Org Mobile Site
An interesting discourse that ties in a bit with what Strike is talking about:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/...od_stamps.html
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/...od_stamps.html
Originally Posted by :
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.
CRFirst, 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.
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
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
I majored in chemical engineering. I think that's in the top, 'realism' wise, if we are talking about realism as job opportunities.
CR
Originally Posted by :
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.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.\
CR
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 =)
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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. 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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
This doesn't hold water, unfortunately.
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.This doesn't hold water, unfortunately.
Yeah yeah, sure. But...
Check out page 20 in that report:
1st-Gen (1987): 26%
Non-1stGen (1987): 20.8%
1st-Gen (2005): 22.2%
Non-1stGen (2005): 15%
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.
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.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I am currently majoring in chemical engineering.
Awesome!I am currently majoring in chemical engineering.
Originally Posted by :
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. 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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
CR
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?
Simply put, are we in a situation with excess of university students or is it a relocation problem?
Originally Posted by :
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?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?"
Originally Posted by :
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.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 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.
Originally Posted by :
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.but instead they choose to feel entitled to $200/month from the rest of us salarymen.
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?
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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).
Originally Posted by 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?
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.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?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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. Also, two big thumbs up for those who said they were, or studying to be, chemical engineers.
Excuse me while I chew on my bio-carrot sitting by my campfire, my hamster is tired of powering the computer...
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Yeah, they're only poisoning our food, destroying our environment and most likely killing us all in the end.
Excuse me while I chew on my bio-carrot sitting by my campfire, my hamster is tired of powering the computer...
Yeah, they're only poisoning our food, destroying our environment and most likely killing us all in the end.
Excuse me while I chew on my bio-carrot sitting by my campfire, my hamster is tired of powering the computer...
CR
Attached:
1631strip.gif
(34.7 KB)
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
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.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.
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 and link. I recommend reading both.
Edit: It appears I unconsciously ninja'd Rhy's post and link. I recommend reading both.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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 and link. 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. 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 and link. I recommend reading both.
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.
Idaho, your posts remind me of that song "Luddite" from "Horrible Histories".
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Idaho, your posts remind me of that song "Luddite" from "Horrible Histories".
I haven't heard it. Idaho, your posts remind me of that song "Luddite" from "Horrible Histories".
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.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO