*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 3:33pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter OverlappingElvis.

I'm sorry to hear about her debts.
Even more sorry that she's going to be out of a job.

College debt is just not something I can be sympathetic about. Think how the majority of Americans that didn't go to college feel about that whining? It is entirely self-inflicted, as well.

>> ^rychan:

College debt is just not something I can be sympathetic about. Think how the majority of Americans that didn't go to college feel about that whining? It is entirely self-inflicted, as well.


Wow...so you think college should cost you your entire life? You think that trying to get ahead and working to get an education in a country that espouses that if you do so you'll do well and it's just not fucking true anymore. You really think you have a leg to stand on with your argument of "self-inflicted" really mother fucker? Really?

You're an idiot.

"Wow...so you think college should cost you your entire life?"

I don't. Do you? Some people must, though, when they take 200k of student loans for a degree that is not worth the investment.

"really mother fucker? Really? You're an idiot."

Nice.

get educated = learn system is fucking you

@Yogi you nailed it on that one. kudos>> ^Yogi:

>> ^rychan:
College debt is just not something I can be sympathetic about. Think how the majority of Americans that didn't go to college feel about that whining? It is entirely self-inflicted, as well.

Wow...so you think college should cost you your entire life? You think that trying to get ahead and working to get an education in a country that espouses that if you do so you'll do well and it's just not fucking true anymore. You really think you have a leg to stand on with your argument of "self-inflicted" really mother fucker? Really?
You're an idiot.

@rychan

An education shouldn't cost anything but time and effort.

Like yogi said, American youth are spoon fed this myth that: College = Success

If you're not filthy rich, what other choice do you have to gain access to college ..?

A.] Accept ridiculous debt and be Successful! = ]

B.] Work at Fast Food Places, still be in debt and be miserable.. = /

Did I miss the $200,000 checkbox on my student loan application? Where did you get "200k" from? Definitely not from this...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/22/pf/college/student_loan_debt/index.htm
>> ^rychan:

"Wow...so you think college should cost you your entire life?"
I don't. Do you? Some people must, though, when they take 200k of student loans for a degree that is not worth the investment.
"really mother fucker? Really? You're an idiot."
Nice.

>> ^waynef100:

Did I miss the $200,000 checkbox on my student loan application? Where did you get "200k" from? Definitely not from this...
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/22/pf/college/student_loan_debt/index.htm
>> ^rychan:
"Wow...so you think college should cost you your entire life?"
I don't. Do you? Some people must, though, when they take 200k of student loans for a degree that is not worth the investment.
"really mother fucker? Really? You're an idiot."
Nice.



200k was an upper bound so that people didn't accuse me of underestimating the problem. Yes, the average is much lower and thus the whining is even less justified.

Also, it's ridiculous to say that you need to be rich to go to college. Every state has reasonable, inexpensive community college systems and moderately priced state universities that can give you a great education. People manage the 6 figure debts which they can't repay by going to second tier private colleges and majoring in liberal arts.

She bought a house before she was financially stable?

If only her fancy private university taught how to make decisions and accountability...

I immediately thought the same thing as previously said, I feel her pain now because yeah, she more than likely just lost her job to the crooks.

College educations are a farce in this country. Many people are convinced to send their C average kids to for profit schools. They end up in debt and with a crummy education and end up getting their job at Subway back. They get an A for effort and a free six inch tuna to show for it.

While those who went to decent universities and received their BAs will still find it incredibly difficult to find a job. At this point it seems only possible to receive a fair and decent job if one has a masters degree or higher... and more than likely most working class families can not afford that or if they do they are plunged into the debt for life system.

>> ^rychan:

>> ^waynef100:
Did I miss the $200,000 checkbox on my student loan application? Where did you get "200k" from? Definitely not from this...
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/22/pf/college/student_loan_debt/index.htm
>> ^rychan:
"Wow...so you think college should cost you your entire life?"
I don't. Do you? Some people must, though, when they take 200k of student loans for a degree that is not worth the investment.
"really mother fucker? Really? You're an idiot."
Nice.


200k was an upper bound so that people didn't accuse me of underestimating the problem. Yes, the average is much lower and thus the whining is even less justified.
Also, it's ridiculous to say that you need to be rich to go to college. Every state has reasonable, inexpensive community college systems and moderately priced state universities that can give you a great education. People manage the 6 figure debts which they can't repay by going to second tier private colleges and majoring in liberal arts.


You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia. The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding. Can you think of another situation where risk is placed on the taxpayer, but profits go to the corporations? Do you think it's fair?

In addition, go research the cost of education in the US in the 1980's and then compare the increases in education cost compared to the CPI, you might be a little shocked. Perhaps back in the 1980's your argument held some merit, but we're in 2011, you may as well type purple monkey dishwasher 15 times for all the weight your argument holds.

>> ^shagen454:

While those who went to decent universities and received their BAs will still find it incredibly difficult to find a job. At this point it seems only possible to receive a fair and decent job if one has a masters degree or higher... and more than likely most working class families can not afford that or if they do they are plunged into the debt for life system.


My friend who was untalented and mediocre in every way had a job offer for $80k when he completed his undergrad.

Here's the trick: unlike most of my friends (and myself), he majored in something that society finds valuable enough that it's willing to pay for: accounting.

We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

@ghark

Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs.

Doubling the size of university bureaucracies probably played a role. Other factors like skyrocketing healthcare costs & transitioning into complex technological organizations probably did as well.



@ghark said:

You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia. The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding. Can you think of another situation where risk is placed on the taxpayer, but profits go to the corporations? Do you think it's fair?
In addition, go research the cost of education in the US in the 1980's and then compare the increases in education cost compared to the CPI, you might be a little shocked. Perhaps back in the 1980's your argument held some merit, but we're in 2011, you may as well type purple monkey dishwasher 15 times for all the weight your argument holds.

There is definitely a lot of truth to that. My dad I was told was mostly a C student at a mediocre university ended up a CEO for 30+ years.

I couldnt say that I was much better but what I studied was art, haha. Ive been stuck getting paid salaries that while are more than the national average really arent shit for where I live for the last decade. The amount of research and creative process I have to go through daily for shit like the latest screamo band on Epitaph youd think Id have a PHD in marketing. All of these assholes need their art but they refuse to pay. If only I had a masters degree it would mean I would be more likely to get a job to hang pictures on a wall and sip wine all day or teach Art History from a 40 page volume while shagging the 22 year old babes. Bastards.



>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^shagen454:
While those who went to decent universities and received their BAs will still find it incredibly difficult to find a job. At this point it seems only possible to receive a fair and decent job if one has a masters degree or higher... and more than likely most working class families can not afford that or if they do they are plunged into the debt for life system.

My friend who was untalented and mediocre in every way had a job offer for $80k when he completed his undergrad.
Here's the trick: unlike most of my friends (and myself), he majored in something that society finds valuable enough that it's willing to pay for: accounting.
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

>> ^chilaxe:

@ghark
Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs.
Doubling the size of university bureaucracies probably played a role. Other factors like skyrocketing healthcare costs & transitioning into complex technological organizations probably did as well.

@ghark said:
You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia. The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding. Can you think of another situation where risk is placed on the taxpayer, but profits go to the corporations? Do you think it's fair?
In addition, go research the cost of education in the US in the 1980's and then compare the increases in education cost compared to the CPI, you might be a little shocked. Perhaps back in the 1980's your argument held some merit, but we're in 2011, you may as well type purple monkey dishwasher 15 times for all the weight your argument holds.


Which schools are you referring to, and what costs have skyrocketed? I'm not disagreeing, but by simply saying costs have sky rocketed, you're being a little vague. My point was also not that costs shouldn't be increasing more than the CPI, but simply that because they have, Rychan's point that people are getting themselves into their own mess is very misplaced, things have changed since that viewpoint was valid - even with a job these days many people struggle to pay off student debts (as the Fox interviewer mentions).

And it also comes back to the issue, should education be considered a human right? If it really is a stupid idea to educate yourself in America these days (as Rychan seems to suggest is the case for many people), perhaps something should be done? Just because it may be a bad economic decision to educate onseself doesn't mean the only other option is to remain uneducated, you can pursue policy change that leads to a better education system, take a stand!

I agree with you on the bureaucracies issue, I actually worked for my local University for a while, the pay was good, the job was easy, and the management layers were incredibly deep, we had around 10-11 layers from the lowest workers to upper management. The focus was on marketing; we wanted to present the best image we possibly could to potential Australian tertiary students, it's a numbers game, the more students we had the more profit we made. I was there for presentations from our upper management (such as the pro vice chancellor) and the issues always revolved around the economics of university business and getting published in as many journals as possible rather than the quality of teaching.

(a) You guys are simultaneously arguing contradictory points, that higher education is (1) a scam and waste of money and (2) required to get a good job. Which one is it? Is higher education worthless or is it the key to high-paying jobs?

I'm sure you will argue that it is both a scam AND a requirement for good jobs because of some widespread corporate conspiracy. But the simple fact is that employers see a lot of value in good degrees. I want my civil engineer and teacher to have good educations with formal certification.

(b) You guys are putting words in my mouth.

"You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia"

My entire adult life has been spent in academia -- numerous universities both public and private, in multiple different roles. I love academia! i think most students should get higher education. I think there is widespread availability of good, reasonably priced schools.

"The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding."

Very few schools are for-profit -- only the scum like ITT and U of Phoenix. Those places are evil. But every traditional university in this country is a not-for-profit or state-run organization. Have expenses gotten out of hand? Maybe, but as long as the market will support these prices it won't stop. Is the market only supporting these prices because of student loans? To some degree. But there's a simple solution -- don't take out huge loans and instead go to a great state university or community college. If you were a good student this is even easier as scholarships offers will pour in.

"Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs."

Yes, I was pointing to this fact as ridiculous. The students getting 200k debt at these schools to major in English literature are definitely the big losers in higher education, but they have everything available to them to make an informed decision before entering such a program. I don't think it's necessarily the school's fault unless they actively misrepresent the outcome of students.

"If it really is a stupid idea to educate yourself in America these days (as Rychan seems to suggest is the case for many people)"

Not sure where I suggested that. I wouldn't go so far as to call higher education a universal right, but if you are a good student in the US then it effectively is.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^shagen454:
While those who went to decent universities and received their BAs will still find it incredibly difficult to find a job. At this point it seems only possible to receive a fair and decent job if one has a masters degree or higher... and more than likely most working class families can not afford that or if they do they are plunged into the debt for life system.

My friend who was untalented and mediocre in every way had a job offer for $80k when he completed his undergrad.
Here's the trick: unlike most of my friends (and myself), he majored in something that society finds valuable enough that it's willing to pay for: accounting.
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.


Its true. Engineering, science, art, let alone caring, teaching and policing are IRRELEVANT to the 200 fat families that now own everything. As with medieval Europe, if you're not crawling and flattering at the court and helping the rich get richer, then you can dig outside in the mud and die whenever you want.

@ghark"Even with a job these days many people struggle to pay off student debts (as the Fox interviewer mentions)."


She probably went to a fancy private school for 4 or 5 years, not to a community college for the first 2 years then transferring to a public university.

I went to a community college before transferring, and it worked flawlessly. It would have been nicely luxurious to spend those first 2 years at a 4-year university instead, but minimizing my debt load seemed more important because I knew I was going to voluntarily not pursue a career that would have high chances of a high initial income.

I suggest people with shows like Maddow and TYT advocate attending community colleges.

A lot of people around the world would kill to be able to get paid $80k as a young person for being a tech, engineering, business, or finance person.

Having to learn how to be useful to society... the horror! That would be like slavery. I demand everything my heart desires and everybody else must give it to me without any intelligence on my part.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^shagen454:
While those who went to decent universities and received their BAs will still find it incredibly difficult to find a job. At this point it seems only possible to receive a fair and decent job if one has a masters degree or higher... and more than likely most working class families can not afford that or if they do they are plunged into the debt for life system.

My friend who was untalented and mediocre in every way had a job offer for $80k when he completed his undergrad.
Here's the trick: unlike most of my friends (and myself), he majored in something that society finds valuable enough that it's willing to pay for: accounting.
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Its true. Engineering, science, art, let alone caring, teaching and policing are IRRELEVANT to the 200 fat families that now own everything. As with medieval Europe, if you're not crawling and flattering at the court and helping the rich get richer, then you can dig outside in the mud and die whenever you want.

>> ^chilaxe:

We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.


Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?

Considering what is in demand changes every year, and it takes 2-4+ years to get a degree or 1-2 years to get licensing/training required....in which you have to pay for those via loans. While it's "possible" to predict what might be in demand when you get out of your training/schooling, it's not a sure thing. So to expect people working who want a pay boost/advancement to go into a different "in demand" career field that may or may not be in demand when they finish is an idea that's good for a laugh. Especially when it's so ungodly expensive to go for any degree in the first place. God forbid you pick an in demand one, that everyone else picked because hey.....it's in demand, and still can't get a job.

The burden is put entirely on the individual to research job demand (which is based on data businesses give), figure out how to get the training they need to be the best qualified for said job, take loans or pay out of pocket for said training, and when they get done investing years and have a good chunk of debt and a piece of paper to show for it... the economy drops out/businesses down-size/the data was wrong/economists were wrong/etc. And now you should have gotten a degree in XYZ and known that those reports we put out 4 years ago were complete bullshit. Oh and you bought a house because all the financial indicators 6-7 years ago said things were super awesome? Had a few kids because now you had the house to settle down in and begin a family? Didn't you know that all those professionals and politicians managing the reports and oversight were gaming the system to inflate the numbers? You didn't? Well I guess we get to blame you again, because hey you should have known better...everyone else pretends they did.

BTW jobs as undertakers should always be in demand, yet you're going to have a hard time finding positions for a thousand of them being trained year after year. Oh, and just two years ago everyone was saying "Go into healthcare! We need more nurses, etc!", and now looking at the job listings it's maybe an eighth of what they used to list just a year ago. So I can only imagine how many people are now physician's assistants and what not who can't find a job because even the doctor's offices are laying people off and downsizing.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?


The reason my mediocre friend vastly outperformed most of the people I know was because he was doing work that was valued by the economy.

That often involves hard work, but the more people invest themselves into their career, the more rewarding and fun it becomes, and the more they grow as people.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?

The reason my mediocre friend vastly outperformed most of the people I know was because he was doing work that was valued by the economy.
That often involves hard work, but the more people invest themselves into their career, the more rewarding and fun it becomes, and the more they grow as people.


But that's not the cause of unemployment. People should be free to pursue whatever kind of career they want to. Some people may just chase whatever has the highest salary, but most will probably go for something they enjoy working on, so long as the pay is decent. In a bad labor market with high unemployment, you don't have those options. You get PhD's applying to work at McDonald's to pay the bills, and getting turned down because they're overqualified (or they're just not hiring!).

High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste, not some mass outbreak of people deciding to take a break from working.

Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I'm sorry to hear about her debts.
Even more sorry that she's going to be out of a job.


She works for a Fox affiliate; essentially just a local channel that buys shows like the Simpsons and House from Fox Broadcasting. Unlike reporters at Fox News she isn't a Murdoch employee. I think she'll be fine.

Netrunner said: "High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste."

The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy. Last-century jobs are increasingly better done by automation or by overseas outsourcing. There are never enough talented 21st century workers.

There are always some people who are 21st century thinkers who are unemployed, but the only reason 'unemployment is high' is because we imported 80 million unskilled workers over the last 40 years. Agreeing to put in place rational border control would be a good start.


Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."

1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.

2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?

The reason my mediocre friend vastly outperformed most of the people I know was because he was doing work that was valued by the economy.
That often involves hard work, but the more people invest themselves into their career, the more rewarding and fun it becomes, and the more they grow as people.

But that's not the cause of unemployment. People should be free to pursue whatever kind of career they want to. Some people may just chase whatever has the highest salary, but most will probably go for something they enjoy working on, so long as the pay is decent. In a bad labor market with high unemployment, you don't have those options. You get PhD's applying to work at McDonald's to pay the bills, and getting turned down because they're overqualified (or they're just not hiring!).
High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste, not some mass outbreak of people deciding to take a break from working.
Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either.

become a dental hygienist for $20k in school and make $60k - $70k within a few years

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.

>> ^deathcow:

become a dental hygienist for $20k in school and make $60k - $70k within a few years


Ewww, people's mouths are SO gross.

>> ^chilaxe:

The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.

That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?

>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.

Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?

And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.

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.

@NetRunner said: "What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?"

Salary is a reasonable measure of societal contribution, but it's not a perfect measure, so there are of course exceptions to the rule. That being said, all lines of evidence point to that teaching in underprivileged neighborhoods is an ineffective form of philanthropy, even though it's heart-warming.



@NetRunner said: "And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people."

One of the best things we can do for society is to argue against the flaws in the zeitgeist. If those flaws predictably create poverty, showing people there's another path that their opinion leaders and teachers have strangely never exposed them to should be a high priority.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?
>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?
And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner said: "What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?"
Salary is a reasonable measure of societal contribution, but it's not a perfect measure, so there are of course exceptions to the rule. That being said, all lines of evidence point to that teaching in underprivileged neighborhoods is an ineffective form of philanthropy, even though it's heart-warming.

@NetRunner said: "And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people."
One of the best things we can do for society is to argue against the flaws in the zeitgeist. If those flaws predictably create poverty, showing people there's another path that their opinion leaders and teachers have strangely never exposed them to should be a high priority.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?
>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?
And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.



Can you please describe the other path you speak of? So far all I've identified from the OWS message is a general upset with wealth disparity, but no coherent or unified solution. It'd be great to hear what they are advocating for. It's the required next step from rallying against something, or this will all go either no where, or somewhere much worse.

I know this makes me evil and heartless, but as a high school dropout and someone with only a 2 year CERTIFICATE from a technical college, I get giddy as a school girl when I tell people that I'm making close to 6 figures in an industry that I love and have no formal training in. It's not how much you paid for what you know, it's what you know, how easily you can know more, and how well you get along with people.

I assume you do software or networking Wax. What is your cert in?

I dropped out of HS too, got a GED. My 2 yr college (electronics) cost me less than $10k. I have worked in software ever since.

@bcglorf said: Can you please describe the other path you speak of?

Become an advocate for careerism. It's better for the world and better for us as individuals. Devote all waking hours to reading, working, and exercise. Don't limit your intellectualism to a single ideology.

Disdain meaningless experiential pursuits and don't get entangled with romantic pursuits until as late as possible. Even where I live, hyper-focused Silicon Valley, people who do these things are very rare, so the world is basically just waiting for people like that to come along.

Careerism is BS. What a completely shallow, meaningless aspiration. And what happens after one reaches 45?

It's better to advocate self-determination via entrepreneurship or any other means.

@longde

Careerism is being of service to society. If someone is willing to part with money for something, such as the fruits of our careers, that means they genuinely value it.

I'd include entrepreneurship within the category of careerism.

If someone manages their career well, their peak income and usefulness to society is around retirement age.