260,000 graduates in minimum wage jobs

As a graduate once myself I want to point out a few things:

1) Having a degree does not entitle one to a good job
2) Your first job is meant to be low paid and crap, a bit of humility goes a long way. Its your second job that you should be aiming for.
3) People should stop with the Micky mouse degrees. Degrees in Media studies, applied or liberal arts, and social studies are not worth the paper they are written on in the real world of employment.
You want a good job then these are the degree you should be looking at:
Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
History
Geology
English Literature (and only at a top university)

The above will at least get you into teaching if all else fails.

And the real job guarantees are:
Law
Medicine
Veterinary medicine
Engineering
Architecture
Density

Very interesting thread.

I do think there is need to look at the distance between the elite and the ordinary workers. I do think that the cream of the profit simply gets larger and larger as it heads to the top of the chain rather than a more reasonably spread throughout all its links.

In the UK the British workman was told by the government over a period of time that basically union members were lazy (and a few were of course - that's human nature but no one dobs them in so they get away with it). But the confidence of the workforce was slowly eroded from being the force that provided much of the goods the world bought initially to a mindless lot of over paid idiots whose behaviour with strikes needed to be taught a lesson. EG Thatcher and the Miners.

By employing that type of psychology directed through our politicians and media, the very elite were able to snatch back a huge amount of the cream and to export their jobs abroad, where the workforce was more pliable and had little idea of how to aspire to a higher standard of living. (I am not intending to be patronising is about how the media controls how we see ourselves).

Today if you look in Britain you will hear that 'the level of education has dropped so much some of our graduates are actually thick - e.g. they only deserve low wages - but if you look at the rich, they get richer each day. But they do it off the backs of those they can mentally control into accepting the lowest standard of pay and conditions possible. You can't provide for a family off the minimun wage. Our taxes have to be given back to help keep food literally on the table by the government, most of whom are purely stooges for the elite. So instead of moving towards debate on wealth we merely go round and round silently.

The problem needs to be inversed IMHO that its anti human to expect to concentrate huge funds into a few families, who literally control the world's resources and therefore workforces. Its a mental attitude that must change and debate opened up to persuade the argument that everyone is more secure and happier - so more cooperative when the wealth of the planet is shared around so no one is poverty-struck unless they choose to be. I'm not advocating a police state, just a state that recognizes that its useless to hoard more money than one can count within one's lifetime and far more fun to see that money doing good for everyone. Meglomania is the ugliest side of the human personality.

dukeofjive696969
Trades is the place to go, its easy and cheap courses and there will always be a demand for tradesmen, plumbers,electricians,painters,dry wallers,building maintenance,etc. Only issue is you might sweat and get dirty.

There is another issue which I've seen too many times to let it go unmentioned: aging. Trades are pretty good for the average person as long as they are healthy. Eventually you get older. If you are lucky and if you haven't abused your body along the way too badly, you can still be OK into your 50's and maybe 60's. Some might be OK into their 70's even. But if you are less than lucky and end up with a bad back, shoulder or hip damage, or develop arthritic hands or knees -- just to mention a few maladies which appear as people age -- the trades can become a very unpleasant career even if it was quite pleasant when you were younger. OTOH, if you work into a supervisory role it may work out. The question is what percentage can work as long as they want as opposed to as long as they are able?

reply to post by BayesLike


You are right to say that in older age trade work is hard on the body, its a price i guess your body pays for the type of work, i just find that people look down at trades, when the money and the chances to find work is pretty good.

dukeofjive696969
reply to post by BayesLike

 

You are right to say that in older age trade work is hard on the body, its a price i guess your body pays for the type of work, i just find that people look down at trades, when the money and the chances to find work is pretty good.

Something you said reminded me of something I had heard/read elsewhere:

'people look down on trades'.

Someone had said/written something like 'if every single person in the USA got decent (non 'mickey mouse') degrees, we'd STIll need workers to be cashiers, wash our cars, man the drive through, deliver your pizzas, take your ticket at the movies, give you your popcorn, drive your taxi's, bring your food to your tables, etc. There will always been the need for min wage/low wage workers."

So so true.

reply to post by sarra1833


Not surprising at the very least, where was this thread saying that McDonald's are hiring cashiers only with a Bachelor's degree nowadays? Yup... That's where we are heading. And I wonder how large this number is going to get, with all the excited young students looking forward for a promising future after they graduate... LOL, sorry but i'm not trying to be negative, I don't think seeing the truth for what it is is being judgmental. I just see this university/degrees system becoming extremely obsolete due to the inflation of "professionals" swarming the job market looking for a better ride. Yes, that's MOST youngsters these days, going to get more and more frustrated and disappointed by this irrelevant system.

reply to post by crazyewok


Up to certain point I do agree with you, although there are a few buts:

1) At least 30% of people, if not more, simply do not have the talent/mind to learn such fields. Hard work is something that will not make you succeed if you have no talent at all... Any of these fields expect one to have at least certain preconditions to succeed in them.
2) Should a person work for the rest of their lives at a job, that one has zero interest for? It can be psychologically very devastating and cost far more in the long run due to additional stress and effects on mental health.
3) I agree having a degree should not entitle one to a good job, although it should entitle one to a job that can cover basic living costs - rent, food, medical bills, basic clothes&tech, transportation to work, as well as the college loans being paid back. No job should expect people to sacrifice their health for just having the job. Nobody, especially a college graduate, should be expected to work 60 hours a week just to survive. WIth minimum wage, which is under living wage, you need to put in lots of hours in order to earn enough to just get the the basics, or get a second job if one does not let pay more. At the end, the consequences of poorer sleep, poorer nutrition might lead to significant health risks, risks not worth taking.

I believe the number is significantly higher at the end, if many other factors would be considered in - not only minimum-wage, but low wage jobs, unemployed ones, underemployeed etc

One thing I have learned from working in a bank for 4 years is that very few people will get rich working for someone else. I think that we need to do a better job of teaching people to be entrepreneurs.

That said, I'm 30 years old and am finishing my 2nd semester of University. The reason I chose to go to school is because there are SO MANY other jobs out there for which I qualify (because I already have the experience) except the damn degree. I make a good salary where I am now, but I can only continue this same salary range if I stay in banking, and that is not what I want to do.

In my job searching it seems like every job wants a 4yr degree and also 5yrs of experience. In my opinion, it's a good idea - I can't imagine a freshly graduated 21/22 yr old in a position of authority at a large firm. On the other hand, I find it appalling that there are many jobs that pay $27,000 but expect you to have a 4yr degree and 2yrs of experience. One of these $27,000 jobs was a career counselor at a local University....unreal.

reply to post by sarra1833


I agree with some of your points. Having a college degree today does not equate to lasting career, especially with the fact that technology has taken jobs.

But here's my counter to your other main point:

Technology IS DEFINITELY taking jobs and will continue to do so. Emergence with the machine is part of our evolution. "Jobs" are not meant to be here forever, and soon "jobs" will be a thing of the past. At that point, learning will be an experience to grow mentally and emotionally, not for a 'job'.

I said that to say this:

People on welfare who aren't doing anything DO need to either be working or in school. The responsibility to society should be well balanced. If there are more people than jobs, than at least people without jobs ccan be developing themselves to be ready to take on a job; if nothing, they should be educatig themselves so that we have more thinkers, making them at least somewhat productive to the society.

dukeofjive696969
Trades is the place to go, its easy and cheap courses and there will always be a demand for tradesmen, plumbers,electricians,painters,dry wallers,building maintenance,etc. Only issue is you might sweat and get dirty.

I agree, and wish I went through with my plan to get enrolled into a Machinist program this year. Sadly I dont think i'm ready. I can get funded and have it forgiven if I finish with good grades, but theres so much hoops and jumps just to get there. Better luck next year....

In canada, i highly suggest a Red Seal trade. Transferable all across the provinces and territories, your almost garunteed a job, its getting that first one when you have no work experience is the problem (for me anyhow, general machinist)

sarra1833
reply to post by BayesLike

 

Very valid points indeed.

I know someone in the comments in that article was talking about Law Schools and how they promote the top grads making 160k a year and there is something like 2 grads for every single job available in Law and most make 20 to 40k a year. I think if people take a more realistic course of study while also trying to do something in a field that needs people, it'd work better, but even then it's hard to tell the future. Remember a few years back they were stressing how many nurses etc were needed so everyone and their brother took nursing? I know many grads now who either can't find good jobs in the field or are making just a few dollars above min wage. I'm not too versed in the pay rates for nursing and I know there are many aspects of it (LPN, RN, etc) but it just goes to show that what may be needed today will not/may not be needed 4 or 6 years down the road and in turn, those taking that field will have no means to work said field when their day comes. Not just nursing - I'm sure there are many many other working examples.

Well, we have to take into consideration that by the time one graduates, in any given major, that industry has drastically changed and has a lower demand for for workers, due to technology.

Once, being a doctor or a lawyer was considered safe choices from technology take-over. Well, I currently work at a law firm, getting ready to start law school in the fall, and I can tell you that technology has dipped into the law practice. Fewer paralegals and law cleks are needed due to technological advances, and more and more cases are settled out of court due to mediations. Also, tools like LegalZoom has taken over what the Associate lawyer did: draft contracts and wills.

Doctors and nurses are even being slowly fazed out. I saw on the Discovery or Science channel where there are literal "robots" who manuever around hospitals and clinics, asking patients what they need and checking temps. Doctors don't even have to know "much", as they simply ask you your symptoms, enter them into a database, and electronically send your prescription.

sarra1833
money.cnn.com...


Yet only lazy people work minimum wage and 'should get degrees to make a better life for themselves' hm?

I think this article speaks loudly.
and I'm sure at least one person will go on to reply on here saying 'They must have majored in ancient history/women's studies/literature/music/arts, so it's a useless degree.'
Maybe some have. I'm positive some have. Heck, I won't even be blind to say 'no, not at all.' But not every one has taken 'useless' degrees, anyone can believe that. My cousin graduated in the top of his class for accounting - and had to work retail min wage for a few years while actively pursuing work in his field. Finally he landed a great job, but it just goes to show.

A degree does not high salary make. Not every one who works min wage got crud grades in highschool or partied college away. Not every one who works min wage is lazy.

I'd also like to ponder, while I'm here, WHY folks like to do the old "Well, if those on welfare would just work any job and stop being picky about pay, they'd be off welfare'', then they get a min wage/low paying job and are called lazy/horrible people for wanting better money, then they go and get a degree and yet can't find work in their fields so they have to work min wage still. .....
Can anyone win for losing? Seriously? All I see is 'judge judge judge'. No matter what anyone does, they're still wrong to the seemingly majority.

Anyway, enjoy the article. It makes good food for thought at any rate.

How sad that is.

How many of us here went to college in the 1980s? Do you remember working full time and going to school? Same thing today, people work and go to college.

My first job paid less than minimum wage. Just wait until better opportunities come along. There will be better opportunities.

And in the meantime, people can start their own businesses with their degrees. That's what I am seeing less of nowadays.

Funny how this topic keeps arising here and the "boots straps" folks com out of the woodwork preaching the usual 19th & 20th century job search/mobility strategies, that don't currently work and will NEVER work again.

I've posted the below comment many times on ATS before and I will CONTINUE to post it, so people can finally understand and accept that the "boots straps" strategy died at LEAST 10 years ago in the USA and is NEVER going to function as it did in previous centuries:

Keeping up with the basics in terms of education and on-the-job work skills won’t be enough for jobs requiring future tech, labor market, skill-sets. The poor and even the middle class (not the upper middle class) will simply NOT be able to keep up with the skill demands for future employment, REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS, STATE LICENSING, etc, while earning wages AND keeping a roof over their heads. In the future these very high costs skills needed to stay “relevant” in ALL labor markets will only be affordable to the rich, or to VERY far forward thinking middle class families, willing to sacrifice everything financially to keep their offspring competitive in the larger job market.

I will begin with the usual assertion I hear in regards to the impact of these soon to be real “future-tech jobs”, which contrary to beliefs of some, includes the traditional trades and the soon to exist related proprietary tech that will not be repairable, only "replaceable by a certified/licensed tech" with "approved" formal education.

People seem to always say in rebuttal, “Someone has to get paid to fix the robots!”

I often hear this above noted rebuttal to mass automation in the modern workplace, where big business is hell bent on replacing living workers with machines, BUT it misses a subtle point that ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes, with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc or like most lower class folks, simply went straight into the trades and learned on the job with pay. HOWEVER, in engineering and technician curriculum’s today, times are changing to favor kids whom have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before entering college or a particular training program. So when they finally get to college or to their apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of "free time" spent “playing” with robotics and programming outside of class WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer whom fliped burgers part-time to pay rent and school expenses.

Many people generally do not bother to ask themselves, would future robotics consulting companies prefer to hire graduates with little work experience, whom have demonstrated HANDS-ON, non-professional robotics experience in the form of a “hobby portfolio”; OR a graduate with no “hobby portfolio” experience, BUT at the same time worked hard to graduate with a difficult major, however didn’t have as much free time to develop skills specifically related to their major and have a long list of work experience unrelated to their major, i.e. flipping burgers, etc? I’m seeing this already happening in many different engineering fields where the young workers being hired today are from wealthy families and great colleges and are ironically being trained by older folks whom were not necessarily as privileged in their youth, but got through school the hard, 20th century way and were trained on the job, while paid, over VERY long periods of time.

All the above is certainly is no longer an option in 2014 and beyond because companies would prefer to churn experienced staff rather than train fresh graduates in-house.

Now for the next part of my observations. Before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school have part-time jobs. Teens at one time did make up a sizable portion of the workforce and such changes in employment practices.

Although not my primary point, I do think there is plenty of evidence that teens today do not have the opportunity to get part-time jobs, BUT the non-working wealthy ones are beginning to develop advanced skill-sets that COULD be MORE helpful in their future adult careers than say “working at a taco stand after school”. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are very good EARLY examples of people who made use of their free time and access to money, without having to labor for pay at a "taco stand", where they BOTH developed specialized skills that could not be learned at a MINDLESS part-time job or even in formal schooling. In the end they leveraged that free time learning into long term LUCRATIVE careers.

Here is a modern example of a company with a big contract to fill and absolutely no "will" to increase wages to attract experience personnel, nor the desire to train inexperienced ones the job. Instead they put out a story on the web bellyaching:

onedublin.org...

In the link below this paragraph I have posted an example of what I believe to be a young person from a well off family who majored in robotics at USC, whom doesn’t appear to have had an unrelated part-time job to her major, while in college, possibly had lots time to “experiment” with the technology in her spare time, got a masters degree back-to-back to her bachelors degree AND at the end of the day, got a job offer at a University sponsored dinner party for robotics majors. NOBODY I went to college with EVER got a job offer at a university sponsored dinner party, I’m sure many Ivy league and top 10 school graduates do however. My point being, these future “robot repair jobs” are going to require smart kids with desire to advance, that also went to good schools, had lots of spare time and money to play with the tech outside of school AND got their jobs offered at exclusive dinner parties, which some of the initial job offerings will be non-paying internships at first. Further causing a skills gulf between the rich whom can work for free indefinitely and the less privileged who need a paycheck the day before they graduate. These jobs will not be gotten through sending out blind jobs applications or web job boards, as was done in the 20th century. Basically what this girl is doing for Disney, will in the near future, be more like what a plumber or electrician of today does, EXCEPT you won’t get trained on the job in a low-pay apprenticeship when at “entry level”. In fact to even be considered for these “future-tech jobs” in the first place you’ll need to have good academic pedigree, lots of unpaid hobby time and 1+ years of unpaid internships.

Here is her story, readers can decide for themselves, my opinion is that this is what a career for a plumber is going to look like in 15+ years:

onedublin.org...

Those whom are going to be rendered jobless by automation/robotics/tech are going to be the least likely to be able to pick up these pieces in the coming era of traditional jobs destruction. Its going to IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to go back to school, get a masters degree in robotics, in full-time only engineering programs, that also strongly discourage their admitted students from taking part-time jobs, while favoring students who have both money and free time and don’t EVER work at job unrelated to their majors, who then buy expensive robotics hardware/software to experiment with outside of class, on someone else's dime.

Mark my words this future labor market in the pursuit of “maintaining robots” or anything else for that matter is going to be the sole domain of rich kids with advanced degrees from good schools because NO ONE is going to train anybody perceived as lesser, in that kind of job, WITH PAY.

To continue my above point, I believe “rich kid” job mobility is going to be a bigger problem for regular folks beyond what the previous "rich kid" pedigree typically brought in the 20th century & before. This unfettered access to endless money, time to “explore” academics and hands-on work with no consequences, is going to END job mobility of any kind, for the lower and middle classes. Even those whom have met the typical required higher education and work experience standards will FOREVER be at a disadvantage when competing against these "highly motivated, rich kids" for jobs. Its a superstar only job market from here out, with no room for middle of road folks. This is a much larger looming economic disaster than ANYONE is currently willing to admit.

reply to post by boohoo


So now I have gone from Generation X to Boot Straps Generation?

Good to know that someone else has defined us.

Let's all go back to the Industrial Revolution and see if boot straps really worked or if it was ENTREPRENEURIALS that led the change in the world, and then wasn't it ENTREPRENEURIALS that led the technological change in the world?

No, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were just some Baby Boomers with ideas, they had no Boot Strap ingenuity, did they?

WarminIndy
reply to post by boohoo

 

Let's all go back to the Industrial Revolution and see if boot straps really worked or if it was ENTREPRENEURIALS that led the change in the world, and then wasn't it ENTREPRENEURIALS that led the technological change in the world?

No, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were just some Baby Boomers with ideas, they had no Boot Strap ingenuity, did they?

Funny you say this, although you may not be aware, the above is another "common rebuttal" which has no merit, I have a reply for you and will further clarify my above comment:

It has been proven MANY times that the Forbes 400 list is made up almost entirely of people whom came from the Upper Classes or at the least came from the very peak of the Upper Middle class. Do exception exist? Absolutely, but in great minority. I simply can not let such propaganda continue to be cited by internet shills, OVER & OVER, whom continuously comment about "earned wealth" or "spontaneous innovation", whenever the topic of "previous family wealth" arises in regard to the worlds current titans of industry.

When I look at the Forbes 400, I see 350+ people whom came from VERY wealthy families. Some of them certainly acquired more wealth than their parents had given them to begin with, but VERY FEW, if any, came from what I would consider a lower middle class backgrounds or less. I would even argue that to get on the Forbes 400 list, coming from “at least” an Upper Middle class family is the BARE minimum requirement.

I typically use four well known examples, where being from the Very Upper Middle class was a base requirement to enter a particular industry, with even an inkling of chance for later financial success:

Bill Gates had access to a mainframe computer in High School in 1969. My parents of the same age didn’t use or see a computer until the early 1980′s and even then it was something they only experienced and got trained to use at their jobs. Is it really that surprising that Bill Gates was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Mark Zuckerberg got his first computer around 12 years old and at some point his father hired someone to tutor him in programing. That computer adjusted for inflation would probably be worth close to $3,000-$4,000 today, not including tutoring costs. To put things into perspective my father had a computer in the early 1990′s in his home office that cost him about $3,000 and I was not allowed to ever touch it, my used car in high school cost less to buy at the time. Is it really that surprising that Mark Zuckerberg was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Jeff Bezos claims he paid for college on his own dime and at some point started Amazon with his own money, HOWEVER, he admits there was a point where he needed financial help/loan to keep the business afloat. Eventually he went to his parents who loaned him $300,000 after taking out a second mortgage on their home. How many parents here on the ATS Forums would give their children a $300,000 loan, leveraged against their home, for a start-up business? Is it really that surprising that Jeff Bezos was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Donald Trump, well what do I need to say here, he inherited his fathers $40 million dollar real estate business. Its certainly not surprising that Donald Trump was able to enter that market before many others and make money?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying any of the above people were not “movers & shakers” whom to date, have earned their “keep” through "great effort", but lets also not fool ourselves. If they had come from any lower class background than they actually did, their greatest achievements in life would have been greatly diminished, because the "achievement bar” would be lowered, due to their “spring boards” also simultaneously being lowered.

Think of it this way, if they had not come from the Upper Classes of society, Bill Gates AT BEST would be a 6 figure VP or Pres at a software company today, Mark Z would be AT BEST a 6 figure star programmer at a Google or Riot games type company, Jeff Bezos would be AT BEST a top Costco regional or district type manager pulling in 6 figures and Donald Trump would AT BEST be a small time developer working with much, much less capital.

I’ve seen this many times in life, you can’t be a dummy and turn wealth into more wealth; but being smart in turn, also won’t allow you to rub two nickels together, with no family connections nor financial support, and THEN turn those two nickels into multi-million/billion dollar company in 20 years. Certainly not circa 1999-2014. A person could have done such after the war in 1945, but that was a TOTALLY different world in terms of codes, regulations and financial polices. We don’t live in that world anymore. If you want to see how money is actually made today, look up how the “Riot Games” founders got their first $1 million venture capitalist investor. I’ll give you a hint, it was the Donald Trump way (i.e. a big cash loan from family). Hence, my opinion of folks preaching outadted and useless, 19th & 20th century "boot straps" strategies.

Also, lets assume the that at least 1/8th of the Forbes 400 list POSSIBLY came from relative poverty. My clearly defined exception, noted above, can explain such. Basically, after the war in 1945, it was possible to rise beyond ones class without having much previous family wealth, due to the world being TOTALLY different in terms of codes, regulations and financial polices; However, trying to do something similar, without some family financial assistance, has NOT really been possible since, circa 1999-2013

So of this “1/8th former lower class, now on the Forbes 400 ”, what percentage would you say earned enough wealth to be on the Forbes 400 BEFORE 1999? I would say 100%, pointing out, that most of them were likely on their way to that qualifying figure well before the 1990′s.

My point still stands, that we don’t live in that “post WWII” world anymore. If you want to see how money is actually made TODAY, look up how “Riot Games” founders got their first $1 million venture capitalist investor. Without family connections and FREE high level business guidance, there would be NO Riot Games company today. There’s nothing wrong with that, but its not some fairy tale “rags to riches” or “boot straps / elbow grease” story. This is the now typical “riches to more riches” story, which is VERY, VERY, VERY common today. Much more so NOW than it EVER was in the past. If you want to make money today with high profit margins, you have few choices to emulate today, which is why I pointed out Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump. They are the poster children for how money is made TODAY.

Basically, if you can’t do it the way these guys did it, you’re not going to find much success, due to the way the market, codes, regulations and financial polices have been structured in the last 15 years. There are no more Henry Fords or Thomas Edison’s, today these old-world style, "spontaneous innovators", without "initial family capital" are simply relegated to being someones employee, whom will NEVER have enough capital to start a real business with multi-million/billion dollar earnings potential.

If you can't see it or didn't see it developing over the last 20 years, then it should become PAINFULLY obvious, through some self reflection, that you've NEVER been very high on the food-chain, to observe & digest this market evolution, first hand.

reply to post by boohoo


So basically, tis a sad fact, but in the very close future if not already, everyone who isn't rich as Daddy Warbucks is doomed to living off ramen noodles and food stamps for the rest of their - and their kids, and kids' kids, and kids' kids' kids etc - lives. No room for hope no matter what because some few were born with silver spoons in their mouths.






This infuriates me.
Now we REALLY need to find the means to fix/make fair the 1% gap from the rest. The 1% get everything they want as it is. Now they get all the jobs ?


I do a farmer's nose honk cleaning at them.
And dislike those of money even more now. Before reading your posts, I was just 'ah lucky them, whatever'. Now? Total dislike. They get everything.
Poor/unwealthy get pooped on.
Something has to be fixed to make life more equally rounded.

reply to post by sarra1833



I graduated nearly three years ago and worked for two years in a job that had nothing to do with my degree for minimum wage so I could get myself on my feet after being a student. Now that I have left to pursue my career, I am having no luck at all and have got to the point where I am having to apply for minimum wage jobs again to keep me going. I get turned down from jobs (career specific and minimum wage jobs) so many times it is beginning to be very disheartening. I have found that the waiting list for volunteer work (in my chosen subject) is outrageously long as well. The only way to get a job I guess would be to move to a big city like London or apply to join the military. Having no luck!

Bottom line - you have a better chance at earning a suitable living WITH education then without.
When the opportunity comes, always get the education. You never know ....

FlyersFan
Bottom line - you have a better chance at earning a suitable living WITH education then without.
When the opportunity comes, always get the education. You never know ....

Exactly.

And this idea that rich people are only rich because Daddy Warbucks left them money....geesh.

FlyersFan, it never changes. These arguments have always been spouted ever since I can remember.

When I graduated high school way back in 1985, we were told that in order to get better colleges to even consider us, we had to take the higher level classes. So that British Lit class might have seemed useless to those who wanted to become secretaries, but darn, snap, I wrote two published articles about film. Seems that British Lit class paid off.

What is it that people want? Do they want fast money or do they want knowledge for the sake of knowledge? If people want the fast buck, just play the lottery, someday you might hit it big.

There is nothing wrong with being poor, it's how you view yourself. Sure, I have a negative cash flow, but does that make me poor? No, it means that I have a negative cash flow. That doesn't mean that tomorrow it will be negative.

I really don't think of myself as poor, because I grew up in deep poverty, I know what deep poverty is. This is ridiculous that people keep thinking that money, money, money is going to solve all their problems and that if they have money like the rich, then they are going to be happy.

I'm not poor. But the way some of these people cry and carry on, you'd think they were impoverished like people were 60 years ago. Nope, not even close.

Hey, some of you out there, didn't you have grandparents who scrubbed toilets to send your parents to college? My father grew up in houses that didn't even have roofs, but he had 5 children that went to college, 3 with Master's Degrees and have been featured on nationally syndicated radio shows about ECONOMICS. Don't tell me that Boot Strapping doesn't work.

FlyersFan,

So far all I have heard from these people is complaining. If I sat down and complained about how rotten it is in Denmark, and I would be the one to have a right to, then I might as well forget that through it all, I'm not living like I was in 1984, and that was in deep poverty.

You people complaining, go work in the Peace Corps then come back and tell us how awful life is here.

My oldest is a freshman in college, and thankfully we have a fantastic local community college here. They also offer 4 year degrees through several colleges surrounding my area. Luck of the draw that we moved here.

But it is scary out there, and we have often talked about the great unknown that is now our current reality. How do you pick a path for majors with things changing so rapidly? Thankfully he is steering clear of what is considered 'useless' degrees. I really hate to use the term useless, because I do believe education is very important.

And there is a stigma attached to "trades", which I find very ironic because, when your car breaks, or you need a new roof, or a pipe busts, or the worst thing ever, your AC/heater goes out in the middle of summer/winter. Then those lowly trades are worth their weight in gold!

The scary question is, what is a parent or a student to do now?

Now on the flip side of things, many are old enough to have had the luxury of having an after school job during high school. Something to teach us the ropes of working, and providing important life lessons. With kids competing with adults for starter jobs, valuable life lessons are being lost. And it is frightening for kids to see older adults working in jobs that are usually meant for the younger set. There is no longer a clear 'end game' in sight for them.

I don't have the answers, heck, I don't even know if I know the questions anymore.

Something needs to change, but what? And how?