| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On September 28 2009 13:21 Jayme wrote: You're kidding right? This is just one of those "it's so obviously wrong it's funny" type of posts right? i need to put a disclaimer between the sarcastic posts and the serious posts :/ | ||
|
jfazz
Australia672 Posts
| ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
On September 28 2009 22:45 Hawk wrote: 16 to 24 is the age bracket. that's a lot of people with 2 year degrees and 4 year degree, people who should be getting jobs and many arent able to get them now even with a degree. i have several friends who have been out of school for a year and cant lock up a teaching job they won't be unemployed if they get a job at mcdonald's, BK, construction, any call center, ETC then, they are getting a paycheck while they look for a better job, it's pretty crazy how life works! | ||
|
DeSu
Australia91 Posts
On September 28 2009 22:57 jfazz wrote: Kevin Rudd and his cronies is to blame for more than you think my friend. I see your year 10 economics and raise you university economics with honours. Our media does a great job of making the labor government look much better than it is - we have done so well as a country through the global financial crisis because the previous liberal government completely erased our debts, set up effectictive governmental investments and increased the quality of education nationwide - but no no, everyone gives credit to the person who came in to elect midway through the worldwide recession - at times, the idiocy of the average Australian baffles me. Uni? I'm in high school. I was just trying to be a smart-arse. Looks like I failed lol | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
On September 28 2009 22:39 DeSu wrote: uld True. Previous american recessions show how putting in money simply made things worse and snowballed into a collapse (sorry can't remember which one lol, not very familiar with US economical history somewhere in the 1900s). The whole point of a free market economy is to let the businesses that are not being run efficiently to collapse and be taken over by smaller, better-run firms. Hehehe just throwing what I learnt in yr 10 economics last semester on you guys :D do you mean the 1930s? The bankers all got together just after the crash and bought massive amounts of stocks in US Steel trying to get the market back into boom mode as a show of confidence , this only worked for 2-3 days though.The herd mentality had shifted , once it does it is incredibly hard to stop. What later happened was deflation , but i believe deflation is not possible this time around because Nixon brought the US off the gold standard in 1974 because he could not afford the Vietnam war. Deflation is very damaging , but so is hyperinflation.This policy of low interest rates = good is madness. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
On September 28 2009 17:45 Mystlord wrote: This thread makes me laugh. Has anyone actually looked at the labor report? Here, I'll give you a link. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Look at table A-7. Do you see 52.2% anywhere in that category? No? Do you see anything close to 52.2%? Now let's do a control+f of 52.2%. One result... That has nothing to do with "young Americans". The New York Post: Bringing you lies conservative bias on a daily basis. Excellent link. I will also add that the whole spiel about jobs being created primarily by small businesses leaves out the inconvenient fact that most job losses also come from small firms, which are quite volatile / prone to failure. The bottom line is that we should not arbitrarily favor one sector and / or structure of the economy over all others. No need to idealize small firms, but also no need for "national champions". Simply even the playing field please. | ||
|
jfazz
Australia672 Posts
| ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32083 Posts
On September 28 2009 22:59 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: they won't be unemployed if they get a job at mcdonald's, BK, construction, any call center, ETC then, they are getting a paycheck while they look for a better job, it's pretty crazy how life works! yeah, except most of those better jobs arent coming along for people who clunked down 80k+ for school you tard. its about long term job prospects and theres a big problem when well educated post college kids cant lock up a job in their field | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
On September 28 2009 22:59 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: they won't be unemployed if they get a job at mcdonald's, BK, construction, any call center, ETC then, they are getting a paycheck while they look for a better job, it's pretty crazy how life works! On top of the debts that have been mentioned, most non-entry-level jobs desire/require at least one year of experience at a job. Unfortunately for most entry-level graduates this experience usually comes in the form of an internship or an entry-level job, because those two are the primary category of jobs that don't require experience. Internships are generally low-to-no pay and don't last long enough to satisfy experience requirements (you have to start chaining internships, but the competition of them is rough right now), and the article says entry-level jobs are becoming scarce. Which means that even if you work at BK etc. you're still setting your life behind by several years... which is kind of the point. I doubt it's as bad as 52%, but I can see it if the stat were to say 52% of graduates don't have a *job in the field they expected to be placed in after graduating with a degree.* For example, if you took out a student loan (as most people did) to get an 80k+ dollar degree (for a fair amount of people this number rises - most of my friends have gone to private Unis like Carnegie, MIT etc. as many in TL are doing right now, I think, and the total cost of four years at a uni like that is over 200k), then working a minimum-wage job won't let you pay off the debt/get out of home. And every year that you're working such a job means a year of pushing everything back a year, because for a good number of majors you're still, as in my first paragraph, going to still need experience at your respective field, before you're able to pull in a decent amount of money. Which then circles back to more young people not helping the economy, and yeah. | ||
|
Wurzelbrumpft
Germany471 Posts
On September 28 2009 22:59 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: they won't be unemployed if they get a job at mcdonald's, BK, construction, any call center, ETC then, they are getting a paycheck while they look for a better job, it's pretty crazy how life works! what a stupid post. you know college costs money and people are in debt when they come out? how does working at BK solve that. stuff like this isnt as shortterm as, ima work at burgerkingz for a month then il get a job. edit: didnt see hawks post | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
On September 28 2009 23:51 Hawk wrote: yeah, except most of those better jobs arent coming along for people who clunked down 80k+ for school you tard. its about long term job prospects and theres a big problem when well educated post college kids cant lock up a job in their field Allow me to direct you towards the thread title. "Unemployment rate for young americans = 52.2%" That is - the current rate of unemployment of young Americans (the kids without jobs). This is a thread about a statistic about kids who don't have jobs. I responded that kids not having jobs is generally a will issue, and not a way issue. To which you retorted "go try finding a job now in the field you got your degree in" which actually has NOTHING to do with people 16-24 working at a restaurant, construction job(18+, of course), call center, etc. Also, to your original statement, I'm one of the kids in that age range (21) that is working at one of those places mentioned while going to school. I'm a supervisor where I work, and 9/10 of the people I fire are due to them thinking the job is too hard (harder than playing Halo at mom's house), don't care enough to come in on a regular basis, and intentionally avoid working while at work. All of these are will issues. I used to work construction (tying steal, aka rebar, aka rodbusting), we had a lot higher turnover rate at that job due to being a much more physically demanding job, but still, a large amount of those people just didn't care enough about their paycheck to tough it up and be a man. Regardless of whether you can get a cushy job for the degree you wasted your parents' money on (NOT always the case) or not, there's always somewhere to work until you find a good job. Whether or not you're willing to be the college grad working at McDonald's for 0x.xx per hour or not is 100% YOUR CHOICE. On September 29 2009 00:18 Wurzelbrumpft wrote: what a stupid post. you know college costs money and people are in debt when they come out? how does working at BK solve that. stuff like this isnt as shortterm as, ima work at burgerkingz for a month then il get a job. edit: didnt see hawks post what a stupid post, you know that sitting at home complaining about not having a job doesn't help to pay your student loans back, right? (it also doesn't help this statistic that the thread is about) | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On September 28 2009 13:21 VorcePA wrote: My parents require me to be a full time student and a part time worker. I'm unemployed and have 5 weeks to find a job, or they kick me out. Yes, it really should. Rather than letting the free market correct itself, Obama has "stimulated" it by pouring salt on an open wound. The short term isn't as harsh, but in the long run the economy will take extra time to recover or it simply won't recover. We are at the forefront of possibly a worse economic disaster than the depression of 1930's. The only things stopping America from, quite literally, being 3rd world OVERNIGHT is barrels of petroleum are traded in US Dollars and the fact that the Chinese government is holding on to $2 trillion ($2,000,000,000,000) in hopes that they make a return on that money in the future. If they released that money and barrels were traded in a currency other than USD, destitute African countries would have more wealth than this nation. Obama, rather than reducing taxes to get more people working again (Reagan did it and the unemployment dropped from >11% to <5% nationwide), raised them. Rather than reducing the national debt., he has sought to increase it, and increased it from $8 trillion to a current of almost $12 trillion, and on top of that, has raised the minimum wage, both of which further lower the value of the dollar. Did Bush help? He increased the national debt. with a stimulus package, so no. He did, however, try to repeal the law, approved by congress during the Clinton administration that forced banks to give loans to deadbeats who almost assuredly couldn't pay their mortgage, which led to the housing market crash of 2008/2009, but he was stopped by the [Democratic majority] congress. Did you take economics classes in school? Lower taxes doesn't reduce the national debt. Compared to what it's been in the past, taxes in the U.S. are so low now that you can't stimulate the economy that much anymore by lowering taxes. And respected economists are saying that the stimulus worked. Economics 101 teaches people that governments can help end recessions by increasing spending and slow down inflation during boom years by reducing spending. Of course, neither party has shown an ability to reduce spending during boom years. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On September 28 2009 23:01 PobTheCad wrote: do you mean the 1930s? The bankers all got together just after the crash and bought massive amounts of stocks in US Steel trying to get the market back into boom mode as a show of confidence , this only worked for 2-3 days though.The herd mentality had shifted , once it does it is incredibly hard to stop. What later happened was deflation , but i believe deflation is not possible this time around because Nixon brought the US off the gold standard in 1974 because he could not afford the Vietnam war. Deflation is very damaging , but so is hyperinflation.This policy of low interest rates = good is madness. They're not as good as JP Morgan is. The guy who started JP Morgan Chase managed to fix the economy during a recession by using his money as stimulus and twisting the arms of fellow bankers to go along with him. I think people are overreacting to this recession. Yes, it's the worst since the Great Depression but it's slowly easing up already. During the 1800s, we've had recessions like this as well so it's not completely unprecedented. Hell, the U.S. had a recession during the 1800s that was caused by horses catching a virus. | ||
micronesia
United States24723 Posts
On September 28 2009 22:45 Hawk wrote: 16 to 24 is the age bracket. that's a lot of people with 2 year degrees and 4 year degree, people who should be getting jobs and many arent able to get them now even with a degree. i have several friends who have been out of school for a year and cant lock up a teaching job Tell me more. What region/area? What is their education relative to the requirements to teach in that area? What subject areas are they attempting to teach? Etc. Obviously I'm curious since I graduated from college in 2007 with the intent to get a teaching job shortly thereafter. | ||
|
VorcePA
United States1102 Posts
On September 29 2009 00:31 andrewlt wrote: Did you take economics classes in school? Lower taxes doesn't reduce the national debt. Compared to what it's been in the past, taxes in the U.S. are so low now that you can't stimulate the economy that much anymore by lowering taxes. And respected economists are saying that the stimulus worked. Economics 101 teaches people that governments can help end recessions by increasing spending and slow down inflation during boom years by reducing spending. Of course, neither party has shown an ability to reduce spending during boom years. I never said that lowering taxes reduces the national debt. Although, funny you should mention that, because, once again, I turn to my favorite President, and unfortunately never lived through his terms: Reagan. Normally, I would say lower taxes so that unemployment goes down and the recession ends. Once that is out of the way, raise taxes to reduce and/or remove the national debt. However, Reagan lowered taxes by just the right amount that because there were so many extra people with jobs, the amount of revenue gained from all these people working actually increased the amount of money the government took in. My uneducated self calls bullshit on the argument that lowering taxes wouldn't help stimulate the economy. But whatever. That's probably a smaller issue than throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars everywhere and hope that some of it gets spent productively trying to save companies that handle business poorly. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On September 28 2009 22:07 GG.Win wrote: because people don't get sick under public health care? lol They do, but public health care will make physicians wages drop like a rock. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
On September 29 2009 01:25 Klockan3 wrote: They do, but public health care will make physicians wages drop like a rock. Which is great, since we have too many doctors right now, right? With more people accessing the system and fewer med students in the future, things are sure to improve. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32083 Posts
On September 29 2009 00:47 micronesia wrote: Tell me more. What region/area? What is their education relative to the requirements to teach in that area? What subject areas are they attempting to teach? Etc. Obviously I'm curious since I graduated from college in 2007 with the intent to get a teaching job shortly thereafter. One just got one after 8 months of searching. She had to go all the way down to Virginia, I think she was elementary ed (im nj, right outside of nyc) Ones trying with hs math The ones that had it easier getting jobs had masters. I dont know how good all of them were, since most of them arent tight friends Another was aiming for middle school and has yet to get anything. A lot of districts have been cutting jobs, so its a bitch right now | ||
|
micronesia
United States24723 Posts
On September 29 2009 01:52 Hawk wrote: One just got one after 8 months of searching. As you probably know, one problem with job searching in education is that most hiring occurs only for a few months from May->August. She had to go all the way down to Virginia, I think she was elementary ed (im nj, right outside of nyc) Yeah I considered going down to Virginia in Summer 2007 because they were hiring and many places there pay well. I'm not surprised she was having trouble with elementary ed in NJ though. That's a tough one to get placed in without connections. Ones trying with hs math Math is probably not as difficult as elementary, but no shock if he couldn't get anything right away. The ones that had it easier getting jobs had masters. I dont know how good all of them were, since most of them arent tight friends Hm I see. Sometimes having a masters helps and sometimes it hurts (since districts know they will have to pay you more despite you have 0 additional teaching experience over someone like me who just got the BS). Another was aiming for middle school and has yet to get anything. A lot of districts have been cutting jobs, so its a bitch right now What subject in middle school? Districts have been cutting, true, but mostly in non-core areas. Still, the current economic times are making getting jobs even in the core areas much more competitive. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
CrankTV Team League
Streamerzone vs Shopify Rebellion
TBD vs Team Vitality
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
CrankTV Team League
BASILISK vs TBD
Team Liquid vs Team Falcon
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
