When you say, "start at the bottom", what do you mean?

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: PhysicsAdept

Project Management / Operations Management

As stated before, you don't put yourself in 10's of thousands of debt for a useless degree. Why would you do that when you could not possibly pay back the student loans and still eat? How dumb is that?

No, you get a degree to get / qualify for a career that requires it. Simple math, if the cost of degree is more than the results of the degree then you are making an illogical decision.

This still makes no since. When you go to the movies, you are coming out slightly in the hole. BUT, you are potentially enjoying a few hours of your time, and even if you don't use the contents of "Star Wars" the next day at work if you learned things, thought about things, perhaps even reflected and improved yourself in any direction then the net gain of seeing the movie is still positive even though your wallet is thinner.

Another, more fitting example would be something like piano lessons. Are you telling me that everyone who has ever played an instrument is "illogical"? Are they participating in a "useless" activity?

How dumb is that?

originally posted by: PhysicsAdept

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: PhysicsAdept

Project Management / Operations Management

As stated before, you don't put yourself in 10's of thousands of debt for a useless degree. Why would you do that when you could not possibly pay back the student loans and still eat? How dumb is that?

No, you get a degree to get / qualify for a career that requires it. Simple math, if the cost of degree is more than the results of the degree then you are making an illogical decision.

This still makes no since. When you go to the movies, you are coming out slightly in the hole. BUT, you are potentially enjoying a few hours of your time, and even if you don't use the contents of "Star Wars" the next day at work if you learned things, thought about things, perhaps even reflected and improved yourself in any direction then the net gain of seeing the movie is still positive even though your wallet is thinner.

Another, more fitting example would be something like piano lessons. Are you telling me that everyone who has ever played an instrument is "illogical"? Are they participating in a "useless" activity?

How dumb is that?

A movie or piano lessons doesnt cost as much as a home mortgage.... Possibly the worst analogy ever!!

Congrats for contributing nothing to the conversation!

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

So nowhere close to 4 billion.

Thanks.

originally posted by: 38181
Right now I'd take a skilled trade over a college degree. College degrees are a dime a dozen, a good trade skill is worth the persons weight in gold. These Skilled Miners, Pilots, power lineman, oil slope ruffnecks, etc, are bringing in close to six digits starting off. They can get a degree on their days off if they want and many do online in their feild work for promotion purposes only. Many people get degrees and are in massive debt by the time they start looking for the job they will never get.

If you saw my original post, I never mentioned the type of training as college degree only. So yes, ANY training will help you advance, or at the least put you at an advantage to someone without that training you may be going up against for a job offer.

I also do not think everyone here is exclusively referring to college degrees as the only approach. That might be a misconception for many here too.

Most people that say they started from the bottom and got to the top are lying and have a overrated sense of achievement.

Just like that idiot Drake in his song where he claims he started from the bottom.
HE WAS A CHILD ACTOR FOR CHRISTS SAKES. His ticket in showbusiness was payed before he even worked for it.

Starting from the bottom is being homeless with no job and that's where I come from. I was not able to use any social programs other than homeless shelters which I evaded like the plague because I never wanted people to know I was homeless and poor, I never wanted to see people in the street recognize me from the shelter and I was afraid that hangning with those types of people would bring me down. I slept in the streets at winter when it was -20c but I'm here now, not rich but making it. I'm not the popular musician I want to be yet but if I do manage it, then I will consider that I made it to the "top".

Even then, I don't really consider it REALLY starting from the bottom as I was healthy, smart and never got into drugs/alcohol, some need to start even lower with mental traumas which I luckily didn't have.

a reply to: theMediator

Why do you get to define "bottom"?

Starting at the "bottom" is entry level positions based on skill levels and experience. It's just that no one WANTS to start at an entry level position any longer, or that they want to get paid as an experienced person with entry level skills.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: theMediator

Why do you get to define "bottom"?

Starting at the "bottom" is entry level positions based on skill levels and experience. It's just that no one WANTS to start at an entry level position any longer, or that they want to get paid as an experienced person with entry level skills.

I see this as part of the problem. Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes that "bottom". And as soon as you offer a solution to a "bottom", they move it to a lower state. It seems to me to be a continual cycle of complaints and obsessive whining. It might not be that intention, but that is how it is coming across to me.

Near the start of this thread, I offered a detailed list ans recipe for improving one's position in life. I heard crickets on a response.....all I saw were more complaints.

a reply to: Krakatoa

No one wants real solutions other than more money for less work, and not to struggle any longer.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krakatoa

No one wants real solutions other than more money for less work, and not to struggle any longer.

Hmmmm.... Struggling is part of life. Whomever told them it wasn't, or gave them that impression was lying to them....or trying to sell them something. Utopia does not exist....so we all need to make the best our of what we have. The only control we have, the only REAL control, is in our immediate sphere, i.e. yourself. Nobody can force anyone else to change. It must come from within first.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Very true words!

a reply to: Krakatoa

The problem with your list is, while a few people might be successful doing what you describe, if everyone did it, then the goal posts would be raised to facilitate keeping most people at the bottom, because as keeps being mentioned and you all keep ignoring, the bottom is in most demand and needs to stay filled.

Even if everyone on the planet did what you said, most people on the planet would still be in the bottom position. Even were I to be successful most people would be in the bottom position, many no matter what they did, because these positions have to be filled.

The more people that do what you say, the higher the definition of lazy no good whiner becomes, and the more people end up stuck in the beginning position as moving up becomes unassailable.

Most of the world HAS to work the beginning jobs, this is true regardless of how many people are educated or experienced, or how old/young someone is.

Even if everyone on the planet had equal skill and experience, were all equally hard workers, most people would still be stuck in the bottom position because the fact is those jobs are needed and in the most demand.

But you all insist that most of the world should be required to live in poverty because they are in a position that needs to be filled, and is filled by most of the planet and will be no matter what. You've condemned most of the world to poverty because they didn't both win the genetic lotto and find the right friends.

a reply to: onequestion

Here's what I mean when I say "start from the bottom."

When I hired on in the oilfield, my first job was to gauge the amount of water in the frac tanks. That was the gig all the new hires got. It was up to you how fast you wanted to move up. By the time I left, I was a Senior Equipment Operator Level II which was the highest level you could go as an operator. I was there for four years and then took a job at another fracturing company that had just opened in our district and a lot of left to get it started. There I was a Frac Supervisor but the safety policies and upper leadership were very unprofessional so when my brother-in-law approached me about a job in the inmate telephone business, I took it. That's where I'm at now, but I started out cleaning inmate phones, sweeping floors, doing whatever the owner told me to do, and I had several bosses. Now I do the marketing, contracts, proposals, and a few small things here and there and I answer only to the owner and the VP.

I started at the bottom of both careers I've gotten into, but I can assure you that I won't be getting into anymore new careers. I MIGHT get back into the oilfield if it ever comes back up. My old man was in it for 39 years and was right on the cusp of going into a partnership with two longtime friends to start their own company before everything came crashing down. If things go back up and he gets his own company started then I'll get back into it.

a reply to: LSU0408

And here's where the crux of the problem is. You got promoted, but tell me, if all your coworkers worked as hard as you, could they all, every last one of them have gotten the same promotion? Or would only one of you get the promotion no matter what, due to there not being a need for more than one.

This is the problem, people who are the exception, think that they are the rule.

Yes a person CAN work from the Bottom to the TOP, but very very few can, because those higher positions are scarce compared to the bottom position. It's like the LOTTO. Sure you can win it, but not everyone can, just because you did, doesn't mean they will.

People keep giving examples of what they did that worked for them, and calling everyone else on the planet that didn't get those successes lazy and worthless, while ignoring that those better positions are limited in number and for ever person that's moved up, many many people were made to stay where they were, even if they were a close competitor, or just not liked as a person by the promoter.

I am torn on this issue. I understand not everyone has the same strengths or weaknesses. My three children are definitely not the same. One is working on her masters degree, one is working on her associates degree, and one is working third shift in a factory. I am proud of them all. The ones furthering their educations are doing so through their own dedication. They have always worked, whether it was entry level assembly line or making sub sandwiches. They are not going into debt, since they seek out and win scholarships to assist with the costs of their educations. The one daughter working third shift is currently being trained for supervisor position. They all seem to be moving upward irrespective of their differences, in status and pay.

The only thing is I can agree that who you know makes a difference. They make sure the higher ups notice them by doing the job they agreed to do and willing to help out elsewhere if needed. My daughters tell me stories how frustrated they are with so many who really just show up and have no pride in their work or schooling.

Realizing I may be rambling, my question is who says entry level positions were ever meant to be a career position? If you can't move up with current employer, you gain skills and experience and move up through another employer. The younger generations then start the next cycle.

I am not against helping others and fully support many of Sanders proposals, but I am torn on how can you create a value mindset in individuals by just giving them everything. Once they all even out, won't they still feel it is not enough?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Krakatoa

The problem with your list is, while a few people might be successful doing what you describe, if everyone did it, then the goal posts would be raised to facilitate keeping most people at the bottom, because as keeps being mentioned and you all keep ignoring, the bottom is in most demand and needs to stay filled.

Even if everyone on the planet did what you said, most people on the planet would still be in the bottom position. Even were I to be successful most people would be in the bottom position, many no matter what they did, because these positions have to be filled.

The more people that do what you say, the higher the definition of lazy no good whiner becomes, and the more people end up stuck in the beginning position as moving up becomes unassailable.

Most of the world HAS to work the beginning jobs, this is true regardless of how many people are educated or experienced, or how old/young someone is.

Even if everyone on the planet had equal skill and experience, were all equally hard workers, most people would still be stuck in the bottom position because the fact is those jobs are needed and in the most demand.

But you all insist that most of the world should be required to live in poverty because they are in a position that needs to be filled, and is filled by most of the planet and will be no matter what. You've condemned most of the world to poverty because they didn't both win the genetic lotto and find the right friends.

I'd be real interested in hearing your solution to the problem? Will your solution work on a global scale, or be limited in focus to the United States? How will it be paid for, not just a simple tax the rich 1% or corporations more? I mean a realistic, fiscally sound economic plan for paying for it. How do countries like India and China with a population of over 1 billion people each get factored in? Between the 2 of them, you are talking about over 30% of the worlds population.

Both inforlurker and krakatoa gave clear paths from the bottom, yet they were both blasted as being selfish or careless about the plight of poor people.

a reply to: CynConcepts

It's a career position because facts are, there's not enough non bottom positions for them to be a stepping stone for everyone. Most people get stuck there. It may not be "Meant" to be a career position, but it is one, cause for many there's no where else to go.

The higher up the pyramid you go, the less opportunities there are to go higher. That everyone can move up the pyramid if they try is a myth encouraged by those who've managed to move up to maintain the status quot that allows them to be successful.

That people honestly believe everyone could move up if they only worked hard for it mystifies me.

a reply to: peter_kandra

We've covered that here and many times before. It's not any easy path and basically requires an economic reset. It also would require globalization, because let's be frank, without it there will always be easily exploited nations.

I'm not proposing what's easy or even feasible with the current government/economic system we have today. I'm saying what we CAN and SHOULD do.

I've also given ways to do it many times before. So sick of redoing it.

The problem is, you all believe in and support the current system. So anything that requires drastic changes to it, is never going to be received by you because you see things in terms of what we have now compared to what we could have if we tore it all down and rebuilt it with the tools of the modern age.

Basically there's no system I could provide that would satisfy you, because the only ones that would, require working within this failed economic and governmental body we have today.

a reply to: Puppylove
Jobs in individual areas may not be plentiful, but that has been true throughout history. There is a reason America has spread east to west, for you go where you can climb up. Some that climb up even begin their own businesses to provide more jobs. Certainly, it is a personal choice to relocate, but if one chooses to stay they cannot cry there is not enough jobs available? Though, in our modern day, one may not even have to relocate if they work out of their home.

Edit add: there is a reason that both sides of the political field have no problem with accepting thousands of legal immigrants every year. There is more work available than workers.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: peter_kandra

We've covered that here and many times before. It's not any easy path and basically requires an economic reset. It also would require globalization, because let's be frank, without it there will always be easily exploited nations.

I'm not proposing what's easy or even feasible with the current government/economic system we have today. I'm saying what we CAN and SHOULD do.

I've also given ways to do it many times before. So sick of redoing it.

The problem is, you all believe in and support the current system. So anything that requires drastic changes to it, is never going to be received by you because you see things in terms of what we have now compared to what we could have if we tore it all down and rebuilt it with the tools of the modern age.

Basically there's no system I could provide that would satisfy you, because the only ones that would, require working within this failed economic and governmental body we have today.

You're still speaking in generics and not specifics. A reset and globalization? The US can't afford to feed and provide housing, jobs and health care for all of it's citizens despite the highest GDP in the world, yet somehow it's supposed to happen on a global scale.

Do I believe and support the current system? Until someone comes along with a realistic and detailed plan on how to accomplish what you are proposing, then yes I do. Your ideas, while admirable, are probably not possible for the foreseeable future.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I have a question, I mean seriously. How can you all deny that upward mobility is not an infinite resource?

Even if everyone did all of that, there will still be just as many people in the bottom position. The pyramid will not magically have more positions on the higher levels.

Yeah people can do everything you all say, and it may for them increase their odds for moving up, but the more people that go to extreme lengths to move up, the more extreme lengths will be required.

Why? Because those upper positions are getting more and more skilled people vying for them, allowing those that control who get's those positions to raise the requirements to get them.

This cycle keeps growing and expanding. Requirements to move up get steeper and harder every day. Same amount of people stay at the bottom though. We just have more overqualified people stuck there, and keeping raising the bar on promotional requirements.

Does no one care about other people or the future generations?