Work Hard?

[joelbc1]

That's funny...someone should tell the companies that interview college grads for entry level positions that they should look elsewhere for their recruits.

While the value of a college education goes well beyond mere "training" for future employment opportunities, to say that there is no role in college prep that leads to future employment is pure hogwash.

the purpose of "university" is not to provide corporations with fodder...rather the emphasis is to develop skulls of mush to be able to think for themselves with a moral sense. The "moral" sense is important...hence the reason for required "100 classes" in religion and philosophy...

 

[NoleSoup4U]

the purpose of "university" is not to provide corporations with fodder...rather the emphasis is to develop skulls of mush to be able to think for themselves with a moral sense. The "moral" sense is important...hence the reason for required "100 classes" in religion and philosophy...

You should go visit a college classroom sometime. It isn't what you think it is.

 

[Jan Itor]

Look, Bernie can't back up this promise any more than The Don can build a 2,000 mile wall and make Mexico pay for it.

But, how much did you pay for your high school education OP? Who decided that you could get 13 years of education for free and then you have to start paying for it? Maybe you should get 15 years free? Or, maybe only 10? Thirteen seems arbitrary.

Or, how come we get free education (for 13 years), but we have to pay for health care until we are 65?

Not arguing for or against any particular answer - just curious as to why things must always remain the same.

Those 13 years weren't completely free. Taxes.... Your parents paid them as did mine. So free isn't accurate.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Those 13 years weren't completely free. Taxes.... Your parents paid them as did mine. So free isn't accurate.

Of course there are taxes. How else can the costs be covered? That's the point ... the government decided that it should pay for public education so it taxed those in the district to pay for it. Businesses, families with no kids, empty nesters - all of them pay property taxes so that attending public school from K-12 is "free".

 

[bhawk24bob]

To me this is a simple question, should one have to go into anything more than a nominal amount of debt in order to enter the modern workforce? This is the first generation that does, and the results have been disastrous.

This topic always seems to bring out the tards that equate their experiences 30 years ago to the costs and debt that students accrue today, and the two aren't on the same planet. When you want to compare your experiences in cost, debt, or job opportunities to what 18 year olds today face, just stop - you're making a fool of yourself

 

[The Tradition]

In 1994 tuition was only $2352 at the university of Iowa. My dad had rental property in Cedar Rapids and let me live there for free as long as I went to school. I was able to work part time and during the summer to actually pay for my tuition without loans. The reality is, that's impossible to do now.

The amount of debt a kid has to accrue now to get an education is obscene. We're creating a whole generation of debt slaves. Before somebody spouts off, I know nobody is forcing these kids to go to college and acquiring all that debt. Some way, some how tuition costs need to be reigned in. How that should be done, I don't know.

In-state tuition at Florida State will run about $6,500 per year, plus fees, books, housing, etc. A student who goes slightly less-than full time and perhaps takes an extra year to graduate can easily afford this with a part-time job, especially if this student can get some grants and partial scholarships.

It really can be done. Might have to sacrifice some social life, but it college isn't supposed to be one long kegger.

 

[22*43*51]

The funny thing is you don't even see the privilege you were afforded. Even when you type it yourself.

 

[22*43*51]

someone should hold an employers feet to the fire as well for creating debt slaves. If you look in the classifieds or and job postings, how many jobs are there that want employees to have a 4 year degree for a job that pays $13/hr and can be learned with a few weeks of OJT. I guess making your workforce go into debt before being employable means that they can be kept in line more easily.

There are many more jobs than people.

Employers can afford to be picky.

 

[bhawk24bob]

In-state tuition at Florida State will run about $6,500 per year, plus fees, books, housing, etc. A student who goes slightly less-than full time and perhaps takes an extra year to graduate can easily afford this with a part-time job, especially if this student can get some grants and partial scholarships.

It really can be done. Might have to sacrifice some social life, but it college isn't supposed to be one long kegger.

So we're looking at ~$20k/year when factoring in living expenses? There aren't many part time jobs paying $20k a year. Additionally, that can't be a solution for more than a minority of students, a college town economy does not provide a part time job for everyone.

 

[22*43*51]

So we're looking at ~$20k/year when factoring in living expenses? There aren't many part time jobs paying $20k a year. Additionally, that can't be a solution for more than a minority of students, a college town economy does not provide a part time job for everyone.

 

[thedirtyglass]

There are many more jobs than people.

Employers can afford to be picky.

that doesn't address the problem of requiring somebody to spend money to attend a 4 year institution for a job that could be learned with some OJT. Like i said, what better way to keep your employees in lock step is if many of them are likely buried in student loan debt.

it's fine being choosy and all, but then at the same time i chuckle when i hear employers complain because they can't fill their open positions

 

[The Tradition]

So we're looking at ~$20k/year when factoring in living expenses? There aren't many part time jobs paying $20k a year. Additionally, that can't be a solution for more than a minority of students, a college town economy does not provide a part time job for everyone.

Live at home and commute to college. That's what my son did.

 

[bhawk24bob]

Live at home and commute to college. That's what my son did.

I don't think that lowering the quality of education by limiting the universities that a student has access to is a satisfactory solution in a global economy

 

[22*43*51]

that doesn't address the problem of requiring somebody to spend money to attend a 4 year institution for a job that could be learned with some OJT. Like i said, what better way to keep your employees in lock step is if many of them are likely buried in student loan debt.

it's fine being choosy and all, but then at the same time i chuckle when i hear employers complain because they can't fill their open positions

Employers do not set the price of a PUBLIC education.

If the government cannot control cost now, how is another layer of bureaucracy going to fix it?

 

[ping72]

I completely agree that people should work hard.

BUT...our economy in the US has and continues to change dramatically. The vast majority of jobs now involve a computer and services rather than making things.

So the majority of jobs now require a college degree or other technical training. So what happens when a large segment of your workforce cannot meet the demands of your available work?

You worked hard, I did the same. But in a much more macro view (the sort a president should take), the country needs more people with easier access to education to support the economy.

 

[TexMichFan]

The question was: At what point in this country's history did working for something become a bad idea?

The answer is: Never.

The 2nd post is fvcking retarded.

I'll educate you on Dems, Hillary, and Bernie if you write me a 1,500 word book report on A Tale of Two Cities first.

Great start to a rational and productive conversation. All liberals want everyone to get a free ride and none of them want anyone to have to work for anything. Glad we could clear that up. /thread.

These responses kind of go against your theme in your "A nation divided" thread don't they?

 

[Raglefant]

These responses kind of go against your theme in your "A nation divided" thread don't they?

Do they? Maybe calling out ignorant, prejudiced, and divisive rhetoric is necessary? What do you think?

 

[thedirtyglass]

Employers do not set the price of a PUBLIC education.

If the government cannot control cost now, how is another layer of bureaucracy going to fix it?

i am not advocating for free college like Bernie does, I think that would lead to disaster

While employers do not control the cost of public education, they do control who they will hire. If some of these employers have realistic qualifications for the duties of the jobs they are looking to fill, especially for the pay that want to give then maybe those that are on assistance that haven't been brainwashed to believe it is a way of life might be able to take those opportunities, learn new skills while learning the job and be productive members of society

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I was always told that working smarter is better than working harder.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

that doesn't address the problem of requiring somebody to spend money to attend a 4 year institution for a job that could be learned with some OJT. Like i said, what better way to keep your employees in lock step is if many of them are likely buried in student loan debt.

it's fine being choosy and all, but then at the same time i chuckle when i hear employers complain because they can't fill their open positions

On the contrary, when I am interviewing someone fresh out of college for a job and I learn that they have racked up a huge debt and also taken 5-7+ years to do it...I steer around them and prefer to hire people that found a way to get through college without shackling themselves in such an unavoidable way. (Caveat - advanced degrees like MD's and JD's can legitimately be associated with larger debts. But if someone cannot get through a state school in 4 years with zero to modest debt, they aren't trying very hard.)

Incredibly, the people that have buckled down and zipped through college are often also the ones that have contributed to society via some sort of service club/project, etc. While the laggards can often describe their Spring Break experiences...or at least where they went.

Because if they are not smart enough, or hard working enough, to get through 4 years of college in, egads, 4 years, without saddling themselves with incredible debt...they aren't smart enough, or hard working enough, to work intelligently and effectively for me. That's one of the problems of the entitlement generation...people think they are owed something by everyone.

Employers aren't just looking for "bodies" with a 4 year degree, they are looking for smart, hard working people who can manage themselves and set priorities such that they aren't just lurching from fun party to another, etc.

 

[TexMichFan]

Do they? Maybe calling out ignorant, prejudiced, and divisive rhetoric is necessary? What do you think?

You did not come out with a "I think you are wrong and this is why post" you came with "I think you are stupid" post. Don't see much difference between what you were complaining about in your other thread and what you just did.

If it would have been one of your friends who brought up the question would you have reacted the same way?

 

[22*43*51]

i am not advocating for free college like Bernie does, I think that would lead to disaster

While employers do not control the cost of public education, they do control who they will hire. If some of these employers have realistic qualifications for the duties of the jobs they are looking to fill, especially for the pay that want to give then maybe those that are on assistance that haven't been brainwashed to believe it is a way of life might be able to take those opportunities, learn new skills while learning the job and be productive members of society

You have to start somewhere.

I think we all can say we started our careers underpaid until our talent and ability demanded more.

 

[Huey Grey]

I wanted to start a new thread after reading through the thread about Bernie paying for college.

At what point in this country's history did working for something become a bad idea? I just don't understand why people feel the need to be so entitled and not work for something. I graduated about 25 years ago from a low middle class family. I went to community college and then to nursing school. I took out student loans and eventually after working hard I paid them all back. A couple of years ago I went back to get my bachelors degree, I still worked full time and took out no loans and paid for it as I went. Anybody can go to college if they put the effort and time into it and yes it is hard sometimes, but life is hard and not always easy. It is very hard for me to think that todays generation doesn't have to put in any work to get ahead in life and I don't understand why certain groups enable their behavior. Don't get me wrong there are going to be some "outliers", but for the most part there are more people capable of doing the work.

I totally agree. But why stop at college? Why don't we make kids pay for high school and elementary school? Show them the value of work early. Yay! For education bashing!!

 

[Huey Grey]

I don't think that lowering the quality of education by limiting the universities that a student has access to is a satisfactory solution in a global economy

Oh, bullshit. America is so exceptional and special that we don't need to compete with the rest of the world.

 

[Raglefant]

You did not come out with a "I think you are wrong and this is why post" you came with "I think you are stupid" post. Don't see much difference between what you were complaining about in your other thread and what you just did.

If it would have been one of your friends who brought up the question would you have reacted the same way?

That's the point, you have to start somewhere and my reaction was more to the 2nd post although the first one was offensive. I propose starting with a thoughtful and respectful point. When the start is all libs are lazy and only care about free stuff, it's ridiculous to expect a reasoned counterpoint. The bar is higher if you want a real discussion.

You'll find most that spout off like that are incapable of more anyway. The division is between people capable of more and those who are not. I think this is just an example of that.

 

[HIWB]

On the contrary, when I am interviewing someone fresh out of college for a job and I learn that they have racked up a huge debt and also taken 5-7+ years to do it...I steer around them and prefer to hire people that found a way to get through college without shackling themselves in such an unavoidable way. (Caveat - advanced degrees like MD's and JD's can legitimately be associated with larger debts. But if someone cannot get through a state school in 4 years with zero to modest debt, they aren't trying very hard.)

Incredibly, the people that have buckled down and zipped through college are often also the ones that have contributed to society via some sort of service club/project, etc. While the laggards can often describe their Spring Break experiences...or at least where they went.

Because if they are not smart enough, or hard working enough, to get through 4 years of college in, egads, 4 years, without saddling themselves with incredible debt...they aren't smart enough, or hard working enough, to work intelligently and effectively for me. That's one of the problems of the entitlement generation...people think they are owed something by everyone.

Employers aren't just looking for "bodies" with a 4 year degree, they are looking for smart, hard working people who can manage themselves and set priorities such that they aren't just lurching from fun party to another, etc.

How many interviewees willfully detail their financial situation to you? Are you running credit reports on them?
I'm not being argumentative. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[TexMichFan]

That's the point, you have to start somewhere and my reaction was more to the 2nd post although the first one was offensive. I propose starting with a thoughtful and respectful point. When the start is all libs are lazy and only care about free stuff, it's ridiculous to expect a reasoned counterpoint. The bar is higher if you want a real discussion.

You'll find most that spout off like that are incapable of more anyway. The division is between people capable of more and those who are not. I think this is just an example of that.

I didn't read the OP as calling all Libs lazy in fact he didn't even mention a political party or philosophy.

He questioned why people feel entitled to something when they can work for it.

I also don't recognize the OP as being far right on issues. Looked like a question that deserved a better response.

 

[thewop]

I wanted to start a new thread after reading through the thread about Bernie paying for college.

At what point in this country's history did working for something become a bad idea? I just don't understand why people feel the need to be so entitled and not work for something. I graduated about 25 years ago from a low middle class family. I went to community college and then to nursing school. I took out student loans and eventually after working hard I paid them all back. A couple of years ago I went back to get my bachelors degree, I still worked full time and took out no loans and paid for it as I went. Anybody can go to college if they put the effort and time into it and yes it is hard sometimes, but life is hard and not always easy. It is very hard for me to think that todays generation doesn't have to put in any work to get ahead in life and I don't understand why certain groups enable their behavior. Don't get me wrong there are going to be some "outliers", but for the most part there are more people capable of doing the work.

You, RN, are an excellent example of what makes Bernie's $15/hr minimum wage idea so dangerous. My wife is also an RN. RN's are well-trained and are justifiably required to complete extensive academic and in-theater training. Upon graduation, an RN may be compensated anywhere from $16-$25/hr. depending on if they go into a hospital, a Dr's office, etc. Where I live, most starting wages for an RN are around $17.50/hr.

Why on earth would someone spend 4 years becoming an RN if they could sign up to work at McDonalds out of High school for almost the same money? Not only that, with everyone making $15/hr, costs of everything go, so suddenly an RN needs to make more as well, and why would an RN make as much as a nurse practitioner? Nurse practitioner's salaries go up, etc. etc. etc. So do costs (including medical bills), of course, so nobody's better off.

The market has to be allowed to work. I'm not advocating that minimum wage stay stagnant, but artificially propping it up faster than the market can bare doesn't benefit anyone, although it sounds great on the surface and is a cheap way to get votes..

 

[TexMichFan]

You, RN, are an excellent example of what makes Bernie's $15/hr minimum wage idea so dangerous. My wife is also an RN. RN's are well-trained and are justifiably required to complete extensive academic and in-theater training. Upon graduation, an RN may be compensated anywhere from $16-$25/hr. depending on if they go into a hospital, a Dr's office, etc. Where I live, most starting wages for an RN are around $17.50/hr.

Why on earth would someone spend 4 years becoming an RN if they could sign up to work at McDonalds out of High school for almost the same money? Not only that, with everyone making $15/hr, costs of everything go, so suddenly an RN needs to make more as well, and why would an RN make as much as a nurse practitioner? Nurse practitioner's salaries go up, etc. etc. etc. So do costs (including medical bills), of course, so nobody's better off.

The market has to be allowed to work. I'm not advocating that minimum wage stay stagnant, but artificially propping it up faster than the market can bare doesn't benefit anyone, although it sounds great on the surface and is a cheap way to get votes..

Because the $15 minimum will drive up all wages.

Remains to be seen whether the theory of if you raise all wages everyone benefits or if you raise all wages the subsequent price increases will offset the increase wages and we will have harmed the overall economy.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

How many interviewees willfully detail their financial situation to you? Are you running credit reports on them?
I'm not being argumentative. I'm genuinely curious.

I usually ask them a couple of questions about how they financed their education and they normally voluntarily spill from there. Or I just tell them that student debt sucks, etc... and they will then agree or disagree and divulge their own story. I don't get, or require, a lot of detail, just a general understanding if they paid their own way or are in deep debt over a 4 year degree.

I do not run credit checks on them. Also, I have never had a good manager work for me for long if they were not also a good manager of themselves. There's an old saying that goes like this, "If you can't manage a dime, you can't manage a dollar". I subscribe to that...and the corollaries to it. If you can't manage your own money, you are not likely to manage mine very well either.

 

[thedirtyglass]

You have to start somewhere.

I think we all can say we started our careers underpaid until our talent and ability demanded more.

and again that's fine. you have to start somewhere. I do believe having somebody throw a ton of money for a four year degree is overkill if a job can be learned in a few weeks through training.

 

[thewop]

Because the $15 minimum will drive up all wages.

Remains to be seen whether the theory of if you raise all wages everyone benefits or if you raise all wages the subsequent price increases will offset the increase wages and we will have harmed the overall economy.

Fair enough. Having lived in Europe, I'm surmising it will move toward what they have. Higher wages, higher prices, lesser chance of owning a home, lesser quality of life overall. They get by just fine, but they don't have what we have, and it's difficult for us to recognize it before it's lost. I have no confidence the result will be different here. IMO, we need to resist the temptation of going for what sounds good without fully understanding the implications.

 

[thedirtyglass]

Employers aren't just looking for "bodies" with a 4 year degree, they are looking for smart, hard working people who can manage themselves and set priorities such that they aren't just lurching from fun party to another, etc.

do you specifically require a 4 year degree for the positions you fill, and if so could those positions be filled by somebody with some work history and or community college?

Most big companies, when they are looking to fill seats in their cubicle farms have HR depts with the standard, lazy interview questions like "name a time when you________". That is if they manage to get past the online application process and not get weeded out because they filters found certain words or didn't have certain keywords.

 

[Pepperman]

I think we all can say we started our careers underpaid until our talent and ability demanded more.

Not the posters that work for their beloved government or a union.

 

[The Tradition]

and again that's fine. you have to start somewhere. I do believe having somebody throw a ton of money for a four year degree is overkill if a job can be learned in a few weeks through training.

Having a degree proves that you can be taught. Having a degree means you've demonstrated the ability to succeed under a wide variety of different task-masters and can understand a variety of academic disciplines. Having a degree shows that you can successfully complete complex projects, and collaborate with peers on group projects.

This is why many employers require a college degree for certain jobs that admittedly, might be able to be taught in house. Requiring a college degree greatly increases the chance that the hire will have the aptitude and ability to learn in house.

 

[The Tradition]

do you specifically require a 4 year degree for the positions you fill, and if so could those positions be filled by somebody with some work history and or community college?

Most big companies, when they are looking to fill seats in their cubicle farms have HR depts with the standard, lazy interview questions like "name a time when you________". That is if they manage to get past the online application process and not get weeded out because they filters found certain words or didn't have certain keywords.

That's called "behavioral interviewing" and it's not lazy at all. You're asking the candidate to tell a story where they succeeded, or overcame an obstacle, or learned from a mistake. You're trying to understand how this person solves problems, reacts to adversity, and achieves success.

 

[thedirtyglass]

Having a degree proves that you can be taught. Having a degree means you've demonstrated the ability to succeed under a wide variety of different task-masters and can understand a variety of academic disciplines. Having a degree shows that you can successfully complete complex projects, and collaborate with peers on group projects.

This is why many employers require a college degree for certain jobs that admittedly, might be able to be taught in house. Requiring a college degree greatly increases the chance that the hire will have the aptitude and ability to learn in house.

wouldn't previous work history be able to accomplish the same thing, or even a couple years at a CC?

 

[Pepperman]

Fair enough. Having lived in Europe, I'm surmising it will move toward what they have. Higher wages, higher prices, lesser chance of owning a home, lesser quality of life overall. They get by just fine, but they don't have what we have, and it's difficult for us to recognize it before it's lost. I have no confidence the result will be different here. IMO, we need to resist the temptation of going for what sounds good without fully understanding the implications.

Excellent post. But we have libs here who have gone to Europe and drank some wine, and, it's like, really cool over there. It has to be better, they have trains to get from city to city???

Besides, if it "worked" to raise wages why wouldn't we just raise the minimum to $200 per hour? That would be even better than $15 and just think of the economy we'd have!!!

 

[The Tradition]

wouldn't previous work history be able to accomplish the same thing, or even a couple years at a CC?

Not really. Depends on the job, of course.

 

[longliveCS40]

I wanted to start a new thread after reading through the thread about Bernie paying for college.

At what point in this country's history did working for something become a bad idea? I just don't understand why people feel the need to be so entitled and not work for something. I graduated about 25 years ago from a low middle class family. I went to community college and then to nursing school. I took out student loans and eventually after working hard I paid them all back. A couple of years ago I went back to get my bachelors degree, I still worked full time and took out no loans and paid for it as I went. Anybody can go to college if they put the effort and time into it and yes it is hard sometimes, but life is hard and not always easy. It is very hard for me to think that todays generation doesn't have to put in any work to get ahead in life and I don't understand why certain groups enable their behavior. Don't get me wrong there are going to be some "outliers", but for the most part there are more people capable of doing the work.

You're letting the fact that you worked so hard cloud your thinking. It is your resentment driving your thoughts that you feel someone could have what you do and not have to work so hard. Well, newsflash, the rich don't have to work nearly as hard as you. That is what people are trying to level the playing field on.

Now, having said that, I do not agree with Bernie's plan for free college. I do think the cost of college and the student loan industry need to be overhauled in a big way. College has become a business and that is a big part of the problem.