"Hipsters on Food Stamps" or lies we tell kids about College and Society

[Crazed Rabbit]

An interesting discourse that ties in a bit with what Strike is talking about:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html


First, the obvious: what's wrong with hipsters on food stamps is that these are college educated people who should be able to get jobs, not live off the state. They're not black, after all. Hell, one of the two in the article is even Asian. "What, like Russian Asian?" No, like Asian Asian. "Whaaaaaaat?"

"It's the economy, stupid!" Thanks guy from 1992, but the economy did not tell you to go to college for something you knew in advance would make you unemployable, especially when that unemployable choice cost exactly the same as the employable choice, i.e. too much. Lesson one at the academia should be the importance of separating vocation from avocation, as character actor Fred Thompson and electrical contractor Benjamin Franklin both understood. When I was six I wanted to be in Playboy. Just because it's your dream, doesn't mean you should pursue it.

So what makes them hatable is the seeming choice they have made: they could work, yes at jobs they don't like but hey, that's America; but instead they choose to feel entitled to $200/month from the rest of us salarymen.

However, secondly:

Before we blame them for their choice, we should ask why they felt they could make that choice. I'm not trying to start trouble, but let's choose something I'm familiar with, i.e. women: why would a smart high school junior, 4.0 and AP Everything, think that going to Hampshire College for English Literature was a good idea? Why would her parents allow this madness, other than the fact that they were divorcing? What did she think would happen given that she knew in advance there were no jobs for English majors? Serious answers, please, I'll offer four I had personal experience with: law school; academia; non-profits; marriage. Don't roll your eyes at me, young lady: let's say you are the daughter of a lawyer and you major in English. When you were 17 and you imagined your life at your Dad's age-- not the starving poetess fantasy you wrote about in your spiral notebook, but a glimpse of the bourgeois future you then thought you didn't want-- what kind of a house did you imagine in the "if that happens to me I'll Anne Sexton myself" scenario? A lawyer's house or an English major's house? In other words, the choice to major in English was predicated on information she received from multiple sources like schools and TV-- sources I will collectively call the Matrix-- that every generation does better than the last, that there was a safety net of sorts, a bailout at the end, that future happiness was inevitable, and so we return to economics: the general name for that safety net is credit. America was the land of the minimum monthly payment. And if this analogy isn't clear enough for you, let me reverse it: the ability of the economy to offer English as a major required a massive subsidy to make you feel like $20k/yr was the same as free. If you had to pay it up front, you'd either be an engineer or $80k richer. That subsidy is now worthless, not because the money doesn't exist but because the bailout at the end, e.g the four options I suggested were operational 1977-1999 which guaranteed the payments would be made, won't help.

Imagine a large corporate machine mobilized to get you to buy something you don't need at a tremendously inflated cost, complete with advertising, marketing, and branding that says you're not hip if you don't have one, but when you get one you discover it's of poor quality and obsolete in ten months. That's a BA.

CR

[Strike For The South]

No one wants to bleed
Everyone wants something for nothing

We have had a rash of threads in the frontroom where kids have asked how to "get rich". It never seems to dawn on them that being in your 20s means a crap apartment while you work your way up whatever vocational latter you chosse. There are few degrees in undergrad which will give you truly "good" job starting out (I should have been a Petroleum Engineer but that's another thread.).

Kids in Africa are hungry, Kids in India are hungry, Kids in China are hungry

Kids in America are lazy and that's worse than an English degree and infintely harder to overcome

[Crazed Rabbit]

I majored in chemical engineering. I think that's in the top, 'realism' wise, if we are talking about realism as job opportunities.


On the flip-side, a broad education on as many subjects as possible is the key to a balanced mind. Don't lament the fact that kids are majoring in the things they love, lament the fact that there's a disconnect between what we want to do and what we have to do.\

I will lament that fact, because you don't need to go to college to study and get a balanced mind. I'll lament the fact that they major in what they love, but then expect that they are entitled to a job because of that degree, even though doing what they love does not offer enough to the world for anyone to offer them a job.

CR

[The Lurker Below]

afraid to say I agree that the B.A. is pretty much a waste of funds, not necessarily time, just funds. would rather see far more young people pursue technical training. a decent welder will still make more than the best public school teachers. regarding teaching, no need to worry about higher pay and more benefits if you marry well =)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Long term you're probably better off as a teacher than as a welder, when it comes to job prospects. Welders can be -and are- replaced with machines and industrial automation.

Anyway as far as job prospects, few things beat the "electric" stuff -- simply because when things do inevitably break down you need someone to be able to fix the machines which replaced the welders.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I majored in chemical engineering. I think that's in the top, 'realism' wise, if we are talking about realism as job opportunities.

I will lament that fact, because you don't need to go to college to study and get a balanced mind. I'll lament the fact that they major in what they love, but then expect that they are entitled to a job because of that degree, even though doing what they love does not offer enough to the world for anyone to offer them a job.

CR

I am currently majoring in chemical engineering. I'm gonna have to disagree with you though on the grounds that as far as I know, the statistics still show that those with any sort of BA, whether it be English or ChemE, still make much more money than someone without a degree at all.

What trips people up is that, although you think that you are ahead for making a higher average salary, the high school kid starts working for 4-5 years before you and many kids out of college acquire student debt that puts them at a further disadvantage.

Also, we can't forget that in the US at least. Many, many students are either immigrants or native born student who are quite literally the first in their family to go to college. Not many people actually needed college through the 1950s and 1960s, so the issue may just be ignorance on the part of the parents of this upcoming generation. See Monty's post below.

I think there will be a clearer picture once the current generation of students who are dealing with the issue of too much debt for not enough jobs start to have kids of their own.

[Montmorency]

Also, we can't forget that in the US at least. Many, many students are either immigrants or native born student who are quite literally the first in their family to go to college.

This doesn't hold water, unfortunately (http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/TFS/Special/Monographs/FirstInMyFamily.pdf).


Since 1971, CIRP freshman survey data indicate that the proportion of first-generation students in the overall population of first-time, full-time entering college freshmen at four-year institutions has steadily declined. In 1971, first-generation students represented 38.5 percent of all first-time, full-time college freshman, a figure that drops in half by 1992. By 2005, the proportion of first-generation college students declined to 15.9 percent of all entering freshman.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This doesn't hold water, unfortunately (http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/TFS/Special/Monographs/FirstInMyFamily.pdf).

Interesting, was not aware of that. However, I think it is important to note that 16% of students being 1st generation college students is still not insignificant.

[Montmorency]

Yeah yeah, sure. But...

Check out page 20 in that report:


Worked 20+ hours per week in last year of High School

1st-Gen (1987): 26%
Non-1stGen (1987): 20.8%

1st-Gen (2005): 22.2%
Non-1stGen (2005): 15%


Expect very good chance of getting job to pay off college expenses

1stGen (1987): 41.5%
Non-1stGen (1987): 36.7%

1stGen (2005): 55.1%
Non-1stGen (2005): 45%

So today's kids have less work history than those of the 80s, and are more optimistic about debts!

Also, page 28: notice the steady decline in hours studying per-week during HS.

Pages 29-30: Kids today have higher grades, are more academically confident, and further expect to get good grades on average more than in the 70s.

p. 31: Students rate themselves higher on maths and English/reading ability than they did in the 70s.

p. 33: Kids now rate themselves higher for leadership attributes and social intelligence.

I'm starting to more and more come around to Strike's perspective.

Of course, I'm sure things have changed since 2005. Still a good glimpse into the mindsets of the last couple of batches of incoming college-kids.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I am currently majoring in chemical engineering.

Awesome!


I'm gonna have to disagree with you though on the grounds that as far as I know, the statistics still show that those with any sort of BA, whether it be English or ChemE, still make much more money than someone without a degree at all.

What trips people up is that, although you think that you are ahead for making a higher average salary, the high school kid starts working for 4-5 years before you and many kids out of college acquire student debt that puts them at a further disadvantage.


Well, I would agree with what you say there.


Of course, I'm sure things have changed since 2005. Still a good glimpse into the mindsets of the last couple of batches of incoming college-kids.

I think debt is becoming more of an issue kids think about before college - or at least I hope so - based on the repercussions from the economic collapse.

CR

[Ironside]

Not in the mood to dig up the data, but does anybody know how large the shortage of more useful educations compare to those excess less useful educations are?

Simply put, are we in a situation with excess of university students or is it a relocation problem?

[Husar]

First, the obvious: what's wrong with hipsters on food stamps is that these are college educated people who should be able to get jobs, not live off the state. They're not black, after all. Hell, one of the two in the article is even Asian. "What, like Russian Asian?" No, like Asian Asian. "Whaaaaaaat?"

What's that? Starting an article with stereotypes? What does it say about the author?


Just because it's your dream, doesn't mean you should pursue it.

So what makes them hatable is the seeming choice they have made: they could work, yes at jobs they don't like but hey, that's America;

The american dream. Shattered.
The land of the free? No, take the job we tell you to!
The market regulates itself? No, let's tell people what they should do.


but instead they choose to feel entitled to $200/month from the rest of us salarymen.

Oh yes, that sounds hurtful, I bet they love to get rich by being a drain on your arteries like that.
My former boss studied anglisticism or let's just call it english and he became a personnel manager, told me it doesn't matter as much what you study but that you study something and show them you're not stupid.
What about people who do want to work but get turned away because they're overqualified? What about if there really aren't any job offers? I know people who studied business administration and had to search for about two years or so to get a decent job. Even the low wage jobs are becoming hard to get here, even though you'd think for such a wage that almost pays less than unemployment money and has pretty much no benefits they wouldn't be very selective.

And then there's the question about whether it would even be of use to companies to hire people who hate that job and have no interest in it. If they find out during the interviews they wouldn't hire them anyway, no?

[gaelic cowboy]

I once did three interviews for an engineering internship and after they rang to say "Sorry you dont have enough experience" stupdily I had thought that was the whole point of an internship.

[Beskar]

I once did three interviews for an engineering internship and after they rang to say "Sorry you dont have enough experience" stupdily I had thought that was the whole point of an internship.

:laugh4:

I am currently working below what I am capable of, even with a MSc. Problem is, the field I want is actually requiring a PhD which I am applying for, and there is a big demand and lots of jobs available, however, there is a "bottleneck" between those who want to go into the field, and jobs due to lack of PhD places (due to lack of professors/overseers).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not in the mood to dig up the data, but does anybody know how large the shortage of more useful educations compare to those excess less useful educations are?

Simply put, are we in a situation with excess of university students or is it a relocation problem?

From memory - I believe it's the case that the larger intake has resulted in a greater proportion of students studying the humanities, rather than a fall in the Sciences.

[gaelic cowboy]

From memory - I believe it's the case that the larger intake has resulted in a greater proportion of students studying the humanities, rather than a fall in the Sciences.


Plus year on year the point at which a technical student is felt to be up to snuff moves further into the future.

[TinCow]

I completely agree with the article. I graduated with a BA in History, after having previously considered Philosophy and Government (in that order). I knew before I even went to college that all of those degrees were only useful for teaching or graduate school. However, I knew I was going to go to law school when I was still in High School, so it didn't really matter to me that my degree was useless on its own. A broad education certainly makes for a more enlightened mind, but it doesn't make for a thick wallet. There's nothing wrong with pursuing a degree in something you love even if it doesn't have much real-world application... but people need to be aware of the implications of that decision before they make it.

Also, two big thumbs up for those who said they were, or studying to be, chemical engineers. That was my father's field and he has done very well in the oil industry. To this day, the energy industry remains the world's most reliable employer and that's not likely to change any time in our lifetimes. Add in the other various industrial giants into the mix, and chemical engineers probably have some of the best employment prospects of any profession in the world, with the possible exception of medical professionals.

[Husar]

Also, two big thumbs up for those who said they were, or studying to be, chemical engineers.

Yeah, they're only poisoning our food, destroying our environment and most likely killing us all in the end. :whip:
Excuse me while I chew on my bio-carrot sitting by my campfire, my hamster is tired of powering the computer... :stare:

[Tellos Athenaios]

I completely agree with the article. I graduated with a BA in History, after having previously considered Philosophy and Government (in that order). I knew before I even went to college that all of those degrees were only useful for teaching or graduate school. However, I knew I was going to go to law school when I was still in High School, so it didn't really matter to me that my degree was useless on its own. A broad education certainly makes for a more enlightened mind, but it doesn't make for a thick wallet. There's nothing wrong with pursuing a degree in something you love even if it doesn't have much real-world application... but people need to be aware of the implications of that decision before they make it.

Very true. But to offer a contrarian view, just because I feel like it: there is also a systemic issue with, ahem, sub par institutions or sub par degrees. And companies know it.

For example if you are pursuing a degree in "web design", or indeed pretty much any "multimedia" subject consider it time and money wasted. Also CS unless you know in advance that your institution & degree combination is actually well regarded by business and academia. That might sound strange since there's plenty of jobs in those general fields, but as I heard it, in general US colleges simply have an atrocious reputation so nobody will hire those graduates unless they trust the degree is up to snuff.

By contrast, US companies pay over the odds to bring in foreign graduates which ostensibly graduated in those exact same subjects.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, they're only poisoning our food, destroying our environment and most likely killing us all in the end. :whip:
Excuse me while I chew on my bio-carrot sitting by my campfire, my hamster is tired of powering the computer... :stare:

https://img543.imageshack.us/img543/391/1631strip.gif

CR

[Idaho]

In every country, in every industry people are working full time on the project of employing fewer people. People are getting promotions and bonuses from turning 1000 employee businesses into 500 employee businesses. Inventors and technologists are making their fortunes from automating processes. And we are all seeing the benefits. We shop cheaply on amazon, who have not only automated and streamlined their processes, but have also streamlined their tax liability.

Win win yeah? Now we all have more money and leisure time....

Er.. Hang on. Doesn't research show that those in work are working harder? And isn't unemployment growing? And aren't the richest getting richer?

That's crazy talk! It's these lazy unemployed! What has caused this boom in laziness? Why are all these people apparently content to do nothing but sponge off those people who have jobs and are working harder than ever to keep them? Let's not ask them. They are probably high and they will make up some nonsense about their being less jobs.

[Idaho]

Those newly streamlined businesses are great for the share price though. And us ordinary people have our pensions tied up in the market. I wonder if there is anyone else who is benefitting disproportionately from a robust stock market? Some strata of society who get richer and richer. Sorry! There I go again daydreaming when I should have been talking about lazy students and lazy unemployed people. Please forgive me.

[TinCow]

In every country, in every industry people are working full time on the project of employing fewer people. People are getting promotions and bonuses from turning 1000 employee businesses into 500 employee businesses. Inventors and technologists are making their fortunes from automating processes. And we are all seeing the benefits. We shop cheaply on amazon, who have not only automated and streamlined their processes, but have also streamlined their tax liability.

Win win yeah? Now we all have more money and leisure time....

Er.. Hang on. Doesn't research show that those in work are working harder? And isn't unemployment growing? And aren't the richest getting richer?

That's crazy talk! It's these lazy unemployed! What has caused this boom in laziness? Why are all these people apparently content to do nothing but sponge off those people who have jobs and are working harder than ever to keep them? Let's not ask them. They are probably high and they will make up some nonsense about their being less jobs.

This is certainly true, but you can't stop progress. Businesses will always choose to increase efficiency if that option is available to them, and technological innovation is not likely going to stop increasing efficiency at any point in our lifetimes. So, we've got to live with the fact that efficiency is going to continue to increase and fewer people are going to be needed to do the jobs that employed large segments of the population traditionally. Thus, whether we like it or not, we need to re-orient the population towards employment in positions that are not likely to be automated.

[Idaho]

This is certainly true, but you can't stop progress. Businesses will always choose to increase efficiency if that option is available to them, and technological innovation is not likely going to stop increasing efficiency at any point in our lifetimes. So, we've got to live with the fact that efficiency is going to continue to increase and fewer people are going to be needed to do the jobs that employed large segments of the population traditionally. Thus, whether we like it or not, we need to re-orient the population towards employment in positions that are not likely to be automated.

I've got a better idea. Let's demonise them as being lazy and disproportionately arrest and imprison them for the kinds of drug use common throughout the country. We can use these useless layabouts as an income stream for our prison and law enforcement industry. Eh? Whaddaya mean you are already doing that?! All the best ideas are taken.

[gaelic cowboy]

I've got a better idea. Let's demonise them as being lazy and disproportionately arrest and imprison them for the kinds of drug use common throughout the country. We can use these useless layabouts as an income stream for our prison and law enforcement industry. Eh? Whaddaya mean you are already doing that?! All the best ideas are taken.

While also telling the ones who ARE working that there lazy too for having the effrontery to have a longer life expectancy.

[Beskar]

I remember reading that in back in 1800's or so, they were hailing technological process as the method to bring in shorter work hours, greater pay and far more time for leisure, the right to be lazy... I wonder what their opinions would be now if they saw society.

Edit: It appears I unconsciously ninja'd Rhy's post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143395-Hell-in-A-Handbasket&p=2053508667&viewfull=1#post2053508667) and link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/01/why-are-we-working-so-hard). I recommend reading both.

[Idaho]

I remember reading that in back in 1800's or so, they were hailing technological process as the method to bring in shorter work hours, greater pay and far more time for leisure, the right to be lazy... I wonder what their opinions would be now if they saw society.

Edit: It appears I unconsciously ninja'd Rhy's post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143395-Hell-in-A-Handbasket&p=2053508667&viewfull=1#post2053508667) and link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/01/why-are-we-working-so-hard). I recommend reading both.

What no one predicted, and what few even now seem able to see, is that technology has allowed the wealthy to disengage with the bulk of society. They don't need to hire them. They don't need to pay taxes to support them. And from within their security gated bubble, they don't even need to see them.

The truly sad thing is that the elite aren't the ones demonising the growing number of poor. The middle class are doing that for them.

Go back 50 years and the parents of the new poor had houses, jobs, cars, etc. They were full voting citizens. Now this generation have nothing but contempt for themselves, internalised from decades of media vilification.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Idaho, your posts remind me of that song "Luddite" from "Horrible Histories".

[Idaho]

Idaho, your posts remind me of that song "Luddite" from "Horrible Histories".

I haven't heard it.

I am far from being a luddite. I love technology. I am an avid follower of technological advances. What I don't like is technology being controlled and directed for the purpose of making already wealthy people even wealthier.

Earlier this was called "progress". But progress towards what? As far as I can see, the end destination isn't somewhere that 80% of us humans would want to be; a place where 2% own everything, 18% do the work, and the rest starve.

[Idaho]

Timely article:

Myth of lazy poor serves to justify inequalities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/29/myth-lazy-mob-hands-rich)

[TinCow]

I am far from being a luddite. I love technology. I am an avid follower of technological advances. What I don't like is technology being controlled and directed for the purpose of making already wealthy people even wealthier.

Earlier this was called "progress". But progress towards what? As far as I can see, the end destination isn't somewhere that 80% of us humans would want to be; a place where 2% own everything, 18% do the work, and the rest starve.

The same arguments were made about the industrial revolution, which increased the 'misery' level for many workers who began working in factories, and caused a significant increase in slavery in the US. Eventually our societies reacted to the problems and began to alleviate the hardshardships without removing the benefits of the technology. The information revolution isn't really any different from it's mechanical ancestor. There's a cycle that civilization goes through with developments like these and we'll adjust to compensate, likely much faster this time than previously. I do not advocate complacency; the needed changes do not come from such a stance. However, I believe doom and gloom are misplaced.

[Idaho]

You are right that with each technological change, there has been widespread anxiety about what it portends. However there are significant differences now. Specifically with regard to ownership of the world's resources, the scale of long term unemployment and the rich-poor divide.

Industrialisation took away jobs and created more. The information revolution has created some jobs, but has probably taken away many more than that.

The question will be answered by degrees. By the unemployment rate in our respective countries in 3 years time. In the level of taxes of the super rich at that time, and the level of media vilification of people who don't have work.

At my most pessimistic I fear that we may see "poor camps" (workhouses/concentration camps) within 10 years. And that's before the oil shortages start to bite.

[Montmorency]

On the other hand, in the 19th century social-welfare was widely seen as morally just and necessary. Nowadays, there are relatively fewer individuals holding a strong belief in this, and they are easily dismissed as "bleeding-heart welfare-liberals", or otherwise only operate on a limited scale (e.g. business-school outreach and training, private local charity)

It seems to me that, if 'adjustment' doesn't arise from a similar source (i.e. widespread sentiment and political activism), then where will it come from? The only alternative I can see is a typically-human last-minute reaction to the chronic-become-acute. And is it really healthy to expect all the solutions to come about during continual last-minute panics, when the foundation is already cracking?

[TinCow]

Industrialisation took away jobs and created more. The information revolution has created some jobs, but has probably taken away many more than that.

I'm very skeptical about this claim; show me some stats. I'll concede that it's probably true in the US and Western Europe, but likely the exact opposite on a global level. You cannot view the impact of a scientific advance based on individual nations alone. Some adapt to the change better than others, and the change is not properly tracked by looking only at those who fare least well. I'd go so far as to say that I think the information revolution has vastly improved the overall standing of living of the entire planet simply due to the significant increases we've seen in China, India, and other such nations.

In addition, the current perception in the US and Western Europe is heavily biased due to our current economic situation. The Great Recession has almost nothing to do with technological advances and everything to do with poor regulation of the financial industry and poor governance. Anyone looking at employment levels in Spain, Greece, etc. is going to be seeing an economic situation that is not remotely representative of the reality of the information revolution.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And that's before the oil shortages start to bite.

There won't be any oil shortages. Oil will rise to about ~$200 or so a barrel at which point it becomes economical to exploit the more difficult shale oil that is trapped in rock formations in places like Canada. Oil will hover around that plateau for a long while before we start to run out of shale oil. The current trend in alternatives is promising as the price for solar panels is dropping every year. I strongly suspect that in 12 years, much of the West will be fully committed on a path towards reducing coal and oil consumption, to be replaced by renewable and natural gas. Only industrial usage and non public transportation (I see buses running on natural gas all the time) will continue to use oil unabated until we finally reach the breaking point with battery technology that allows for long distance, fully electric vehicles.

[Idaho]

I'm very skeptical about this claim; show me some stats. I'll concede that it's probably true in the US and Western Europe, but likely the exact opposite on a global level. You cannot view the impact of a scientific advance based on individual nations alone. Some adapt to the change better than others, and the change is not properly tracked by looking only at those who fare least well. I'd go so far as to say that I think the information revolution has vastly improved the overall standing of living of the entire planet simply due to the significant increases we've seen in China, India, and other such nations.

In addition, the current perception in the US and Western Europe is heavily biased due to our current economic situation. The Great Recession has almost nothing to do with technological advances and everything to do with poor regulation of the financial industry and poor governance. Anyone looking at employment levels in Spain, Greece, etc. is going to be seeing an economic situation that is not remotely representative of the reality of the information revolution.

And you are right to be sceptical, and to want evidence. I would also like to see what the figures are.

My guess is that it mirrors the industrial revolution, in that the actual workforce employed in the new factories and industrialised industries, was still relatively few even as late as 1850. Their impact was magnified by their novelty.

The economic boom in China has very little to do with the information age, and everything to do with industrial development in that country. In India there has been significant IT development - but from the figures I have dug out, it only employs just less than 2m people directly, and 9m indirectly. In a population of 1bn, that's not earth shattering.

[TinCow]

The economic boom in China has very little to do with the information age, and everything to do with industrial development in that country. In India there has been significant IT development - but from the figures I have dug out, it only employs just less than 2m people directly, and 9m indirectly. In a population of 1bn, that's not earth shattering.

You're talking about direct IT employment, but that misses a large segment of the IT revolution itself. All the electronics that are produced in those nations are the product of the IT revolution and are thus part of it. If you are creating an iPhone, your job exists because of the IT revolution. In addition, the advances in the flow of information have significantly increased the viability of globalization of industry. The increasing development of corporations in developing nations, particularly in Asia and South America, owes a great deal to the ease with which large corporations can now manage such sprawling businesses. There's a lot more to the information revolution than simply IT professionals working on network drives.

[Idaho]

You're talking about direct IT employment, but that misses a large segment of the IT revolution itself. All the electronics that are produced in those nations are the product of the IT revolution and are thus part of it. If you are creating an iPhone, your job exists because of the IT revolution. In addition, the advances in the flow of information have significantly increased the viability of globalization of industry. The increasing development of corporations in developing nations, particularly in Asia and South America, owes a great deal to the ease with which large corporations can now manage such sprawling businesses. There's a lot more to the information revolution than simply IT professionals working on network drives.

I'll grant you that technology has tentacles into everything. And yes I concede that the informational developments have prompted increases in electronics consumables. But that is still just an element of Chinese production over the last 15 years. That is dwarfed by car, toy, clothes, kitchenware, furniture, etc production. I don't think you can reasonable attribute the Chinese boom to the information age. Yes it has contributed, but the main engine has been raw material prices, labour costs and capital costs within China.

[gaelic cowboy]

It took a while for steam technology to make an impact and I'm guessing computers will take a while too.

Computers and all stuff that goes with it are still not fully finished as a technology, it could be a hundred years before we see the real impact.

[Strike For The South]

I'm starting to more and more come around to Strike's perspective.

do you really think I just spout off ?

[TinCow]

I don't think you can reasonable attribute the Chinese boom to the information age. Yes it has contributed, but the main engine has been raw material prices, labour costs and capital costs within China.

Certainly not, but it's still a major factor. All you need to do is look at historical global GDP:

Last 50 Years in a nice graph (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global%20gdp#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)
Older Figures in Stats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product#Historical_and_prehistorical_estimates)

As you can clearly see, global GDP significantly accelerated around the mid-1980s and keeps growing faster and faster, minus the recent financial hiccup. What exactly changed about the world starting in the mid-1980s? Going further back, stats show a relatively low-growth GDP from pre-historic times up until about 1750, when the industrial revolution started kicking in. However, even industrial revolution growth was at a much lower rate than we've seen in the last 25 years. Global GDP has essentially tripled in the last 25 years. No other period of time in history comes close to that level of productivity, and it's not slowing down.

[gaelic cowboy]

Prob what happened was things like reductions in tarriffs or there abolition and the common market etc etc, which released pent up demand

Or we could be more cynical and say it was the letting off the leash on the Vampire Squidy people by Reagan/Thatcher

[TinCow]

We live in a far more interconnected world (economically, socially, politically, and otherwise) and so the combined efforts of everyone counts for more in a shorter period of time.

Yep, and that connectivity itself is a product of the information revolution.

[Husar]

Certainly not, but it's still a major factor. All you need to do is look at historical global GDP:

Last 50 Years in a nice graph (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global%20gdp#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)
Older Figures in Stats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product#Historical_and_prehistorical_estimates)

As you can clearly see, global GDP significantly accelerated around the mid-1980s and keeps growing faster and faster, minus the recent financial hiccup. What exactly changed about the world starting in the mid-1980s? Going further back, stats show a relatively low-growth GDP from pre-historic times up until about 1750, when the industrial revolution started kicking in. However, even industrial revolution growth was at a much lower rate than we've seen in the last 25 years. Global GDP has essentially tripled in the last 25 years. No other period of time in history comes close to that level of productivity, and it's not slowing down.

Pff, have you never heard of the productivity paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox)?

Also IT doesn't matter (http://www.roughtype.com/?p=644). :martass:

And are the numbers with or without inflation?

[Ironside]

The same arguments were made about the industrial revolution, which increased the 'misery' level for many workers who began working in factories, and caused a significant increase in slavery in the US. Eventually our societies reacted to the problems and began to alleviate the hardshardships without removing the benefits of the technology. The information revolution isn't really any different from it's mechanical ancestor. There's a cycle that civilization goes through with developments like these and we'll adjust to compensate, likely much faster this time than previously. I do not advocate complacency; the needed changes do not come from such a stance. However, I believe doom and gloom are misplaced.

Do you agree with the basic idea though? That full production can be reached without having a large chunk of the population employed? Say when andriods takes over a large part of the service sector for a more extreme example?
Main employer sectors through history:
agriculture->industry->service ->????

[a completely inoffensive name]

All countries with a high standard of living and high rates of basic education have seen their population rates go below 2.1, the replenishment rate. The only exceptions are countries with large amounts of immigration, such as the US.

The issue of population and jobs will no longer be a problem post 2050 once the global birth rate finally hits 2.1 and starts to drop. I'm sorry we won't enjoy the good times gentlemen but have joy that your children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy it within a reasonable period of their life.

[Montmorency]

Pff, have you never heard of the productivity paradox?

As stated by another, we'll likely see it in the coming decades. Electrification's impact was felt throughout the 20th century, not so much in the late 19th.

[TinCow]

Do you agree with the basic idea though? That full production can be reached without having a large chunk of the population employed? Say when andriods takes over a large part of the service sector for a more extreme example?
Main employer sectors through history:
agriculture->industry->service ->????

The issue isn't employment, the issue is quality of life. We look at it through the filter of employment because that's the only quality of life option we have. If you're talking about the world hundreds of years in the future where androids roam our streets, then you're talking about a world so fundamentally different from where we are now that the basic relationship between employment and quality of life itself may begin to break down. Simply put, people may not have to have full-time jobs as we know them now to have a quality of life above what we have now. If everyone has an android and androids can do all your household chores, include home repair, cooking, etc., the only income a person would even need would be income sufficient to buy the supplies necessary for life, such as food, shelter, and the android itself.

It's impossible to predict what that future will look like, but yes I do think full production will be reached. The simple fact is people get bored and like to do things. Even if a large portion of the world doesn't have to work, most people still will. That work will not involve normal industrial production, but will probably focus more on creativity and intellectual pursuits, along with high-skill craftsmanship like we're seeing with the current revival of artisan-level consumer products. The history of world employment is a history of a diminishing number of people being involved in agriculture and other industries necessary to allow us to meet the physical requirements of life/civilization. As that number diminishes, the proportion of people involved in scientific and other more creative pursuits increases. With robot labor, it is theoretically possible that the entire population could eventually be on top of the employment pyramid. Unlikely IMO, but possible.

It's going to be a bumpy road to get there though.

[Papewaio]

Back to the original post. I'm old (forty this year) and started Uni at 17. Even before I started I knew the difference between a professional degree ie Medicine, Engineering or Accounting vs non professional degrees such as Marketing, Science and Arts. Arts even then was so low on the job totem poll that a B.A stood for a degree in Bugger All.

A typical inter faculty joke on campus is what does a BA ask an Enginnering Grad?
"Would you like fries with your meal?".

So it's hardly new news that without taking on postgraduate studies a lot of undergraduate degrees are not sufficient to get employment. A scientist typically has a Masters and are on their way to a Doctorate. An English Teacher is typically an English undergraduate with a Dip Ed.

In IT you are expected to study and certify in your areas of expertise. Professional development is for life and in IT you cannot stand still or you are going backwards. You should never feel comfortable with your skillset that just means you are at a plateau and need to stretch, develop, grow and learn.

It's true for most fields even food prep ... Just watch Jiro Dreams of Sushi.

[Kralizec]

nevermind

[Idaho]

The issue isn't employment, the issue is quality of life. We look at it through the filter of employment because that's the only quality of life option we have. If you're talking about the world hundreds of years in the future where androids roam our streets, then you're talking about a world so fundamentally different from where we are now that the basic relationship between employment and quality of life itself may begin to break down. Simply put, people may not have to have full-time jobs as we know them now to have a quality of life above what we have now. If everyone has an android and androids can do all your household chores, include home repair, cooking, etc., the only income a person would even need would be income sufficient to buy the supplies necessary for life, such as food, shelter, and the android itself.

It's impossible to predict what that future will look like, but yes I do think full production will be reached. The simple fact is people get bored and like to do things. Even if a large portion of the world doesn't have to work, most people still will. That work will not involve normal industrial production, but will probably focus more on creativity and intellectual pursuits, along with high-skill craftsmanship like we're seeing with the current revival of artisan-level consumer products. The history of world employment is a history of a diminishing number of people being involved in agriculture and other industries necessary to allow us to meet the physical requirements of life/civilization. As that number diminishes, the proportion of people involved in scientific and other more creative pursuits increases. With robot labor, it is theoretically possible that the entire population could eventually be on top of the employment pyramid. Unlikely IMO, but possible.

It's going to be a bumpy road to get there though.

But we have seen that people who aren't working get vilified. The super rich refuse to pay for them and spend huge amounts to undermine tax collection. Alongside this, working people are encouraged to hate them.

"I'm not paying for some lazy persons robot and food bill so they can spend their days making collages out of beer bottle tops"

The un working won't be able to spend their time on lofty, artistic pursuits because they, their forebears and progeny will live in the crappy end of town with the highest concentration of bottle shops and the worst equipped, overcrowded schools.

[TinCow]

But we have seen that people who aren't working get vilified. The super rich refuse to pay for them and spend huge amounts to undermine tax collection. Alongside this, working people are encouraged to hate them.

"I'm not paying for some lazy persons robot and food bill so they can spend their days making collages out of beer bottle tops"

The un working won't be able to spend their time on lofty, artistic pursuits because they, their forebears and progeny will live in the crappy end of town with the highest concentration of bottle shops and the worst equipped, overcrowded schools.

Today, yes... but only to an extent. However, I was talking about Ironside's hypothetical future with androids, not today. The very definition of what qualifies as working/lazy changes as a product of our time. Roll us back 200 years and working 50 hours a week would be seen as rather lackadaisical by many in the industrial working classes. Does that mean people who work 50 hours a week now are lazy? In addition, during the same time period many wealthy individuals actively looked down upon 'work' as we think of it today. Does that mean all our wealthy individuals today are uncultured brutes?

In addition, I believe you're exaggerating today's situation a bit as well. The super rich are not a monotheistic bloc that wear monocles and complain about the quality of the help these days. Certainly some are like that, but not even close to all of them. There's as much of a division on the issue amongst the rich as there is amongst the middle-class. I'd even go so far as to say that it's the upper-middle class that's pushing the anti-socialism agenda more than anything else. It's the people who feel like they've got a shot at being super rich who don't like the idea of that money being siphoned away from them. Many of the actual super rich don't tend to get too ruffled by the idea that they'll have to pay an extra 5% tax, because it wouldn't impact their lifestyles at all. If all the super rich were bankrolling one side of this argument, it wouldn't be such a tightly contested issue. There's a lot of money on both sides because there are many wealthy individuals who support higher taxes and greater social services.

[Kralizec]

The super rich are not a monotheistic bloc that wear monocles and complain about the quality of the help these days.

They don't believe in a single God? Kill the infidels!

I know you meant monolithic ~;)

[Idaho]

In addition, I believe you're exaggerating today's situation a bit as well. The super rich are not a (monolithic) bloc that wear monocles and complain about the quality of the help these days.

Hehe - It's not about monocles and top hats and dining at Raffles. It's simple causation:

- Rich people get rich by caring a lot about making money - yeah? With me? You don't get rich unless you are good at accumulating money.
- As a rich person you not only have lots of money, but your intent is to make more. Those billionaires didn't stop at £2m and then spend the rest of their lives fishing and making bottle top collages.
- Now you are rich, you now have huge resources to devote to making political changes so you can make more money. You don't just sit back and let the electorate decide. You fund parties. You join parties. Hell you *are* the political parties most of the time! Our cabinet are all millionaires. Your political system is stuffed just as full (if not fuller) with rich people.

That's it. From here on in, the majority of decisions are made with first reference to these elites. They don't have to dress the same - they don't even have to know each other (and yet they often do - our politicians are always cosying up to our super rich.) Decisions are made either by, or with reference to the interests of these rich people. We have given our planet to a strata of the population who are effective at accumulating money, and their number one priority is to make more money. How long do think that will work out?

[Montmorency]

How convenient, just the place to regurgitate this Twitter effluence!


Democracy: Form of governance where the wealthy purchase laws instead of votes.

[Idaho]

Just saw the Chuck Hagel thread. Didn't read it, but thought I would Wikipedia him to get an idea of the kinds of politicians you americans get:


Charles Timothy "Chuck" Hagel (born October 4, 1946)[3] is an American politician who was a United States Senator from Nebraska from 1997 to 2009.
A recipient of two Purple Hearts while an infantry squad leader in the Vietnam War, Hagel returned home to start careers in business and politics. He co-founded Vanguard Cellular, the primary source of his personal wealth, and served as president of the McCarthy Group, an investment banking firm, and CEO of American Information Systems Inc., a computerized voting machine manufacturer. A member of the Republican Party, Hagel was first elected to the Senate in 1996. He was reelected in 2002, and retired in 2008. Hagel is currently a professor at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, chairman of the Atlantic Council, and co-chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. He also serves on a number of boards of directors, including that of Chevron Corporation.

I don't think I could have invented a better example of the blend of money and politics.

And there are people out there obsessing about pyramids and lizards and other conspiraloonery, and the elephant in the room is the elephant in the room.

[Greyblades]

On the other hand, if those of lower income had the influence the super rich enjoy we would find them using the system to become super rich and/or the government will have little interest in affairs outside thier own borders that dont directly affect them. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on your point of view, personally I find niether option of rich or poor being in control appealing.

[Greyblades]

The solution is a balanced, rational population that takes a serious interest in their civic duties.

Pity we dont have that, and the current system making people like me stop caring enough to do anything isn't helping.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Pity we dont have that, and the current system making people like me stop caring enough to do anything isn't helping.

No one makes you stop caring, that's entirely your decision.

[Greyblades]

No one makes you stop caring, that's entirely your decision.

Yes it is, and with all the problems and stress I'm already facing I'm choosing to not add more trying to change things on a more-than-local-level like the rest of the plebs. Besides, I wouldnt know what to do if I did care, and the news makes me think noone does.

[Montmorency]

with all the problems and stress I'm already facing I'm choosing to not add more

On the other hand, perhaps it's a choice between more work now, less problems later, and less work now, more problems later: civic engagement, that is.

Of course, instant gratification is always the best bet: hopefully one will be dead by the time it's not. :wink:

[Greyblades]

Again
I wouldnt know what to do if I did care, and the news makes me think noone does. We might as well spend the time developing time travel seeing how clear the starting point isn't.

[Husar]

The solution is a balanced, rational population that takes a serious interest in their civic duties. We can't blame the rich for doing what they've always done. This is an era where ignorance should be eradicated, and yet... :shrug:

This is a very good point. However, there is the problem that the "poor" have to coordinate a lot more than the rich to make an impact, e.g. if one person boycots a company the impact is usually negligible. And this feeling of not being able to make an impact demoralizes them. Doesn't help that, as TinCow said, a large part of the "poor" support the rich and the system that made them rich because they selfishly want to get there themselves. Studies have shown that people, if given the choice of 200$ for them and the other guy or 150$ for them and 100$ for the other guy, would choose option two because it sets them above the other guy. We do get good education but part of the education is that we're told, at least I was, that we all have to compete with eachother and the rest of the world (globalization) about the same few jobs. Poor people cannot turn down badly paid jobs because they are forced to take them or lose everything, the market is incredibly one-sided and people are pretty egoistic at the moment. People are even critical of the EU and would rather just have local governments despite the EU being the only thing that actually reigns in on huge multinational corporations. Corporations that can bend the market as they wish, that can just run to other governments which opportunistically offer them better conditions and cheaper "slaves". There really wouldn't be that many issues with corporations if the peasants were to stop threatening eachother over petty ideas such as lines we call borders because for corporations they hardly exist anymore (except if they can use them to their advantage) and that is why they are superior over the little man. Another way to explain it would also be the greek crisis that may not have happened had the EU been more fiscally united, integrated and standardized for a longer time.
As for people 200 years ago who worked 80 hours a week and would think 50 are lazy, they also paid a high price for doing and thinking that, most of them never became as old as we do now.
And then I wanted to support the idea that not all rich people are evil, compare Depardieu and Bill Gates. One runs to Russia, calling it a great democracy, the other invests 95% or so of his huuuuuge fortune into helping the poor. In this respect it's also worth noting that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never really hated eachother, yet their customers do. It shows a fundamentally different approach to life and business IMO, people create enemies yet again and the rich guys just used that to sell them more stuff (think of the Apple ads with the PC). The problem aren't just the rich people, even though I agree that noone really needs to become that rich in the first place.

Humans are flawed I guess, I wonder whether I'm the first to have that thought. :rolleyes:

[Idaho]

The solution is a balanced, rational population that takes a serious interest in their civic duties. We can't blame the rich for doing what they've always done. This is an era where ignorance should be eradicated, and yet... :shrug:
The first priority must be to provide universal, high quality education.

[Strike For The South]

The first priority must be to provide universal, high quality education.

Education is for people who believe in evolution

[Idaho]

You don't believe in theories. You use them or disprove them..

[Strike For The South]

You don't believe in theories. You use them or disprove them..

Semantics, once again, a game for liberals.

[Idaho]

Semantics, once again, a game for liberals.

Yeah, the precise meaning of words never matters. Especially not in law, religion or politics.

[Greyblades]

It is rather important, I just sat through a debate on whether or not madness counts as a mental illness, the debatees were unable to decide on a single definition of madness for the entire hour.