The It-Sucks-To-Be-Me Generation

[LumbergTech]

always funny when the old farts start whining about how back in their day blah blah..this isnt their day.....anymore

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: loki8481
woot!

turning a handful of personal examples into a sweeping generalization ftw!

That is the ATOT and ATP&N way of thinking about the world.

 

[techs]

The baby boomers were the recipients of the great wealth the US acquired from their parents who won WW2. Due to globalization and outsourcing the exceptional wealth US employees enjoyed is now diminishing.
If you want to place blame it is on corporations who wanted to put short term profits ahead of all and got our government to willingly give part of our wealth to other nations.
So to all the whiners I say you young people don't get out and vote and when you do you let yourselves be bamboozled into voting for the very policies that are screwing you.
If young people want to keep a bigger share of the world wide pie get out and vote for people who will slow the erosion of our wealth. It's your best chance to not live like a peasant in China.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
My life experience to this point tells me that college is a waste of money. Make your money, retire, THEN go to school and pursue your passions.

I agree that school does not automatically mean financial success, but I disagree that it is a waste of money. For one thing, on average a college degree does increase one's pay. For another thing, knowledge has intrinsic value. To me college helps me to be able to go out and learn even more because it helps hone my critical thinking skills.

Wealth is a great thing and one need not a college degree to pursue wealth (that is for sure). But to really get the most out of life I think it is important to be able to understand some discipline in a deeper way.

There are people who are auto-didacts and merely need books to learn. But I think most people need some kind of formal/structured environement for learning. Universities fill that need.

That being said, I think there is a huge difference between particular subjects. A lot of students today are learning pseudo-sciences like psychology and economics. IMO one should stick to the hard sciences/mathematics.

I agree.

<--- Studied the two worst offenders (psychology and economics) and is now a huge pain in the ass.

 

[TraumaRN]

Actually the degree I'm getting DOES guarantee me a job, albeit it's up to me as to how much I wish to make doing that job, I'm going for a bachelor's in nursing....massive massive demand for that right now, hell i've still got 3 more semester to finish up before my degree and i'm already guaranteed a spot as a RN at the hospital I work at now. My starting wages will probably be about 50K a year which wont be horrible for a 22 year old fresh out of college next year, given that I'll work for a year and go back and get my master which is only another 4 maybe 5 semesters and my pay will jump considerably into the 80K region and max out around 100-110K...then it'll be a judgement call on my part if I want to go back for my PhD.

Nursing FTW :thumbsup:

 

[DickFnTracy]

It's always a hoot when life's biggest losers get together and articulate how it's the system or someome else, not them, that's responsible for their lot in life.

 

[stateofbeasley]

I don't beleive its a black and white issue. There are people who make poor decisions (like dropping out of high school and doing drugs) and end up in a bad spot because they failed to take responsibility for themselves.

On the other hand, there are people who got screwed because of things beyond their control, like natural disasters (e.g. Katrina) or industrial polution caused by chemical spills etc.

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy
It's always a hoot when life's biggest losers get together and articulate how it's the system or someome else, not them, that's responsible for their lot in life.

 

[alphatarget1]

Job market is kicking ass in Civil Engineering.

You don't go to school to get job skills, you go to school to get educated. Most people don't see the difference. Your education is what you make out of it, there is only so much your professors can teach you.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Job market is kicking ass in Civil Engineering.

You don't go to school to get job skills, you go to school to get educated. Most people don't see the difference. Your education is what you make out of it, there is only so much your professors can teach you.

Exactly!!!! So many people in the nursing school here have this attitude that school and clinical rotations will teach them everything they need to be a nurse......which is the biggest load of horse sh!t i've ever heard. Thats I got a job as a student nurse EIGHT months ago, so now school is a snap because i work at a teaching hospital, so there are always people willing to teach you, not to mention the things I learn in class I can turn around and apply at work....

 

[dannybin1742]

My life experience to this point tells me that college is a waste of money. Make your money, retire, THEN go to school and pursue your passions.

i think you're off base, it really depends on what field you are in. i'mna finish my phd here in another year, then i'm going to dental school, the goal is to become an endo dontist or a maxofacial surgeon. so even if you started without a college degree, once people who chose my course are out we surpass you in less than 5 years of work. and i can make this claim because there are ways to get through post graduate degrees without piling on the debt.

i got though undergrad with no debt (athletic scholaship)
i'll be debt free with after i finish my phd in biochem (salaried)
i plan on doing research when i'm in dental school (salaried), i should also be gettting scholarship money because i'm poor
depending on what field i chose maxofacial pay $45k per year for 4 years of extra school, but the average salary of a maxofacial right ot of school is $250k+ depending on where you live.

i'm not trying to rain on your parade, i'm just saying there are paths that you can take that involve college that put you much further ahead in life, they just take time and sacrifice.

[no i don't check spelling]

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

A degree is not a guarantee of success. Hard work, balls and brains is what gets you ahead. Thank God I drank myself out of college. If not for my alcoholism I'd be an English teacher making $45k a year. I learned my lessons the hard way. Now I make double that doing what I really love.

So you're saying that succeeding in college and learning a knowledge-based skill, getting a high GPA isn't hard work? It's not about ability or how hard you work, it's about who knows you and your ability to schmooze and to make friends and get people to like you at interviews. Meritocracy is a myth.

I would hope that having obtained a college degree with a decent GPA in a useful field would at least guarantee a comfortable middle class quality of life if you do decent work. I suspect that most other people feel the same way.

I didn't say that at all. How did you come up with that conclusion? College is work just like anything else. And if you look past my first post you'll see where I addressed the issue of schooling for certain higher level occupations.

But graduating from college is not a guarantee of success nor does it entitle you to a nice middle class income. It's a nice tool for getting your foot in the door. After that it's all up to you. College degree or no... you still have to apply yourself and bust your butt to get ahead in a very competitive job market. That degree isn't going to do the work for you and if you think that all you need is a piece of paper for people to find you qualified for anything you are going to be very disappointed.

 

[compuwiz1]

I've worked with alot of Generation X. Alot of them feel like it's enough to just show up for work, expecting to get paid, but not putting much into the job. Overall, I see alot of slacking in this generation. I wonder if there is any correlation to their output vs. their economics?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I've worked with alot of Generation X. Alot of them feel like it's enough to just show up for work, expecting to get paid, but not putting much into the job. Overall, I see alot of slacking in this generation. I wonder if there is any correlation to their output vs. their economics?

You aint seen nothing. Buddy of mine in Hawaii owns a construction firm. He has to over book each job by 1/4 because if the surf is up or nice weather he expects 1/4 of workforce not to show , no call , no nothing, and *still* retain thier jobs when they come back. Island mentality plus it imppossible to find hard workers.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I've worked with alot of Generation X. Alot of them feel like it's enough to just show up for work, expecting to get paid, but not putting much into the job. Overall, I see alot of slacking in this generation. I wonder if there is any correlation to their output vs. their economics?

BTW- you can minimize all that by hiring good applicants. Things we look for in entry level candidate are traits that shows someone on a mission, with a purpose:

1. Did they finish in four years? Otherwise they are slackers generally speaking.
2. GPA above 3.3 is required.
3. No dropped classes
4. internship helps but not nessesary


Then our interview takes a whole day. The actual interview is only about an hour, then candidate is required to give a small presentation.. But touring facilities, meeting with everyone and even getting them in a social situtation like a long lunch with a couple potential co-workers and hiring manager really helps flush out someones personality.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I've worked with alot of Generation X. Alot of them feel like it's enough to just show up for work, expecting to get paid, but not putting much into the job. Overall, I see alot of slacking in this generation. I wonder if there is any correlation to their output vs. their economics?

You aint seen nothing. Buddy of mine in Hawaii owns a construction firm. He has to over book each job by 1/4 because if the surf is up or nice weather he expects 1/4 of workforce not to show , no call , no nothing, and *still* retain thier jobs when they come back. Island mentality plus it imppossible to find hard workers.

Yeah that is the island for ya Can't just bring in people from anywhere. I've heard similar things.

As for your 4 years comment, I'm not too sure. I'm not doing four years not because I'm out drinking and partying, but because I noticed in taking one less class each quarter I actually retain a LOT more information while still doing fine. It also leaves me open to take a less technical class to further that random interest, whether it be a religions class, or dropping in a pollution management class every once in a while ~
And it isn't just me, I know others who are in the same position (Well not sure if they take other classes that might interest them, but I know they find that they end up learning more). If a person took 5 years on econ or psych (yeah I know there are those people ) then YEAH there might be a problem especially they aren't the most rigorous of course work. But if a science based major be it math, physics, chem, or some form of engineering took up to five years to complete, so as long as their grades were in order I don't see how much of an issue it should be
The GPA can tell you things (though there are exceptions...I know people who pulled 2.0s BARELY, but they wised up their third year and only graduated with a 3.0 because even though their last few quarters they were pulling top grades they just didn't learn to do that till later)

 

[zendari]

The economy isn't screwing us. It's the Democrats and SS and their pyramid policies.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I've worked with alot of Generation X. Alot of them feel like it's enough to just show up for work, expecting to get paid, but not putting much into the job. Overall, I see alot of slacking in this generation. I wonder if there is any correlation to their output vs. their economics?

That has been my epxerience too and I find it really disturbing.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I've worked with alot of Generation X. Alot of them feel like it's enough to just show up for work, expecting to get paid, but not putting much into the job. Overall, I see alot of slacking in this generation. I wonder if there is any correlation to their output vs. their economics?

You aint seen nothing. Buddy of mine in Hawaii owns a construction firm. He has to over book each job by 1/4 because if the surf is up or nice weather he expects 1/4 of workforce not to show , no call , no nothing, and *still* retain thier jobs when they come back. Island mentality plus it imppossible to find hard workers.

Yeah that is the island for ya Can't just bring in people from anywhere. I've heard similar things.

As for your 4 years comment, I'm not too sure. I'm not doing four years not because I'm out drinking and partying, but because I noticed in taking one less class each quarter I actually retain a LOT more information while still doing fine. It also leaves me open to take a less technical class to further that random interest, whether it be a religions class, or dropping in a pollution management class every once in a while ~
And it isn't just me, I know others who are in the same position (Well not sure if they take other classes that might interest them, but I know they find that they end up learning more). If a person took 5 years on econ or psych (yeah I know there are those people ) then YEAH there might be a problem especially they aren't the most rigorous of course work. But if a science based major be it math, physics, chem, or some form of engineering took up to five years to complete, so as long as their grades were in order I don't see how much of an issue it should be
The GPA can tell you things (though there are exceptions...I know people who pulled 2.0s BARELY, but they wised up their third year and only graduated with a 3.0 because even though their last few quarters they were pulling top grades they just didn't learn to do that till later)

I'm just commentling how we hire. I co-manage four huge labs for a large DOD contractor. We actually have access to actuarials put out by professional HR firms who get paid big bucks to study this stuff and help us find right people. There is always outliers but they won't be working for us unless they have some juice. Most of our hirees are Chemisty, Physical Chemistry, Physics, Materials engineering. Lots of kids finish in 4. In many of the better schools around the country you have to finish in four or you're expelled simple as that. It's a tract system.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari
The economy isn't screwing us. It's the Democrats and SS and their pyramid policies.

How can the Democrats be screwing anyone? The Republicans have control of the entire government...if things are bad, we only have them to blame.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
The economy isn't screwing us. It's the Democrats and SS and their pyramid policies.

How can the Democrats be screwing anyone? The Republicans have control of the entire government...if things are bad, we only have them to blame.

A select few Republicans act like Democrats. But the Republican party didn't create the socialist welfare state we have today.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
The economy isn't screwing us. It's the Democrats and SS and their pyramid policies.

How can the Democrats be screwing anyone? The Republicans have control of the entire government...if things are bad, we only have them to blame.

A select few Republicans act like Democrats. But the Republican party didn't create the socialist welfare state we have today.

But they're doing a fine job of expanding it....example: Medicare Prescription Drug bill.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
http://www.slate.com/id/2134007/?GT1=7641

It's very true. People think that if they spend $60,000 on college that they should get a job right out of college that pays $100,000/year. They think that just because they worked in a field for 5 years that they should now be living the good life sending their kids to private schools, driving Lexus' around and eating steak and lobster for dinner 4 times a week. I see this everywhere and it sickens me. As the article says, the economy is cyclical. If you get out of college at a bad time, you just have to wait it out.

Kamenetz also makes cavalier statements about economics and career development. "The job market sucks," she proclaims. It may not be as good as it was in the 1990s, but suck is a pretty strong term. She complains that a $700 personal computer, a necessity for any young person, is expensive. Huh? Computing is incredibly cheap. The first PC I bought, that crappy, tiny Mac, cost $2,000 in 1990 dollars.

Quit your whining!

Umm...who's whining? Not me, not any of my friends. Quit accusing me of whining!

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari
The economy isn't screwing us. It's the Democrats and SS and their pyramid policies.

And laissez-faire economy is not a pyramid scheme?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari
The economy isn't screwing us. It's the Democrats and SS and their pyramid policies.

I've just got to wonder what kind of fantasy world you inhabit. When the previous Democratic president was in power the economic policies he put in place ended the recession created by the previous twelve years of Republican presidents. The Democratic president not only helped the nation recover from the near depression twelve years of Reagan/Bush got us but he also balanced the budget and created a surplus which the current Republican president took only months to turn back into another record deficit.

And are you old enough to remember a little Republican catastrophe called the Savings and Loan Scandal? The Resolution Trust Corporation? We're still paying for that and will be for years to come. I hope Neil Bush is enjoying the billion or so dollars he stole from Silverado.

Are you old enough to remember the junk bond scandal brought to us during Republican rule by people like Michael Milkin? Another wealth redistribution scheme we're still paying for.

Your only problem seems to be with programs that help the people you love to hate. Working people, middle class people, poor people. You ignore any and all programs or outhright theft no matter how egregious as long as it benefits that one percent that you must have been born into.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari
The economy isn't screwing us. It's the Democrats and SS and their pyramid policies.

Here's another excellent of who is screwing us on the economy.

Please explain where the ONE TO TWO TRILLION DOLLARS Bush's lies will wind up costing us falls in your hierarchy of ignored Republican economic debacles.

Iraq, the mother of all budget busters

By David Isenberg

"If Bush had come to the American people with a request to spend several hundred billion dollars and several thousand American lives in order to bring democracy to Iraq, he would have been laughed out of court."
- noted political scientist Francis Fukuyama

It turns out the eventual cost of the war in Iraq will not be several hundred billion, but according to a new study at least a thousand billion dollars - US$1 trillion, in other words. This figure dwarfs any previous estimate by orders of magnitude.

Given the projected cost of $1 trillion to $2 trillion, one might imagine that American taxpayers are now rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter while gasping for air.

To get an idea of the economic black hole the Iraq war could become, it is useful to remember some of the past estimates given by the administration of President George W Bush. Recall, for example, when then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey suggested in 2002, six months before the war, that the mission could cost $100 billion to $200 billion, Bush fired him because his estimate was up to three times the $70 billion the administration estimated.

Conservative columnist Paul Craig Robert wrote after the latest estimate: "Americans need to ask themselves if the White House is in competent hands when a $70 billion war becomes a $2 trillion war. Bush sold his war by understating its cost by a factor of 28.57. Any financial officer anywhere in the world whose project was 2,857% over budget would instantly be fired for utter incompetence."

The latest study was done by US economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who teaches at Columbia University, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University.

For the sake of comparison, consider that late last summer the Pentagon was spending $5.6 billion per month on operations in Iraq, an amount that exceeds the average cost of $5.1 billion per month (in real 2004 dollars) for US operations in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972. Currently, the Pentagon is spending about $6 billion per month in Iraq. The total direct cost of the decade-plus Vietnam War to the United States was estimated to be $600 billion. And not even three years after its start, Iraq has already cost 42% of what the Vietnam war did.

While the economic costs are staggering, they are not a total surprise. Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense during the Ronald Reagan administration and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, recalled: "I said at least $500 billion or a trillion before the war."

Economically, he said, "it's a tremendous shock". He notes that the costs of the war come at a time when other governmental expenditures are scheduled to increase. "From 2007 to 2011, [baby] boomers start sucking up money, plus the Medicare drug benefits. It makes budget planning more difficult." He predicts the defense budget will be flat for at least the next five years.

Currently, according to Steve Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the Pentagon's direct costs of military operations and foreign assistance in Iraq are about $250 billion. He notes that the government does not include many important costs.

"There are clearly additional costs. We are financing the war through deficit financing. That will be at least $100 billion over the next decade." He added that government figures do "not include overall economic impact, such as the rise in oil prices generated by the war".

Stiglitz and Bilmes agree with Kosiak. They note: "Given that at the onset of the war, the [US] was already running a deficit, and no new taxes have been levied, it is not unreasonable to assume, for purposes of budgeting, that all of the funding for the war to date has been borrowed, adding to the already-existing federal budget deficit. In the conservative scenario we assume that these funds are borrowed at 4% and repaid in full within five years. The moderate scenario assumes that the country continues to have a deficit over the next 20 years and therefore interest continues to accrue."

This presents political difficulties for the Bush administration. According to Korb, "Possible actions the administration will have to take include keeping the [military] budget flat, rescinding tax cuts and rescind drug benefits."

But some of the most interesting revelations of the new study have not been noted. For example, despite the political rhetoric one hears from all politicians, it turns out that America's fighting men and women are not worth that much.

The authors wrote: "The military may quantify the value of a life lost as the amount it pays in death benefits and life insurance to survivors - which has recently been increased from $12,240 to $100,000 [death benefit] and from $250,000 to $500,000 [life insurance]. But in other areas, such as safety and environmental regulation, the government values a life of a prime age male at around $6 million."

So a civilian death is worth at least $5.4 million or about 11 times that of a serviceman or woman. The economic cost for civilian deaths also applies to private contractors. According to the study, the cost of the American soldiers who have already lost their lives adds up to about $12 billion.

It is reminiscent of the old military cliche, "Nothing is too good for our boys, so that's what we'll give them - nothing."

The report also reveals that caring for wounded military personnel is going to be a far bigger and more expensive job than previously thought. The study notes that the Veterans Benefits Administration had originally projected that 23,553 veterans returning from Iraq would seek medical care last year, but in June it revised this number to 103,000. It also is now responsible for providing care to an estimated 90,000 National Guard personnel, who previously were not eligible for its services. To meet these unforeseen demands, the administration appealed to Congress for an emergency $1.5 billion in funding for fiscal 2005. It is likely to face a shortfall of $2.6 billion in 2006.

It is unclear, though, how much of a difference to the policy debate the study will make. According to Korb: "Had the study come out before we went to war, it might have made a difference. But now its impact will only be incremental. It might influence the administration to withdraw troops more quickly than previously planned.

"I wish we had thought about this before we got into this mess."

Another in a long line of Repbulican economic disasters. But it's OK, Cheney and the rest of the war profiteers in the Bush administration are making a fortune while the people you hate, the middle class and poor who make up the military, are paying for it with their blood.