College grads waiting out the job market

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Topic Author
Billy Pilgrim
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:53 pm

College grads waiting out the job market

Post by Billy Pilgrim »

It could be a long wait. But at least some of them are doing stuff they enjoy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/fashi ... begin.html
User avatar
market timer
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:42 am

Post by market timer »

From the article:
Meet the members of what might be called Generation Limbo: highly educated 20-somethings, whose careers are stuck in neutral, coping with dead-end jobs and listless prospects.
Field/Major, School, Class

1. Advertising, Florida, 2009
2. English, Harvard, 2007
3. "The Arts", Dartmouth, 2009
4. Business, Maryland, 2009/2010
5. Advertising, Boston U, 2009
6. Not specified, Yale, 2007

If the journalist had found many unemployed nurses, engineers, and IT professionals with decent grades from good schools, then there could be a case for Generation Limbo. As I read the story, for the most part I see people who chose not to have a career. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Userdc
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:30 am

Post by Userdc »

market timer wrote:From the article:
Meet the members of what might be called Generation Limbo: highly educated 20-somethings, whose careers are stuck in neutral, coping with dead-end jobs and listless prospects.
Field/Major, School, Class

1. Advertising, Florida, 2009
2. English, Harvard, 2007
3. "The Arts", Dartmouth, 2009
4. Business, Maryland, 2009/2010
5. Advertising, Boston U, 2009
6. Not specified, Yale, 2007

If the journalist had found many unemployed nurses, engineers, and IT professionals with decent grades from good schools, then there could be a case for Generation Limbo. As I read the story, for the most part I see people who chose not to have a career. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
How is that list of majors evidence that these people didn't want a career? The corporate world I work in is full of very successful (and highly paid) people with liberal arts degrees. I don't agree that those majors are evidence of a lack of drive.

Their actions and words may indicate that, though...
tim1999
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:16 am

Post by tim1999 »

market timer wrote: If the journalist had found many unemployed nurses, engineers, and IT professionals with decent grades from good schools, then there could be a case for Generation Limbo. As I read the story, for the most part I see people who chose not to have a career. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
This is my own observation as well, even with recent grads from the crappy 3rd tier college I went to. No unemployed IT, engineering, accounting, nursing, biology, etc. majors, but plenty unemployed who majored in stuff like chinese literature, womens studies, nonprofit leadership, politicial science, film, art history, etc.

Study what you love or want, but don't bi*ch if it doesn't pay.

Although I will say, if you went to an Ivy, etc. it probably doesn't matter what you majored in, but at Podunk U, it certainly does.
User avatar
Ruprecht
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: a very nice cardboard box
Contact:

Post by Ruprecht »

Image
campy2010
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:01 pm

Post by campy2010 »

2 directors at my work have sons who graduated from colleges in 2008-2009. One was a math major and another has a physics degree; both went to good schools. The math major recently started his first professional job after two years of searching; the physics major is still unemployed and headed to graduate school even though he would rather be working. Getting your foot in the door with little real-world experience is tough, no matter what field you are in. I feel for this group of kids. Once there is a gap in your resume, it is difficult to explain even for those with so-called "good" degrees.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

Cherokee8215 wrote:
market timer wrote: If the journalist had found many unemployed nurses, engineers, and IT professionals with decent grades from good schools, then there could be a case for Generation Limbo. As I read the story, for the most part I see people who chose not to have a career. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
This is my own observation as well, even with recent grads from the crappy 3rd tier college I went to. No unemployed IT, engineering, accounting, nursing, biology, etc. majors, but plenty unemployed who majored in stuff like chinese literature, womens studies, nonprofit leadership, politicial science, film, art history, etc.

Study what you love or want, but don't bi*ch if it doesn't pay.

Although I will say, if you went to an Ivy, etc. it probably doesn't matter what you majored in, but at Podunk U, it certainly does.
I don't think it even matters what college you attend. An accounting degree from University of Phoenix is probably more valuable than a liberal arts degree from an Ivy League. I really believe that. If the demand for your skills aren't there, I don't care where you went to school.
peter71
Posts: 3769
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:28 pm

Post by peter71 »

Um, I'm just a liberal arts major but I do know how to do word problems with basic fractions . . . anyone else getting 2/5ths for the proportion of liberal arts majors on that list? :D

I don't dispute the general principle of liberal arts doesn't pay -- but it's interesting to me if biz and advertising X 2 are down too . . . and I'm not saying that out of jealousy . . . I've recently been making the best money I've ever made (and creating high paying grad student jobs!) doing a little consulting for folks who want to sell other folks shit they don't need! :D

Best,
Pete
tibbitts
Posts: 23716
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:50 pm

Post by tibbitts »

If the journalist had found many unemployed nurses, engineers, and IT professionals with decent grades from good schools, then there could be a case for Generation Limbo. As I read the story, for the most part I see people who chose not to have a career. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
It's not correct to assume that every student is capable of being admitted to a "good" program at a "good" school, getting decent grades, graduating, and becoming a nurse, engineer, etc. That's just not the case in the real world. Admission to many nursing and engineering programs are extremely competitive. And many students who are admitted fail to graduate, despite their best efforts. So it may be that some students have a choice of continuing their education in a program that might not have the best prospects for employment, or not continuing it at all.

Today there are as many opportunities for the best students in the best programs as there ever were. But I'm not sure there are as many opportunities as there were in the past for students who just don't have what it takes to be in that top 10% or 20%, but might fit somewhere in the next 30% or 40%.

Paul
Topic Author
Billy Pilgrim
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:53 pm

Post by Billy Pilgrim »

I know one person who graduated with a degree in acting.
Straight out of college they have started a career in HR. This was last year and they are still doing very well.
Ben24
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:14 pm

Post by Ben24 »

It's ironic that Ivy league alumni are ending up on welfare after college. I think we are getting to the point where many of the nations brightest people will be foregoing an ivy league education. Harvard for example costs $52,000 dollars per year. Most students should also have a significant amount of uncertainty regarding their personal interests and goals, not to mention employment prospects.
ladders11
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:20 pm

Post by ladders11 »

Sure, there is an aspect of people-being-people involved here. Some people wander around from one job to the next, without plans and goals. Some people mope, or become disenfranchised. Some people major in philosophy. They wind up without "career" jobs, but this doesn't necessarily require a poor economy.

But, one trend that seems to resurface with young people working unsuccessfully: employment involving the internet. Some write for websites, some start web-based businesses. Obviously, Mark Zuckerberg is very rich, but many people have flopped with this sort of thing. I can see young people wanting to work online, as it seems like a growing field, and they spend lots of time online, but... it is just not providing great careers. Some get rich quick stories, but many more go broke slowly stories.

In contrast, the auto industry provided decent wages for a broad segment of workers to raise families, get benefits, and retire - last century. Now the tech sector has provided long hours, temp work, contract work, outsourcing. A few billionaires, some millionaires, and everyone else left out. As of today, Google has only 28,768 full time employees. Ford: 164,000. Apple: 46,600. GM: 208,000. Compare this to the public image of these companies. As far as employment is concerned, in 2011 Ford is still much much bigger and better for the country than Google or Apple - even though automakers are so maligned, and people are so proud of tech.

We can pick on the individuals in the article, but the fact remains that there is no growth industry providing good jobs in America.
renter
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:14 pm

Post by renter »

During the prior recession in 2001/2002, I managed to find my first professional job after swallowing my pride, dressing in my suit, and going, literally, door to door in good office buildings until someone gave me a job. It took several days and was very humiliating. Some places were indifferent, some places treated me like I was a pest. But one place took me in. The man said, "you're doing exactly what you should be doing. come on in." That job led to many great things.
User avatar
mlebuf
Posts: 1916
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Paradise Valley, Arizona

Post by mlebuf »

Not all new grads are starving and hurting for a job. I know 2 former Bogleheads who are entering the workforce. One graduated in May with a degree in Finance from LSU. He was offered a job at a very nice starting salary, plus a signing bonus to work in Finance for a Fortune Top 5 Company. He had the job locked up last November and started in July.

The second one is in his final semester getting a J.D./MBA degree from Arizona State. This summer he worked for a law firm and has been offered a full-time job by the firm upon graduation at a very handsome salary. Companies are always looking for bright young people who are willing to work and bring something to the table.
Best wishes, | Michael | | Invest your time actively and your money passively.
Wagnerjb
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:44 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by Wagnerjb »

Cherokee8215 wrote:
market timer wrote: If the journalist had found many unemployed nurses, engineers, and IT professionals with decent grades from good schools, then there could be a case for Generation Limbo. As I read the story, for the most part I see people who chose not to have a career. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
This is my own observation as well, even with recent grads from the crappy 3rd tier college I went to. No unemployed IT, engineering, accounting, nursing, biology, etc. majors, but plenty unemployed who majored in stuff like chinese literature, womens studies, nonprofit leadership, politicial science, film, art history, etc.

Study what you love or want, but don't bi*ch if it doesn't pay.

Although I will say, if you went to an Ivy, etc. it probably doesn't matter what you majored in, but at Podunk U, it certainly does.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
Andy
User avatar
TrustNoOne
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:09 am

Post by TrustNoOne »

Its much more up to the individual than thier college or degree. I recall the story of a guy who took several years to make it out of a college in Utah with a business degree. His start was an A&W Rootbeer franchise. He later built that into the Marriott empire.....I hate to think of what would have happened had he gotten a "real job" as an entry level employee with a big company.
wilked
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:50 pm

Post by wilked »

renter wrote:During the prior recession in 2001/2002, I managed to find my first professional job after swallowing my pride, dressing in my suit, and going, literally, door to door in good office buildings until someone gave me a job. It took several days and was very humiliating. Some places were indifferent, some places treated me like I was a pest. But one place took me in. The man said, "you're doing exactly what you should be doing. come on in." That job led to many great things.
I did the same thing, just about the same time as well. I didn't get a job from it, but I got some 'leads', which led to increased confidence and gave me some momentum toward finding my ultimate job. Too many people submit resumes online and stop there
User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 13484
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

Post by jeffyscott »

market timer wrote:If the journalist had found many unemployed nurses, engineers, and IT professionals with decent grades from good schools, then there could be a case for Generation Limbo. As I read the story, for the most part I see people who chose not to have a career. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yes, anyone who did not follow your recommended path deserves to be unemployed or work for peanuts, probably forever. There is no jobs crisis, move along...nothing to see here. :roll:
DetroitRed
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 4:16 pm

Post by DetroitRed »

Ben24 wrote:It's ironic that Ivy league alumni are ending up on welfare after college. I think we are getting to the point where many of the nations brightest people will be foregoing an ivy league education. Harvard for example costs $52,000 dollars per year. Most students should also have a significant amount of uncertainty regarding their personal interests and goals, not to mention employment prospects.
That's the "sticker price" for Harvard. If the student's family made around the median household income, they probably come out of Harvard with zero debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/educa ... rvard.html

Dartmouth's financial aid is not as generous. But Princeton & Yale are comparable to Harvard.
caluchko
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:15 pm

Post by caluchko »

jeffyscott wrote:
market timer wrote:If the journalist had found many unemployed nurses, engineers, and IT professionals with decent grades from good schools, then there could be a case for Generation Limbo. As I read the story, for the most part I see people who chose not to have a career. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yes, anyone who did not follow your recommended path deserves to be unemployed or work for peanuts, probably forever. There is no jobs crisis, move along...nothing to see here. :roll:
Thank you. I'm sick of this attitude that if one is not earning a decent wage, that person must be lazy or has made bad decisions. It's just not that simple.
pochax
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:40 am

Post by pochax »

Triple digit golfer wrote:
I don't think it even matters what college you attend. An accounting degree from University of Phoenix is probably more valuable than a liberal arts degree from an Ivy League. I really believe that. If the demand for your skills aren't there, I don't care where you went to school.
But the qualities that got you into the Ivy league school probably far outweigh either degree on paper.
NYCPete
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by NYCPete »

Back in 2009, the NYTimes had an interactive graph showing the unemployment rates for different groups of people. In every demographic category and race/gender combination, college graduates had a lower unemployment rate than non college graduates. Even in 2009, a year where in one month the country lost 600,000 jobs, the unemployment rate for college graduates ages 25-44 was 4.3%. It's just not reasonable that the entire 4.3% was made up of philosophy and art history majors. I just don't buy it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009 ... lines.html

I have what Markettimer describes as one of those "I chose not to work" degrees, and I am doing just fine, thank you very much. When my niece and nephew are old enough to go to college, I will be the first to tell them that finishing college will put them in a far more competitive position in the job market than not doing so, and that working hard and finishing is more important than having "the right degree."

When the statistics right now are showing that having a college degree means you're half as likely to be unemployed as the rest of the country, I think an english or political science degree is still a pretty good bet. Let's keep some perspective.

Best,
Peter
To the extent that a fool knows his foolishness, | He may be deemed wise | A fool who considers himself wise | Is indeed a fool. | | Buddha
User avatar
Sheepdog
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:05 pm
Location: Indiana, retired 1998 at age 65

Post by Sheepdog »

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. 2011 graduating class not going to graduate school 95% employed at graduation. 100% two months following. Median starting salary $60,700.

This got me thinking. How does that salary compare with my 1960 starting engineer's salary? When I graduated from college in 1960 my initial salary was $6660 per year. With inflation that would be worth $50,832 today. See USA Inflation calculator http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Last edited by Sheepdog on Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unless you try to do something beyond what you have already mastered you will never grow. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
JCom
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:44 pm

Post by JCom »

What are the first positionhs that companies cut? Internships and entry level positions - both of which college students and graduates would be going for. I graduated in 2010 and know many, many smart people who took a less than desirable job that took longer to get than it would have pre-recession. Obviously your major as something to do with it, but it is hardly structural unemployment.

I had a good major (accounting) with a decent GPA(3.33) from a good university. I got an internship with Wells Fargo doing internal audit 6 months before I was to start. I was supposed to start in May of 2009. I called them mid-April to have them tell me that they "just" decided to cut the internship program. That meant that I had approximately a month to find another internship that hadn't already hired? Nearly impossible. When they had a full time position open up for audit (only one) over 150 people applied for it. Keep in mind that I live in an area not nearly as scathed by the recession as the coasts. Also, I found out that they decided to cut all the interns in January and did not bother to tell any of us until mid April.

Now I did manage to get a full time job, on that I like, but I am in the lucky minority. I understand that this is one perspective and one story, but facts simply don't show that the unemployment problems are structural.
User avatar
Mark13
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:38 am
Location: Northern VA

Post by Mark13 »

Here's another option to kill some time: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... r-vacation

It would look pretty interesting on a resume.
supersharpie
Posts: 838
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:28 pm

Post by supersharpie »

Sheepdog wrote:Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. 2011 graduating class not going to graduate school 95% employed at graduation. 100% two months following. Median starting salary $60,700.

This got me thinking. How does that salary compare with my 1960 starting engineer's salary? When I graduated from college in 1960 my initial salary was $6660 per year. With inflation that would be worth $50,832 today. See USA Inflation calculator http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
So?

Don't try to make square pegs fit into round holes. In the current job market those who are mathematically/scientifically inclined clearly have an advantage over those whose skills lie in writing and interpersonal communication. However, that doesn't mean that the former group is intrinsically superior to the former.
partisan
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:34 pm

Post by partisan »

The recency bias in threads like this amuses me... if only people made good choices and picked IT or engineering they'd be doing well..

What about all those people back in 2001 that picked IT or engineering right after the dot-com bust? Those "good" degrees were worthless, I knew a ton of people in the industry with good skills who couldn't get work doing anything. There was a large oversupply in IT for years, it has finally been worked off not by the market increasing but by people moving into other things such as the IT recruiter I met a few years back who now owns a few gas stations and car washes.

Just because a field is hot right now doesn't mean it will stay that way forever and it's silly to think that somehow students will be able to know what degree will be popular or in demand in 4 or 5 years when they graduate. This especially from a message board that constantly pounds out that no one knows the future.

I think the best thing to do is get a degree in something that fits as an individual, and network/pound the pavement to get a job.

And for the record I had a IT degree and came into the job market at the end of the bust (dot-com, not recent bust), I got a job by networking my way in to something entry level. I had a lot of friends who ended up taking help desk type jobs or remained unemployed for a few years.
ladders11
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:20 pm

Post by ladders11 »

.....
Last edited by ladders11 on Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 25625
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Post by Grt2bOutdoors »

partisan wrote:The recency bias in threads like this amuses me... if only people made good choices and picked IT or engineering they'd be doing well..

What about all those people back in 2001 that picked IT or engineering right after the dot-com bust? Those "good" degrees were worthless, I knew a ton of people in the industry with good skills who couldn't get work doing anything. There was a large oversupply in IT for years, it has finally been worked off not by the market increasing but by people moving into other things such as the IT recruiter I met a few years back who now owns a few gas stations and car washes.

Just because a field is hot right now doesn't mean it will stay that way forever and it's silly to think that somehow students will be able to know what degree will be popular or in demand in 4 or 5 years when they graduate. This especially from a message board that constantly pounds out that no one knows the future.

I think the best thing to do is get a degree in something that fits as an individual, and network/pound the pavement to get a job.

And for the record I had a IT degree and came into the job market at the end of the bust (dot-com, not recent bust), I got a job by networking my way in to something entry level. I had a lot of friends who ended up taking help desk type jobs or remained unemployed for a few years.
You make a valid point.
Ben24
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:14 pm

Post by Ben24 »

DetroitRed wrote:
Ben24 wrote:It's ironic that Ivy league alumni are ending up on welfare after college. I think we are getting to the point where many of the nations brightest people will be foregoing an ivy league education. Harvard for example costs $52,000 dollars per year. Most students should also have a significant amount of uncertainty regarding their personal interests and goals, not to mention employment prospects.
That's the "sticker price" for Harvard. If the student's family made around the median household income, they probably come out of Harvard with zero debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/educa ... rvard.html

Dartmouth's financial aid is not as generous. But Princeton & Yale are comparable to Harvard.
The article also says that only about half of undergrads receive any financial aid.
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

ladders11 wrote:But, one trend that seems to resurface with young people working unsuccessfully: employment involving the internet. Some write for websites, some start web-based businesses. Obviously, Mark Zuckerberg is very rich, but many people have flopped with this sort of thing. I can see young people wanting to work online, as it seems like a growing field, and they spend lots of time online, but... it is just not providing great careers. Some get rich quick stories, but many more go broke slowly stories.
This has piqued my curiosity. I graduated the same year you did, so I'm guessing we're of a similar generation, yet I've literally never heard a story of somebody who "went broke slowly" in order to pursue online entrepreneurship.

What part of the country do you live in? I wonder if that's what's at play here.
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
TheEternalVortex
Posts: 2576
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by TheEternalVortex »

partisan wrote:The recency bias in threads like this amuses me... if only people made good choices and picked IT or engineering they'd be doing well..

What about all those people back in 2001 that picked IT or engineering right after the dot-com bust?
People that go into a field just to make money (or because it's hot) are not going to be as successful as those that do it because they love it. Lots of people went into engineering in 2001 because that's what they wanted to do and turned out fine.
DetroitRed
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 4:16 pm

Post by DetroitRed »

Ben24 wrote:
DetroitRed wrote:
Ben24 wrote:It's ironic that Ivy league alumni are ending up on welfare after college. I think we are getting to the point where many of the nations brightest people will be foregoing an ivy league education. Harvard for example costs $52,000 dollars per year. Most students should also have a significant amount of uncertainty regarding their personal interests and goals, not to mention employment prospects.
That's the "sticker price" for Harvard. If the student's family made around the median household income, they probably come out of Harvard with zero debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/educa ... rvard.html

Dartmouth's financial aid is not as generous. But Princeton & Yale are comparable to Harvard.
The article also says that only about half of undergrads receive any financial aid.
Right, it says, "A little more than half of Harvard undergraduates get some form of aid, including many from families earning $120,000 or more."

Which gives you an indication of how many really wealthy kids go to Harvard - you can still qualify for financial aid if your family makes $120k, which is about 240% higher than the $50k US household median income.

But when a billionaire like the Carlyle Group's David Rubenstein has a kid at Harvard, they're not going to qualify for financial aid.
DetroitRed
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 4:16 pm

Post by DetroitRed »

Forgive my lousy math. 120k is not 240% larger than 50k. It's 120%.
Ben24
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:14 pm

Post by Ben24 »

DetroitRed wrote:
Right, it says, "A little more than half of Harvard undergraduates get some form of aid, including many from families earning $120,000 or more."

Which gives you an indication of how many really wealthy kids go to Harvard - you can still qualify for financial aid if your family makes $120k, which is about 240% higher than the $50k US household median income.

But when a billionaire like the Carlyle Group's David Rubenstein has a kid at Harvard, they're not going to qualify for financial aid.
A school where a little under 50% of the students are extraordinary wealthy seems like a problem in and of itself. These kids make up a tiny fraction of the overall population. Money obviously plays a much larger role than it should.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

pochax wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
I don't think it even matters what college you attend. An accounting degree from University of Phoenix is probably more valuable than a liberal arts degree from an Ivy League. I really believe that. If the demand for your skills aren't there, I don't care where you went to school.
But the qualities that got you into the Ivy league school probably far outweigh either degree on paper.
But will those qualities make you money?
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

DetroitRed wrote:Forgive my lousy math. 120k is not 240% larger than 50k. It's 120%.
Try again. It's 140% larger. :)
Lollytiger
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 10:12 pm

Post by Lollytiger »

TheEternalVortex wrote:
partisan wrote:The recency bias in threads like this amuses me... if only people made good choices and picked IT or engineering they'd be doing well..

What about all those people back in 2001 that picked IT or engineering right after the dot-com bust?
People that go into a field just to make money (or because it's hot) are not going to be as successful as those that do it because they love it. Lots of people went into engineering in 2001 because that's what they wanted to do and turned out fine.
I suppose you can argue that anyone who picked Liberal Arts majors didn't plan on having a career, and I suppose you can go further and argue that anyone who picked a major besides IT and engineering didn't plan on having a career, but if you say that only people who picked IT and engineering AND love it deserve jobs, such that people outside this group not having jobs is not a significant problem, that's clearly going too far.
scubadiver
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 9:48 pm

Post by scubadiver »

Lollytiger wrote:
TheEternalVortex wrote:
partisan wrote:The recency bias in threads like this amuses me... if only people made good choices and picked IT or engineering they'd be doing well..

What about all those people back in 2001 that picked IT or engineering right after the dot-com bust?
People that go into a field just to make money (or because it's hot) are not going to be as successful as those that do it because they love it. Lots of people went into engineering in 2001 because that's what they wanted to do and turned out fine.
I suppose you can argue that anyone who picked Liberal Arts majors didn't plan on having a career, and I suppose you can go further and argue that anyone who picked a major besides IT and engineering didn't plan on having a career, but if you say that only people who picked IT and engineering AND love it deserve jobs, such that people outside this group not having jobs is not a significant problem, that's clearly going too far.
The engineer / math / science types tend to do well not b/c of their degrees so much, but b/c if you can make it through that type of curriculum, you probably have an above average analytical and problem solving ability which is valuable in almost any industry. Engineers can easily go on to graduate school in business or law. Business and political science majors cannot easily go into engineering.

Relatively low unemployment among the engineer and science types is not a cyclical trend. It’s just the way it is.
Last edited by scubadiver on Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
ladders11
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:20 pm

Post by ladders11 »

.....
Last edited by ladders11 on Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

ladders11, thank you for your elaboration.
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
FireProof
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:15 pm

Post by FireProof »

Titus Andronicus is a successful and acclaimed band - kind of silly to compare it to being a part time secretary.
getRichSlower
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:40 pm

Post by getRichSlower »

The Dartmouth grad was working as a paralegal. That seems to me like it could be a good way to network and position herself for a summer associate's job if she eventually wanted to go to law school, but was burnt out on school and wanted a year or two break. Now, her classmates on food stamps are in worse shape, but the nytimes didn't profile them.
Sachay
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:40 am

Post by Sachay »

Triple digit golfer wrote:
pochax wrote:
Triple digit golfer wrote:
I don't think it even matters what college you attend. An accounting degree from University of Phoenix is probably more valuable than a liberal arts degree from an Ivy League. I really believe that. If the demand for your skills aren't there, I don't care where you went to school.
But the qualities that got you into the Ivy league school probably far outweigh either degree on paper.
But will those qualities make you money?
Absolutely. Access to networking and capital will make you far more money than any accounting degree if you put forth any sort of effort to make money at all.
investnoob
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:57 am
Location: Ottawa
Contact:

Post by investnoob »

ladders11 wrote:Sure, there is an aspect of people-being-people involved here. Some people wander around from one job to the next, without plans and goals. Some people mope, or become disenfranchised. Some people major in philosophy. They wind up without "career" jobs, but this doesn't necessarily require a poor economy.

But, one trend that seems to resurface with young people working unsuccessfully: employment involving the internet. Some write for websites, some start web-based businesses. Obviously, Mark Zuckerberg is very rich, but many people have flopped with this sort of thing. I can see young people wanting to work online, as it seems like a growing field, and they spend lots of time online, but... it is just not providing great careers. Some get rich quick stories, but many more go broke slowly stories.

In contrast, the auto industry provided decent wages for a broad segment of workers to raise families, get benefits, and retire - last century. Now the tech sector has provided long hours, temp work, contract work, outsourcing. A few billionaires, some millionaires, and everyone else left out. As of today, Google has only 28,768 full time employees. Ford: 164,000. Apple: 46,600. GM: 208,000. Compare this to the public image of these companies. As far as employment is concerned, in 2011 Ford is still much much bigger and better for the country than Google or Apple - even though automakers are so maligned, and people are so proud of tech.

We can pick on the individuals in the article, but the fact remains that there is no growth industry providing good jobs in America.
Ladders, have you read Jaron Lanier's latest on edge.org? Some good stuff in the interview with him. He's very concerned with the problems you spoke about. I found it a fascinating read (others may find it boring).

There is a video as well:

http://edge.org/conversation/the-local-global-flip

If you want to read the interview in its entirety, you can scroll past the video to find it.
ladders11
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:20 pm

Post by ladders11 »

.....
Last edited by ladders11 on Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TheEternalVortex
Posts: 2576
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by TheEternalVortex »

TheEternalVortex
Posts: 2576
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by TheEternalVortex »

As of today, Google has only 28,768 full time employees. Ford: 164,000. Apple: 46,600. GM: 208,000. Compare this to the public image of these companies. As far as employment is concerned, in 2011 Ford is still much much bigger and better for the country than Google or Apple - even though automakers are so maligned, and people are so proud of tech.
Ford and GM are very much defined by the software they use and put into their vehicles. So separating the two is a very artificial distinction.
User avatar
MossySF
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:51 pm
Contact:

Post by MossySF »

There's too much blaming of individuals for the choices being made -- after all, not everybody can be above average. In all likelihood, these are just symptoms of reversion to mean. In this case, it's the U.S. reverting from being the pre-eminent superpower to just another developed nation. Remember the rest of the world was either bombed to hell through 2 World Wars or throttled under the heel of colonial powers -- that was a huge leg up for the U.S. starting in the 50's and now that head start is disappearing. It'll still be a great life comparatively -- ask any but the ultra wealthy in any emerging country and they'd jump at the chance to emigrate. But a 5% slide from top economic dog to one of many top economic dogs is a tough transition when that 5% is concentrated on the margins (e.g. new graduates, older workers being phased out, industries being outsourced).
User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3485
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:28 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Post by 3CT_Paddler »

ladders11 wrote: I can say that I agree with many of his points and a general sense that we need more of internet activity monetized in order to sustain employment. I think it is an organic development process: remember that someone invented pay tv, but this took a while. Or if you hear the phrase "music industry" you know in 1995 this meant employment for thousands of people just dealing with one band like Aerosmith, but in 1895 there was probably only a few people making a living performing and the word "industry" could not be used to describe music. People and companies found a way to get in between musicians and listeners to make money eventually.
So what you and Jaron Lanier believe is that we need more middle men? Do you want more middle men handling your money when it comes to investing? Why is search or the internet or buying goods any different? The fact that the internet is so inexpensive, and makes information so inexpensive is a great thing for consumers.

Right now I can go online and buy and sell goods (Craigslist) with no transactional middle men taking my money (like a newspaper or Ebay). Does that create fewer jobs/revenues for newspapers or Ebay? Absolutely in the immediate short term, but more efficiency is a good thing in the long run. The consumer now has more money to put towards some new product or idea... and more jobs are born.

This Lanier guy coined a term based on his own last name... don't you think that is a little strange?
Post Reply