I think the minimum wage is ineffectual in the long term.

Short term it dries up numbers of opportunities in the lower income brackets. Further, it is basic Econ 101 that price controls as both maximums and minimums produce highly sub-optimal markets for the markets in which controls are set. But the classic contrary response to the pretty much set-in-stone price control math is that "labor isnt responsive to supply/demand microeconomics" (making it unique to every other market in existence). (Funny how we loop back to one of my basic questions to you yet again...)

Example: because of the push to 15 dollars, it is now cost effective to replace cashiers at fast food restaurants with kiosk-style ordering.

Example: look at the numbers of restaurants closing in 15 dollar jurisdictions like Seattle and San Francisco.

Long term it is a non-event. Long term all wages and prices of goods and services are ballooned up by the minimum wage, as is long term prices as producers realize that consumers will absorb more and more of the excess cost. So long term, it doesnt matter whether the mandated price floor is 3 dollars, 9 dollars, 100 dollars, or 90 million Maduros, since an apple will run 30 cents, 90 cents, 10 dollars, or 9 million Maduros in the long term based on this diktat.

So I am against it for the short-term havoc. that it wreaks on those that it supposedly is put into place to help. In the long-term, it is a 'who the f-ck cares', *except* for the fact that a non-market entity is putting arbitrary 'lines in the sand'.

It simply boils down to I am a very ardent Chicago School economics type guy. (But I try to hide my blood and life sucking fangs so I dont scare little children as much....)

(12-05-2017 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes, so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

That may be an accurate summary of what he is saying (although I think not) or it may be an accurate summary of what you took away from what he said, but it's not a correct takeaway. Reducing US corporate taxes is not going to have any material effect on US corporate profits, at least not the big ones. Why not? Because multi-nationals don't pay a country tax rate. They pay a worldwide rate, and move operations around to achieve that. Look at it this way. The weighted average world rate, for developed countries, is 27%. US corporations pay an effective rate of 27%. Duh. It's basically a tradeoff that they plan at the highest level. They do some things in countries tat tax at 20%, they do some things in countries that tax at 15%, they do some things in countries that tax at 30%, and some things in countries that tax at 35%. And they pay taxes on those things at those rates in those countries. When all is said and done, it averages 27%. Some things like sales have to be done in the countries with 35%, so they do those there and they set up transfer prices to minimize the amounts of taxable income in those countries. The parts of their businesses that they can, they move to the 15% and 20% countries. If the US lowers the corporate rate to 20%, what that alters is the mix of what they do here versus what they do in the 30% countries, for example, plus probably taking away some of the things from other 20% countries (and maybe even 15% countries, depending upon non-tax factors). Because a component of that worldwide mix went from 35% to 20%, the worldwide rate probably drops a bit, maybe to 26%.
Your idea, that we increase worker salaries to grow demand, is good, but it assumes a closed system. If I increase worker salaries, yes I increase demand. The question is how to supply demand. In a closed system, I can't go anywhere else. In a global system, I can. Does it make more sense to produce the goods to supply that demand in the US at the higher salaries, or in Germany at lower salaries?
The problem with your Keynesian view of economics is that you look only at the demand side. You have to look at the supply side too. Keynes himself understood that, but most of his followers seem to have forgotten.

Lad???

Yes? It's rather a long post that makes good points, some of which I've later expanded upon in other posts.
Is there something in particular you really want a response to?

Did you respond to the first part (that I repeated here)? If so, I'm sorry but I missed it, please direct me to the post. Thanks.

(12-05-2017 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the minimum wage is ineffectual in the long term.

Short term it dries up numbers of opportunities in the lower income brackets. Further, it is basic Econ 101 that price controls as both maximums and minimums produce highly sub-optimal markets for the markets in which controls are set. But the classic contrary response to the pretty much set-in-stone price control math is that "labor isnt responsive to supply/demand microeconomics" (making it unique to every other market in existence). (Funny how we loop back to one of my basic questions to you yet again...)

Example: because of the push to 15 dollars, it is now cost effective to replace cashiers at fast food restaurants with kiosk-style ordering.

Example: look at the numbers of restaurants closing in 15 dollar jurisdictions like Seattle and San Francisco.

Long term it is a non-event. Long term all wages and prices of goods and services are ballooned up by the minimum wage, as is long term prices as producers realize that consumers will absorb more and more of the excess cost. So long term, it doesnt matter whether the mandated price floor is 3 dollars, 9 dollars, 100 dollars, or 90 million Maduros, since an apple will run 30 cents, 90 cents, 10 dollars, or 9 million Maduros in the long term based on this diktat.

So I am against it for the short-term havoc. that it wreaks on those that it supposedly is put into place to help. In the long-term, it is a 'who the f-ck cares', *except* for the fact that a non-market entity is putting arbitrary 'lines in the sand'.

It simply boils down to I am a very ardent Chicago School economics type guy. (But I try to hide my blood and life sucking fangs so I dont scare little children as much....)

sometimes, taking things to ridiculous levels is illuminating.

If we raise the MW to $100/hour, will all of a sudden everybody in the country be rich? Will a 200K MW make all the burger shovers and pancake flippers well to do? Maybe for a few minutes. But quickly, prices will adjust, pay ladders will adjust, and all we will have done is inflate the currency. The people on the bottom of the pyramid will still be on the bottom of the pyramid, and still unable to to make a comfortable living for a family of four.

(12-05-2017 06:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the minimum wage is ineffectual in the long term.

Short term it dries up numbers of opportunities in the lower income brackets. Further, it is basic Econ 101 that price controls as both maximums and minimums produce highly sub-optimal markets for the markets in which controls are set. But the classic contrary response to the pretty much set-in-stone price control math is that "labor isnt responsive to supply/demand microeconomics" (making it unique to every other market in existence). (Funny how we loop back to one of my basic questions to you yet again...)

Example: because of the push to 15 dollars, it is now cost effective to replace cashiers at fast food restaurants with kiosk-style ordering.

Example: look at the numbers of restaurants closing in 15 dollar jurisdictions like Seattle and San Francisco.

Long term it is a non-event. Long term all wages and prices of goods and services are ballooned up by the minimum wage, as is long term prices as producers realize that consumers will absorb more and more of the excess cost. So long term, it doesnt matter whether the mandated price floor is 3 dollars, 9 dollars, 100 dollars, or 90 million Maduros, since an apple will run 30 cents, 90 cents, 10 dollars, or 9 million Maduros in the long term based on this diktat.

So I am against it for the short-term havoc. that it wreaks on those that it supposedly is put into place to help. In the long-term, it is a 'who the f-ck cares', *except* for the fact that a non-market entity is putting arbitrary 'lines in the sand'.

It simply boils down to I am a very ardent Chicago School economics type guy. (But I try to hide my blood and life sucking fangs so I dont scare little children as much....)

sometimes, taking things to ridiculous levels is illuminating.

If we raise the MW to $100/hour, will all of a sudden everybody in the country be rich? Will a 200K MW make all the burger shovers and pancake flippers well to do? Maybe for a few minutes. But quickly, prices will adjust, pay ladders will adjust, and all we will have done is inflate the currency. The people on the bottom of the pyramid will still be on the bottom of the pyramid, and still unable to to make a comfortable living for a family of four.

Not at all. If I raise the temperature of a room by 5 degrees F, do you think you’ll leave or stay? If I raise it by 200 degrees F, what will you do?

(12-05-2017 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the minimum wage is ineffectual in the long term.

Short term it dries up numbers of opportunities in the lower income brackets. Further, it is basic Econ 101 that price controls as both maximums and minimums produce highly sub-optimal markets for the markets in which controls are set. But the classic contrary response to the pretty much set-in-stone price control math is that "labor isnt responsive to supply/demand microeconomics" (making it unique to every other market in existence). (Funny how we loop back to one of my basic questions to you yet again...)

Example: because of the push to 15 dollars, it is now cost effective to replace cashiers at fast food restaurants with kiosk-style ordering.

Example: look at the numbers of restaurants closing in 15 dollar jurisdictions like Seattle and San Francisco.

Long term it is a non-event. Long term all wages and prices of goods and services are ballooned up by the minimum wage, as is long term prices as producers realize that consumers will absorb more and more of the excess cost. So long term, it doesnt matter whether the mandated price floor is 3 dollars, 9 dollars, 100 dollars, or 90 million Maduros, since an apple will run 30 cents, 90 cents, 10 dollars, or 9 million Maduros in the long term based on this diktat.

So I am against it for the short-term havoc. that it wreaks on those that it supposedly is put into place to help. In the long-term, it is a 'who the f-ck cares', *except* for the fact that a non-market entity is putting arbitrary 'lines in the sand'.

It simply boils down to I am a very ardent Chicago School economics type guy. (But I try to hide my blood and life sucking fangs so I dont scare little children as much....)

sometimes, taking things to ridiculous levels is illuminating.

If we raise the MW to $100/hour, will all of a sudden everybody in the country be rich? Will a 200K MW make all the burger shovers and pancake flippers well to do? Maybe for a few minutes. But quickly, prices will adjust, pay ladders will adjust, and all we will have done is inflate the currency. The people on the bottom of the pyramid will still be on the bottom of the pyramid, and still unable to to make a comfortable living for a family of four.

Not at all. If I raise the temperature of a room by 5 degrees F, do you think you’ll leave or stay? If I raise it by 200 degrees F, what will you do?

Good argument against the effects of global warming, that only a five degree rise is hardly noticeable.

If I put 5 grizzly bears in your house, do you leave or stay? What if it is 200 Grizzly bears?

About as sensible as your example, which is apparently meant to prove that smaller changes have zero effect. My example is meant to show there is an effect, by making it easy to see. For those who want to see.

My Wal-Mart has closed the express lanes and replaced them with self-service kiosks. Now they can let 10 customers check out at a time using only one clerk. Raise the MW to 15, and soon we will have a single checker for the building. I wonder what all those former checkers are making now in their new jobs, if they have new jobs.

I guess when you have an entrenched viewpoint to pretend, any argument that goes against what you want to believe must be ignored.

(12-05-2017 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the minimum wage is ineffectual in the long term.

Short term it dries up numbers of opportunities in the lower income brackets. Further, it is basic Econ 101 that price controls as both maximums and minimums produce highly sub-optimal markets for the markets in which controls are set. But the classic contrary response to the pretty much set-in-stone price control math is that "labor isnt responsive to supply/demand microeconomics" (making it unique to every other market in existence). (Funny how we loop back to one of my basic questions to you yet again...)

Example: because of the push to 15 dollars, it is now cost effective to replace cashiers at fast food restaurants with kiosk-style ordering.

Example: look at the numbers of restaurants closing in 15 dollar jurisdictions like Seattle and San Francisco.

Long term it is a non-event. Long term all wages and prices of goods and services are ballooned up by the minimum wage, as is long term prices as producers realize that consumers will absorb more and more of the excess cost. So long term, it doesnt matter whether the mandated price floor is 3 dollars, 9 dollars, 100 dollars, or 90 million Maduros, since an apple will run 30 cents, 90 cents, 10 dollars, or 9 million Maduros in the long term based on this diktat.

So I am against it for the short-term havoc. that it wreaks on those that it supposedly is put into place to help. In the long-term, it is a 'who the f-ck cares', *except* for the fact that a non-market entity is putting arbitrary 'lines in the sand'.

It simply boils down to I am a very ardent Chicago School economics type guy. (But I try to hide my blood and life sucking fangs so I dont scare little children as much....)

sometimes, taking things to ridiculous levels is illuminating.

If we raise the MW to $100/hour, will all of a sudden everybody in the country be rich? Will a 200K MW make all the burger shovers and pancake flippers well to do? Maybe for a few minutes. But quickly, prices will adjust, pay ladders will adjust, and all we will have done is inflate the currency. The people on the bottom of the pyramid will still be on the bottom of the pyramid, and still unable to to make a comfortable living for a family of four.

Not at all. If I raise the temperature of a room by 5 degrees F, do you think you’ll leave or stay? If I raise it by 200 degrees F, what will you do?

So are you disagreeing with the "taking things to ridiculous levels is illuminating" or the specific hypo proposed?

If you are simply stating that the blanket statement of "taking things to ridiculous levels" is incorrect, then you would be being highly pickyish with the intent and specific subject of the conversation. To be honest, OO is not a person I would want to get into a "minute specifics for every statement matters" type engagement with....

You kind of pulled that hyper-technical comeback with him earlier regarding the 1 billion dollars issue. Trust me, we all make those broad based assumptive errors -- and I have learned that OO is not one that you really want to get into a tit for tat that is based on hypertechnical issues, linguistically or otherwise.

If you are disagreeing with the hypo, proposed, first point you are dead wrong and horribly logically incorrect in analogizing physical properties with man-made instruments of common barter.

For the concept taking it to ridiculous levels for the latter item (man-made constructs defining a common unit of barter), OO's hypo still stands. There is empirical proof of it ongoing in current day Venezuela.

(12-05-2017 06:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the minimum wage is ineffectual in the long term.

Short term it dries up numbers of opportunities in the lower income brackets. Further, it is basic Econ 101 that price controls as both maximums and minimums produce highly sub-optimal markets for the markets in which controls are set. But the classic contrary response to the pretty much set-in-stone price control math is that "labor isnt responsive to supply/demand microeconomics" (making it unique to every other market in existence). (Funny how we loop back to one of my basic questions to you yet again...)

Example: because of the push to 15 dollars, it is now cost effective to replace cashiers at fast food restaurants with kiosk-style ordering.

Example: look at the numbers of restaurants closing in 15 dollar jurisdictions like Seattle and San Francisco.

Long term it is a non-event. Long term all wages and prices of goods and services are ballooned up by the minimum wage, as is long term prices as producers realize that consumers will absorb more and more of the excess cost. So long term, it doesnt matter whether the mandated price floor is 3 dollars, 9 dollars, 100 dollars, or 90 million Maduros, since an apple will run 30 cents, 90 cents, 10 dollars, or 9 million Maduros in the long term based on this diktat.

So I am against it for the short-term havoc. that it wreaks on those that it supposedly is put into place to help. In the long-term, it is a 'who the f-ck cares', *except* for the fact that a non-market entity is putting arbitrary 'lines in the sand'.

It simply boils down to I am a very ardent Chicago School economics type guy. (But I try to hide my blood and life sucking fangs so I dont scare little children as much....)

sometimes, taking things to ridiculous levels is illuminating.

If we raise the MW to $100/hour, will all of a sudden everybody in the country be rich? Will a 200K MW make all the burger shovers and pancake flippers well to do? Maybe for a few minutes. But quickly, prices will adjust, pay ladders will adjust, and all we will have done is inflate the currency. The people on the bottom of the pyramid will still be on the bottom of the pyramid, and still unable to to make a comfortable living for a family of four.

Not at all. If I raise the temperature of a room by 5 degrees F, do you think you’ll leave or stay? If I raise it by 200 degrees F, what will you do?

Good argument against the effects of global warming, that only a five degree rise is hardly noticeable.

If I put 5 grizzly bears in your house, do you leave or stay? What if it is 200 Grizzly bears?

About as sensible as your example, which is apparently meant to prove that smaller changes have zero effect. My example is meant to show there is an effect, by making it easy to see. For those who want to see.

My Wal-Mart has closed the express lanes and replaced them with self-service kiosks. Now they can let 10 customers check out at a time using only one clerk. Raise the MW to 15, and soon we will have a single checker for the building. I wonder what all those former checkers are making now in their new jobs, if they have new jobs.

I guess when you have an entrenched viewpoint to pretend, any argument that goes against what you want to believe must be ignored.

Oh goodness. An entrenched viewpoint?

I’m not ignoring any and all arguments, I was just pointing out how your comment about using extremes to prove points is incorrect.

(12-05-2017 07:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the minimum wage is ineffectual in the long term.

Short term it dries up numbers of opportunities in the lower income brackets. Further, it is basic Econ 101 that price controls as both maximums and minimums produce highly sub-optimal markets for the markets in which controls are set. But the classic contrary response to the pretty much set-in-stone price control math is that "labor isnt responsive to supply/demand microeconomics" (making it unique to every other market in existence). (Funny how we loop back to one of my basic questions to you yet again...)

Example: because of the push to 15 dollars, it is now cost effective to replace cashiers at fast food restaurants with kiosk-style ordering.

Example: look at the numbers of restaurants closing in 15 dollar jurisdictions like Seattle and San Francisco.

Long term it is a non-event. Long term all wages and prices of goods and services are ballooned up by the minimum wage, as is long term prices as producers realize that consumers will absorb more and more of the excess cost. So long term, it doesnt matter whether the mandated price floor is 3 dollars, 9 dollars, 100 dollars, or 90 million Maduros, since an apple will run 30 cents, 90 cents, 10 dollars, or 9 million Maduros in the long term based on this diktat.

So I am against it for the short-term havoc. that it wreaks on those that it supposedly is put into place to help. In the long-term, it is a 'who the f-ck cares', *except* for the fact that a non-market entity is putting arbitrary 'lines in the sand'.

It simply boils down to I am a very ardent Chicago School economics type guy. (But I try to hide my blood and life sucking fangs so I dont scare little children as much....)

sometimes, taking things to ridiculous levels is illuminating.

If we raise the MW to $100/hour, will all of a sudden everybody in the country be rich? Will a 200K MW make all the burger shovers and pancake flippers well to do? Maybe for a few minutes. But quickly, prices will adjust, pay ladders will adjust, and all we will have done is inflate the currency. The people on the bottom of the pyramid will still be on the bottom of the pyramid, and still unable to to make a comfortable living for a family of four.

Not at all. If I raise the temperature of a room by 5 degrees F, do you think you’ll leave or stay? If I raise it by 200 degrees F, what will you do?

Good argument against the effects of global warming, that only a five degree rise is hardly noticeable.

If I put 5 grizzly bears in your house, do you leave or stay? What if it is 200 Grizzly bears?

About as sensible as your example, which is apparently meant to prove that smaller changes have zero effect. My example is meant to show there is an effect, by making it easy to see. For those who want to see.

My Wal-Mart has closed the express lanes and replaced them with self-service kiosks. Now they can let 10 customers check out at a time using only one clerk. Raise the MW to 15, and soon we will have a single checker for the building. I wonder what all those former checkers are making now in their new jobs, if they have new jobs.

I guess when you have an entrenched viewpoint to pretend, any argument that goes against what you want to believe must be ignored.

Oh goodness. An entrenched viewpoint?

I’m not ignoring any and all arguments, I was just pointing out how your comment about using extremes to prove points is incorrect.

Note he predicated the example with the word "sometimes" that is seemingly ignored in your comment; and is seemingly to have been implicitly changed to "all the time" in your rush to show OO incorrect.

Specifically speaking the statement is *not* incorrect per your comment; the word that you glided over changes the tenor both of his statement and your categorical response to it.

Not only that, the example provided that is germane to the discussion on labor is spot on.

(12-05-2017 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To be honest, OO is not a person I would want to get into a "minute specifics for every statement matters" type engagement with....

You kind of pulled that hyper-technical comeback with him earlier regarding the 1 billion dollars issue. Trust me, we all make those broad based assumptive errors -- and I have learned that OO is not one that you really want to get into a tit for tat that is based on hypertechnical issues, linguistically or otherwise.

Thanks, I think.

Sometimes Lad impresses me with his willingness to look at various sides of the question, and then other times he defends lost causes with a fervor last seen at the Alamo.

(12-05-2017 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To be honest, OO is not a person I would want to get into a "minute specifics for every statement matters" type engagement with....

You kind of pulled that hyper-technical comeback with him earlier regarding the 1 billion dollars issue. Trust me, we all make those broad based assumptive errors -- and I have learned that OO is not one that you really want to get into a tit for tat that is based on hypertechnical issues, linguistically or otherwise.

Thanks, I think.

Sometimes Lad impresses me with his willingness to look at various sides of the question, and then other times he defends lost causes with a fervor last seen at the Alamo.

Coming from a scum sucking bottom feeder whose livelihood is getting into hypertechnical tit for tats, saying that I wouldnt want to go there with another is a compliment OO.

(12-05-2017 11:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To be honest, OO is not a person I would want to get into a "minute specifics for every statement matters" type engagement with....

You kind of pulled that hyper-technical comeback with him earlier regarding the 1 billion dollars issue. Trust me, we all make those broad based assumptive errors -- and I have learned that OO is not one that you really want to get into a tit for tat that is based on hypertechnical issues, linguistically or otherwise.

Thanks, I think.

Sometimes Lad impresses me with his willingness to look at various sides of the question, and then other times he defends lost causes with a fervor last seen at the Alamo.

Coming from a scum sucking bottom feeder whose livelihood is getting into hypertechnical tit for tats, saying that I wouldnt want to go there with another is a compliment OO.

Oh, that's right, you're a lawyer.

Some of my best friends are lawyers.

In any case, thanks.

Maybe you will find this amusing. It certainly does not reflect my feelings toward you.

May there be no lawyers in heaven

Lolz. Fun song.

To be honest, I was a 'real person' and went to law school many years after Rice. I am not a huge fan of many in my profession, to say the least... and many of the supposed caricatures of my professional colleagues are (imo) spot on (unfortunately).

(12-06-2017 06:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lolz. Fun song.

To be honest, I was a 'real person' and went to law school many years after Rice. I am not a huge fan of many in my profession, to say the least... and many of the supposed caricatures of my professional colleagues are (imo) spot on (unfortunately).

Without a doubt, but there are certainly some good guys too.

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ironically, one of the main reasons those people went to school and got an Art History and Sociology degree, is because YOUR generation told them to, and told them that if they got a college degree that they would have a job waiting for them. It seems like nowadays all that Boomers want to do is ***** and moan about how awful my generation is, without taking a good hard look at the opportunities they themselves had, that fact that a good portion of my generation was raised by them, and that the rungs of the ladder up are being pulled up more and more each day (for example, they won't fricken retire and free up salaries for new employees).

We've now gone off of tax policy, but this sure is a fun tangent.

yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

(12-06-2017 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ironically, one of the main reasons those people went to school and got an Art History and Sociology degree, is because YOUR generation told them to, and told them that if they got a college degree that they would have a job waiting for them. It seems like nowadays all that Boomers want to do is ***** and moan about how awful my generation is, without taking a good hard look at the opportunities they themselves had, that fact that a good portion of my generation was raised by them, and that the rungs of the ladder up are being pulled up more and more each day (for example, they won't fricken retire and free up salaries for new employees).

We've now gone off of tax policy, but this sure is a fun tangent.

yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

If the shoe fits...

As a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I remember a book cover being handed out (remember book covers? Remember books?) that showed the relative life time earnings among those with college degrees, those with only HS diplomas, and those who dropped out of HS. The message was clear.

The government relentlessly beat the drum that the way out of poverty was college, and millions got the message. But the message was incomplete. It should have been to get educated or trained in something that one could use to get a job. That part never came through. The government did all it could to enable people to get useless or poorly marketable degrees.

It took me a long tie to realize what we were doing. Since I don't run the government, I could do little about it. The best I could do was advise kids (yes, I was in a position to advise a lot of kids) that no mater what they studied, at least have a business minor, just in case you don't find that dream job running an art museum. At least one has thanked me for it. That Art History degree just is not good for much.

I also wanted to send my kids to college. One majored in math and business, graduated summa *** laude, and eventually ended up working as a systems analyst, whatever the heck that is, for a major company for the last 25 years. Success story. The other majored in English, became a teacher, and has since left the profession.

when my eldest grandson graduated, I advised him to use the experience he gained working summers with his other grandfather and go into plumbing. he and I both foresaw a useless degree and a lot of debt.

College is certainly a good choice for some, but a bad choice for others. I wonder what the GenXers and Millinneals are telling kids these days. Is it the same old tired "college will set you free"?

We end up with a bunch of overeducated unskilled workers who think the world owes them a comfortble living. After all, they did as told and went to college. Now they are working MW jobs and upset they cannot support a family on that, so let's raise the MW until they can.

I think a lot of them need to learn a skill instead of shoving burgers for $15/hour.

(12-06-2017 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ironically, one of the main reasons those people went to school and got an Art History and Sociology degree, is because YOUR generation told them to, and told them that if they got a college degree that they would have a job waiting for them. It seems like nowadays all that Boomers want to do is ***** and moan about how awful my generation is, without taking a good hard look at the opportunities they themselves had, that fact that a good portion of my generation was raised by them, and that the rungs of the ladder up are being pulled up more and more each day (for example, they won't fricken retire and free up salaries for new employees).

We've now gone off of tax policy, but this sure is a fun tangent.

yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

If the shoe fits...

As a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I remember a book cover being handed out (remember book covers? Remember books?) that showed the relative life time earnings among those with college degrees, those with only HS diplomas, and those who dropped out of HS. The message was clear.

The government relentlessly beat the drum that the way out of poverty was college, and millions got the message. But the message was incomplete. It should have been to get educated or trained in something that one could use to get a job. That part never came through. The government did all it could to enable people to get useless or poorly marketable degrees.

It took me a long tie to realize what we were doing. Since I don't run the government, I could do little about it. The best I could do was advise kids (yes, I was in a position to advise a lot of kids) that no mater what they studied, at least have a business minor, just in case you don't find that dream job running an art museum. At least one has thanked me for it. That Art History degree just is not good for much.

I also wanted to send my kids to college. One majored in math and business, graduated summa *** laude, and eventually ended up working as a systems analyst, whatever the heck that is, for a major company for the last 25 years. Success story. The other majored in English, became a teacher, and has since left the profession.

when my eldest grandson graduated, I advised him to use the experience he gained working summers with his other grandfather and go into plumbing. he and I both foresaw a useless degree and a lot of debt.

College is certainly a good choice for some, but a bad choice for others. I wonder what the GenXers and Millinneals are telling kids these days. Is it the same old tired "college will set you free"?

We end up with a bunch of overeducated unskilled workers who think the world owes them a comfortble living. After all, they did as told and went to college. Now they are working MW jobs and upset they cannot support a family on that, so let's raise the MW until they can.

I think a lot of them need to learn a skill instead of shoving burgers for $15/hour.

Agreed on learning a skill. Relevant question, though: how do they afford the training for said? If you're a twenty-something who has an expensive degree with limited applications in the field, you're likely under a non-negligible amount of debt, as well, which makes it harder to get that training.

(12-06-2017 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ironically, one of the main reasons those people went to school and got an Art History and Sociology degree, is because YOUR generation told them to, and told them that if they got a college degree that they would have a job waiting for them. It seems like nowadays all that Boomers want to do is ***** and moan about how awful my generation is, without taking a good hard look at the opportunities they themselves had, that fact that a good portion of my generation was raised by them, and that the rungs of the ladder up are being pulled up more and more each day (for example, they won't fricken retire and free up salaries for new employees).

We've now gone off of tax policy, but this sure is a fun tangent.

yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

If the shoe fits...

As a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I remember a book cover being handed out (remember book covers? Remember books?) that showed the relative life time earnings among those with college degrees, those with only HS diplomas, and those who dropped out of HS. The message was clear.

The government relentlessly beat the drum that the way out of poverty was college, and millions got the message. But the message was incomplete. It should have been to get educated or trained in something that one could use to get a job. That part never came through. The government did all it could to enable people to get useless or poorly marketable degrees.

It took me a long tie to realize what we were doing. Since I don't run the government, I could do little about it. The best I could do was advise kids (yes, I was in a position to advise a lot of kids) that no mater what they studied, at least have a business minor, just in case you don't find that dream job running an art museum. At least one has thanked me for it. That Art History degree just is not good for much.

I also wanted to send my kids to college. One majored in math and business, graduated summa *** laude, and eventually ended up working as a systems analyst, whatever the heck that is, for a major company for the last 25 years. Success story. The other majored in English, became a teacher, and has since left the profession.

when my eldest grandson graduated, I advised him to use the experience he gained working summers with his other grandfather and go into plumbing. he and I both foresaw a useless degree and a lot of debt.

College is certainly a good choice for some, but a bad choice for others. I wonder what the GenXers and Millinneals are telling kids these days. Is it the same old tired "college will set you free"?

We end up with a bunch of overeducated unskilled workers who think the world owes them a comfortble living. After all, they did as told and went to college. Now they are working MW jobs and upset they cannot support a family on that, so let's raise the MW until they can.

I think a lot of them need to learn a skill instead of shoving burgers for $15/hour.

I can tell you that Millenials aren't telling their children to go to college, and that's because, for the most part, most Millenials don't have kids yet, or at least they don't have kids who are in high school.

Average age of first time mothers is ~25 years old, which means that the first batch of Millenials, those born in the early 80s, are in their mid-30s.

(12-06-2017 12:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ironically, one of the main reasons those people went to school and got an Art History and Sociology degree, is because YOUR generation told them to, and told them that if they got a college degree that they would have a job waiting for them. It seems like nowadays all that Boomers want to do is ***** and moan about how awful my generation is, without taking a good hard look at the opportunities they themselves had, that fact that a good portion of my generation was raised by them, and that the rungs of the ladder up are being pulled up more and more each day (for example, they won't fricken retire and free up salaries for new employees).

We've now gone off of tax policy, but this sure is a fun tangent.

yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

If the shoe fits...

As a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I remember a book cover being handed out (remember book covers? Remember books?) that showed the relative life time earnings among those with college degrees, those with only HS diplomas, and those who dropped out of HS. The message was clear.

The government relentlessly beat the drum that the way out of poverty was college, and millions got the message. But the message was incomplete. It should have been to get educated or trained in something that one could use to get a job. That part never came through. The government did all it could to enable people to get useless or poorly marketable degrees.

It took me a long tie to realize what we were doing. Since I don't run the government, I could do little about it. The best I could do was advise kids (yes, I was in a position to advise a lot of kids) that no mater what they studied, at least have a business minor, just in case you don't find that dream job running an art museum. At least one has thanked me for it. That Art History degree just is not good for much.

I also wanted to send my kids to college. One majored in math and business, graduated summa *** laude, and eventually ended up working as a systems analyst, whatever the heck that is, for a major company for the last 25 years. Success story. The other majored in English, became a teacher, and has since left the profession.

when my eldest grandson graduated, I advised him to use the experience he gained working summers with his other grandfather and go into plumbing. he and I both foresaw a useless degree and a lot of debt.

College is certainly a good choice for some, but a bad choice for others. I wonder what the GenXers and Millinneals are telling kids these days. Is it the same old tired "college will set you free"?

We end up with a bunch of overeducated unskilled workers who think the world owes them a comfortble living. After all, they did as told and went to college. Now they are working MW jobs and upset they cannot support a family on that, so let's raise the MW until they can.

I think a lot of them need to learn a skill instead of shoving burgers for $15/hour.

Agreed on learning a skill. Relevant question, though: how do they afford the training for said? If you're a twenty-something who has an expensive degree with limited applications in the field, you're likely under a non-negligible amount of debt, as well, which makes it harder to get that training.

That's where we need to revamp our primary/secondary education system along the lines of most of the rest of the world (including all the countries that rank ahead of us) to provide a rigorous and useful vocational track.

(12-06-2017 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 12:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

I'd jump in here, but as a GenXer, I'm too jaded and cynical to bother.

If the shoe fits...

As a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I remember a book cover being handed out (remember book covers? Remember books?) that showed the relative life time earnings among those with college degrees, those with only HS diplomas, and those who dropped out of HS. The message was clear.

The government relentlessly beat the drum that the way out of poverty was college, and millions got the message. But the message was incomplete. It should have been to get educated or trained in something that one could use to get a job. That part never came through. The government did all it could to enable people to get useless or poorly marketable degrees.

It took me a long tie to realize what we were doing. Since I don't run the government, I could do little about it. The best I could do was advise kids (yes, I was in a position to advise a lot of kids) that no mater what they studied, at least have a business minor, just in case you don't find that dream job running an art museum. At least one has thanked me for it. That Art History degree just is not good for much.

I also wanted to send my kids to college. One majored in math and business, graduated summa *** laude, and eventually ended up working as a systems analyst, whatever the heck that is, for a major company for the last 25 years. Success story. The other majored in English, became a teacher, and has since left the profession.

when my eldest grandson graduated, I advised him to use the experience he gained working summers with his other grandfather and go into plumbing. he and I both foresaw a useless degree and a lot of debt.

College is certainly a good choice for some, but a bad choice for others. I wonder what the GenXers and Millinneals are telling kids these days. Is it the same old tired "college will set you free"?

We end up with a bunch of overeducated unskilled workers who think the world owes them a comfortble living. After all, they did as told and went to college. Now they are working MW jobs and upset they cannot support a family on that, so let's raise the MW until they can.

I think a lot of them need to learn a skill instead of shoving burgers for $15/hour.

Agreed on learning a skill. Relevant question, though: how do they afford the training for said? If you're a twenty-something who has an expensive degree with limited applications in the field, you're likely under a non-negligible amount of debt, as well, which makes it harder to get that training.

That's where we need to revamp our primary/secondary education system along the lines of most of the rest of the world (including all the countries that rank ahead of us) to provide a rigorous and useful vocational track.

I spent a lot of time in Germany when with one startup. The German system of preparation has resulted not just in an amazingly deep well of college-level STEM professsionals, but an amazingly well trained 'not college' branch who have very good technical skills --- sometimes equivalent to first to fifth year college engineer majors and not really the 'techicians' they are billed as.

The manufacturing sector is equally adept -- I have never seen a workforce as skilled as theirs in what we would consider 'blue collar' and/or non-engineer professional tracks.

The problem is that they achieved that by almost mandating the path an individual takes from the 6th grade on. And, the blue collar / non-engineer professionals (mechanics, HVAC, carpenter, cooling systems, wire runners, electricians, plumbers) almost never own their own 'shops' (i.e. the guy progresses from being one to running a stable with 20-30 of them). Both are drawbacks that would never survive a USA-type culture.

(12-06-2017 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's where we need to revamp our primary/secondary education system along the lines of most of the rest of the world (including all the countries that rank ahead of us) to provide a rigorous and useful vocational track.

I spent a lot of time in Germany when with one startup. The German system of preparation has resulted not just in an amazingly deep well of college-level STEM professsionals, but an amazingly well trained 'not college' branch who have very good technical skills --- sometimes equivalent to first to fifth year college engineer majors and not really the 'techicians' they are billed as.
The manufacturing sector is equally adept -- I have never seen a workforce as skilled as theirs in what we would consider 'blue collar' and/or non-engineer professional tracks.
The problem is that they achieved that by almost mandating the path an individual takes from the 6th grade on. And, the blue collar / non-engineer professionals (mechanics, HVAC, carpenter, cooling systems, wire runners, electricians, plumbers) almost never own their own 'shops' (i.e. the guy progresses from being one to running a stable with 20-30 of them). Both are drawbacks that would never survive a USA-type culture.

We need to come up with a way to implement their best practices into an American system. I think it's doable, but not with certain power bases in place here.