Jump to content

Why is the subway slower than it used to be?


Joel Up Front

Recommended Posts

This whole discussion going on here seems much ado about nothing as far as i'm concerned. There are plenty of issues facing the labor market in this country but educational attainment is the least of them. In fact I would say that more college degrees are better because a more educated society has positive externalities that extend beyond the labor market. As far as skilled labor is concerned employers are looking for the skills necessary to perform the job in question. To the extent an employee's education functions as a skill is where education would come in as far as landing a job. Many jobs (even those which are perceived as highly skilled) do not require loads of specialized knowledge in advance of taking the job. In many fields learning on the job is the bread and butter of the business. To use an example, as far as finance is concerned  many of the entry level analysts at top firms do not major economics or finance. However, those that don't all have really high GPA's and graduated from top ranked universities. Why would top finance firms recruit people who didn't major in the subject matter they'll be working with over those who did? The answer is because those who didn't have proven through other means that they can succeed at work. Those means include getting through a highly competitive university and doing so well enough to keep grades near the ceiling. That kind of person is profiled by recruiters as someone who can handle a demanding workload and likely has enough intelligence and time management to do so while learning to adapt to new environments (in this case a finance job said person was not tracking for). In many cases that is far more valuable than someone who specialized in the appropriate subject matter but has so little substance outside of that he/she comes off as a goof who could be unproductive. 

 

At the end of the day being able to find gainful employment in a respectable field is about marketing yourself to employers as someone who can do the job at hand with little supervision. That's the main thing that seems lacking in today's young people. Not enough of them are well rounded enough to communicate how they differentiate themselves from the other guy looking for the same job. Not all valuable skills at work deal with the academic substance of the day to day job and in fact educational knowledge is a bare minimum when you're moving up the ladder. Those things career coaches label as "soft skills" are where we need to be improving and I don't see where making higher education more competitive helps with that given college offers lots of chances for students to develop those skills. 

 

The view of a degree as an employment credential is what's problematic and both sides employers/future employees are held back by it. A degree is merely a tool that can be used to enhance marketability and independent of job prospects anyone that can bear the financial burden of attaining one should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This whole discussion going on here seems much ado about nothing as far as i'm concerned. There are plenty of issues facing the labor market in this country but educational attainment is the least of them. In fact I would say that more college degrees are better because a more educated society has positive externalities that extend beyond the labor market. As far as skilled labor is concerned employers are looking for the skills necessary to perform the job in question. To the extent an employee's education functions as a skill is where education would come in as far as landing a job. Many jobs (even those which are perceived as highly skilled) do not require loads of specialized knowledge in advance of taking the job. In many fields learning on the job is the bread and butter of the business. To use an example, as far as finance is concerned  many of the entry level analysts at top firms do not major economics or finance. However, those that don't all have really high GPA's and graduated from top ranked universities. Why would top finance firms recruit people who didn't major in the subject matter they'll be working with over those who did? The answer is because those who didn't have proven through other means that they can succeed at work. Those means include getting through a highly competitive university and doing so well enough to keep grades near the ceiling. That kind of person is profiled by recruiters as someone who can handle a demanding workload and likely has enough intelligence and time management to do so while learning to adapt to new environments (in this case a finance job said person was not tracking for). In many cases that is far more valuable than someone who specialized in the appropriate subject matter but has so little substance outside of that he/she comes off as a goof who could be unproductive. 

 

At the end of the day being able to find gainful employment in a respectable field is about marketing yourself to employers as someone who can do the job at hand with little supervision. That's the main thing that seems lacking in today's young people. Not enough of them are well rounded enough to communicate how they differentiate themselves from the other guy looking for the same job. Not all valuable skills at work deal with the academic substance of the day to day job and in fact educational knowledge is a bare minimum when you're moving up the ladder. Those things career coaches label as "soft skills" are where we need to be improving and I don't see where making higher education more competitive helps with that given college offers lots of chances for students to develop those skills. 

 

The view of a degree as an employment credential is what's problematic and both sides employers/future employees are held back by it. A degree is merely a tool that can be used to enhance marketability and independent of job prospects anyone that can bear the financial burden of attaining one should. 

 

You're missing the point entirely.

 

Talking about "branding yourself" "marketing yourself" is all crap if you can't actually do the job.

 

The point I'm trying to make is just because someone has a degree - any degree - even one in the appropriate field, doesn't mean they can do the job. There is a failure of the education system to evaluate students objectively. There is this idiotic notion that permeates lower education and works its way up that if everyone just "tries harder" they too can get...and deserve...good grades, regardless of the quality of their work. And if they don't, sue or complain, or involve politicians to lower the standards across the board so that tryhard pissants who can't actually do the work can have "self esteem" and get their good grade.

 

I have a huge problem with this, as should be evident from the tone of my posting, because it handicaps society.

 

No matter how well you write a resume, if the education system is turning out people who lack basic common sense, the skills to think on their feet, and the skills necessary for one to "pick up new concepts quickly" then we will continue to lag behind the rest of the developed world in terms of high skill workers.

 

Less people going to college is a good thing. There is this incredible misconception out there that "if we all go to college we can all get good paying jobs and live happily ever after." You will always need laborers, you will always need unglamorous skill jobs that involve physical danger or manual labor. Not everyone can sit in a corner office and collect money all day, as a matter of fact, pretty much no one can since most white collar workers don't even do that anyway. Less people in college would mean colleges would be forced to compete for the best and brightest, and therefore would focus more on academics and recruiting brain talent instead of frivolous bullshit like college athletics, fancy dorms, high tech for campus security, and new buildings for departments that don't really need them. It would also mean an increased focus on the problem of finding gainful employment for high school grads, since high school grads can and should be able to find employment that does not render them partially dependent on public assistance. This is a growing problem in large urban areas which tend to be more expensive, but also tend to be where the jobs are. It also potentially gives these people who don't need to go to college gainful employment, 4 more years of pay to save towards retirement, and freedom from the burden of student loans. There are a number of reasons this is good.

 

The problem is for profit colleges, idiot politicians, and private universities seem to have everyone convinced that simply getting a degree is gonna make it rain for them....

 

The balance in a successful economy comes when the pay becomes representative of the value added by the work. The poor wealth distribution in the US is unhealthy because profit for rich individuals is a poor resource. It doesn't get reinvested, and it creates a system where the poorest of the poor are dependent on charity from the rich and forced charity from the middle class in the form of taxes paying for public assistance programs for which dependency rises every single year.

 

You don't fix that with more "edumucated" people, you fix that through using the tax code to disincentivize destructive economic behavior like corporate hoarding or large executive compensation packages (read: I am not saying "tax them more" I am saying "tax those who don't distribute resources in a way productive to overall society" which will force companies who have shareholders to distribute resources productively to avoid taxes), and encourage companies to pay pretty much everyone that makes under 250,000 / year more, and everyone who makes more than 500,000 / year slightly less. You fix the problem of overeducated but underskilled workers by cutting this crap with handout grades for trying hard, and by failing students who deserve to fail. No more holding the rest of the kids back because "everyone deserves every chance!" A kid that can't understand addition in a class full of kids who do is not just in need of a little extra help because he's trying. He's preventing everyone else from learning multiplication. Set and enforce the standards (and let educators set them, not politicians), and raise the bar at each grade level as you go up the ladder through high school and college, and stop overlapping back to pick up those that should have fallen out at the last stage. English proficiency in college? Give me a break.

 

Why won't we see this? Simple.

-Because private college and for profit colleges want to funnel as many people through them as possible for tuition dollars and donations down the road.

-Because college athletics are actually considered a priority item due to the absurd ESPN marketing of them, that they now create large donation pools, and also are considered revenue raising activities due to ticket sales and TV contracts at the largest schools. Most of which is reinvested in the athletics budget, not the overall school.

-Because new buildings are part of the marketing full court press on new students. Look what an exciting successful place this is! You're visiting during summer and we have new buildings going up!

-Because people don't understand that their tuition dollars are used to pay for this access, and that administration costs have ballooned at pretty much all colleges over the past 20 years. Since much of tuition money comes from the government in the form of grants or other aid packages, they have no incentive to cut costs.

-Because politicians have no incentive to discourage kids from going to college. It will make the unemployment numbers look worse (read: closer to reality), and college is 2-4 more years they don't have to count in the workforce. Kind of like starting wars. Don't have to count those soldiers in the workforce for their service years either!

-Because private prisons and their lobbying interests understand that glorifying gangster culture and promoting losers as popular will encourage disenfranchised kids to act out, allowing them to profit when they are arrested and incarcerated for long sentences. Why do you think the full court press is on to eliminate the death penalty nationwide?

 

Everything in life, follow the money. Moneyed interest decide pretty much every bit of policy in America these days and it is just there to maintain the status quo where you work your ass off and most of your money goes to them, without you really knowing it. That's why they don't want financial literacy either. Only those who are smart enough not to fall into this trap, or the beneficiaries of good (or well bred) parenting end up not being on the government tit at the end of all this.

 

And yes, part of this is why the service in the subway is getting worse. Classic example was last winter. The subway, known for staying open in pretty much all conditions...shut down for 8 inches of snow. Why...because someone who worked in transportation their whole life deemed it unsafe? Nope, because a politician with no background in the transportation industry and no knowledge of NYCT infrastructure said so, pretty much in direct contrast with the statements of the guy he picked to lead the MTA who HAS BOTH (30 years of both, I might add).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole discussion going on here seems much ado about nothing as far as i'm concerned. There are plenty of issues facing the labor market in this country but educational attainment is the least of them. In fact I would say that more college degrees are better because a more educated society has positive externalities that extend beyond the labor market. As far as skilled labor is concerned employers are looking for the skills necessary to perform the job in question. To the extent an employee's education functions as a skill is where education would come in as far as landing a job. Many jobs (even those which are perceived as highly skilled) do not require loads of specialized knowledge in advance of taking the job. In many fields learning on the job is the bread and butter of the business. To use an example, as far as finance is concerned many of the entry level analysts at top firms do not major economics or finance. However, those that don't all have really high GPA's and graduated from top ranked universities. Why would top finance firms recruit people who didn't major in the subject matter they'll be working with over those who did? The answer is because those who didn't have proven through other means that they can succeed at work. Those means include getting through a highly competitive university and doing so well enough to keep grades near the ceiling. That kind of person is profiled by recruiters as someone who can handle a demanding workload and likely has enough intelligence and time management to do so while learning to adapt to new environments (in this case a finance job said person was not tracking for). In many cases that is far more valuable than someone who specialized in the appropriate subject matter but has so little substance outside of that he/she comes off as a goof who could be unproductive.

 

At the end of the day being able to find gainful employment in a respectable field is about marketing yourself to employers as someone who can do the job at hand with little supervision. That's the main thing that seems lacking in today's young people. Not enough of them are well rounded enough to communicate how they differentiate themselves from the other guy looking for the same job. Not all valuable skills at work deal with the academic substance of the day to day job and in fact educational knowledge is a bare minimum when you're moving up the ladder. Those things career coaches label as "soft skills" are where we need to be improving and I don't see where making higher education more competitive helps with that given college offers lots of chances for students to develop those skills.

 

The view of a degree as an employment credential is what's problematic and both sides employers/future employees are held back by it. A degree is merely a tool that can be used to enhance marketability and independent of job prospects anyone that can bear the financial burden of attaining one should.

Ok and you do know college isn't for everyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point entirely.

 

Talking about "branding yourself" "marketing yourself" is all crap if you can't actually do the job.

 

The point I'm trying to make is just because someone has a degree - any degree - even one in the appropriate field, doesn't mean they can do the job. There is a failure of the education system to evaluate students objectively. There is this idiotic notion that permeates lower education and works its way up that if everyone just "tries harder" they too can get...and deserve...good grades, regardless of the quality of their work. And if they don't, sue or complain, or involve politicians to lower the standards across the board so that tryhard pissants who can't actually do the work can have "self esteem" and get their good grade.

 

I have a huge problem with this, as should be evident from the tone of my posting, because it handicaps society.

 

No matter how well you write a resume, if the education system is turning out people who lack basic common sense, the skills to think on their feet, and the skills necessary for one to "pick up new concepts quickly" then we will continue to lag behind the rest of the developed world in terms of high skill workers.

 

Less people going to college is a good thing. There is this incredible misconception out there that "if we all go to college we can all get good paying jobs and live happily ever after." You will always need laborers, you will always need unglamorous skill jobs that involve physical danger or manual labor. Not everyone can sit in a corner office and collect money all day, as a matter of fact, pretty much no one can since most white collar workers don't even do that anyway. Less people in college would mean colleges would be forced to compete for the best and brightest, and therefore would focus more on academics and recruiting brain talent instead of frivolous bullshit like college athletics, fancy dorms, high tech for campus security, and new buildings for departments that don't really need them. It would also mean an increased focus on the problem of finding gainful employment for high school grads, since high school grads can and should be able to find employment that does not render them partially dependent on public assistance. This is a growing problem in large urban areas which tend to be more expensive, but also tend to be where the jobs are. It also potentially gives these people who don't need to go to college gainful employment, 4 more years of pay to save towards retirement, and freedom from the burden of student loans. There are a number of reasons this is good.

 

The problem is for profit colleges, idiot politicians, and private universities seem to have everyone convinced that simply getting a degree is gonna make it rain for them....

 

The balance in a successful economy comes when the pay becomes representative of the value added by the work. The poor wealth distribution in the US is unhealthy because profit for rich individuals is a poor resource. It doesn't get reinvested, and it creates a system where the poorest of the poor are dependent on charity from the rich and forced charity from the middle class in the form of taxes paying for public assistance programs for which dependency rises every single year.

 

You don't fix that with more "edumucated" people, you fix that through using the tax code to disincentivize destructive economic behavior like corporate hoarding or large executive compensation packages (read: I am not saying "tax them more" I am saying "tax those who don't distribute resources in a way productive to overall society" which will force companies who have shareholders to distribute resources productively to avoid taxes), and encourage companies to pay pretty much everyone that makes under 250,000 / year more, and everyone who makes more than 500,000 / year slightly less. You fix the problem of overeducated but underskilled workers by cutting this crap with handout grades for trying hard, and by failing students who deserve to fail. No more holding the rest of the kids back because "everyone deserves every chance!" A kid that can't understand addition in a class full of kids who do is not just in need of a little extra help because he's trying. He's preventing everyone else from learning multiplication. Set and enforce the standards (and let educators set them, not politicians), and raise the bar at each grade level as you go up the ladder through high school and college, and stop overlapping back to pick up those that should have fallen out at the last stage. English proficiency in college? Give me a break.

 

Why won't we see this? Simple.

-Because private college and for profit colleges want to funnel as many people through them as possible for tuition dollars and donations down the road.

-Because college athletics are actually considered a priority item due to the absurd ESPN marketing of them, that they now create large donation pools, and also are considered revenue raising activities due to ticket sales and TV contracts at the largest schools. Most of which is reinvested in the athletics budget, not the overall school.

-Because new buildings are part of the marketing full court press on new students. Look what an exciting successful place this is! You're visiting during summer and we have new buildings going up!

-Because people don't understand that their tuition dollars are used to pay for this access, and that administration costs have ballooned at pretty much all colleges over the past 20 years. Since much of tuition money comes from the government in the form of grants or other aid packages, they have no incentive to cut costs.

-Because politicians have no incentive to discourage kids from going to college. It will make the unemployment numbers look worse (read: closer to reality), and college is 2-4 more years they don't have to count in the workforce. Kind of like starting wars. Don't have to count those soldiers in the workforce for their service years either!

-Because private prisons and their lobbying interests understand that glorifying gangster culture and promoting losers as popular will encourage disenfranchised kids to act out, allowing them to profit when they are arrested and incarcerated for long sentences. Why do you think the full court press is on to eliminate the death penalty nationwide?

 

Everything in life, follow the money. Moneyed interest decide pretty much every bit of policy in America these days and it is just there to maintain the status quo where you work your ass off and most of your money goes to them, without you really knowing it. That's why they don't want financial literacy either. Only those who are smart enough not to fall into this trap, or the beneficiaries of good (or well bred) parenting end up not being on the government tit at the end of all this.

 

And yes, part of this is why the service in the subway is getting worse. Classic example was last winter. The subway, known for staying open in pretty much all conditions...shut down for 8 inches of snow. Why...because someone who worked in transportation their whole life deemed it unsafe? Nope, because a politician with no background in the transportation industry and no knowledge of NYCT infrastructure said so, pretty much in direct contrast with the statements of the guy he picked to lead the MTA who HAS BOTH (30 years of both, I might add).

I did get your point and repped you for this post i'm replying to. When you were saying that "well educated" in academic terms may not be equal to well educated in terms of labor skill and the intellect society expects of someone with a certain education level I was agreeing with that. What I responded with is the idea is that one has to prove their education and/or skill is up to snuff to get the jobs they want or are in demand. That is where the whole branding yourself comes in. I also draw a parallel between well educated and productive because some skilled jobs don't require someone who is well educated per se but someone who can pick up the concepts quickly which is why I used the example of a top college grad getting into a field he/she didn't specialize in. My opinion is that someone who is well educated in the sense we think of well educated (smart in many areas, can master one or two areas) should be able to communicate such through interactions with employers. That's not a issue of the education system being watered down. There are people even as you mention who graduate college and are eloquent, thoughtful and have enough skill to master a skilled labor field at least at the entry level. Those people, the ones who got well earned degrees, will be entering the labor force as intellectual capital who will have no problem finding rewarding work. These folks likely don't give a crap others with the same degree and less substance to show for it are worse off. It's those who can put a degree on their resume that does not match their intellect and skills who will have issues. Their issue is that they are not well educated regardless of what academic diploma they hold. That again is not a problem of the system it's a problem of what the individual chose to get out of it. Said person can offset a lack of common sense intelligence though with productivity though so here's how I tend to put people... 

 

a. Well educated (academically)- Those with a college diploma 

b.  Well educated (intellectually)- Those who are able to demonstrate the knowledge and mastery that should be reflected with a high level diploma. Having said diploma is not absolutely necessary to land in this category but one who lands in this category should be able to finances aside get through undergrad with little struggle. 

c. Productive - People who devote lots of time into pursuing socially useful endeavors. Parents who are strict with children doing chores and/or don't shelter them with toys and entertainment are trying to foster this trait in them.

 

People in my experience of quite a few college aged friends with two of the three above traits have not had trouble finding decent work. The only problem we could have is that b can't be taught (some people are just smarter and grasp subjects more quickly than others) and we need markers in the education system at least to show that some people lacking in b can still be useful. 

 

The whole marketing yourself bit was trying to say is those who have the above traits and can do the job(s) they're applying for should be able to display that through their individual intellect.  People interview for jobs as individuals, not on behalf of a school. I'll bring up a sports analogy where it's commonly said that games aren't played on paper they're played on the field. The paper credentials one may have is meaningless without backing it up and showing he/she as an individual has the skills that those credentials reflect. You seem to be in the camp that's saying not enough people are backing up their education with skills so it's the problem of those giving the education where I see it as people not applying said education to useful skills in demand. Basically not enough people in the workforce display trait c and those that do display it are in fields where productivity is excessively valued (finance for an example). Those same people probably lack trait b and have no clue what skills are in high demand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did get your point and repped you for this post i'm replying to. When you were saying that "well educated" in academic terms may not be equal to well educated in terms of labor skill and the intellect society expects of someone with a certain education level I was agreeing with that. What I responded with is the idea is that one has to prove their education and/or skill is up to snuff to get the jobs they want or are in demand. That is where the whole branding yourself comes in. I also draw a parallel between well educated and productive because some skilled jobs don't require someone who is well educated per se but someone who can pick up the concepts quickly which is why I used the example of a top college grad getting into a field he/she didn't specialize in. My opinion is that someone who is well educated in the sense we think of well educated (smart in many areas, can master one or two areas) should be able to communicate such through interactions with employers. That's not a issue of the education system being watered down. There are people even as you mention who graduate college and are eloquent, thoughtful and have enough skill to master a skilled labor field at least at the entry level. Those people, the ones who got well earned degrees, will be entering the labor force as intellectual capital who will have no problem finding rewarding work. These folks likely don't give a crap others with the same degree and less substance to show for it are worse off. It's those who can put a degree on their resume that does not match their intellect and skills who will have issues. Their issue is that they are not well educated regardless of what academic diploma they hold. That again is not a problem of the system it's a problem of what the individual chose to get out of it. Said person can offset a lack of common sense intelligence though with productivity though so here's how I tend to put people... 

 

a. Well educated (academically)- Those with a college diploma 

b.  Well educated (intellectually)- Those who are able to demonstrate the knowledge and mastery that should be reflected with a high level diploma. Having said diploma is not absolutely necessary to land in this category but one who lands in this category should be able to finances aside get through undergrad with little struggle. 

c. Productive - People who devote lots of time into pursuing socially useful endeavors. Parents who are strict with children doing chores and/or don't shelter them with toys and entertainment are trying to foster this trait in them.

 

People in my experience of quite a few college aged friends with two of the three above traits have not had trouble finding decent work. The only problem we could have is that b can't be taught (some people are just smarter and grasp subjects more quickly than others) and we need markers in the education system at least to show that some people lacking in b can still be useful. 

 

The whole marketing yourself bit was trying to say is those who have the above traits and can do the job(s) they're applying for should be able to display that through their individual intellect.  People interview for jobs as individuals, not on behalf of a school. I'll bring up a sports analogy where it's commonly said that games aren't played on paper they're played on the field. The paper credentials one may have is meaningless without backing it up and showing he/she as an individual has the skills that those credentials reflect. You seem to be in the camp that's saying not enough people are backing up their education with skills so it's the problem of those giving the education where I see it as people not applying said education to useful skills in demand. Basically not enough people in the workforce display trait c and those that do display it are in fields where productivity is excessively valued (finance for an example). Those same people probably lack trait b and have no clue what skills are in high demand. 

 

But most jobs don't work like that. Interviewing is mostly BS anyway. "Branding yourself" is irrelevant to your ability to do the job. To paraphrase Tommy Boy (since we're talking about branding), you can take a dump in a box and put a guarantee on it which is, in essence, what someone who is "branding themself" but lacks skills is doing. Rather than encouraging people to brand themselves to stand out, we should be encouraging them to develop skills to stand out. The problem is you have human resources paper pushers conducting interviews who like to ask stupid feelgood questions like, "name a time in your ilfe you felt overwhelmed, and discuss how you overcame it" rather than ask a much more direct technical question such as "if a client called you dissatisfied with our company's product, what are five things you could counter with to them based on your knowledge of our company and its product that could be used to retain that customer?"

 

This is part of the reason there is such poor objective analysis when making hiring decisions, and why so many unqualified but educated and well connected people are getting jobs where "it's OK to make occasional mistakes" that cost customers and stakeholders money. That is the beauty of working in a safety sensitive title, you see things for what they are and understand what it means to be held to a high standard of performance in a world where fewer and fewer jobs are. You also see how well things can work when the right people who can adhere to that standard are the ones working in that capacity, and not the ones who get things right well, maybe 95% of the time, I think, or something like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But most jobs don't work like that. Interviewing is mostly BS anyway. "Branding yourself" is irrelevant to your ability to do the job. To paraphrase Tommy Boy (since we're talking about branding), you can take a dump in a box and put a guarantee on it which is, in essence, what someone who is "branding themself" but lacks skills is doing. Rather than encouraging people to brand themselves to stand out, we should be encouraging them to develop skills to stand out. The problem is you have human resources paper pushers conducting interviews who like to ask stupid feelgood questions like, "name a time in your ilfe you felt overwhelmed, and discuss how you overcame it" rather than ask a much more direct technical question such as "if a client called you dissatisfied with our company's product, what are five things you could counter with to them based on your knowledge of our company and its product that could be used to retain that customer?"

 

This is part of the reason there is such poor objective analysis when making hiring decisions, and why so many unqualified but educated and well connected people are getting jobs where "it's OK to make occasional mistakes" that cost customers and stakeholders money. That is the beauty of working in a safety sensitive title, you see things for what they are and understand what it means to be held to a high standard of performance in a world where fewer and fewer jobs are. You also see how well things can work when the right people who can adhere to that standard are the ones working in that capacity, and not the ones who get things right well, maybe 95% of the time, I think, or something like that...

What I was trying to elaborate on is that one who can do their job well should be able to using your example answer BOTH the behavioral and technical question. That's what I meant by one being able to brand themselves. It involves having developed plus continuing to develop hard skills and being able to answer questions that outside of the spectrum of work show he/she has some basic level of intelligence. Much of the hard skills conversation also depends on what fields we are discussing. Some things are hard skills in a STEM field may be almost useless in a different industry. Given people also have a choice in what fields they want to get into and young people don't exactly make the most rational choices you get the "skills gap" that your initial post brings up. It's not a problem of people being over-educated, in fact they're under-educated from what I can tell. Many people are coming out of high school and even college without the academic foundation that those institutions are setting. Having just graduated a respectable four year school I can't tell you how many students in various classes had little interest in learning the material for the mere value that comes with being smarter and having more knowledge. They would just cram around test time to get a decent grade and move on with their lives. For many their goal is not to get educated, instead is to give society the impression that they are educated so they can further their own personal goals. These kind of people are the last ones I would trust performing any job even one that does not require a high level of academic education. 

 

Someone seeking to be a meteorologist for example should be passionate enough about weather where the minute he/she enters the room for an interview they're ready to talk about the recent temperature patterns, types of clouds they've seen in the sky, confidence in various forecasting models etc,. So ready in fact the conversation has gravitated towards those subjects without the interviewer having asked any questions. That what I mean by branding yourself. Someone can answer technical questions about weather without having displayed a passion for it but that person is analogous to the college student that crams his/her way to A's. Just because you know a few things about weather doesn't mean you should be a meteorologist. This is where those lousy behavioral questions in interviews become relevant. A good meteorologist should not just know about weather, he/she should also have the communication skills to explain weather trends to non-experts, the thinking skills to spot flaws in forecasting models and challenges in long-term forecasting, the ability to analyze and interpret weather data. A poorly educated person that is knowledgeable in weather and little else will not be able to meet those requirements well. Conversely someone who is well educated but does not care much about weather is not a reliable person to be doing the job since his/her skills are transferable to other fields and the lack of passion for weather will eventually show in work performance. 

 

Essentially, we need well educated people regardless of skill level of the jobs at hand. That is why I am an advocate of a college education despite grossly expensive rates at many schools and the prevalence of a resort like atmosphere in some schools that goes against the purpose of education. A more educated public is better even if not all of them can gain high salary jobs because of said education. The fact that people are only willing to educate themselves (or better yet fake an education by cramming through classes) to look good on a resume is the main problem in my eyes.Businesses that have a problem with employing people need to invest in training and skill development and not rely on academic institutions to produce a pipeline of skilled employees. If anything businesses are creating their "skills gap" by design to justify future automation of tasks which will work to displace many employees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between "well educated" and well educated.

 

"Well educated" = has a degree. Degrees are becoming more worthless every day. It is now possible to graduate high school with very poor math skills and limited English. Such that you waste college credit that could be refined learning real world skills like financial literacy, or mechanical skills (which we completely lack), or scientific theory WITHOUT focusing so much on the math such that people who graduate college have a better understanding of physics than someone with a GED... Instead, college students must waste time and credits on utter nonsense like English proficiency and remedial math to fulfill asinine core requirements because of the awful caliber of student that is getting into colleges these days. And these are not at low level SUNYs and community colleges, this is at quality private colleges too.

 

Someone who is actually well educated is a jack of all trades who possesses a basic understanding of all fields, and has mastery of one. It's cool in this country to "dabble" in everything without getting really good at anything, lest you be labeled a geek nerd etc. and it's EFFING RETARDED. Mastery is an extremely important concept and this is what employers look for, which is why high skill positions are having such a hard time being filled. An investment bank doesn't just want to hire someone who majored in economics and likes making money, they want someone who jerks off to the thought of leveraging merger abitrage a few thousand times a year to bring in millions of dollars. Industrial Research & Development teams don't want someone who understands the basic concept of a circuit and materials fabrication, they want someone who lives breathes, eats, and sleeps a type of product THEY make.

 

Young people in this country have a serious culture crisis, and a lot of it comes from the shit awful pop culture we put in front of young people today. The goal is to get rich on sex appeal, limited talent, branding yourself through social media, and basically being famous and partying a lot. Except that doesn't really work. The failures that pop culture makes famous certainly don't help destroy that image. As a result, many young people don't really pick up the skills they will need to provide a living for themselves and instead waste entirely too much time online trying to make themselves look good.

 

Ironically, the only areas you find young people with this passion is in internet based startups, phone apps, technology, teaching (in spite of government's incessant need to make a teacher's job harder), and medicine. While these may resonate with this generation, other than teaching and medicine, there are a ton of far more useful skills that require critical thinking problem solvers who are deeply passionate about the subject material that are going unaddressed or being filled by foreigners on H1 visas.

 

More people going to college isn't the solution. The solution is forcing colleges to cut their bloat (college athletics are completely out of control, and I say that as a sports fan who believes every boy and girl should play sports through high school to develop teamwork and sportsmanship skills that benefit them in life).

 

The solution is actually LESS people going to college, and giving them a better education as a result, and focusing less on student services...such as luxurious dorms...and more on educational resources. That also comes with enforcing higher standards before accepting students. It also comes with raising the bar for high school students. The problem now is we can't discuss an issue like bad education without immediately bringing up a worst case scenario (read: lowest common denominator), whine about how life is unfair, and then reconfigure ALL the standards to help that one person out...disservicing millions of young people in the process who graduate high school too naive to protect themselves from financial ruin, too stupid to do anything about it, and too ill informed to know where to go for help. "But so and so came here as an immigrant when he was 16 and barely spoke any English! He should get a chance to go to college and pass since he learned English as a second language!!! Make it easier!!!"

 

Raising the bar for college will also force high schools to adapt with a preparatory curriculum. The problem is right now the colleges have no incentive to do this. More students = more tuition and more potential donors, even if they don't see that they're graduating students who will never have a spare penny to give back...

 

I've seen rocket scientists who graduated college who don't have the sense to open the second door of double doors to enter a restaurant, and I've seen people who were C students in high school and never went to college rewire circuits I don't understand. I've also seen college grads who were very eloquent thoughtful people, and high school dropouts who couldn't even be trusted to pour a beer out of a keg at a party. Point I'm trying to make is education =/= intelligence, and that disconnect is why it is so hard for employers to fill jobs based on credentials. They don't know if you're a moron or not based on your education level, only based on the first day you work for them. So until "trial and error" recruiting becomes a thing, we've got to do better as a country.

Something akin to "No Child Left Behind"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something akin to "No Child Left Behind"

No Child Left Behind had good intentions but wasn't well supervised.  I was a tutor that tutored kids that were part of that program and it was abused by outside sources, so DOE essentially cut funding to it and that was it for the tutoring.  Had a Dominican kid I used to tutor up in Washington Heights.  His English was good, but Spanish was his first language, and his mother didn't speak any English, so I worked with the kid to improve his English, and would update the mother in Spanish.  Without those sorts of programs around, I see the gap between disadvantaged kids worsening.  What will keep kids out is the escalating costs for a higher education.  Even the CUNY and SUNY schools may be out of reach for some.  College isn't for everyone, but at the same time, if students take advantage of getting an education, it can help them significantly in the long run. It isn't just about passing tests.  It's about all of the things that you learn outside of that, small things such as responsibility, being punctual, how well you're able to process and retain information, becoming independent, etc., etc. etc., and many of these kids can't survive on their own, which is why they're still living at home well into their 20's and 30's.  They can't hold a job, can't follow simple instructions, can't retain information or focus long enough to do anything, and the list goes on and on. Can't write properly, can't articulate themselves... These are the individuals that are entering into our society more and more, and as someone who helps to educate youth, and hires people in my full-time job, and is still relatively young, I'm very concerned about the direction that we're heading in long-term.  I see a future in which it will continue to be difficult to hire talented people in mid-level jobs because they will simply lack common sense to perform certain tasks, and that's why I believe the standards should be raised.  Then again, there are certain things that also aren't be taught at home either which is a problem.  I don't think anyone should have to be trained on having proper etiquette, being professional, etc., but I feel as if these are things that workers now-a-days (sadly) have to be trained on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something akin to "No Child Left Behind"

 

More like "no child's behind left" after government is done with them....

 

What I was trying to elaborate on is that one who can do their job well should be able to using your example answer BOTH the behavioral and technical question. That's what I meant by one being able to brand themselves. It involves having developed plus continuing to develop hard skills and being able to answer questions that outside of the spectrum of work show he/she has some basic level of intelligence. Much of the hard skills conversation also depends on what fields we are discussing. Some things are hard skills in a STEM field may be almost useless in a different industry. Given people also have a choice in what fields they want to get into and young people don't exactly make the most rational choices you get the "skills gap" that your initial post brings up. It's not a problem of people being over-educated, in fact they're under-educated from what I can tell. Many people are coming out of high school and even college without the academic foundation that those institutions are setting. Having just graduated a respectable four year school I can't tell you how many students in various classes had little interest in learning the material for the mere value that comes with being smarter and having more knowledge. They would just cram around test time to get a decent grade and move on with their lives. For many their goal is not to get educated, instead is to give society the impression that they are educated so they can further their own personal goals. These kind of people are the last ones I would trust performing any job even one that does not require a high level of academic education. 

 

Someone seeking to be a meteorologist for example should be passionate enough about weather where the minute he/she enters the room for an interview they're ready to talk about the recent temperature patterns, types of clouds they've seen in the sky, confidence in various forecasting models etc,. So ready in fact the conversation has gravitated towards those subjects without the interviewer having asked any questions. That what I mean by branding yourself. Someone can answer technical questions about weather without having displayed a passion for it but that person is analogous to the college student that crams his/her way to A's. Just because you know a few things about weather doesn't mean you should be a meteorologist. This is where those lousy behavioral questions in interviews become relevant. A good meteorologist should not just know about weather, he/she should also have the communication skills to explain weather trends to non-experts, the thinking skills to spot flaws in forecasting models and challenges in long-term forecasting, the ability to analyze and interpret weather data. A poorly educated person that is knowledgeable in weather and little else will not be able to meet those requirements well. Conversely someone who is well educated but does not care much about weather is not a reliable person to be doing the job since his/her skills are transferable to other fields and the lack of passion for weather will eventually show in work performance. 

 

Essentially, we need well educated people regardless of skill level of the jobs at hand. That is why I am an advocate of a college education despite grossly expensive rates at many schools and the prevalence of a resort like atmosphere in some schools that goes against the purpose of education. A more educated public is better even if not all of them can gain high salary jobs because of said education. The fact that people are only willing to educate themselves (or better yet fake an education by cramming through classes) to look good on a resume is the main problem in my eyes.Businesses that have a problem with employing people need to invest in training and skill development and not rely on academic institutions to produce a pipeline of skilled employees. If anything businesses are creating their "skills gap" by design to justify future automation of tasks which will work to displace many employees. 

 

But therein lies the problem. A college education is not for everyone. Some people get literally nothing out of it except 4 more years of expensive daycare where they can play with their toys, get drunk, chase tail, and otherwise accomplish nothing.

 

Lifetime learners are created by parents, and good primary education systems. Most students "hate" school because it is irrelevant to them. History is treated as dates in a book, not studying of behavior patterns, interesting history, or understanding why things are the way they are. Bury some poor kid's head in a bunch of stuff about the middle ages and a bunch of dead British guys named Henry, German guys named Frederich, popes named Leo, and French guys named Louis...and they're not going to take much of an interest in anything. How about studying ongoing issues like the origins of the constant unrest in the Middle East? How about studying 20th century Europe and the US rise to becoming a global superpower, and the impact on foreign policy, global diplomacy, and why 30 years after the Cold War ended Russia and the US are still deeply distrustful of each other? These would all be engaging and relevant topics with actionable items for young minds to wonder, and perhaps develop an interest in learning more about, or possibly going into a career addressing these very issues.

 

Same with science. Physics in school is math, calculating mechanics, and trying to understand difficult concepts like envisioning light as a particle, or a wave. What is it not? Pretty much everything that a television show like Mythbusters is - rooted in science, completely factual, but applying the concepts to something someone can understand. AKA like real world physics. "Labs" in school are highly structured environments with minimal visual aid where the focus is on documenting everything with a predictable and expected outcome rather than seeing the concepts of the book in action, or better yet, applying those concepts to actually learn something about the world around us (IE a real "experiment"). This is also a huge reason I believe that US students struggle so badly in science is the complete abstraction of the subject material from the real world. It's also why not many choose that field, despite it being fairly lucrative, because they lack the ability to envision a career in that work, and let's be real, most people are not that interested in formulas, etc. The concepts of physics are exciting, but not the math.

 

These would be great changes to late elementary and high school curriculums (and in other subject areas not mentioned) as well as getting rid of some of the completely unnecessary redundancy (seriously...every year of elementary and middle school math has to start with ones, tens, hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, etc.? KIDS SHOULD KNOW THIS BY FIFTH GRADE!) That will free up class time to either make subject material more engaging, or begin to delve into new material like exposing high schoolers to social sciences like psychology or to business basics and personal finance before college (beyond just how to calculate simple and compound interest, but actually understanding the concept)

 

As for college though, it can't be for everyone. You need janitors, you need storekeepers, you need waiters, order takers at fast food restaurants, burger flippers, drive through clerks, car mechanics, construction workers. The failure in the US economy is not paying these people enough that they can remain off public assistance and make enough money to live a reasonable standard of living and work some of these jobs. Government has also disincentivized these jobs by, in some cases, allowing public benefits or even unemployment insurance to pay more than them, encouraging people to stay out of work.

 

You can't send everyon to college and give them a high paying job. Then you end up with a bunch of pissed off suicidal investment bankers who want to kill themselves because they can't get a cup of coffee in the morning since serving coffee is beneath all the well educated college grads who feel that 4 years and $100,000 of their parents'/the government's money entitles them to a corner office and a six figure  a year job with weekends and major holidays off where they don't really have to work that hard. The sooner colleges and society stop pushing this myth, the sooner the system can be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for college though, it can't be for everyone. You need janitors, you need storekeepers, you need waiters, order takers at fast food restaurants, burger flippers, drive through clerks, car mechanics, construction workers. The failure in the US economy is not paying these people enough that they can remain off public assistance and make enough money to live a reasonable standard of living and work some of these jobs. Government has also disincentivized these jobs by, in some cases, allowing public benefits or even unemployment insurance to pay more than them, encouraging people to stay out of work.

 

You can't send everyon to college and give them a high paying job. Then you end up with a bunch of pissed off suicidal investment bankers who want to kill themselves because they can't get a cup of coffee in the morning since serving coffee is beneath all the well educated college grads who feel that 4 years and $100,000 of their parents'/the government's money entitles them to a corner office and a six figure  a year job with weekends and major holidays off where they don't really have to work that hard. The sooner colleges and society stop pushing this myth, the sooner the system can be fixed.

You have a valid point about the need to fill certain positions, but here's the problem.  No one wants to do those jobs... Janitors, fast food workers... You get the worse of the worse now because they hate having to do those jobs and have no education... Education IMO goes hand-in-hand with being cultured.  They are two different things but they certainly go together. Usually the more educated someone is the more cultured they are, and they know how to conduct themselves.  In other words less ghetto behavior.  They understand that being punctual matters, having respect for customers matters, etc., and they're less likely to be angry at the world which is what I see with certain workers in certain fields (i.e. the (MTA):lol:).  It would be an interesting study, but I would be willing to say that the more educated (MTA) workers are probably more productive, more punctual, and less likely to be fired and more professional overall, meaning less turnover and better service for the customers.  What do you think?  I see a similar trend on the express buses I ride. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a valid point about the need to fill certain positions, but here's the problem.  No one wants to do those jobs... Janitors, fast food workers... You get the worse of the worse now because they hate having to do those jobs and have no education... Education IMO goes hand-in-hand with being cultured.  They are two different things but they certainly go together. Usually the more educated someone is the more cultured they are, and they know how to conduct themselves.  In other words less ghetto behavior.  They understand that being punctual matters, having respect for customers matters, etc., and they're less likely to be angry at the world which is what I see with certain workers in certain fields (i.e. the (MTA):lol:).  It would be an interesting study, but I would be willing to say that the more educated (MTA) workers are probably more productive, more punctual, and less likely to be fired and more professional overall, meaning less turnover and better service for the customers.  What do you think?  I see a similar trend on the express buses I ride. 

Shhh. You almost blew the secret of our government allowing a certain amount of people to remain here illegally for this very reason.

 

...No seriously, I learned that from a law firm that specializes in immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a valid point about the need to fill certain positions, but here's the problem.  No one wants to do those jobs... Janitors, fast food workers... You get the worse of the worse now because they hate having to do those jobs and have no education... Education IMO goes hand-in-hand with being cultured.  They are two different things but they certainly go together. Usually the more educated someone is the more cultured they are, and they know how to conduct themselves.  In other words less ghetto behavior.  They understand that being punctual matters, having respect for customers matters, etc., and they're less likely to be angry at the world which is what I see with certain workers in certain fields (i.e. the (MTA):lol:).  It would be an interesting study, but I would be willing to say that the more educated (MTA) workers are probably more productive, more punctual, and less likely to be fired and more professional overall, meaning less turnover and better service for the customers.  What do you think?  I see a similar trend on the express buses I ride.

 

Hmmmm well me like most of my classmates just got a little old high School diploma...

 

I should know because we have talked about it.

 

We will have 15 years end of October and some are in supervisor positions.

 

A few are Schoolcar Instructors and some even work in RCC...

 

It's not always about college diplomas just saying.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm well me like most of my classmates just got a little old high School diploma...

 

I should know because we have talked about it.

 

We will have 15 years end of October and some are in supervisor positions.

 

A few are Schoolcar Instructors and some even work in RCC...

 

It's not always about college diplomas just saying.....

If I were in your shoes I would definitely be going back to get at least a Bachelor's.  Sorry, but as an educator, I just believe in education...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were in your shoes I would definitely be going back to get at least a Bachelor's.  Sorry, but as an educator, I just believe in education...

 

No Need I got Only 13 More Years to go, and i can Retire with TWO Pensions(One from Plumbing) and My 401 which is well over six Figures....

 

All with a High School Diploma...

 

Im Good Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were in your shoes I would definitely be going back to get at least a Bachelor's.  Sorry, but as an educator, I just believe in education...

OK just stop it. You're acting like College is for everyone when its not. You clearly need to stop thinking we all need that kind of education. 

 

Unless you're going to pay for it yourself don't start forcing us to go for those degrees when we don't want to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Need I got Only 13 More Years to go, and i can Retire with TWO Pensions(One from Plumbing) and My 401 which is well over six Figures....

 

All with a High School Diploma...

 

Im Good Thanks.

Well you have some integrity... LMAO!

OK just stop it. You're acting like College is for everyone when its not. You clearly need to stop thinking we all need that kind of education. 

 

Unless you're going to pay for it yourself don't start forcing us to go for those degrees when we don't want to do it.

Speak for yourself.  You keep yelling that for a reason which I won't elaborate on.  RTOMan I understand.  He's from a time when a high school diploma was okay, but you aren't.... I'll just leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because apparently T/Os should be college educated now. Apparently you need a degree for that, never mind that there is no relevant degree or coursework one could really take for that, but college for college's sake is a good enough reason to do it.

VB8 strikes again!! He's everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a valid point about the need to fill certain positions, but here's the problem.  No one wants to do those jobs... Janitors, fast food workers... You get the worse of the worse now because they hate having to do those jobs and have no education... Education IMO goes hand-in-hand with being cultured.  They are two different things but they certainly go together. Usually the more educated someone is the more cultured they are, and they know how to conduct themselves.  In other words less ghetto behavior.  They understand that being punctual matters, having respect for customers matters, etc., and they're less likely to be angry at the world which is what I see with certain workers in certain fields (i.e. the (MTA):lol:).  It would be an interesting study, but I would be willing to say that the more educated (MTA) workers are probably more productive, more punctual, and less likely to be fired and more professional overall, meaning less turnover and better service for the customers.  What do you think?  I see a similar trend on the express buses I ride. 

 

You are biased towards your own experiences in NYC. Go anywhere out of NYC and you'll see plenty of HS and college students working in fast food, and they DON'T have the ghetto mentality most of the time. The ghetto mentality is generally reserved for inner cities, and very depressed small suburbs or small cities.

 

Second, pay is an issue when discussing "demand" for these jobs by workers also. When the pay becomes insufficient to sustain one's self, then you're only going to get the very bottom of the barrel applying for those jobs. Would you go through the trouble to become a stock broker if it only paid $30,000 a year in NYC working 16 hour days? Would pretty much anyone who wasn't the type to excitedly whip it out while watching Boiler Room or The Wolf of Wall Street???

 

I don't agree with the whole "push for 15" movement because I think minimum wages should be determined geographically, not nationally, but I do think the minimum wage is way too low for New York City. These businesses are rolling in cash, they can afford to pay their workers enough to stay above the poverty line without working 2 jobs or relying on government aid which the rest of us, who are paid a decent wage, subsidize.

 

It's not that "no one wants to do it", it's just classic supply and demand. If you supply jobs that pay less than a living wage, the demand for those jobs will be very low. But people look at the situation backwards. "Oh no one wants to be a janitor." Not true. If that's the case then why does Transit have such an easy job finding people willing to be cleaners, which often involves cleaning up far more disgusting things than a building janitor would be exposed to? The answer is the pay and benefits. Coupled with outsourcing, it has hurt a high school graduate's employment options greatly especially when employers often like to focus on this mythical college degree as if it actually means something other than you were willing to go into debt or blew a bunch of money on something that in many cases means you're only a marginally better worker (if at all) than the average non-lazy HS grad.

 

What you're seeing as a result, is for actual skilled positions, graduate school is becoming the new college degree. And that's having disastrous consequences on this generation as they suffer from 4 more years out of the full time workforce (4 years less of saving towards retirement, and earning, and a 4 year delay on their lifetime payscale progression), as well as an exponential increase of student loan debt, for the majority of grad students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are biased towards your own experiences in NYC. Go anywhere out of NYC and you'll see plenty of HS and college students working in fast food, and they DON'T have the ghetto mentality most of the time. The ghetto mentality is generally reserved for inner cities, and very depressed small suburbs or small cities.

 

Second, pay is an issue when discussing "demand" for these jobs by workers also. When the pay becomes insufficient to sustain one's self, then you're only going to get the very bottom of the barrel applying for those jobs. Would you go through the trouble to become a stock broker if it only paid $30,000 a year in NYC working 16 hour days? Would pretty much anyone who wasn't the type to excitedly whip it out while watching Boiler Room or The Wolf of Wall Street???

 

I don't agree with the whole "push for 15" movement because I think minimum wages should be determined geographically, not nationally, but I do think the minimum wage is way too low for New York City. These businesses are rolling in cash, they can afford to pay their workers enough to stay above the poverty line without working 2 jobs or relying on government aid which the rest of us, who are paid a decent wage, subsidize.

 

It's not that "no one wants to do it", it's just classic supply and demand. If you supply jobs that pay less than a living wage, the demand for those jobs will be very low. But people look at the situation backwards. "Oh no one wants to be a janitor." Not true. If that's the case then why does Transit have such an easy job finding people willing to be cleaners, which often involves cleaning up far more disgusting things than a building janitor would be exposed to? The answer is the pay and benefits. Coupled with outsourcing, it has hurt a high school graduate's employment options greatly especially when employers often like to focus on this mythical college degree as if it actually means something other than you were willing to go into debt or blew a bunch of money on something that in many cases means you're only a marginally better worker (if at all) than the average non-lazy HS grad.

 

What you're seeing as a result, is for actual skilled positions, graduate school is becoming the new college degree. And that's having disastrous consequences on this generation as they suffer from 4 more years out of the full time workforce (4 years less of saving towards retirement, and earning, and a 4 year delay on their lifetime payscale progression), as well as an exponential increase of student loan debt, for the majority of grad students.

Please... No one grows up saying I want to be a janitor.  That's what people are saying when they say that no one wants to be a janitor, because no matter how much a janitor makes it's still looked down upon and not appreciated.  The guys in my building, there are a few of them that do a great job and I feel bad knowing that they won't be doing anything else but that likely for the rest of their lives and I appreciate what they do and try not to make a mess like other people do (i.e. washing hands and leaving water all over the floor or worse).  There's this one cocky Dominican guy who is probably around my age who puts on this act and I say to myself you're just a janitor with no education.  Get over yourself.  Now I've done all sorts of jobs when I was in college, but that was in college, not in professional career.  As for pay, while the minimum wage should go up, it should not be $15.00 an hour for someone who barely has a GED. That's pathetic.  You "gots" no education, you "gets" no money "homes", simple as that.

 

The rest of your post I agree with.  If project management paid $30,000 a year I would not be one, as I could not survive off of that.  I was making more than that working part-time when I was still in college and we're talking in the 2000s... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please... No one grows up saying I want to be a janitor.  That's what people are saying when they say that no one wants to be a janitor, because no matter how much a janitor makes it's still looked down upon and not appreciated.  The guys in my building, there are a few of them that do a great job and I feel bad knowing that they won't be doing anything else but that likely for the rest of their lives and I appreciate what they do and try not to make a mess like other people do (i.e. washing hands and leaving water all over the floor or worse).  There's this one cocky Dominican guy who is probably around my age who puts on this act and I say to myself you're just a janitor with no education.  Get over yourself.  Now I've done all sorts of jobs when I was in college, but that was in college, not in professional career.  As for pay, while the minimum wage should go up, it should not be $15.00 an hour for someone who barely has a GED. That's pathetic.  You "gots" no education, you "gets" no money "homes", simple as that.

 

The rest of your post I agree with.  If project management paid $30,000 a year I would not be one, as I could not survive off of that.  I was making more than that working part-time when I was still in college and we're talking in the 2000s... lol

Ahh here's where the education part came from. I do understand where your coming from you get out what you put in I believe that wholeheartedly . The world is filled with people that take more then they give I deal with it daily. Thing that I had to learn is I can't hold a person accountable or assume they see the world as you do. If a person fully understood they needed to further there education and understood what it meant logical why wouldn't they do it? From the looks of it your assumption is that the person is fully aware that they lack education and want's to be rewarded as the person that took the time to gain there education..  Is that your point? just trying to understand your perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.