How much do you think US citizens should earn

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What makes you believe you should be entitled to make more money just because you went to college?

Because college is a significant investment of one's own time and money, and mainly for the purpose of getting a return on that investment. For the time I am spending going to college right now I could be working 40-hour weeks and making a lot more money in the short-term, and spending a lot less on tuition, books and other expenses. However, because I have class and homework, I don't have the ability to do that (I work part-time, but certainly I could be working a lot more if I didn't have college)

Also, not being elitist here, but college students demonstrate (in most cases) their mental ability to complete higher levels of education, and they learn skills that employers find valuable. Not saying that people who only finish high school aren't capable; but they just, in most cases, haven't formally demonstrated this.

Nobody is "entitled" to more money just because of the fact that they did something...but if because of their investment, they learn skills that will make them more marketable and valuable in the workforce, employers will want to pay them a higher amount of money because they believe that college-educated people will, in turn, generate more revenue for the company than a person without a college education would.

All good points but it still doesn't explain why they should feel entitled to make more. FYI I was adressing this statement by steppinthrax:

I also believe people who don't go for higher ed or some sort of upper learning shouln't make as much as those who do. It's not rewarding to those who put 4yrs down for a degree to find those who didn't put down the equvialent to be above them.

If someone without a degree generates more revenue than someone with a degree why should the person with a degree deserve to earn more money?




.

Wheather you like it or not it is happening and is a true fact. Statically all over the board people with H.S. diplomas make more then people without. People with B.S. degrees make more then those with H.S. diplomas and so on. So whatever you personal opinion about a person?s income with a degree might be. Across the board they make more.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
K-12 teacher - Unless they improve their teaching methods and stop taking shortcuts with our kids that cause them to not learn anything. Around 24K (What they are making now). Teachers who go the extra mile and are known to be very good at teaching and love their work, Around 30 to 40K. Considering a teacher only requires a B.S. degree and a teaching cert.

CEO - They run a sucessfull company they should make good money (200K and up). Too much money will make them corrupt.

US autoworker - Considering he didn't go to college and is a standerd labor worker I would say around 20K.

US congressman - 80K

Domestic worker - When you mean domestic I'm asuming your meaning cleaning etc. Around 15K

I'm 24 years old. I recently graduated with a B.S. in computer Science. I'm currently working on my M.S. I'm a system's analyst I currently make around 50 a year (been working 11 mos so far).

One thing I do believe though is that you should make enough money to earn a living wage. However a living wage is subject to where you actually would be living. 5.15 an hour won't cut it in D.C but may cut it in Alabama or somwhere cheap. I also believe people who don't go for higher ed or some sort of upper learning shouln't make as much as those who do. It's not rewarding to those who put 4yrs down for a degree to find those who didn't put down the equvialent to be above them. With the exception that they somehow got into the industry with proven experience or a brilliant Idea. A lot of people talk about no child left behind and all of this BS. In many foreign counteries if you don't have a degree of some sort you have no chance in hell to get a job. It's not that way in the United States. Unfortunatley people know this and don't apply themselves. Thinking that if they put down the min they can get by. They discover later then it wasen't a good idea.

What makes you believe you should be entitled to make more money just because you went to college?

People who go to college took the extra mile to better themselves. If you go to college for enlightenment that is your personal quest. However if you go to college to enter into a career field you will more likely make more then people who didn't. That is a proven statistical fact as in my case. I would of never got my foot though the door if it wasen't for my degree. People who get certs (MCSE, CCNA etc..) are also good. The world is all about solving problems. People that have a degree of some sort tend to have a different level of thinking and reasoning skills internally for solving a problem that is unlike people who don't. Mainly your not hired for that if anything else. Work experience of course trumps degrees. However, that may not always be the case.

What about people who get college degrees in art / music / recreation / etc.. and then try to pursue jobs unrelated to their education? Should they make more money because they have "A college degree", even though it is basically worthless in regards to most jobs on the job market?

Degrees in art, science, music etc are not career oriented degrees but are more/less for your own personal enlightenment. However again those who go into those fields must take general courses like those who obtain a Biology degree or Engineering degree. If you expect to do well (financially) with these degrees it may be a problem. However, that is not always the case. The president of a community college I used to work at had a PhD. in music. I believe though people who go to college for anything cause you to change the way you think (critically) and execute decisions. The way you reason and work out problems is quite different then those who don?t. More/less when you are hired for a company based on your degree a lot of the times you are hired for this. The course work you do that pertains to your degree is often not similar to what that job title requires. That is why employers will often put even a degreed person though training.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
K-12 teacher - Unless they improve their teaching methods and stop taking shortcuts with our kids that cause them to not learn anything. Around 24K (What they are making now). Teachers who go the extra mile and are known to be very good at teaching and love their work, Around 30 to 40K. Considering a teacher only requires a B.S. degree and a teaching cert.

You have an incorrect picture of modern teaching requirements (and flaws) in most areas.

Most primary teachers can get away with an initial BA and cert, but they do require perpetual schooling as well. After 20-30 years it's the equivalent of about another BA/BS or a Masters.

Secondary teachers almost always require a degree in every subject they teach (to be 'highly qualified' as per requirement in NCLB and many states besides), plus their teaching certificate, plus a Masters within 5 years of teaching, and then a lifetime of additional classes which is about another BA/BS or Masters.

Here's an example in Washington State. A person going for their BS in Computer Science and then on to a MBA would need a total of about 156 credits. A person who is only going to get endorsed to teach in one field (something which cripples their marketability) would usually get a Bachelors in their field (lets say History), plus their content area endorsement requirements, then their Masters in Ed or their Masters in Teaching - for a total of 173-221 credits. Most teachers are now starting out double endorsed in order to increase marketability, so add another Bachelors to those credits. And remember that they'll earn the equivalent of another one over a 30 year career. Now, I'm not trying to compare the difficulty of my intro to SE Asian cultures with an upper division CS or EE class, but they all cost the same and they all take time...so a teacher is going to spending half again as much time and money getting their degrees as is someone in another field.

I won't even dignify you blaming solely teachers (instead of including administration, beauracracy, socio-economic impacts, culture, etc) with a lengthy response. I will simply say this...if there was a business that the government severely over-regulated without relying on expert research, and the business sold a product or provided a service that was belittled or scoffed at by our culture, and the investors would not provide the funding to meet their goals, and the board and CEO had little or no training in a field relating to the business while mandating draconian controls and micro-managing of every possible facet of the business, and no consumer had any respect for the business, it's product, or it's workers - would you blame only the worker on the assembly line for the failure of that business?

A teacher has no right to attribute how they teach with what happened or is happening outside of their classroom. Teachers nowadays don?t teach anything. They take shortcuts with the hard subjects that require abstract thinking and rely on technology to teach. I give you an example:

I was tutoring a group of math students who were doing basic statistics (mean, mode, median etc?). I was going over some problems that their teacher gave them. 1. Find the average of the following numbers. You know what the student did. He opened up his calculator and started typing in each and every number. Push a button and got everything he needed.

I was dumbfounded, not at the fact that it?s possible but at the fact that he is doing this. I asked him why is he doing it this way. He replied, because our teacher told us. As a matter of fact this teacher teaches the students to use their calculator for the most part for everything. Now, here is the question, HOW IN THE HELL DO THE STUDENTS UNDERSTAND THE FULL CONCEPT OF WHAT IS GOING ON. If I were to take the calculator away and ask what is the median, mode, mean. They don?t even know the concept of it let along know how to find it. Because they relied on a tool that does things behind the scenes. I understand that you could define this as busy work. However for 4th and 5th graders they need to understand the basic concepts. If they don?t when they move up into higher levels they will fail because the upper level maths are based on this.

I understand that it happens, but in my experiences it's the exception, not the norm. I apologize if I came down harshly about this issue. The person who inspired me to become a teacher just passed away yesterday and I'm especially sensitive about it right now.

And yes, what happens outside the classroom matters far more than what happens inside it. Every study has supported this, as has every train of logical argument. Not that teachers can't make a difference, one direction or another, but they don't teach in a vacuum.

 

[dmcowen674]

Sorry, teachers are a service just like manufacturing hamburgers on an assembly line (in this case pushing kids through grades), they should be under the same classification of the Federally mandated $2.13 hr.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Sorry, teachers are a service just like manufacturing hamburgers on an assembly line (in this case pushing kids through grades), they should be under the same classification of the Federally mandated $2.13 hr.

As long as you're fine turning your kids over to that. Personally I prefer to see them as something else entirely.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Sorry, teachers are a service just like manufacturing hamburgers on an assembly line (in this case pushing kids through grades), they should be under the same classification of the Federally mandated $2.13 hr.

gee, ya, that would sure encourage higher standards in education... where the hell do you come up with this sh*t?!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Sorry, teachers are a service just like manufacturing hamburgers on an assembly line (in this case pushing kids through grades), they should be under the same classification of the Federally mandated $2.13 hr.

gee, ya, that would sure encourage higher standards in education... where the hell do you come up with this sh*t?!

NCLB, teaching real subject matter was dropped in favor of brainwashing to pass a test.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Sorry, teachers are a service just like manufacturing hamburgers on an assembly line (in this case pushing kids through grades), they should be under the same classification of the Federally mandated $2.13 hr.

ROFL. You get more loony everyday. I really wonder sometimes what you are smoking; or maybe you just got some better stuff today 😉.

Teachers deserve to get a heck of a lot more than they actually get in most places. The school district in my hometown has teachers topping out around 85-90k, which is very good, but that is not reflective of the majority of teachers nationwide. Overall, teachers need a raise across the board.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
K-12 teacher - Unless they improve their teaching methods and stop taking shortcuts with our kids that cause them to not learn anything. Around 24K (What they are making now). Teachers who go the extra mile and are known to be very good at teaching and love their work, Around 30 to 40K. Considering a teacher only requires a B.S. degree and a teaching cert.

You have an incorrect picture of modern teaching requirements (and flaws) in most areas.

Most primary teachers can get away with an initial BA and cert, but they do require perpetual schooling as well. After 20-30 years it's the equivalent of about another BA/BS or a Masters.

Secondary teachers almost always require a degree in every subject they teach (to be 'highly qualified' as per requirement in NCLB and many states besides), plus their teaching certificate, plus a Masters within 5 years of teaching, and then a lifetime of additional classes which is about another BA/BS or Masters.

Here's an example in Washington State. A person going for their BS in Computer Science and then on to a MBA would need a total of about 156 credits. A person who is only going to get endorsed to teach in one field (something which cripples their marketability) would usually get a Bachelors in their field (lets say History), plus their content area endorsement requirements, then their Masters in Ed or their Masters in Teaching - for a total of 173-221 credits. Most teachers are now starting out double endorsed in order to increase marketability, so add another Bachelors to those credits. And remember that they'll earn the equivalent of another one over a 30 year career. Now, I'm not trying to compare the difficulty of my intro to SE Asian cultures with an upper division CS or EE class, but they all cost the same and they all take time...so a teacher is going to spending half again as much time and money getting their degrees as is someone in another field.

I won't even dignify you blaming solely teachers (instead of including administration, beauracracy, socio-economic impacts, culture, etc) with a lengthy response. I will simply say this...if there was a business that the government severely over-regulated without relying on expert research, and the business sold a product or provided a service that was belittled or scoffed at by our culture, and the investors would not provide the funding to meet their goals, and the board and CEO had little or no training in a field relating to the business while mandating draconian controls and micro-managing of every possible facet of the business, and no consumer had any respect for the business, it's product, or it's workers - would you blame only the worker on the assembly line for the failure of that business?

A teacher has no right to attribute how they teach with what happened or is happening outside of their classroom. Teachers nowadays don?t teach anything. They take shortcuts with the hard subjects that require abstract thinking and rely on technology to teach. I give you an example:

I was tutoring a group of math students who were doing basic statistics (mean, mode, median etc?). I was going over some problems that their teacher gave them. 1. Find the average of the following numbers. You know what the student did. He opened up his calculator and started typing in each and every number. Push a button and got everything he needed.

I was dumbfounded, not at the fact that it?s possible but at the fact that he is doing this. I asked him why is he doing it this way. He replied, because our teacher told us. As a matter of fact this teacher teaches the students to use their calculator for the most part for everything. Now, here is the question, HOW IN THE HELL DO THE STUDENTS UNDERSTAND THE FULL CONCEPT OF WHAT IS GOING ON. If I were to take the calculator away and ask what is the median, mode, mean. They don?t even know the concept of it let along know how to find it. Because they relied on a tool that does things behind the scenes. I understand that you could define this as busy work. However for 4th and 5th graders they need to understand the basic concepts. If they don?t when they move up into higher levels they will fail because the upper level maths are based on this.

I understand that it happens, but in my experiences it's the exception, not the norm. I apologize if I came down harshly about this issue. The person who inspired me to become a teacher just passed away yesterday and I'm especially sensitive about it right now.

And yes, what happens outside the classroom matters far more than what happens inside it. Every study has supported this, as has every train of logical argument. Not that teachers can't make a difference, one direction or another, but they don't teach in a vacuum.

It happens more then you think. I'm 24. I went though HS and graduated in 2000. Before that I was in Middle and Elem. I can tell you there are only a few teachers that I would say are good. The rest are so unqualified they should be fired. The K-12 public education system in the US is not very good. Let?s just start off with the very books that the kids use in the class. When I was going through school books were required for each course. Some teachers don't use them anymore. Why? Because Chiropractors are saying the weight of those many books can cause early back problems for the children. This is not the problem with books though. Textbook publishing companies (Prentice Hall, Hog McGriffen etc...) have been criticized for publishing material that is not in relation to the subject matter of the very subject the book is based on. Let?s say the subject in Geography. They will publish a Geo book based on what students like to learn or what they feel is valuable to the students that is not in alignment of what is common in that field. They skip or put at the end of the chapters the hard subjects that are difficult for most to learn or touch on it very lightly.

You also have in the public schools system who want to learn and those who don?t. Unfortunatley the one?s who don?t want to learn are very large in some parts of the country. If my daughter is in a public school unfortunately one of the biggest problems is not the fact that she has to learn. But the fact that she has to compete with all the stupid kids to learn. I feel children should be expelled from a H.S. or Middle for achieving a low GPA or performing poor. It?s the taxpayers dollar. If a student does poor he/she is inhibiting others who want to do well. Those same students become the drug deals of our society doing more and more bad for those who want to do well.

 

[JungleMan1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
NCLB, teaching real subject matter was dropped in favor of brainwashing to pass a test.

Might want to talk to your buddy Ted Kennedy about that. 😉

You know why teachers are so bad? Because anyone who's qualified enough to make the big bucks is off making money in the PRIVATE SECTOR. Unless someone is smart and has a deep passion for teaching (i.e. not many), the smart and valuable people know where the real money is.

The private sector does everything more efficiently and education should be no different. Who's with me on school vouchers?!?!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1
The private sector does everything more efficiently and education should be no different. Who's with me on school vouchers?!?!

me.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
K-12 teacher - Unless they improve their teaching methods and stop taking shortcuts with our kids that cause them to not learn anything. Around 24K (What they are making now). Teachers who go the extra mile and are known to be very good at teaching and love their work, Around 30 to 40K. Considering a teacher only requires a B.S. degree and a teaching cert.

You have an incorrect picture of modern teaching requirements (and flaws) in most areas.

Most primary teachers can get away with an initial BA and cert, but they do require perpetual schooling as well. After 20-30 years it's the equivalent of about another BA/BS or a Masters.

Secondary teachers almost always require a degree in every subject they teach (to be 'highly qualified' as per requirement in NCLB and many states besides), plus their teaching certificate, plus a Masters within 5 years of teaching, and then a lifetime of additional classes which is about another BA/BS or Masters.

Here's an example in Washington State. A person going for their BS in Computer Science and then on to a MBA would need a total of about 156 credits. A person who is only going to get endorsed to teach in one field (something which cripples their marketability) would usually get a Bachelors in their field (lets say History), plus their content area endorsement requirements, then their Masters in Ed or their Masters in Teaching - for a total of 173-221 credits. Most teachers are now starting out double endorsed in order to increase marketability, so add another Bachelors to those credits. And remember that they'll earn the equivalent of another one over a 30 year career. Now, I'm not trying to compare the difficulty of my intro to SE Asian cultures with an upper division CS or EE class, but they all cost the same and they all take time...so a teacher is going to spending half again as much time and money getting their degrees as is someone in another field.

I won't even dignify you blaming solely teachers (instead of including administration, beauracracy, socio-economic impacts, culture, etc) with a lengthy response. I will simply say this...if there was a business that the government severely over-regulated without relying on expert research, and the business sold a product or provided a service that was belittled or scoffed at by our culture, and the investors would not provide the funding to meet their goals, and the board and CEO had little or no training in a field relating to the business while mandating draconian controls and micro-managing of every possible facet of the business, and no consumer had any respect for the business, it's product, or it's workers - would you blame only the worker on the assembly line for the failure of that business?

A teacher has no right to attribute how they teach with what happened or is happening outside of their classroom. Teachers nowadays don?t teach anything. They take shortcuts with the hard subjects that require abstract thinking and rely on technology to teach. I give you an example:

I was tutoring a group of math students who were doing basic statistics (mean, mode, median etc?). I was going over some problems that their teacher gave them. 1. Find the average of the following numbers. You know what the student did. He opened up his calculator and started typing in each and every number. Push a button and got everything he needed.

I was dumbfounded, not at the fact that it?s possible but at the fact that he is doing this. I asked him why is he doing it this way. He replied, because our teacher told us. As a matter of fact this teacher teaches the students to use their calculator for the most part for everything. Now, here is the question, HOW IN THE HELL DO THE STUDENTS UNDERSTAND THE FULL CONCEPT OF WHAT IS GOING ON. If I were to take the calculator away and ask what is the median, mode, mean. They don?t even know the concept of it let along know how to find it. Because they relied on a tool that does things behind the scenes. I understand that you could define this as busy work. However for 4th and 5th graders they need to understand the basic concepts. If they don?t when they move up into higher levels they will fail because the upper level maths are based on this.

I understand that it happens, but in my experiences it's the exception, not the norm. I apologize if I came down harshly about this issue. The person who inspired me to become a teacher just passed away yesterday and I'm especially sensitive about it right now.

And yes, what happens outside the classroom matters far more than what happens inside it. Every study has supported this, as has every train of logical argument. Not that teachers can't make a difference, one direction or another, but they don't teach in a vacuum.

It happens more then you think. I'm 24. I went though HS and graduated in 2000. Before that I was in Middle and Elem. I can tell you there are only a few teachers that I would say are good. The rest are so unqualified they should be fired. The K-12 public education system in the US is not very good. Let?s just start off with the very books that the kids use in the class. When I was going through school books were required for each course. Some teachers don't use them anymore. Why? Because Chiropractors are saying the weight of those many books can cause early back problems for the children. This is not the problem with books though. Textbook publishing companies (Prentice Hall, Hog McGriffen etc...) have been criticized for publishing material that is not in relation to the subject matter of the very subject the book is based on. Let?s say the subject in Geography. They will publish a Geo book based on what students like to learn or what they feel is valuable to the students that is not in alignment of what is common in that field. They skip or put at the end of the chapters the hard subjects that are difficult for most to learn or touch on it very lightly.

You also have in the public schools system who want to learn and those who don?t. Unfortunatley the one?s who don?t want to learn are very large in some parts of the country. If my daughter is in a public school unfortunately one of the biggest problems is not the fact that she has to learn. But the fact that she has to compete with all the stupid kids to learn. I feel children should be expelled from a H.S. or Middle for achieving a low GPA or performing poor. It?s the taxpayers dollar. If a student does poor he/she is inhibiting others who want to do well. Those same students become the drug deals of our society doing more and more bad for those who want to do well.

I can only think of a few teachers I had that really weren't at least average. I had many who were so incredible I consider them life altering influences in my life. As I've been going to school to become a teacher I've had the pleasure of working with many others and all of them (with one exception so far) have been extraordinary. And again, research points to other issues being at least as central to the problem (especially the critical nature of socio-economic impact).

The problem with your idea is that you're equating GPA to achievement. While I understand it, it isn't wholly accurate depending on your definition of achievement. If you equate achievement with learning and ability (as I do) then grades are often wholly unrelated to GPA. Furthermore you make a RIDICULOUS generalization about low GPA equating to drug dealing. I had a .012gpa in high school. I have never done a drug, I have never broken a major law. In fact, I'm probably one of the most idealistic, altruistic human beings you're ever likely to encounter. I also knew more in high school than most people with college degrees (as my test scores indicated then and now). GPA is a bad judge of knowledge or ability. It's really only an indication of how willing and/or able a student is to play the games.

 

[Rustican]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Congressman, 15k tops. No benefits either. Political jobs should not come with perks, it should be true civil service. We'll cover your health while your in, provide lodging in DC, and trips to and from home once a month.

:thumbsup:

Our founders were unpaid citizen servants. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for 'em today.

Disagree. Civil servents should be paid higher, equilivant to what a senior managers or CEOs of a small company make. In general these are educated people with needed leadership and management skills. Higher pay also acts to diswade bribery which is a common problem in poorer countries where civil servents make little to nothing.

The founding fathers were unpaid affulent civil servents. They were well of plantation owners who had the means to survive with out government pay. If you do not properly pay your congressmen then you limit that position only to the rich who can sustain themselves independantly. Regular salt of the earth representativs that truly represent the population which are already a rare breed now will become non existent or will turn corrupt by accepting bribes simply to feed their family.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What makes you believe you should be entitled to make more money just because you went to college?

Because college is a significant investment of one's own time and money, and mainly for the purpose of getting a return on that investment. For the time I am spending going to college right now I could be working 40-hour weeks and making a lot more money in the short-term, and spending a lot less on tuition, books and other expenses. However, because I have class and homework, I don't have the ability to do that (I work part-time, but certainly I could be working a lot more if I didn't have college)

Also, not being elitist here, but college students demonstrate (in most cases) their mental ability to complete higher levels of education, and they learn skills that employers find valuable. Not saying that people who only finish high school aren't capable; but they just, in most cases, haven't formally demonstrated this.

Nobody is "entitled" to more money just because of the fact that they did something...but if because of their investment, they learn skills that will make them more marketable and valuable in the workforce, employers will want to pay them a higher amount of money because they believe that college-educated people will, in turn, generate more revenue for the company than a person without a college education would.

All good points but it still doesn't explain why they should feel entitled to make more. FYI I was adressing this statement by steppinthrax:

I also believe people who don't go for higher ed or some sort of upper learning shouln't make as much as those who do. It's not rewarding to those who put 4yrs down for a degree to find those who didn't put down the equvialent to be above them.

If someone without a degree generates more revenue than someone with a degree why should the person with a degree deserve to earn more money?




.

Wheather you like it or not it is happening and is a true fact. Statically all over the board people with H.S. diplomas make more then people without. People with B.S. degrees make more then those with H.S. diplomas and so on. So whatever you personal opinion about a person?s income with a degree might be. Across the board they make more.

That is true but just because you have that degree you are not entitled to make more money than someone without. Before I went to college I was a Union Carpenter and in the 80's I was making more money than you are now. Of course I worked a lot harder than you do.

 

[Skotty]

Civil servant (police and fire men): $30K - $75K
K-12 teacher: $25K - $65K
CEO of a sucessful company: $75K - $600K
US autoworker: $25K - $55K
US congressman: $45K - $90K
Domestic worker: too ambiguous
you (software developer): $35K - $90K

Multiply x1.5 for expensive locations.

 

[CPA]

Boy, a lot of aspiring Chavez's, Castro's and Lenin's in here.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CPA
Boy, a lot of aspiring Chavez's, Castro's and Lenin's in here.

QFT!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CPA
Boy, a lot of aspiring Chavez's, Castro's and Lenin's in here.

It's getting worse everyday.

Americans turning into America haters.

It's very sad to see indeed.

It has spread from beyond the church going folk now.

We'll see how bad it is come Nov next year if the Republicans win the top spot again.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What makes you believe you should be entitled to make more money just because you went to college?

Because college is a significant investment of one's own time and money, and mainly for the purpose of getting a return on that investment. For the time I am spending going to college right now I could be working 40-hour weeks and making a lot more money in the short-term, and spending a lot less on tuition, books and other expenses. However, because I have class and homework, I don't have the ability to do that (I work part-time, but certainly I could be working a lot more if I didn't have college)

Also, not being elitist here, but college students demonstrate (in most cases) their mental ability to complete higher levels of education, and they learn skills that employers find valuable. Not saying that people who only finish high school aren't capable; but they just, in most cases, haven't formally demonstrated this.

Nobody is "entitled" to more money just because of the fact that they did something...but if because of their investment, they learn skills that will make them more marketable and valuable in the workforce, employers will want to pay them a higher amount of money because they believe that college-educated people will, in turn, generate more revenue for the company than a person without a college education would.

All good points but it still doesn't explain why they should feel entitled to make more. FYI I was adressing this statement by steppinthrax:

I also believe people who don't go for higher ed or some sort of upper learning shouln't make as much as those who do. It's not rewarding to those who put 4yrs down for a degree to find those who didn't put down the equvialent to be above them.

If someone without a degree generates more revenue than someone with a degree why should the person with a degree deserve to earn more money?




.

Wheather you like it or not it is happening and is a true fact. Statically all over the board people with H.S. diplomas make more then people without. People with B.S. degrees make more then those with H.S. diplomas and so on. So whatever you personal opinion about a person?s income with a degree might be. Across the board they make more

.

That is true but just because you have that degree you are not entitled to make more money than someone without. Before I went to college I was a Union Carpenter and in the 80's I was making more money than you are now. Of course I worked a lot harder than you do.

I work in a hospital. We have carpenters as well as doctors as well as IT people like me. I?m glad you?re not running things, because in that case the carpenters would be making more then me. The doctors make more then me (obviously) because they are more educated and they kind of run things. A doctor has to spend several years in school sometimes for the rest of their lives. It?s expected your coming out making more then 100K. I spent just 4 years in school, I make less. The janitors and carpenters spent no to little time in school they make more/less what lower staff makes. So if you put everybody?s position and salary on the table you will find Higher Education == Higher Pay. This is everyplace I ever worked. You will find that if you look at private sector. If you pull out further this is the entire nation. So it?s not necessary that I?m entitled to earn more it?s the PRECEPTION by most people based on what they see that I should make more. As a result of this perception (partly by managerial staff) I make more. People are not going to go to college if they know when they come out they make what a common person will make.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What makes you believe you should be entitled to make more money just because you went to college?

Because college is a significant investment of one's own time and money, and mainly for the purpose of getting a return on that investment. For the time I am spending going to college right now I could be working 40-hour weeks and making a lot more money in the short-term, and spending a lot less on tuition, books and other expenses. However, because I have class and homework, I don't have the ability to do that (I work part-time, but certainly I could be working a lot more if I didn't have college)

Also, not being elitist here, but college students demonstrate (in most cases) their mental ability to complete higher levels of education, and they learn skills that employers find valuable. Not saying that people who only finish high school aren't capable; but they just, in most cases, haven't formally demonstrated this.

Nobody is "entitled" to more money just because of the fact that they did something...but if because of their investment, they learn skills that will make them more marketable and valuable in the workforce, employers will want to pay them a higher amount of money because they believe that college-educated people will, in turn, generate more revenue for the company than a person without a college education would.

All good points but it still doesn't explain why they should feel entitled to make more. FYI I was adressing this statement by steppinthrax:

I also believe people who don't go for higher ed or some sort of upper learning shouln't make as much as those who do. It's not rewarding to those who put 4yrs down for a degree to find those who didn't put down the equvialent to be above them.

If someone without a degree generates more revenue than someone with a degree why should the person with a degree deserve to earn more money?




.

Wheather you like it or not it is happening and is a true fact. Statically all over the board people with H.S. diplomas make more then people without. People with B.S. degrees make more then those with H.S. diplomas and so on. So whatever you personal opinion about a person?s income with a degree might be. Across the board they make more

.

That is true but just because you have that degree you are not entitled to make more money than someone without. Before I went to college I was a Union Carpenter and in the 80's I was making more money than you are now. Of course I worked a lot harder than you do.

I work in a hospital. We have carpenters as well as doctors as well as IT people like me. I?m glad you?re not running things, because in that case the carpenters would be making more then me. The doctors make more then me (obviously) because they are more educated and they kind of run things. A doctor has to spend several years in school sometimes for the rest of their lives. It?s expected your coming out making more then 100K. I spent just 4 years in school, I make less. The janitors and carpenters spent no to little time in school they make more/less what lower staff makes. So if you put everybody?s position and salary on the table you will find Higher Education == Higher Pay. This is everyplace I ever worked. You will find that if you look at private sector. If you pull out further this is the entire nation. So it?s not necessary that I?m entitled to earn more it?s the PRECEPTION by most people based on what they see that I should make more. As a result of this perception (partly by managerial staff) I make more. People are not going to go to college if they know when they come out they make what a common person will make.

On the contrary, as a "common person" making more than some College educated Pencil Pushers I envied the Pencil Pushers as he didn't have to work as hard as me, that's why when I had the opportunity I went to school and got an education. After a decade or so working in the White Collar world I came to realize that being a Carpenter was more rewarding and challenging. However the hard work of being a Carpenter took it's toll on my body and I had to give it up (Chronic Back Problems)

Keep in mind that to become a Union Journeyman Carpenter I had to go to school for 4 years which wasn't any easier than the 4 years I spent in college getting my Business Degree. I also found that those I worked alongside with during my career as a Carpenter to be of better character, but then I worked as a Property Manager and in IT, neither occuption known to be a character builder. There were a lot of elitist like you who thought their sh!t didn't stink because they had a College Degree.

 

[palehorse]

I spent several years in IT without a degree, and I made plenty of money (six figures) doing so. My unique skillset often got me hired for "degree-required" positions, and I usually beat out hundreds of degree-toting candidates every time!

However, I decided to go back to school and complete a few degrees once I hit the upper-management barrier common to most corporations. With the degrees, the barriers came down, and the money was absolutely amazing. Could I have done the same work without a degree? Absolutely! but, executive decision makers rarely offer someone without degrees a chance to do so.

After all of that work moving up in a field that I considered nothing more than a hobby, i threw a lot of it away in order to start over in an entirely new career; one in which my degrees initially helped make the difference between near-poverty and just getting by. Just a couple of years later, i'm back up above six figures - AND - I love my work - AND - I'm back in school getting yet another degree... What took me 8 years in the first career, I reached in just three with the new one. A lot of that is probably due to the degrees and unique certs that got me in the door...

So is it possible? yes, it is. But it's much easier to earn higher wages, sooner, if you get a degree or two under your belt.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I spent several years in IT without a degree, and I made plenty of money (six figures) doing so. My unique skillset often got me hired for "degree-required" positions, and I usually beat out hundreds of degree-toting candidates every time!

However, I decided to go back to school and complete a few degrees once I hit the upper-management barrier common to most corporations. With the degrees, the barriers came down, and the money was absolutely amazing. Could I have done the same work without a degree? Absolutely! but, executive decision makers rarely offer someone without degrees a chance to do so.

After all of that work moving up in a field that I considered nothing more than a hobby, i threw a lot of it away in order to start over in an entirely new career; one in which my degrees initially helped make the difference between near-poverty and just getting by. Just a couple of years later, i'm back up above six figures - AND - I love my work - AND - I'm back in school getting yet another degree... What took me 8 years in the first career, I reached in just three with the new one. A lot of that is probably due to the degrees and unique certs that got me in the door...

So is it possible? yes, it is. But it's much easier to earn higher wages, sooner, if you get a degree or two under your belt.

:thumbsup:

 

[palehorse]

Oh, and one last thing: Since I have been successful both with and without a degree, I have learned to respect anyone who becomes successful traveling along either path. No matter how you cut it, or which path you take, it still takes hard work, tenacity, and a willingness to take risks. I also give both paths to success equal respect. In other words, I will never give someone with 10 degrees more respect than someone who is successful without any degrees. To me, in terms of success, they are equals.

Character and integrity are another subject altogether! If there is an argument between a degree-toting elitist, and a HS-diploma having decent person, I will side with the HS graduate every time, regardless of how many degrees I personally possess. I absolutely despise elitism. blech...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Oh, and one last thing: Since I have been successful both with and without a degree, I have learned to respect anyone who becomes successful traveling along either path. No matter how you cut it, or which path you take, it still takes hard work, tenacity, and a willingness to take risks. I also give both paths to success equal respect. In other words, I will never give someone with 10 degrees more respect than someone who is successful without any degrees. To me, in terms of success, they are equals.

Character and integrity are another subject altogether! If there is an argument between a degree-toting elitist, and a HS-diploma having decent person, I will side with the HS graduate every time, regardless of how many degrees I personally possess. I absolutely despise elitism. blech...

The diference between Us and steppinthrax is that we've walked in the shoes of both and though we realize that the path to success is greatly enhanced with a degree having a degree doesn't make one more worthy of success.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Oh, and one last thing: Since I have been successful both with and without a degree, I have learned to respect anyone who becomes successful traveling along either path. No matter how you cut it, or which path you take, it still takes hard work, tenacity, and a willingness to take risks. I also give both paths to success equal respect. In other words, I will never give someone with 10 degrees more respect than someone who is successful without any degrees. To me, in terms of success, they are equals.

Character and integrity are another subject altogether! If there is an argument between a degree-toting elitist, and a HS-diploma having decent person, I will side with the HS graduate every time, regardless of how many degrees I personally possess. I absolutely despise elitism. blech...

The diference between Us and steppinthrax is that we've walked in the shoes of both and though we realize that the path to success is greatly enhanced with a degree having a degree doesn't make one more worthy of success.

very well said!