court ordered to pay for college....what do you think about that?

originally posted by: Grovit
a degree is not a requirement for people to do well in the real world, no matter how much you say it...

So you think your anecdotal story about your individual, personal, blind luck has anything to do with the larger market?

Of course exceptions like you exist and in decent numbers as well. You're still a minority, whom earlier in their careers were in the right place at the right time. You even admitted that your first round of "paid training" was in 1998, may as well have been 1928. The market is nothing like it was in the 90s, not even 2007, for that matter.

I am not discounting your PERSONAL outcome, it is indeed a realistic scenario. But you have yet to admit that the "opportunities" you experienced are much more rare today than that were in the past. You and I are about the same age and possibly in related industries. I can tell you as a hiring manager that the company I work for got rid of people like you in 2008. Everyone has a degree now, not out of production necessity, but out of decree from the top (hint, it lowers insurance premiums).

originally posted by: Grovit
if it were i would be working at mcdonalds or some entry level job somewhere and thats not the case. i have not been in a position like that since i was 18.
did it all with no diploma.

Count your blessing and hope where you are currently working doesn't get bought out. I guarantee you won't survive the transition when the "new management" comes to town. Its great you've hung on this long without formal education, give me a call when you hit 45 and are not on "management track", you likely won't believe so much in "hard work" as you do today. Many have told this tired tale before only to have to eat their words a few years later. Once you get there, its no turning back, you'll finally realize what others were warning you about all along. When that day comes, I PRAY you'll remember this thread, in a flash of clarity, reflecting on the hubris that you demonstrated.

Pat yourself on the back, you dodged a few bullets up till now. Its doesn't make you a special "hard worker" it just makes you luckier than average. Feel free to head back to the roulette table.

originally posted by: boohoo


Of course exceptions like you exist and in decent numbers as well. You're still a minority, whom earlier in their careers were in the right place at the right time.



Count your blessing and hope where you are currently working doesn't get bought out. I guarantee you won't survive the transition when the "new management" comes to town. Its great you've hung on this long without formal education, give me a call when you hit 45 and are not on "management track", you likely won't believe so much in "hard work" as you do today.


Pat yourself on the back, you dodged a few bullets up till now. Its doesn't make you a special "hard worker" it just makes you luckier than average. Feel free to head back to the roulette table.

you can call it luck if you want....
i dont. i know what my skills are....

i know i know...the first time in 98 it was luck..right place right time...different market.

then a few years it was luck again....im just a lucky guy huh....
im not worried about it at all.....

there will always be a demand for things i know how to do....always....the situation might not always be ideal but i will always find work.

there will always be shops that need diagnostic techs. even though my certifications have expired they will still be accepted and i can recert at any time.....
i will always have that to fall back on......

i was offered huge money a few years ago, before i started at the foundry to go to pennsylvania and teach advanced wheel alignment classes..i didnt want to live there and didnt want to commute.....my point is im not worried if the market changes again.

if i cant find a good paying job programming or operating then i can go back into a shop. if i cant or dont want to that i can teach.

there are metal and quality control labs all over the place i can find work....

i can operate heavy equipment too.(skid steer. excavator)...
robots will not be taking over their operation any time soon.....


i have many rungs on the ladder i have to drop before i have to work at mcdonalds....if it comes to that then it comes to that....ive ground out harder places than that....

and finally, not everyone wants to be management....i have zero interest in that.

before i went to the cnc they approached me(not an official offer) to possibly run the lab. my boss was retiring....it was a management, salary position...thought about it for a few days but i turned it down and went with the cnc.
i would have only had a few guys under me but i would have had to hit all the meanings and deal with more quality reports. all the gemba walks with the other supervisors......
its just not for me....i ran the lab for a few weeks when my boss went on vacation....just not my thing...

im more the rough neck kind of guy. i dont want to spend my time behind a desk, responding to emails and going to meetings.

contrary to what you might think, not everyone has the desire to be in that position.

and honestly, someone like my boss that ran the lab was more expendable than a guy like me....

of course i could be wrong on a lot of this...all i have to go on is my experience though...i have been ok so far and i am 37.
45 is not that far away.....

ive got my tools and my mig welder...i can always make money with those.

originally posted by: Grovit
and finally, not everyone wants to be management....i have zero interest in that.

before i went to the cnc they approached me(not an official offer) to possibly run the lab. my boss was retiring....it was a management, salary position...thought about it for a few days but i turned it down and went with the cnc.
i would have only had a few guys under me but i would have had to hit all the meanings and deal with more quality reports. all the gemba walks with the other supervisors......
its just not for me....i ran the lab for a few weeks when my boss went on vacation....just not my thing...

im more the rough neck kind of guy. i dont want to spend my time behind a desk, responding to emails and going to meetings.

contrary to what you might think, not everyone has the desire to be in that position.

and honestly, someone like my boss that ran the lab was more expendable than a guy like me....

That's my point, you simply don't get how those at the top think. Its not that you don't bring value to the company at your current level. Companies today don't want to pay the higher salary and high cost insurance for an experienced employee, especially those without degrees that increase insurance costs across the board (health, liability, etc). Trust me, when you hit a certain age and are "not in management yet" and don't have a "formal degree" yet, they WILL find a way to "do without your services".

Its not about wanting or not wanting to be in "management", its about being in a "role" appropriate to your "age cohort", per the owners biases. Like I said, my company got rid of good workers like you in 2008 and haven't looked back. The new, younger, guys suck at their jobs, but the pay in 50% of what it used to be and insurance costs less for them, so profits are higher than before. Taking a "management role" will soon be "expected" of you and if you don't take it, the entire market could end up showing you the door. Proceed with caution, you have been warned.

originally posted by: boohoo

That's my point, you simply don't get how those at the top think.
ok...im a dumb ass...what a #ty thing to say....its not about not getting how they think..its about some people do not want to sit full time behind a desk and go to meetings.....i can do it and i would do it if it came to that but its not my choice of work....just like some guys want to be behind the desk and not on the floor grinding it out....nothing wrong with either one....it takes all walks my friend.......what i did notice is out of all the employees there, hourly and salary, i would say there was about 15% of us that could do both. management and work in the shop......a lot of the guys on the floor just did not have the faculties to be in management.....a lot of the management could not handle being on the floor....no way....


Taking a "management role" will soon be "expected" of you and if you don't take it, the entire market could end up showing you the door. Proceed with caution, you have been warned.

ok man...thanks for the warning.

if it gets to that point of take the management job or hit the road, depending on the offer i would probably take it...if the choice was management or no job, its not much of a choice....

if i get shown the door then i get shown the door.

i have no problem going back to being a wrench. most of what i did towards the end of my stint int he shop was diagnostic anyway...im cool with that.

let me guess. that market will dry up too right...cause the way i think.

every shop is going to want a young tech with 1 year of experience right?? not the 45 year old tech that has been wrenching and diagnosing for 25 years......

there are so many positions in these industries. i still jobs will always be there if you have the skills to warrant the position.
thats where i am at...

if i was 18 and i had no skills i would have no problem at all walking into an entry level spot and working my way up.
i would rather work my way up from an entry level spot than go to college for 4 years with no income and then start...

i would take the experience.....

originally posted by: Grovit
if it gets to that point of take the management job or hit the road, depending on the offer i would probably take it...if the choice was management or no job, its not much of a choice....

if i get shown the door then i get shown the door.

That's not what I said. I said, once you hit a certain age, if you are not in a management position, job opportunities will simply dry up, both on the "floor" and behind the "desk". 4 years ago my company let go of one of the best engineers in the industry because he was over 50 and turned down their first offer for him to be management. The management job required him to go out and "look for revenue", manage projects and to do staffing/budgets. Mind you this guy had all the proper licenses and certifications and never lost money on any of his projects. BUT, the company decided that wasn't enough, he needed to train underlings, find work and squeeze labor as management, to make the company larger profits. He didn't want to do it, so they showed him the door. Career-wise he did fine until he was 60 years old, now hes out of work, possibly for good, not because he is not "good" at his job, but because companies expect someone in his cohort and salary range to do more than just do their wok efficiently and not loose money.

If you don't know this, you are in for a rude awakening.

originally posted by: Grovit
every shop is going to want a young tech with 1 year of experience right?? not the 45 year old tech that has been wrenching and diagnosing for 25 years......

there are so many positions in these industries. i still jobs will always be there if you have the skills to warrant the position.
thats where i am at...

if i was 18 and i had no skills i would have no problem at all walking into an entry level spot and working my way up.
i would rather work my way up from an entry level spot than go to college for 4 years with no income and then start...

i would take the experience.....

I don't know how to answer this because it should be so obvious to you. OF COURSE THEY WILL HIRE YOUNG TECHS with no experience, whenever possible, because the overhead is lower, therefore the contract-bid can be lower than a competitors (quality or service be damned). Experience means very little, to some companies today, maybe spending a little more time in those "stupid meetings" would enlighten you on how the "bosses" truly view your contribution.

originally posted by: boohoo


I don't know how to answer this because it should be so obvious to you. OF COURSE THEY WILL HIRE YOUNG TECHS with no experience, whenever possible, because the overhead is lower, therefore the contract-bid can be lower than a competitors (quality or service be damned).

absolutely incorrect.
if there are any mechanics on here, hopefully they will chime in.
when it comes to the repair shop, they want people with the wrench time.

we make money for the shop.

i really hope some mechanics will chime in here...there is no substitute for experience in the shop.

ive seen multiple 'kids' come straight out of a tech school with the master tech patch on their sleeve that knew # all.....
they come in and yeah, theyre a master tech but they constantly get out performed by the guys with experience...

there is only so much you can learn via school and early on in your career....there are way too many variables when it comes to damn near all things in the shop...i would give specific examples but if youre not a mechanic you will not understand(thats not a knock)

i have seen these young guys come in and be totally lost in the shop.
they have that patch though.

those are the guys that get destroyed pay wise when they get paid flat rate because they cant do it in the allotted time...then you get the guys with experience that rip it up pay wise because theyre getting paid more hours than what they actually put in with the flat rate system.

when it comes to certain things(and this area is one of them), nothing beats the actual hands on experience....ive got the patches but i also have the shop time.....some of the sickest techs i know never took a class.

there are so many tricks and shortcuts and ways to do things that the books/class dont show you...steps you can cut out....you dont learn this until you start doing it.....

so i will concede to you on some of the stuff we have talked about but when it comes to this, i wont.

if youre not a mechanic or a service manager you dont know.....not your fault....how can you?

originally posted by: boohoo
maybe spending a little more time in those "stupid meetings" would enlighten you on how the "bosses" truly view your contribution.

i never once said anything like 'stupid meetings'

i said theyre not for me.
i prefer to be the one on the floor

please dont put words in my mouth...
thanks

originally posted by: Grovit
we make money for the shop.

i really hope some mechanics will chime in here...there is no substitute for experience in the shop.

ive seen multiple 'kids' come straight out of a tech school with the master tech patch on their sleeve that knew # all.....
they come in and yeah, theyre a master tech but they constantly get out performed by the guys with experience...

there is only so much you can learn via school and early on in your career....there are way too many variables when it comes to damn near all things in the shop...i would give specific examples but if youre not a mechanic you will not understand(thats not a knock)

i have seen these young guys come in and be totally lost in the shop.
they have that patch though.

those are the guys that get destroyed pay wise when they get paid flat rate because they cant do it in the allotted time...then you get the guys with experience that rip it up pay wise because theyre getting paid more hours than what they actually put in with the flat rate system.

We are not in disagreement here on the ACTUAL outcomes of using experienced staff. You and I are disagreeing about managements perspective on how to handle the situation, when it comes to balancing overhead costs and profit. You are giving them way too much credit, to do the right thing and realize any of the above.

Thats why I said:

"whenever possible"
"because the overhead is lower"
"contract-bid can be lower than a competitors (quality or service be damned)"

If the flat rate, new kid, makes a higher profit, with lower overhead, than you, despite taking longer and doing a worse job, you're gone, end of story. The top guys are too short sighted to see it any other way. They will simply sell and walk away from the business, if the bad reputation starts to hurt the bottom line.

originally posted by: boohoo


If the flat rate, new kid, makes a higher profit, with lower overhead, than you, despite taking longer and doing a worse job, you're gone, end of story.

i dont understand....

how does he make the shop a profit if he takes longer?
if any mechanic can not get it done in the allotted time, they will be gone..
i know if the job says 4 hours and i do it in 3, i still get paid for 4 but thats also an hour i have for another job...more cars in=more cars out=more money for the shop.

if the young kid takes 5 hours to do a job that is supposed to take 4, yeah, theyre getting an extra hour labor out of him cause they are only paying him for 4 but thats an hour less he has for another car...so, its not really an extra hour labor. it would be ab extra hour labor if he was onto another car...
he is going to start to interfere with the number of cars in/out. he is going to interfere with customer shceduled pickup times.
he will be gone...

another benefit to older, experienced techs are the actual tools they bring with them...ive been collecting tools for 18 years now. stands to reason i have pretty much everything i need.
the young dude that has not been on the job as long will not have the tools the other guys have(for the most part) and that is going to slow them down even more.
they will be on a job and need something and not have it which means they will have to stop working and go ask another tech if they can borrow. now theyre taking time they should be using to do actual work and theyre messing around trying to locate tools.
in that case he should hope the shop has a house tool, which they probably wont unless it is a diagnostic tool.

techs are not required to let others borrow tools.

for the most part the rule is " idont ask to borrow your wife so dont ask me to borrow my tools"

see, if im busy getting a 4 hour job done in 3, i dont have time to mess around and stop to give him anything. he is definitely not going to be digging around in my box....
thats the way it is. if you were a tech you would know these things.

see its not about being a dick to people and not letting them borrow cause they are new and dont have their own.
its about we dont let people go in our # cause things grow legs.
its about what if i let him borrow ford ford injector pulse noid light and he leaves it under the hood and now i dont have it?
what if he accidentally breaks it and now i dont have it?

what if he gives me my # back and its all greasy and funked up?
i cant have that

see what i mean?
maybe i dont understand what you were trying to say

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
$16,000 sounds like a lot of money to some people. What we don't know, is what the families incomes are. $16,000 might not be that much to them.

Going by the EFC charts from two years ago 16k is a combined income of roughly $92,000.

originally posted by: Grovit
you are legal adult when you turn 18.

Why are you an adult at 18?

and to your post about how its sad people dont want to invest in their kids future...what future do you speak of?
the future where people like azadan talks about that have a mechanical engineering degree and still work at pizza hut?
that future....

This is because there aren't jobs to go around. We have outsourced a huge number of jobs, replacing them with low skilled, low paying positions. Is it the fault of the graduates that there isn't any work for them to do?

what about the military as an option for getting school paid for?
let me guess, that is not an option anymore right?
go ahead and list all the reasons...

Potential issues with the military aside (such as not wanting to support a corrupt government), their college benefits have largely been removed. Tuition assistance is currently $4500 per year, if you're in the reserves you can make another $4300 per year. That's not necessarily bad but they only cover being full time and only for 4 years, that's roughly $8800 per year which at most schools only covers about 20% of your costs and none of your living expenses.

originally posted by: Grovit
so is it that people want the degree that they want and they want to live where they want and if they cant get a job then blame the economy, job market, and everything else...
im sorry man but im thinking something is wrong with them....if a dude has a degree in mechanical engineering and he his slinging pizza then he is doing something seriously wrong...

You're right, something is seriously wrong. It's called the economy, it began in the early 2000's, then 2008 happened and all hell broke loose. This is no longer the land of opportunity.

originally posted by: Grovit
you can call it luck if you want....
i dont. i know what my skills are....

People get lucky or unlucky all the time. Success means getting a lucky opportunity, but then being willing to work and see it through. Most college graduates today do not get that opportunity, the job market today is all about experience. Depending on your job a degree may or may not be an additional requirement but the experience is what counts. When I read job postings around the country I routinely see employers these days counting 4 years of school as being worth 1 year of experience. These jobs also tend to want 5-10 years experience so that leaves the recent graduate with nothing worthwhile but those who have been around the block tend to be ok until they reach a certain age. The job sector has somewhat gone to the same model as the military adopting an up or out system. As you age you're expected to have more and more qualifications and move into higher positions, this leaves people like you when they turn 45 or 50 who prefer to be on the floor actually making things happen without work.

As was stated before, things are moving to a superstar market. To get hired in the first place you need an education and years of experience, and then to retain your job you're expected to improve from there and eventually move to a higher position.

originally posted by: Grovit
how does he make the shop a profit if he takes longer?
if any mechanic can not get it done in the allotted time, they will be gone..
i know if the job says 4 hours and i do it in 3, i still get paid for 4 but thats also an hour i have for another job...more cars in=more cars out=more money for the shop.

In math terms, the rate you work is expressed as 1, that's 100% of the expected jobs. You can also express pay as 1 which is 100% of the pay. You can then multiply.

The average worker would be 1*1=1.

In the case of the experienced worker who is doing a job in 3 hours instead of 4 but still getting the same labor rate, he is working 33% faster so 1.33*1=1.33. That worker is 33% more productive than the average.

Now lets take the new person, he is needing 5 hours instead of 4 so he's only 80% productive so that's a .8 instead of a 1. However, his pay rate is half that of the experienced worker. Lets say that half the bill goes to compensation, that means this worker is generating 1.5 in revenue per job.
.8*1.5=1.2.

This new hire is now 20% more productive for the company than the average worker. The experienced guy that's your top worker is still better but not by as much. By replacing your average guys with the lesser skilled much lower paid guys you come out ahead.

An interesting thing happens here too, you can then take another round of even worse performing guys and edge out the people you just gave jobs to. Lets say the average wage was $50k/year, so the experienced guy got 65k and the new slow guy got 25k. By bidding down the wages people become more desperate for work and soon there will be a group doing the same thing for 15k, and they might not be as good either. Lets say the 15k workers need 6 hours for the job.

That's .67*2.5=1.675.

These new people that are even worse at their jobs and are being paid much less are now so much more cost effective for the company that the gap between them and the experienced guys is as big as the gap was between what the average worker used to be and the master.

Corporations flock to that sort of thing because it saves them money and it has happened to a huge number of our industries.

Or the non math way to answer your question: He's being paid substantially less which makes up for the lower volume and then some.

originally posted by: Grovit
even with degrees there are only so many jobs in any given field to go around.....some jobs you wont get even with a degree unless you know someone or are greased in somehow...

There's certainly a subsection that thinks that, but for the most part the entry level jobs aren't there. We either outsource the jobs or give them to foreigners over our own citizens. You cannot graduate and start work at a company and work your way up in todays job market and the non education path has even fewer opportunities than that.

i never really understood or even saw how the job market has dried up...i hear stories all the time about how the auto makers in detroit shut down and now thousands are out of work...

We sent the jobs to other countries.

i live in a very industrial area but a LOT of those jobs have gone away...shut down or moved to china....still though, if you look on craigslist under general labor or manufacturing there are tons of companies around here hiring for entry level all the way up to the skilled trades....

i here people say all the time that they cant get a job or if they can all there is is wal mart for 25 hours a week....

chillicothe.craigslist.org...

There's the closest craigslist to where I live. 95% of those jobs listed that aren't scams are CDL. Being a driver is a fine job and we need them but it's not exactly loaded with upward mobility.

the reality is a great deal of people dont want to put in the long hard day. they dont want to work at a place where they cant text and update facebook all day.

I have no sympathy for these people.

i saw it at the foundry every week. on monday there would be maybe 10-12 temps brought in...12 bucks to start through the temp service...make it to 90 days and get hired in and get a 2 dollar raise.

I've seen just the opposite from temp agencies. If you get to 89 days they'll let you go for a day to reset your counter, then rehire you that way you can never actually advance, the company doesn't have to pay you more, and the temp agency gets to pocket the difference.

when i was in the metal lab there the senior engineers daughter came in to work...in the lab only...she had just graduated college with a degree in french....so she gets a french degree to wind up at the foundry with her father and the rest of the rough necks......good call

Is this not a skill we want in society? People that speak French, understand the culture and can make informed decisions regarding them? It seems quite useful in international government/business relations.

my brother is another bonehead....he just left a job cause of course it was hard. before that he had interviews lined up but he failed the piss test....

I have no sympathy for these people either. If you don't have the self control to make responsible decisions you don't deserve a good job. Then I think about all the bankers and how they snort coc aine with $100 bills.

parents should not be forced to pay for tuition when the kid can do any number of things to screw it up and then the parents are out thousands

College isn't for everyone, college graduation rates are actually quite low but we can't keep the illusion of our economy going if we don't put people under crushing amounts of debt, and no one running things wants to be the person in charge when it all blows up.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Why are you an adult at 18?
because that has been the definition of 'legal adult' for a long ass time...that and all the things i mentioned in previous posts


This is because there aren't jobs to go around. We have outsourced a huge number of jobs, replacing them with low skilled, low paying positions. Is it the fault of the graduates that there isn't any work for them to do?
to a point, yes. why do you bother getting a degree when the jobs are all getting taken away and positions filled with low skilled positions.....no very smart to pick a degree field where the jobs are drying up.....nobody made you major in what you decided to major in. why not go to school for meterial science or textiles? huge job market for that ....you picked your major. blame yourself....im seeing more of the "but its everyone elses fault" deal



You're right, something is seriously wrong. It's called the economy, it began in the early 2000's, then 2008 happened and all hell broke loose. This is no longer the land of opportunity.
its not the same economy but there are loads of good paying jobs to be had. again, blame the economy..


People get lucky or unlucky all the time. Success means getting a lucky opportunity, but then being willing to work and see it through. Most college graduates today do not get that opportunity, the job market today is all about experience. Depending on your job a degree may or may not be an additional requirement but the experience is what counts.
according to boohoo its about the degree. according to him people like me are and will continue to be replaced with young, no experience college grads...which is it?


These jobs also tend to want 5-10 years experience so that leaves the recent graduate with nothing worthwhile but those who have been around the block tend to be ok until they reach a certain age.
maybe youre looking at the wrong jobs..ever think of that? i look at available jobs all the time. i constantly see good paying jobs available with no or very little experience needed


The job sector has somewhat gone to the same model as the military adopting an up or out system. As you age you're expected to have more and more qualifications and move into higher positions, this leaves people like you when they turn 45 or 50 who prefer to be on the floor actually making things happen without work.
i dont agree with that. there are guys at the foundry right now that are on the floor and into their 50's and 60's...been in the same position for 30 years. not management...im talking labor. you guys keep using the excuses of theyre gonna do away with the old and bring in the young, new guys. in some industries maybe. in the web development industry maybe...i have not seen evidence of that in the manufacturing industry as a whole





In math terms, the rate you work is expressed as 1, that's 100% of the expected jobs. You can also express pay as 1 which is 100% of the pay. You can then multiply.

The average worker would be 1*1=1.

In the case of the experienced worker who is doing a job in 3 hours instead of 4 but still getting the same labor rate, he is working 33% faster so 1.33*1=1.33. That worker is 33% more productive than the average.

Now lets take the new person, he is needing 5 hours instead of 4 so he's only 80% productive so that's a .8 instead of a 1. However, his pay rate is half that of the experienced worker. Lets say that half the bill goes to compensation, that means this worker is generating 1.5 in revenue per job.
.8*1.5=1.2.

This new hire is now 20% more productive for the company than the average worker. The experienced guy that's your top worker is still better but not by as much. By replacing your average guys with the lesser skilled much lower paid guys you come out ahead.
nice long math based argument that does not hold up in my opinion...the pay is more than likely not half what the experienced guy makes...it does not work like that...more than likely the new guy will be within a couple bucks of the experienced guy. the difference is the guy that has 20 years under him will be getting it done in less time than required. he will also either have a choice of the jobs he wants to take or he will fall into the spot where he mostly does certain things. like he will be the go to guy for electrical...why? cause he gets it done fast. more cars in and out. customers get their car finished on time, not 2 hours late....paying a guy less and having him take longer might work out on your math paper but in the shop it does not work like that...especially these days with customers being able to look times up online. customers these days especially expect their cars to be done at a certain time. if they have an appt for 8am and its a 4 hour job then they want their car at noon. start giving the work to the slow guy and make the customer wait till 1 or 2 to pick up there car and your shop will fold with the quickness. that is the reality of how it works......i know what i am talking about....ive been in the shops. i know a lot of mechanics around town. i lived across the street from the owner of an auto repair shop for 15 years and i worked for him for several....i saw how it worked....have you?

An interesting thing happens here too, you can then take another round of even worse performing guys and edge out the people you just gave jobs to. Lets say the average wage was $50k/year, so the experienced guy got 65k and the new slow guy got 25k. By bidding down the wages people become more desperate for work and soon there will be a group doing the same thing for 15k, and they might not be as good either. Lets say the 15k workers need 6 hours for the job.
and pretty soon you have a guy working for 2k a year cause your flow chart follows that course right?



These new people that are even worse at their jobs and are being paid much less are now so much more cost effective for the company that the gap between them and the experienced guys is as big as the gap was between what the average worker used to be and the master.
yeah cause every successful business owner is in the habit of hiring the slowest, worst performing guys right?

Corporations flock to that sort of thing because it saves them money and it has happened to a huge number of our industries.
sure, maybe huge, multi national corporations that employ 50k people....maybe...im talking about repair shops that employ 3 techs..maybe 5 techs....it does not work the same for outfits like that. not all 'midas' or 'tuffy' are corporate owned. you buy the name and own your own business.....you know, small business. all your math, flow chart BS does not work for what i am talking about
.

i was enjoying having this conversation going but i cant handle it anymore. i feel like i am talking in circles.

i dont know what boohoo does. i didnt ask.
i know you dont work in either area i am talking about cause you told me yet you both are trying to tell me how it works..
neither one of you are a repair shop owner or a mechanic but you seem to have it all figured out .
you seem to know that when i hit 45-50 i am just gonna be out of a job.
i have to get out of here now. i cant argue this out with either of you anymore. i just dont think either of you know what you are talking about and i dont want to talk to either of you about it anymore.later

originally posted by: Grovit
because that has been the definition of 'legal adult' for a long ass time...that and all the things i mentioned in previous posts

It used to be 16, before that it was 14. The only things that actually happen at 18 are that you can buy tobacco and you complete compulsory education. Mentally you aren't mature until your mid 20's, and at 18 you have no independent life experience to make responsible choices. That doesn't sound like an adult to me.

its not the same economy but there are loads of good paying jobs to be had. again, blame the economy..

Like barista, data entry, and customer service. Those replaced career level professions.

according to boohoo its about the degree. according to him people like me are and will continue to be replaced with young, no experience college grads...which is it?

We're saying the same thing. The requirements to continue to rise, the typical post college job if you can get something in your major these days is to graduate and then do an unpaid internship for a couple of years while you build experience. That is what people have to do (if they can get a job at all) in order to position themselves to one day actually be paid properly for their work.

maybe youre looking at the wrong jobs..ever think of that? i look at available jobs all the time. i constantly see good paying jobs available with no or very little experience needed

It's possible. I'm looking at STEM jobs.

i dont agree with that. there are guys at the foundry right now that are on the floor and into their 50's and 60's...been in the same position for 30 years. not management...im talking labor. you guys keep using the excuses of theyre gonna do away with the old and bring in the young, new guys. in some industries maybe. in the web development industry maybe...i have not seen evidence of that in the manufacturing industry as a whole

Statistics are an interesting thing. If you have a 50% chance of being one of the 60% laid off due to up or out requirements you were part of the lucky 1 in 3. The other 2 in 3 still have their job. Things adjust slowly, and trends that happen to large groups of workers don't mean it will happen to everyone, it just means it's likely to happen to any given individual.

nice long math based argument that does not hold up in my opinion...the pay is more than likely not half what the experienced guy makes...it does not work like that...more than likely the new guy will be within a couple bucks of the experienced guy.

I followed it up with the non math approach. Essentially, we are in an economy where either you need to be a superstar, in which case you can make a very high wage or you are paid poorly with very low expectations. The two extremes are the most efficient. Being average and earning an average wage puts you in the worst position possible. This is true of most industries, to go back to the web development example I gave earlier you have the people earning low wages with low expectations in 3rd world countries, and then the people working at the Google and Yahoo's of the world earning great wages. There's not really a whole lot of middle room because the low end depresses everyone else.

and pretty soon you have a guy working for 2k a year cause your flow chart follows that course right?

It depends on the industry. If it can be outsourced then yes. If it can't it usually stops slightly above minimum wage.

yeah cause every successful business owner is in the habit of hiring the slowest, worst performing guys right?

It's the most efficient. Look no further than the police which have a stated policy of rejecting people who do too well on tests. They want lower performing employees.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Statistics are an interesting thing. If you have a 50% chance of being one of the 60% laid off due to up or out requirements you were part of the lucky 1 in 3. The other 2 in 3 still have their job. Things adjust slowly, and trends that happen to large groups of workers don't mean it will happen to everyone, it just means it's likely to happen to any given individual.

I followed it up with the non math approach. Essentially, we are in an economy where either you need to be a superstar, in which case you can make a very high wage or you are paid poorly with very low expectations. The two extremes are the most efficient. Being average and earning an average wage puts you in the worst position possible. This is true of most industries, to go back to the web development example I gave earlier you have the people earning low wages with low expectations in 3rd world countries, and then the people working at the Google and Yahoo's of the world earning great wages. There's not really a whole lot of middle room because the low end depresses everyone else.

It depends on the industry. If it can be outsourced then yes. If it can't it usually stops slightly above minimum wage.

It's the most efficient. Look no further than the police which have a stated policy of rejecting people who do too well on tests. They want lower performing employees.

Grovit you've got to give this position up, Aazadan has given you VERY clear supporting math and realistic scenarios for what I have been saying in general terms. I just cannot understand how you can continue to say "its not true because it hasn't happened to me personally" anymore. You must be VERY far removed from upper management because everything I and Aazadan have said is discussed DAILY in board rooms around the country. In fact, I've been involved in at least 3 of these discussion of this nature with upper management since this thread started.

Please stop trying to argue against the truth. The job market is exactly as I have described and like anything else in life, of course there are pockets here and there that are the exception to the rule.

originally posted by: Aazadan
In math terms, the rate you work is expressed as 1, that's 100% of the expected jobs. You can also express pay as 1 which is 100% of the pay. You can then multiply.

The average worker would be 1*1=1.

In the case of the experienced worker who is doing a job in 3 hours instead of 4 but still getting the same labor rate, he is working 33% faster so 1.33*1=1.33. That worker is 33% more productive than the average.

Now lets take the new person, he is needing 5 hours instead of 4 so he's only 80% productive so that's a .8 instead of a 1. However, his pay rate is half that of the experienced worker. Lets say that half the bill goes to compensation, that means this worker is generating 1.5 in revenue per job.
.8*1.5=1.2.

This new hire is now 20% more productive for the company than the average worker. The experienced guy that's your top worker is still better but not by as much. By replacing your average guys with the lesser skilled much lower paid guys you come out ahead.

An interesting thing happens here too, you can then take another round of even worse performing guys and edge out the people you just gave jobs to. Lets say the average wage was $50k/year, so the experienced guy got 65k and the new slow guy got 25k. By bidding down the wages people become more desperate for work and soon there will be a group doing the same thing for 15k, and they might not be as good either. Lets say the 15k workers need 6 hours for the job.

That's .67*2.5=1.675.

These new people that are even worse at their jobs and are being paid much less are now so much more cost effective for the company that the gap between them and the experienced guys is as big as the gap was between what the average worker used to be and the master.

Corporations flock to that sort of thing because it saves them money and it has happened to a huge number of our industries.

Or the non math way to answer your question: He's being paid substantially less which makes up for the lower volume and then some.

This illustrates my original point, the "owners of capital" don't want to employ anyone in the future and are purposely destroying the markets previously held by contract workers, the self-employed, payroll laborers and small business owners.

What we have in 2014, is an overabundance of labor on the market. The 1% use this fact to artificially drive down the wages of the 99%. When the Black Death came about and wiped out "excess labor", the 1% of the day somehow found "extra money" to pay said labor, for services rendered. Where did it come from? The "owners of capital" have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and modern, corporate, labor cost-cutting measures. These measures will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers.

So, I ask again, where do newborn children fit into that plan, circa 2014?

Its simple, newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99% and the 1% know this. People making children today, whom WILL be jobless and skill-less labor in the future, should be disincentivized from doing so. When there are no more legal or illegal immigrants and no more "newborn biological DNA babies", Americans would see both increased wages and a reduction in prices for vital goods & services, due to decreased demand (assuming the supply and demand principle is actually true withing the USA economy). Regular people have run out of options, we must now actively choose to stop feeding the "industrial complex" with more bodies, ready to labor for less and less.

If you can wrap your mind around it, court cases like this, help disincentivize the birth of more children, which is a GOOD THING. Most simpletons today think they are "done raising kids" when they turn 18. Never mind the exponentially increasing cost for that offspring to get the training needed to enter the labor pool. Imagine to their dismay, courts legislating from the bench, that those same parents are NOT "done raising kids" until they turn 25 years old, enforced by "law" and not "cultural beliefs". With any luck overall "baby making" numbers will drop off a cliff in the next 10 years, because I have a feeling, no one, other than the 1%, really wants to have to keep being financially responsible for their children for another 6 years past their 18th birthday. Legal adulthood at age 25, instead of 18, is one of the simplest things we can do to solve some of the countries, short term, labor problems. Though it seems counter-intuitive, when society makes parenting as uncomfortable as possible, in a broad cultural sense, people will begin to take measures that reduce the level of "discomfort", making abstaining from having them an obvious first choice.

a reply to: boohoo

So, I ask again, where do newborn children fit into that plan, circa 2014?

Birthrates in virtually every developed nation are actually in decline. It seems that when people reach a certain quality of lifestyle they would rather work, earn money, and build a future than pump out kids. The population is only increasing in all of these countries due to immigration from the places that aren't developed.

The CIA claims 2.01 children per woman in the US is the average and Wikipedia claims 1.88. Either way it is way down from the 3.8 during the baby boom, when you consider that a number of 2 is breaking even though the US is still among the highest of developed nations. Japan is 1.4 and all of Europe averages to 1.53.

It all comes down to immigration, without immigration the value of labor would be going up.

What we have in 2014, is an overabundance of labor on the market and the 1% use this fact to artificially drive down the wages of the 99%. When the Black Death came about and wiped out "excess labor", the 1% of the day somehow found "extra money" to pay said labor, for services rendered.

This is why we won't get immigration form. It's not about people becoming voters, it's about them flooding the labor market. If we lose the influx of people who will work for low wages, that also drastically increase the supply of labor then the job creators will have to pay more in wages. This is why immigration in the past was so tightly controlled, and we've moved away from that over the past 30 years.

As far as the extra money to pay said labor goes it's the same thing as the minimum wage argument. When you pay people more, they have more money to spend which goes back into the economy and finds it's way to the business owners. They perform more services which increases revenue and pays the wages.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: boohoo

So, I ask again, where do newborn children fit into that plan, circa 2014?

Birthrates in virtually every developed nation are actually in decline. It seems that when people reach a certain quality of lifestyle they would rather work, earn money, and build a future than pump out kids. The population is only increasing in all of these countries due to immigration from the places that aren't developed.

The CIA claims 2.01 children per woman in the US is the average and Wikipedia claims 1.88. Either way it is way down from the 3.8 during the baby boom, when you consider that a number of 2 is breaking even though the US is still among the highest of developed nations. Japan is 1.4 and all of Europe averages to 1.53.

It all comes down to immigration, without immigration the value of labor would be going up.

I did include legal immigrants and illegal immigrants with newborn babies in my overall argument. I include and emphasize newborn babies because they eventually increase the cost of higher education for everyone, as well. The job market we have now requires constant updating and retraining, kids with no experience end up going to college and eat up spaces that would normally be filled by workers needing to retrain, in order to stay in the evolving job market. Its should not be surprising to anyone that this is exactly what happened after World War II.

Retraining existing labor is the proper goal, not training brand new ones, whom have never worked before. Making people support their kids longer, until 25 years old, will certainly reduce the supply of people being created, with no prior work experience.

originally posted by: jude11
a reply to: Grovit

i didnt think college was a right...more a privilege...

Education is a right for everyone. Privileges are for the rich.

Peace

Having a right to something does not mean that you have the right to have somebody else pay for it. She's a right to an education, however, with that right comes the responsibility to pay for it her damned self.

As a practicing NJ family law attorney, I can tell you that we are in the extreme minority of States on this area of law and that MANY people here are VERY frustrated with the results that this body of law is causing. It did not happen overnight, I assure you. The development of this area literally goes all the way back to the late 1880's in New Jersey. If you are interested in knowing how we got to here, retired Judge Charles Rand recently published a nice history of this area of law and its development. A little Google searching ought to be able to find it for you. Now to be fair, *most* parents in the middle class are not hit by this very hard if at all. It *mostly* jumps up to grab six-figure earners. At some point I do expect someone to finally appeal it on an "equal protection" ground and have a chance of winning, simply because it is only when your parents divorce in NJ that you are suddenly magically-imbued with an absolute right to go to college and to have your divorced parents pay for it. Sadly, our statute on point and the caselaw backing it can allow the courts to go so far as to compel sale of properties and liquidation of assets to accomplish this, not to mention the taking out of extremely burdensome loans by the parents as well. It's one of the most frequent areas I am called to fight in. And one of the hardest ones to save your client from...