We have more people going into Science than what the market demands.

[polarmystery]

Its so sad to live in a society that rewards professional athletes much higher than we reward scientists. And now we wonder why the USA is going down the toilet?

agreed

 

[Infohawk]

Here's an old NPR clip from 1996 about the employment situation in science:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1011712

Here's a link to an abandoned blog about science career issues:

http://sciencejobs.blogspot.com/

Here's a link to an excellent series of essays about science career problems:

Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs

How the heck do you listen to real audio in this day and age?

The series of essays refers to stats from the early 90s, when there was an economic downturn. Not very compelling. (Neither is an abandoned blog.) I'll go with the Bureau of Labor Statistics instead.

 

[piasabird]

A lot of technical jobs are filled by people holding an H1b visa. This is your government at work here. Companies actually prefer to hire cheaper foreign workers. Companies get the government to offer more and more H1b visas then colleges and universities are unable to attract Americans because the companies will not hire you because the companies get the government to let them hire cheap people from overseas with an H1b Visa.

The whole premis is a scam and becomes self-fulfilling.

Welcome to the real world where the government does everything it can to ruin America.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/

In fact, three times as many Americans earn degrees in science and engineering each year as can find work in those fields, Science & Engineering Indicators 2008, a publication of the National Science Board, reports.

Pippy, thank you very much for the link! That article should be required reading for anyone thinking of pursuing a career in science or for anyone who thinks that our nation has a shortage of people in STEM fields.

 

[Infohawk]

The Science PhD graduate students receive subsistence stipends because they are actually performing work as graduate students, such as working as teaching assistants and doing laboratory grunt work. Science research in the U.S. is basically a pyramid scheme. You can get a free education with a stipend to pay your living expenses, however you might not have a viable career afterwards for your investment of 9+ years of study (4 undergrad plus at least 5 for the PhD).

The talk about the Baby Boomer generation retiring is bogus. Industry apologists have been very eagerly awaiting these retirements in the sciences and a temporary improvement in the job market for two decades. At this point the amount of PhD production probably dwarfs the number of baby boomer scientists so greatly that it wouldn't make much of a difference. These fabled baby boomer retirements are also eagerly anticipated in other fields. The retirements probably won't have much of an effect. The talk of the retirements is used by education industry scammers in the hopes of acquiring more tuition dollars or more graduate student slaves.

I think your posts in this thread suggest a common attitude people have with all their careers. They think there is something wrong with the system if they are not super-happy with their path or if their career isn't a yellow-brick road to fulfillment. I think this is especially true for academically-minded people who are taught to think that if you do well on a test you will be rewarded (good grades.) That's not how it works in the real world.

I'm not seeing how a FREE education is a pyramid scheme. Even assuming you had no career afterwards, you were compensated and provided for the entire time! Again, people always assume the grass is greener on the other side and compare themselves to the best or luckiest people in other professions. Sure, one _might_ have gone into investment banking and made it big in that nine years. But it's easily possible one would have instead gone into a debt-creating track (like medical or law school) and be in an even worse position. All things considered, spending time doing something you should enjoy (again, not smart to do it for the money, security, or prestige) and being even after nine years is not that bad.

I'm not sure how you can brush off the baby boomer retirement issue. I do think it's going to happen in most fields, especially the more skilled or managerial you are. (Unskilled labor won't see a benefit.) Do you deny they are going to retire or die? It may take a while for them to croak but it's going to happen.

The scammer concern strikes me as paranoia in the context of your degree being paid for you. It may very well be true with University of Phoenix schools or certain professional schools (I've heard of legit complaints for some low law schools or chef schools) but it's not like they're getting money out of you. They're getting your labor and they're compensating you for it.

Anyway, I go back to the fact that OP should follow his heart and do what he enjoys doing. Anything else is a gamble. Even someone who becomes a nurse today at 25 might be in trouble 20 or 30 years down the line. We just don't know.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

How the heck do you listen to real audio in this day and age?

The series of essays refers to stats from the early 90s, when there was an economic downturn. Not very compelling. (Neither is an abandoned blog.) I'll go with the Bureau of Labor Statistics instead.

Infohawk, read the Miller-McCune article. It does an excellent job of discussing the issue and the history of the problem of PhD overproduction. It even mentions bogus reports put out by various self-interested agencies and organizations that were proved to be flawed and perhaps even fraudulent.

The Contemporary Problems in Science Careers essays might be a little dated but still contain much wisdom from someone who actually worked in the field and watched it become a career graveyard.

 

[Infohawk]

"In fact, three times as many Americans earn degrees in science and engineering each year as can find work in those fields, Science & Engineering Indicators 2008, a publication of the National Science Board, reports."

The report says:

"Between 1990 and 2000, S&E occupations grew at a lower average annual rate of 3.6%, but this was more than triple the rate of growth of other occupations. Different data sources suggest the same rate of employment growth in 2005.
Between 1980 and 2000, the total number of S&E degrees earned grew at an average annual rate of 1.5%, which was faster than labor force growth, but less than the 4.2% growth of S&E occupations. The loose fit between degrees and occupations and the immigration of S&E workers helped to account for the different rates of degree and occupation growth."

So basically, science and engineering prospects are better than average; occupation growth > degree growth necessitating immigration; unemployment in S&E was 1.6% in 2006. That is amazingly low and actually supports the argument that we need more H1Bs.

"Retirements from the S&E labor force are likely to become more significant over the next decade." That's what I said.

This is a glass half full to me.

 

[nonlnear]

I'm not sure how you can brush off the baby boomer retirement issue. I do think it's going to happen in most fields, especially the more skilled or managerial you are. (Unskilled labor won't see a benefit.) Do you deny they are going to retire or die? It may take a while for them to croak but it's going to happen.

The dream of more academic openings (and pay) becoming available due to vacancies created by baby boomer attrition is simply not going to happen. There are so many PhDs coming in from China, India, Pakistan, etc. whoa re happy to work for $35000 that things are going to get worse if anything. The baby boomers are one demographic factor. The rise in prestige of many schools across Asia that are churning out highly motivated, disciplined students who are just happy to be here for grad school is another - much larger - demographic factor that has been in play for some time now.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post, so I don't have much to say about it. This coming from a PhD holder who just finished a post-doc and is leaving academia. I am not bitter about anything and am very satisfied with my time in the system. I received good value for my time, and believe I was paid fairly for the work I did. However when I look at some of the faculty who are at the peak of their careers (in positions that are close to the top of my realistic expectations at good schools) I can't help but wonder why I would jump into the game hoping to be making in 20 years what I could be making in 5 years outside of the tower.

If it were easier to have a stable family life in the early phase of an academic career I might think about it but there aren't that many upsides to it any more - especially with the federal initiatives that are aimed at making the job of professor much more like that of a high school teacher. It's hard to find a faculty posting these days at anything but tier 1 schools that doesn't require undergraduate research... I wouldn't mind it so much if they didn't insist on inflating enrollment with students who really shouldn't be there in the first place. Federal education policy is an absolute clusterfuck and it's not getting any better.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think your posts in this thread suggest a common attitude people have with all their careers. They think there is something wrong with the system if they are not super-happy with their path or if their career isn't a yellow-brick road to fulfillment. I think this is especially true for academically-minded people who are taught to think that if you do well on a test you will be rewarded (good grades.) That's not how it works in the real world.

People want and reasonably expect to be able to attain a return on their educational investments, especially if they have been lied to and misled by various government agencies and universities (which are supposed to look out for society's interests but have become greedy for-profit businesses that serve administrators).

People such as myself who are complaining about PhD overproduction and MBA and lawyer overproduction and overproduction in other fields are not complaining that people are not receiving $200,000/year jobs after they graduate. Rather they're complaining about having difficulty finding mere $40,000/year jobs in their fields that allow for career growth and development. Does that strike you as being unreasonable? People want to work their way up and to prove that they can do the job but it's impossible to do that when you can't get your foot in the door.

I'm not seeing how a FREE education is a pyramid scheme. Even assuming you had no career afterwards, you were compensated and provided for the entire time!

It's not free; it costs you the best years of your life and has tremendous opportunity costs. People who undertake that course of study are often highly intelligent, ambitious, and hard-working and might have been better served majoring in other fields, such as going to medical school.

I didn't mean to say that it was a pyramid scheme in terms of people paying money into it. I meant to say that the structure of science research operates literally like a pyramid scheme. There isn't much room up at the top and a broad base of low-paid laborers (graduate students and postdocs and arguably even many assistant professors) are needed to make the operation work. There isn't much room for people at the base to move up. I know that that describes most businesses, but it's not what people go to graduate school for and people often receive more pay in for being part of the pyramid with no illusions in the private sector.

Again, people always assume the grass is greener on the other side and compare themselves to the best or luckiest people in other professions. Sure, one _might_ have gone into investment banking and made it big in that nine years. But it's easily possible one would have instead gone into a debt-creating track (like medical or law school) and be in an even worse position. All things considered, spending time doing something you should enjoy (again, not smart to do it for the money, security, or prestige) and being even after nine years is not that bad.

The issue is, what will the PhD scientists do after their science career dies. Will they be in a better place than they would have been had they pursued engineering degrees or nursing degrees or MDs?

I do think that it's probably better to get a science PhD. than a law degree from an a non-top-14 law school today. At least you won't have any student loan debt.

I'm not sure how you can brush off the baby boomer retirement issue. I do think it's going to happen in most fields, especially the more skilled or managerial you are. (Unskilled labor won't see a benefit.) Do you deny they are going to retire or die? It may take a while for them to croak but it's going to happen.

I think that the retirements will occur in drabs and dribbles slowly and that they will be barely felt or noticed. Remember, the U.S. population and the population of the labor force has increased over time, diluting the effect of the much-awaited Baby Boomer retirements. Like I said, these retirements have been eagerly-awaited for two decades. People were hoping for the Baby Boomer retirements back in 1994. That was 16 years ago. Also, even if they do retire, the effect will only be temporary and it won't do anything to fix our society's real economic problems and education arms race problem.

Anyway, I go back to the fact that OP should follow his heart and do what he enjoys doing. Anything else is a gamble. Even someone who becomes a nurse today at 25 might be in trouble 20 or 30 years down the line. We just don't know.

I think Dale Carnegie had the best advice. Find something you enjoy doing where you can also be successful. My advice to the OP is to go to medical school or to consider an engineering degree of some sort.

Also, today, in a nation that is transforming into an impoverished third world country, being able to earn a secure living is an overarching concern and it might make sense to pursue a degree in a field that you do not love but that has a high probability of career and income-earning success.

I really don't know what to tell young people today. I don't think it's good advice to tell them to follow their hearts and not everyone is cut out for medical or dental school or engineering. Sadly, our society is just going to have to face the facts that no amount of education can grant prosperity when the economy dictates that the majority of the people end up either poor or lower middle class.

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk, read the Miller-McCune article. It does an excellent job of discussing the issue and the history of the problem of PhD overproduction. It even mentions bogus reports put out by various self-interested agencies and organizations that were proved to be flawed and perhaps even fraudulent.

The Contemporary Problems in Science Careers essays might be a little dated but still contain much wisdom from someone who actually worked in the field and watched it become a career graveyard.

As I suggested earlier, I already did when this article was posted to slashdot. I don't find it compelling at all. I see no stats or comparison with other professions, which is what you'd want to really assess the situation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that science is a great career. I just think it's not worse than the other stuff out there (according to the stats).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Infohawk, I'll have to go read the report; I just read the Miller-McCune article and assume that what they said about it is accurate.

I don't know if you have an advanced science degree like I do, but I have been following career issues in the field for about two decades.

If science is a good career field then how do you explain the existence of postdocs--people who work 65+ hours/week in gypsy scientist positions for perhaps $35,000/year often without benefits. Is that what people should expect for 9-10 years of college education?

If someone wants to become a scientist in spite of the poor career prospects for science PhDs that's fine, but I think people should be aware of exactly what they are getting themselves into and that our government and the universities need to be more honest and upfront about the prospects.

 

[Infohawk]

The dream of more academic openings (and pay) becoming available due to vacancies created by baby boomer attrition is simply not going to happen. There are so many PhDs coming in from China, India, Pakistan, etc. whoa re happy to work for $35000 that things are going to get worse if anything. The baby boomers are one demographic factor. The rise in prestige of many schools across Asia that are churning out highly motivated, disciplined students who are just happy to be here for grad school is another - much larger - demographic factor that has been in play for some time now.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post, so I don't have much to say about it. This coming from a PhD holder who just finished a post-doc and is leaving academia. I am not bitter about anything and am very satisfied with my time in the system. I received good value for my time, and believe I was paid fairly for the work I did. However when I look at some of the faculty who are at the peak of their careers (in positions that are close to the top of my realistic expectations at good schools) I can't help but wonder why I would jump into the game hoping to be making in 20 years what I could be making in 5 years outside of the tower.

If it were easier to have a stable family life in the early phase of an academic career I might think about it but there aren't that many upsides to it any more - especially with the federal initiatives that are aimed at making the job of professor much more like that of a high school teacher. It's hard to find a faculty posting these days at anything but tier 1 schools that doesn't require undergraduate research... I wouldn't mind it so much if they didn't insist on inflating enrollment with students who really shouldn't be there in the first place. Federal education policy is an absolute clusterfuck and it's not getting any better.

I like your post. I've probably been a little unclear here. I'm speaking about science careers generally and not necessarily the PhD -> tenure issue. The topic was about "we have too many people going into science."

I agree with you that the baby boomers are only one factor and that the foreigners pose a problem. I would just stress again that foreign competition in the labor market can be felt everywhere. I think you still have an advantage over them in the US in that you can transition to business or sales whereas their cultural barriers would pose a problem for them.

What are you doing now that you're out of academia? Something sciency or technical I hope.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

As I suggested earlier, I already did when this article was posted to slashdot. I don't find it compelling at all. I see no stats or comparison with other professions, which is what you'd want to really assess the situation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that science is a great career. I just think it's not worse than the other stuff out there (according to the stats)

I agree that we need more stats. There is a horrible lack of hard stats for income and employment in every field, not just science. (Oftentimes the stats will report the percentage of degree holders employed in a field as well as median incomes but provide no opportunity about what percentage of the people are underemployed-and-involuntarily out-of-field and the percentage of people who earn income in various ranges.)

Perhaps it's no worse than many other fields during the current depression. The only real cost of getting a science PhD is the opportunity cost of spending 9-10 years in the field and perhaps ending up unemployable and overqualified in other fields. However, I'm not convinced that pursuing a science PhD. is a smart move. It might make far more sense for a bright person to obtain a bachelors degree in a marketable field and to then try to find work after a mere 4 years of college education.

I think that science can be reformed by having fewer graduate students and by creating "permanent researcher" positions that would pay about $60,000/year plus benefits for a multitude of PhDs. The science work would still get done (and perhaps more expertly and more efficiently) but we wouldn't be producing a surplus of PhDs any longer.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Nonlnear,

Would you enter the science field again knowing what you know now? Do you think my claims that we have too many PhD scientists are accurate? Were you able to find a position in industry or are you leaving science completely? What happened to other PhDs and postdocs you have known? Are students and postdocs quietly discussing "The Myth" in bars when they are out of earshot of PIs?

 

[nonlnear]

I like your post. I've probably been a little unclear here. I'm speaking about science careers generally and not necessarily the PhD -> tenure issue. The topic was about "we have too many people going into science."

Ah yes. Outside of academia I would agree the situation is probably even scarier. There is demand for a lot of biologists and chemists, but not many well paid ones! They have my pity.

I agree with you that the baby boomers are only one factor and that the foreigners pose a problem. I would just stress again that foreign competition in the labor market can be felt everywhere. I think you still have an advantage over them in the US in that you can transition to business or sales whereas their cultural barriers would pose a problem for them.

No doubt. I'm not complaining a bit.

What are you doing now that you're out of academia? Something sciency or technical I hope.

I'm trading #6 for #1. AIG sounds nice. :whiste: Plus there are lots of employers in Bermuda for the last 10-15 years of my career. :biggrin:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Here's a great quote from the Miller-McCune article. It really is a great article that accurately describes the situation of how science research evolved into a pyramid scheme. It really has too many good parts to post. I also liked the paragraph about how tenured professors interests are now at odds with those of the students.

During the 1990s dot-com boom, as the market for information technology workers began to tighten and salaries to rise, information industry interests agitated in Congress for admitting more high-skilled foreign workers. According to Teitelbaum, lobbyists for the tech industry struck a deal with those of the research universities: If the universities would support a higher visa cap for industry, industry would support an unlimited supply of H-1B visas for nonprofit organizations, essentially giving universities the right to bring in as many foreign postdocs as they wished.

Since then, tens of thousands of Ph.D.s, primarily from China, have arrived to staff American university laboratories, and the information industry has padded its ranks with temporary workers who come largely from India. The transformation of postdocs from valued protégés to cost-effective labor force was complete.

Harvard economist George Borjas has documented that an influx of Ph.D.s from abroad reduces incomes of all comparable doctorates. Although some people argue that advanced education assures good career prospects, “the supply-demand textbook model is correct after all,” Borjas says. It turns out to work as powerfully on molecular biologists and computer programmers as on gardeners and baby sitters.

The director of postdoctoral affairs at one stellar university, who requested anonymity to avoid career repercussions, puts it more acidly. The main difference between postdocs and migrant agricultural laborers, he jokes, is that the Ph.D.s don’t pick fruit.


According to a recent post on the blog of a well-informed physicist, eight people have already accepted postdoc positions at Princeton in the field of particle physics for the coming year. That is one particle physicist shy of the total number in that field hired nationally as faculty members this year.

 

[piasabird]

The report is awfully vague. It keeps giving figures lumping all Science and Engineering degrees together. There are a lot of different degree areas in Science and Engineering.

If you are chasing money maybe you should look at other possible degrees. Administrators of High School districts make pretty good money. Banks seem to do pretty well too. Stock broker anyone?

To make it in Science and Engineering you probably need to be driven to do something special. It is going to take some special drive to rise to the top of any field.

I have seen a lot of teachers being layed off in my area. Maybe go into Human Resources.

We also teach things like Material Science and Water purification or process management (Oil Industry).

Not everyone will find a job as a civil engineer.

Maybe try becoming a nurse.

My son is earning a degree in Physics with a minor in Computer Science. He wants to work in Nano-Technology. It was his idea, not mine. He thinks he can use Nano-Tech to cure diseases.

 

[Brigandier]

True facts, my sister got her MS in Civil Engineering(emphasis in environmental engineering, that's what she got her BS in) from UCol and worked at Target for nearly a year before getting a decent position at an engineering firm.

 

[nonlnear]

Nonlnear,

Would you enter the science field again knowing what you know now?

I would want a PhD for the sheer fun of it. I don't know that I would have tried to get a postdoc if I knew that I would come to the decision that I did. On the other hand I couldn't have come to the decision that I did without walking the path that I did. I try not to think about hypothetical pasts as I don't have much use for conjuring up regret when I don't feel it right now.

Do you think my claims that we have too many PhD scientists are accurate?

Yes and no. Too many scientists have PhDs because the degrees have been debased. A lot of jobs that require PhDs in their postings could be fulfilled by students who graduated from 4 year programs that were more selective than public schools are allowed to be, and more focused on their majors. Not to mention too many students are enrolling in post-secondary education.

The liberal arts model is dead. And I love the liberal arts model of education - as it existed about 100 years ago. What used to be a tradition of teaching philosophical context and universal academic values has devolved into cramming a year and a half of crap into a degree that doesn't really communicate any universal values (what the university once stood for), btu only serves to dilute most 4 year degrees into what a CC could teach in two years (including summer classes). So to become truly proficient you have to go to grad school. The reason universities are so inefficient at producing skilled technicians is because the entire institutional structure of a university was never designed for vo-tech education.

The -IT and A&M schools (well, most of them) have become essentially carbon copies of the universities as institutional homogenization set in, and we are left with an education system which is ill designed to do anything in particular. Now don't get me wrong, the USA still has a LOT of talent, and many of the strongest graduate programs in the world. It is still the best place to get a degree. But I don't think it will be for long.

I would like to see tech schools completely focused on their majors. More three year programs where there are no options and no liberal arts requirements. You can do more in three focused years than five years full of basket weaving and film studies options. Keep a few liberal arts schools around for those who want a broader education (which definitely has its place, don't get me wrong). These would end up being popular for things like law, the liberal arts (of course), and people who aren't 100% committed to their direction out of high school.

Were you able to find a position in industry or are you leaving science completely?

I'm trying to jump into actuarial science.

What happened to other PhDs and postdocs you have known?

Most have taken academic positions, but the market is strange. With state budgets in the toilet you have Harvard PhDs competing for tenure track positions at schools that would normally be considered slumming. People are crossing their fingers to get positions at even satellite campuses in unpleasant states. It's not uncommon to prolong a PhD a year or two because the job search is just that tough.

Are students and postdocs quietly discussing "The Myth" in bars when they are out of earshot of PIs?

I would say yes. However I also sympathize with the general notion that a lot of people in a lot of professions have unrealistic expectations. Academics do themselves a disservice when they expect the rest of society to share the values of the university. My species values the services of Lady Gaga higher than those of Ingrid Daubechies. I may think they are fools for doing so, but I would be a fool to shake my fist at them in resentment for being ignorant of things that are only valuable because they are esoteric. People value the things they can relate to. Highly intelligent people are only perceived as intelligent because there are lots of people who are less intelligent than them. Only the stupidest of the intelligentsia could resent ordinary people for not valuing that which they can't understand. There are a lot of stupid highly intelligent people.

 

[Moonbeam]

We need to invent implantable strings along which new nerves will grow.

 

[Brigandier]

We need to invent implantable strings along which new nerves will grow.

Don't more nerves = more pain?

 

[miniMUNCH]

<-- PhD in Chemical Engineering, thesis in the area of solid-state surface physics

I worked in the Pharma/biotech industry for 4 years before going back to school to get my PhD. I am not sure it was the best move financially but I have had a great time the last 5-7 years... grad school is way easier than working and a lot more fun. In the end, I think I will look back and be very happy with my decision to get a PhD.

 

[Pulsar]

Anyone can get a job. The issue is what kind of job they can get. That's the problem--it's very difficult for people to find career-building positions in their fields today. This is not a character flaw nor even a personal failure; it's just the simple economics of supply-and-demand. Just because the economy in someone's field collapsed does not make them unworthy or stupid.

I believe what you're seeing is primarily a result of the collapse of the middle class in the US. As social programs increase and more people are less motivated to pull them self up out of the morass, you create an increase of haves and of have nots, with nothing in between.

That said, the Indian family with 10 kids who owns the local party store just bought 3 more and is starting to send their children to college one at a time. Perhaps people need to rethink their culture and starting working more in the their family units to be successful.

 

[nonlnear]

I believe what you're seeing is primarily a result of the collapse of the middle class in the US. As social programs increase and more people are less motivated to pull them self up out of the morass, you create an increase of haves and of have nots, with nothing in between.

That said, the Indian family with 10 kids who owns the local party store just bought 3 more and is starting to send their children to college one at a time. Perhaps people need to rethink their culture and starting working more in the their family units to be successful.

There certainly are serious problems with where western culture has drifted when it comes to generational wealth and responsibility. I think our culture is much further from the Indian model of aging and wealth than even you might suspect. (Forgive me if you have already arrived at the depth of cynicism I am about to exposit.)

The problem is the entire mythology of wealth that the boomers built is predicated on eating their children's lunch to fund their retirement. Why should I buy into a stock market that's going to be sold off at firesale prices to fund my parents' retirement? It's even worse when you look at the pension solvency situation. Our parents signed contracts with themselves guaranteeing them that we would pay for their daiquiris on the beach while we beg for our call center jobs back from India. The boomers got one thing right and one thing only: be born in the right generation and you won't have to clean up your own mess. OTOH if you're born in the wrong generation you'll have your parents' mess and your own to deal with.

 

[Brigandier]

There certainly are serious problems with where western culture has drifted when it comes to generational wealth and responsibility. I think our culture is much further from the Indian model of aging and wealth than even you might suspect. (Forgive me if you have already arrived at the depth of cynicism I am about to exposit.)

The problem is the entire mythology of wealth that the boomers built is predicated on eating their children's lunch to fund their retirement. Why should I buy into a stock market that's going to be sold off at firesale prices to fund my parents' retirement? It's even worse when you look at the pension solvency situation. Our parents signed contracts with themselves guaranteeing them that we would pay for their daiquiris on the beach while we beg for our call center jobs back from India. The boomers got one thing right and one thing only: be born in the right generation and you won't have to clean up your own mess. OTOH if you're born in the wrong generation you'll have your parents' mess and your own to deal with.

I find this enlightening. I was talking to my Indian friend awhile ago and he kind of explained it as his parents are going to help him through college and all the like and he has to help them through retirement. Is this accurate of the Indian model?