Gen Y most likely to hold low-paying jobs in retai

[Jhhnn]

And many more don't get married and then demand men support them anyway.

She, Obamacare, which forces men to subsidize women's healthcare.

What happened to not depending on a man? 😕

Your implication is that only men pay, and somehow not working women. Yet you seem perfectly willing for men to pay exclusively, but only so long as they're in charge in a marital arrangement. Perhaps the majority of men don't see it your way, either, with many preferring independence themselves.

So equality means whatever you want. And there is no reason a housewife cannot be an equal.

I never said otherwise.

or in other words

Is BS.

Heh. Just because you see it that way doesn't mean that women do.

You suggest that a man should let his wife work, because otherwise she will divorce him and take his money. How is that not clearly suggesting women are not capable of commitment?

Use of the term "let" is revealing, and the rest is another strawman representation of what I offered. Child support to the custodial parent is a feature of nearly all divorce, while alimony applies to divorced women who stayed home rather than working.

 

[nehalem256]

Use of the term "let" is revealing, and the rest is another strawman representation of what I offered. Child support to the custodial parent is a feature of nearly all divorce, while alimony applies to divorced women who stayed home rather than working.

Actually the disturbing thing is that you that you think a woman should be able to run off with a man's children and then demand money from him just because she feels like it.

 

[nehalem256]

Your implication is that only men pay, and somehow not working women. Yet you seem perfectly willing for men to pay exclusively, but only so long as they're in charge in a marital arrangement. Perhaps the majority of men don't see it your way, either, with many preferring independence themselves.

Where have said anything about a man being in charge. Other than that it is men that should be working?

People are free to be independent if they choose. So long as they are willing to bear the consequences of that choice. Unfortunately from looking at reality it appears that women, largely, are unable or unwilling to bear those consequences.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

It's funny, the people who caused the 2008 crash aren't running for office.

http://freekvermeulen.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-really-caused-2008-banking-crisis.html

And I quote:

Various explanations have been offered for each of these crises, ranging from top management greed, failing watchdogs to insufficient government regulation and inappropriate accounting and governance structures. Yet, there is one common cause underlying all these symptoms and triggers, and that is the structural failure of management.

OK, a failure of management means that all those guys that you revere and hold up as being masters of business are the ones who fucked the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010

And I quote:

Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[17] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report asserted that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[18] Two factors that have been frequently cited include the liberal use of the Gaussian copula function and the failure to track data provenance.[19] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[20] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets

These same business leaders paid off the ratings agencies to falsify their ratings for these high risk financial products, and then turned around and bet against them behind the scenes. Once again, a huge failure in leadership.

http://factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

Quote:

The Real Deal



So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
■The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
■Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
■Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
■Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
■The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
■Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
■Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
■Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
■The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
■An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
■Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

What you see here is a failure of consumers to stop consuming, something we are basically trained not to do from childhood in this country, but mostly it was a huge failure in leadership. While they blame the Clinton admin, and rightly so, what Clinton did was a non-partisan move to gain support from the right (repealing Glass-Steigel) and many people claim it actually softened the blow of the crash. What Clinton certainly did do wrong was push for downpayment assistance and lenient credit requirements, which put a lot of short credit people into houses....a dangerous game. The problem with that is they were trying to help the economy, which is what we all want, however misguided they might have been.

Now, here is the interesting part. The Bush admin is cited as having failed to provide the needed oversight in the market. When these high risk loans were being passed off as AAA rated securities, the Bush admin should have stepped in and put a stop to it. So, why did they not do so?

It's very simple actually. The people "in the know" were betting on this to fail. It's the biggest case of insider trading the world has ever seen and it made lots of people filthy rich. The day the market crashed, multiple TRILLIONS of dollars were made by those still unnamed people who had put in bets against these financial institutions. And who do you think made those bets? The only people it could be are those who knew the ratings agencies were passing bad ratings, the people who were supposed to be providing oversight on this market to protect us in the Bush administration, and the people who clearly profitted from this collapse...such as Goldman-Sachs, who has a revolving door from their top level executive department to our national treasury positions in Washington.

It is clear that this is where the smoke is smoldering. The Bush administration, most likely on purpose, did not protect us from the predatory lending practices and now you want me to vote in more Repub crooks to office? You have to be out of your God damned mind.

Now you can write another sentence that levels my entire factual essay (in your own ideaologically propagandized mind) and pretend that you're right, as usual, or you can finally choose to really WAKE UP.

***I just want to ammend this by saying that, while that last sentence may be a bit harsh, you're about the only staunch right winger I have any discussion with in this forum Matt. The reason for that is you do seem like a reasonable guy, and I think you see that a lot of what I am saying is not opinion but an obvious fact. I've just gotten frustrated with your recent posting habits of laying out one liner blanket party statements that only question everything I just spend considerable time writing up for everyones' consideration. The only reason I vote Dem right now is that I am scared to death that voting in another Repub might force my kids to grow up the way my grandparents did, not because I think the Dems are right on everything.

 

[nehalem256]

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

...

Now, here is the interesting part. The Bush admin is cited as having failed to provide the needed oversight in the market. When these high risk loans were being passed off as AAA rated securities, the Bush admin should have stepped in and put a stop to it. So, why did they not do so?

...

It is clear that this is where the smoke is smoldering. The Bush administration, most likely on purpose, did not protect us from the predatory lending practices and now you want me to vote in more Repub crooks to office? You have to be out of your God damned mind.

Now you can write another sentence that levels my entire factual essay (in your own ideaologically propagandized mind) and pretend that you're right, as usual, or you can finally choose to really WAKE UP.

Do you see the inherent conflict between the bolded and your commentary on the Bush administration?

 

[soccerballtux]

I wonder how the younger generations, often underemployed and burdened with student loans, are supposed to be able to afford to purchase houses. That makes me wonder whether the housing market will eventually crash. Maybe houses will return to being something that's passed on from generation to generation.

yup that's why I'm not buying a house unless I can get a killer deal. The whole "sign up for 30 years of payments" is absolutely retarded. A lot of things can happen in 30 years.

 

[soccerballtux]

So true, Im fresh out of school and certified and I cant even find a job bagging groceries. Sucks for me since I just got a 460$ bill for some fucking bloodwork.

what kind of bloodwork? ask next time that you're paying cash, if they have a cash discount. I have heard they will tend to charge you as much or less than the agreed upon insurance rate, which is much lower than the straight up quoted price. They will do this because they don't have to deal with the insurance company's shens.

 

[soccerballtux]

I just want to pass on that this is a total fallacy passed down through the ranks by the older generation of people running things. People in America are, generally, less lazy than previous generations but the people pulling the strings pass this false belief down to justify thier lowering of wages and hiring illegals so they can stuff more money in their own pockets.

It is typical corporate propaganda.

The real problem lies much more heavily with #2 of your statement. Why would anyone risk their lives and long term health for pay that wouldn't even put you in the lower middle class in today's economy. While I appreciate and respect what you do, and the toll it takes, I do think many people over 40 have bought into the corporate propaganda spread by the offshoring leaders of this country's economy that you have spent your lives working under.

This goes back to the point everyone here keeps ignoring that I keep pushing into all these discussions. Economic leaders (i.e. business owners, upper management, et al) say that Americans are lazy, unproductive, unreliable, and costly for a reason. That reason, which should be clearly evident to all of you by now, is so they can put more money in their pocket by sending your labor (for a fraction of the "cost") to a country that promotes slave labor like China. It's just common sense.

+1 this.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Gen Y most likely to hold low-paying jobs in retail

This isn't hard to believe based on this fact more people today get college degrees than did say 20+ years ago. The problem is the positions for college educated personnel hasn't grown at the same rate so there's no other choice than to take jobs below their education.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually the disturbing thing is that you that you think a woman should be able to run off with a man's children and then demand money from him just because she feels like it.

Children of divorced parents need to live somewhere, and that's usually with their mother, by tradition.

Where have said anything about a man being in charge. Other than that it is men that should be working?

People are free to be independent if they choose. So long as they are willing to bear the consequences of that choice. Unfortunately from looking at reality it appears that women, largely, are unable or unwilling to bear those consequences.

"Let" indicates dominance & control, despite your obfuscation.

 

[soccerballtux]

http://freekvermeulen.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-really-caused-2008-banking-crisis.html

And I quote:

Various explanations have been offered for each of these crises, ranging from top management greed, failing watchdogs to insufficient government regulation and inappropriate accounting and governance structures. Yet, there is one common cause underlying all these symptoms and triggers, and that is the structural failure of management.

OK, a failure of management means that all those guys that you revere and hold up as being masters of business are the ones who fucked the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010

And I quote:

Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[17] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report asserted that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[18] Two factors that have been frequently cited include the liberal use of the Gaussian copula function and the failure to track data provenance.[19] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[20] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets

These same business leaders paid off the ratings agencies to falsify their ratings for these high risk financial products, and then turned around and bet against them behind the scenes. Once again, a huge failure in leadership.

http://factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

Quote:

The Real Deal



So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
■The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
■Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
■Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
■Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
■The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
■Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
■Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
■Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
■The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
■An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
■Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

What you see here is a failure of consumers to stop consuming, something we are basically trained not to do from childhood in this country, but mostly it was a huge failure in leadership. While they blame the Clinton admin, and rightly so, what Clinton did was a non-partisan move to gain support from the right (repealing Glass-Steigel) and many people claim it actually softened the blow of the crash. What Clinton certainly did do wrong was push for downpayment assistance and lenient credit requirements, which put a lot of short credit people into houses....a dangerous game. The problem with that is they were trying to help the economy, which is what we all want, however misguided they might have been.

Now, here is the interesting part. The Bush admin is cited as having failed to provide the needed oversight in the market. When these high risk loans were being passed off as AAA rated securities, the Bush admin should have stepped in and put a stop to it. So, why did they not do so?

It's very simple actually. The people "in the know" were betting on this to fail. It's the biggest case of insider trading the world has ever seen and it made lots of people filthy rich. The day the market crashed, multiple TRILLIONS of dollars were made by those still unnamed people who had put in bets against these financial institutions. And who do you think made those bets? The only people it could be are those who knew the ratings agencies were passing bad ratings, the people who were supposed to be providing oversight on this market to protect us in the Bush administration, and the people who clearly profitted from this collapse...such as Goldman-Sachs, who has a revolving door from their top level executive department to our national treasury positions in Washington.

It is clear that this is where the smoke is smoldering. The Bush administration, most likely on purpose, did not protect us from the predatory lending practices and now you want me to vote in more Repub crooks to office? You have to be out of your God damned mind.

Now you can write another sentence that levels my entire factual essay (in your own ideaologically propagandized mind) and pretend that you're right, as usual, or you can finally choose to really WAKE UP.

***I just want to ammend this by saying that, while that last sentence may be a bit harsh, you're about the only staunch right winger I have any discussion with in this forum Matt. The reason for that is you do seem like a reasonable guy, and I think you see that a lot of what I am saying is not opinion but an obvious fact. I've just gotten frustrated with your recent posting habits of laying out one liner blanket party statements that only question everything I just spend considerable time writing up for everyones' consideration. The only reason I vote Dem right now is that I am scared to death that voting in another Repub might force my kids to grow up the way my grandparents did, not because I think the Dems are right on everything.

I don't think they were betting on it to fail, I think they were too happy with the merry-go-round of money to half the self-discipline to do the right thing.

We had the legislation in place to prevent this, the Glass-Steagall act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act
It was passed after Black Tuesday 1929 to prevent financial entities from being both the granter and the seller of loans. It was repealed in 1999 by Clinton, with Bush's approval (after he had been elected but not taken office yet). It took less than 10 years for this to catch up to us.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Do you see the inherent conflict between the bolded and your commentary on the Bush administration?

All it would have taken to avoid the actual collapse is the required oversight of the people in charge at the time this was all taking place, namely the early to mid 2000's. While it is a conglomerate of issues that made this necessary, it is the single act that could have saved us. So, why did the people charged with providing oversight on the ratings, banking, and mortgage agencies not provide the oversight necessary to prevent this disaster?

There could only be one reason, they were in on the bet to fail. Instead, they allowed these banks to pay off the ratings agencies, who raked in huge bonuses for passing off these high risk loans as AAA securities...and never bothered to oversee the ratings and determine they were falsified AAA ratings on high risk loans.

It's not rocket science, I'm sure you understand what that means.

 

[nehalem256]

Children of divorced parents need to live somewhere, and that's usually with their mother, by tradition.

Wrong that was actually something that women fought for in the mid 1800s

Interesting that the divorce rate went up after that :hmm:

But if we are going to go based on tradition you cant just leave your husband because you feel like either. Seems like you, at most, only want to keep part of the tradition.

And again do you think it is alright for women to take a man's children from him and demand he give her money just because she feels like it?

"Let" indicates dominance & control, despite your obfuscation.

I have no interest in having to force a woman not to work. I would simply not marry one who is interested in having a career. That seems the logical way to approach things.

 

[Texashiker]

This isn't hard to believe based on this fact more people today get college degrees than did say 20+ years ago. The problem is the positions for college educated personnel hasn't grown at the same rate so there's no other choice than to take jobs below their education.

The job market is not expanding to accommodate the growing influx of college educated people.

How many lawyers do we need?
How many teachers do we need?
How many engineers do we need?

Our roads are falling into decay, our infrastructure is not being upgraded. I saw a report today that said about 19 million U.S. citizens can not get broadband internet.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/23/0329218/19-million-americans-cannot-get-broadband-access

How is the economy supposed to grow when we can not provide basic 21st century services to people.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

And again do you think it is alright for women to take a man's children from him and demand he give her money just because she feels like it?

While I completely disagree with most of what you said, this is the one point you keep bringing up that I certainly do not disagree with. Fathers should have a right to councel and a fair defense in these civil manners.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The job market is not expanding to accommodate the growing influx of college educated people.

How many lawyers do we need?
How many teachers do we need?
How many engineers do we need?

Our roads are falling into decay, our infrastructure is not being upgraded. I saw a report today that said about 19 million U.S. citizens can not get broadband internet.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/23/0329218/19-million-americans-cannot-get-broadband-access

How is the economy supposed to grow when we can not provide basic 21st century services to people.

Exactly how is the economy supposed to grow by providing broadband access to rural areas of the US? More internet sales versus B&M stores?

There may be some areas in the US where the roads and infrastructure is falling into decay but that's not the case in many areas of Texas, specially the southeastern Texas.

 

[Texashiker]

Exactly how is the economy supposed to grow by providing broadband access to rural areas of the US? More internet sales versus B&M stores?

Construction jobs, by laying fiber cable, upgrading decades old phone lines that have been buried since world war II.

You give people jobs that make the cable, transport the cable, bury the cable,,,, all the way to the customers home. Then you have people buying network equipment to wire their home, or they buy wireless routers.

You are looking at years, maybe decades worth of work just laying fiber to rural areas.

There is so much work out there that needs to be done, and not just with internet. Our bridges are falling apart as well. But nobody has to money.

The interstate 10 bridge going into Beaumont is falling apart. Sooner or later it will have to be replaced.

 

[diesbudt]

The job market is not expanding to accommodate the growing influx of college educated people.

How many lawyers do we need?
How many teachers do we need?
How many engineers do we need?

Our roads are falling into decay, our infrastructure is not being upgraded. I saw a report today that said about 19 million U.S. citizens can not get broadband internet.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/23/0329218/19-million-americans-cannot-get-broadband-access

How is the economy supposed to grow when we can not provide basic 21st century services to people.

Lawyers and teachers, it is true there is much more supply than the country demands. It seems everyone I know wants to be one of those 2 or a psycologist. I blame TV for making them seem much more fun/glorious then they really.

However, engineers surprisenly enough there is not enough of. (If you add in each branch of engineering). There are holes being filled by skill trade 2 year people who learn it on the job to fill these gaps.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Lawyers and teachers, it is true there is much more supply than the country demands. It seems everyone I know wants to be one of those 2 or a psycologist. I blame TV for making them seem much more fun/glorious then they really.

However, engineers surprisenly enough there is not enough of. (If you add in each branch of engineering). There are holes being filled by skill trade 2 year people who learn it on the job to fill these gaps.

That is because the people who are smart enough to be engineers go into Wall Street instead to make tons more money. Even China is laughing at us for that one.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Construction jobs, by laying fiber cable, upgrading decades old phone lines that have been buried since world war II.

You give people jobs that make the cable, transport the cable, bury the cable,,,, all the way to the customers home. Then you have people buying network equipment to wire their home, or they buy wireless routers.

You are looking at years, maybe decades worth of work just laying fiber to rural areas.

There is so much work out there that needs to be done, and not just with internet. Our bridges are falling apart as well. But nobody has to money.

The interstate 10 bridge going into Beaumont is falling apart. Sooner or later it will have to be replaced.

Most if not all fiber optics cable is made outside the US, of course transporting the cable will help some truckers. You need to have skilled and willing workers to dig the trenches, lay the cable, and then terminate the cables. As you said you choose not to weld because it doesn't pay enough.

As for the bridge on I-10 in Beaumont I suspect it will be rebuilt in the future. They revamped two bridges (service road) and built two more (main lanes) on highway 59 heading from Sugar Land to Richmond/Rosenberg in the last few years.

 

[Saint Nick]

No thanks, I'd rather preserve my back than destroy it....😀



...or white-collar, chair ranger work.

Lol, working in an office does not automatically make you lazy.

 

[nehalem256]

That is because the people who are smart enough to be engineers go into Wall Street instead to make tons more money. Even China is laughing at us for that one.

Yep. What a waste of talent. That instead of improving society our best and brightest work to destroy it.

EDIT: The government needs to work to remove incentives to working on Wall Street.

 

[diesbudt]

While I completely disagree with most of what you said, this is the one point you keep bringing up that I certainly do not disagree with. Fathers should have a right to councel and a fair defense in these civil manners.

Yes. Sadly the courts and a good portion of women on the divorce, or seperation (if not married) seem to always "win".

They can claim abuse, and give some absurd story or w/e with minimum evidence and win. Men cant. Double standard out there my friends.

 

[diesbudt]

That is because the people who are smart enough to be engineers go into Wall Street instead to make tons more money. Even China is laughing at us for that one.

I didn't I love science. So I double majored into Chemical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.

But yea. People see "oo easy money, and I can be an asshole to earn it!"

Lawyers are the worst.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes. Sadly the courts and a good portion of women on the divorce, or seperation (if not married) seem to always "win".

They can claim abuse, and give some absurd story or w/e with minimum evidence and win. Men cant. Double standard out there my friends.

It goes beyond that. A woman can leave a man and take his kids away from him even without claiming abuse.. and then demand the man give her money.

Imagine if a man tried pulling that.