rent. It's not that hard.
Move to an area that has a decent economy if you need to. Read books on business psychology. Nobody else is going to build your life for you.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^artician:
>> ^chilaxe:
Wait, isn't it obvious how to avoid student loan debt?
Go to any of the excellent community colleges for the first 2 years, then transfer to a public college.

There are a lot of people in this country who can't even afford that.

Then get a job?
Classes can be taken online now from most schools, so if people are willing to work hard and keep themselves disciplined, they can save a lot of time.

You're saying the solution is to get a job...in the worst job market there's been in decades. You need a college education to get a decent job...you need a decent job to get a college education. Hmmm sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.



By the way, life doesn't have to be that rough. There are countries where students get paid to go to school (even the best universities) and those countries are doing pretty good even in international competition. It might not "build one's character" like living in a car, though...

I hope the OWS crowd doesn't count her as one of them. It would mean the message is "I made a bunch of bad financial decisions and now I don't want to deal with the consequences".

Taking out student loans you can't pay off is as much the fault of your underpaid HS teachers that told you University was the best way to go as any Wall Street trader. Mostly though, it was your own decision, take responsibility for it.

Buying an overpriced home you couldn't afford was as much the fault of your real estate agent as any Wall Street trader. Mostly though, it was your own decision, take responsibility for it.

Seriously, the Wall Street upper class have done an awful lot to create an uneven playing field to enrich themselves at the expense of others. They have made an environment were people who have made GOOD financial decisions, paid off their debts, and started investing are the ones getting hurt. Their investments are getting devalued, or more often just growing much slower than that of the ultra rich.

I'm sorry, but people like this reporter are flattering themselves to try and claim their lot in life is Wall Street getting them down. People like her have failed themselves, no help from Wall Street required.

Somebody has to pick the apples and work the fields. But I guess that's below most of these people. They paid a lot of money for their Studio Arts degree and need to figure out how to pay it off.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2073703,00.html

Funny thing is, my degree is in Industrial Design - I found a sector that I wanted to work in and I pursued that sector for 2 years by taking jobs where the skills I learned translated over to where I wanted to be. In other words I built a tailored résumé to get into my chosen profession. I spent years busting my ass to get where I am - I worked late nights and I continually expanded my education through reading and real-world experience. I also moved to where ever the jobs were. If you're in Detroit I would suggest finding a family member somewhere else you can stay with for a while and getting the hell out. Just like the Irish did for the better part of the last century -except they left the entire country! (The emigration trend in Ireland finally went positive in 2000)

If you are dumb enough to list your PHD on your application to McDonald's the I have to question your intellect to get said PHD. Just because you have it doesn't mean you list it.

My guess is that in most cases the problem isn't that they can't find a job, the problem is that they can't find a job that will allow them to pay off their debts and maintain their accustomed lifestyle. For that I recommend: http://www.daveramsey.com

As a side note, my wife has $35,000 in student loans which we are paying off. But we manage our money wisely and make sure we keep expenses in line - including buying only a house we could afford.
I also make sure that if anything should ever happen where I should lose my job - I've got 3 other companies that I could go to work for. It's called a back-up plan and with this economy it's also called necessary. At the same time I do everything I can to make myself indispensable to my employer. Which being on the sift isn't helping.

I worked in unskilled jobs when I was in college (because I was unskilled), and I learned a lot about life. I also shared rooms and lived simply. You're too good to do the same? I've even voluntarily slept in my car while a student in order to save on rent. It's not that hard.

Move to an area that has a decent economy if you need to. Read books on business psychology. Nobody else is going to build your life for you.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^artician:
>> ^chilaxe:
Wait, isn't it obvious how to avoid student loan debt?
Go to any of the excellent community colleges for the first 2 years, then transfer to a public college.

There are a lot of people in this country who can't even afford that.

Then get a job?
Classes can be taken online now from most schools, so if people are willing to work hard and keep themselves disciplined, they can save a lot of time.

You're saying the solution is to get a job...in the worst job market there's been in decades. You need a college education to get a decent job...you need a decent job to get a college education. Hmmm sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^artician:
>> ^chilaxe:
Wait, isn't it obvious how to avoid student loan debt?
Go to any of the excellent community colleges for the first 2 years, then transfer to a public college.

There are a lot of people in this country who can't even afford that.

Then get a job?
Classes can be taken online now from most schools, so if people are willing to work hard and keep themselves disciplined, they can save a lot of time.


You're saying the solution is to get a job...in the worst job market there's been in decades. You need a college education to get a decent job...you need a decent job to get a college education. Hmmm sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.

I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.

I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.

One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.

I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).

Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.

My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.

To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.