Re: Occupy America My school is a state school, so obviously this is different from most private/hard to get into/expensive places. I really think they accept WAY more people than they can educate each year on purpose. I mean, most companies oversell their services to a degree: internet companies oversell their bandwidth because all their users aren't surfing at the same time, stuff like that. At the beginning of the semester, there is no where to park, it's hard to get to class because the sidewalks are packed, traffic is unbearable, and the classes are full. Come drop date (which by the way, is progressively longer--this year, it was October 28th), about half to 75% of students drop and the school keeps the money. In a school with an enrollment of over 15,000, there are ~7 graduating chemistry students. Hmm... The school oversells their services because they know that they'll get to keep the money and not have to provide services in the form of staff, activities, and facilities because most of the students are going to fade away anyway. So what's going to happen when the unmotivated students who would normally pay tuition but drop don't sign up for classes? Now things are going to suffer. In order to provide the same standard, they will probably just raise tuition. The students who want to be there are probably still going to make it if tuition increases. My school has several huge complexes under construction, just recently started a football team, and has a huge part in running a couple hospitals in the city. Idealistically, unnecessary stuff would get cut but I don't see that happening any time soon. Some schools may scale back or outright fail. I think most are just going to amp up tuition, making it even harder to afford for someone who has to work their way through. I'm not saying that going to college is the only way to get a good job, but the way the system has evolved over the past 50 years, it kind of is, in a way. So, with reality catching up with people, new high school graduates' lives are going to suck for awhile. Perhaps in another 50 years things will straighten themselves out, but for now, it is right fucked.
Re: Occupy America I think this would be really interesting, and I bet it would result in a student loan system that is very similar to the other loan/insurance products available. Specifically, the process would require a lot more information from you - and the results would vary drastically from student to student. You have poor grades and want an a degree in the humanities? Low loan amount, high rate. Your grades are exceptional, and you are going into a S.T.E.M. field? Low rate, large loan amount. Even though we already do this to one degreee or another when it comes to scholarships, I'm sure there would be an INCREDIBLE amount of bitching about how discriminatory it could be; I believe it would also really help prospective students figure out which degrees will actually pay off in the end.
Re: Occupy America I hope to God you're right. Don't equivocate. You're dead on here. Don't lessen the impact with the 'kinda sorta' language. Bam. I wish you had kept going here, so I'll pick up the thought. Let's imagine what happens if college tuition goes up and isn't backed by the Government. The value of a college degree would go up, it would actually mean something (unlike now, but I wouldn't limit it to college degrees, law degrees are pretty useless too). But more importantly, I believe that it would free up a lot of money that if you truly cared about education, could be poured back into the public education system, without raising taxes one cent, and improve the decaying high school education system. To me, that would be the best outcome. The reason our grandparents got good jobs is because high school degrees denoted a level of competence that they no longer do, and more importantly, our grandparents didn't need to go deep into debt just to get to play the game.
Re: Occupy America My wife has an MBA from a decent school, and has given 23 years of service to her company which included two relocations. Thanks in part to poor oversight by the board and fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the former CEO (e.g., Renting out Cowboy's Stadium for a day to host the sales force kickoff meeting: $1.5 million; revenues are down 30%--but they still have a Performance Award Trip--a week in Maui with a guest--where "performance" seemed to be defined as not losing more than 10% territory revenue vs. the previous year. Over 100 employees (that's travel for 200) made the trip; over $2 million in sporting event tickets in 2010 alone. That's just a few examples) her department alone recently underwent a 30% staff reduction, her included, and with the exception of Admin Assts, the rest had MBAs, too. That's just her department. Finance, Operations, IT--degreed employees--were all slashed as well. Add the former CEO's "golden parachute" of $6 million to the debit column when the board of directors finally stepped in. This asshole is with the company a little over a year, wrecks havoc on numerous careers and lives, and walks away with a bag of cash bigger than most people will see in a life time. That's more than just unfair. Situations like this are what really chafes my ass.
Re: Occupy America When the topic of college education comes up in OWS conversations I immediately think of the saying I heard a million times... "At least you'll have your degree to fall back on." Complete bullshit but a lie that is still being fed to plenty kids going off to college. Colleges will really experience the pain when today's 40-somethings that fell into the 72 car payment, 120% to value new mortgage, 18 months on unemployment, large credit card debt crater can't even dream of sending little Billy off to college in 10 years.
Re: Occupy America The problem with the education system is NOT the amount of cash being poured into it. The problem is the work ethic of those going through it. You could triple the funding for the education system over night and nothing would change. This is because we are raising pussies as children who think they are entitled to everything. And unfortunately, we give them everything until they reach the real world. Our grandparents succeeded because they had to bust their asses for it. They had to give up a lot just for a little luxury here and there. Even back then a High School Diploma meant nothing compared to how hard the person worked, and how much they wanted to succeed. Our generation is failing because they are reaching the real world without ever having worked hard for anything. In short, they have stopped being Americans. The solution isn't to throw more cash that we don't have at the problem. The solution is to teach them what being an American really means.
Re: Occupy America What exactly do you mean by succeed? Our grandparents were poorer than us, lived shorter lives that us, had higher unemployment rates, and so on and so forth. Is there any actual definition of success besides "Well things were better back in the good ol' days! Yeah! 'Murricah and elbow grease!" that you're using here?
Re: Occupy America I have never seen this argument used for anything other than making the arguer feel superior. Ever.
Re: Occupy America Is it just me, or does this movement basically boil down to demanding that the people with all the money and all the power change things so you can no longer exchange money for power, or power for money?
Re: Occupy America It's more like they're demanding that the people with the money give up the money and the power it buys while ignoring the people with the power. The only action that will accomplish what the OWS movement wants is to march on Washington, D.C., and demand term limits in Congress. All of the problems we face boil down to Congressional members trying to tweak our regulations and tax code to protect their seats and their pensions. Take that power from them, and all of these problems disappear. OWS will never do that though, because they don't understand the link between Congressional meddling and our current economic state, and Congress is content to let Wall Street remain the scapegoat.
Re: Occupy America I go off like a broken record on the re-election rates in Congress but for Christ's sake the hippies need to occupy the Mall if they want to start to have an effective movement. The 2010 election was the first time since 1992 that the re-election rate for House incumbents dipped below 90%, and before that it was 1974. How does that not make your wtf-meter go off?
Re: Occupy America The problem I see is that the only group(s) of people experienced, knowledgeable and intelligent enough to initiate legislation and/or regulation for the financial markets are the folks who fucked everything up in the first place and the politicians who enabled the aforementioned people who messed everything up. So, to me, what OWS is essentially saying is "Hey guys who fucked everything up. Would you mind going ahead and fixing everything, relinquishing all power and authority, and also helping enact legislation/regulation so you can't do any of this again? And remember guys - Honors system!" I just don't see that working out so well.
Re: Occupy America Me neither, which is why I think we need to empty the trash when the elections roll around in 2012.
Re: Occupy America The problem is that many of the alternatives for these political seats are as bad or worse in many ways. It's hard to get sweeping change in one voting cycle. The cronyism runs deep within the machine at ALL levels of politics. Yuck. This is interesting: I like the fact that regular citizens are getting in the way of the vandals but theres NO fucking way these elements will be satisfied with a few broken windows. (The dude with the bow staff is fantastic at the 3:25 mark) and to end on a positive note, this is a very well done, non-political video from Occupy Portland. A few college professors lend their thoughts about the bigger picture of OWS. <a class="postlink" href="http://vimeo.com/30417933" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://vimeo.com/30417933</a>
Re: Occupy America Considering how long this has been going, I can only think about logistics. - Are people finding ways to shower? - How are people going to the bathroom? I can understand pissing in a sewer or something, but are people shitting on the ground? It's hard enough to find a bathroom in NYC as it is, I can't imagine the local businesses are letting them in to go. - How many children have been/will be conceived at these? It'll funny to ask people in a few years if their kids are protest babies. I have no proof there's a lot of fucking going on, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't. - How many people assumed they were only going to be there a little while and are on cycle 6 of dirty underwear? - Will someone serve them Thanksgiving dinner if it's still going on? Also, the people I find the dumbest have to be the ones at Occupy Hartford. There's only like eight of them, we're a short bus ride from NYC, the mekka of the movement. Why the fuck haven't they gone there, they've already put in enough dedication to leave their homes and set up tents, go to the big show you morons.
Re: Occupy America A lot has been made of the fact that part of the reason twenty-somethings are unemployed is because they major is fields that have no market or are just bs, easy majors. So it's their own damn fault for being unemployed. Well, the good people at the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce actually did some research on unemployment rates among different majors. Here's the link: http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term= While some of our preconceived notions of a marketable major do hold true, many clear do not.
Re: Occupy America I have an EE degree and am unemployed. I am the 5%. That being said, the data isn't about new grads but about grads period. It's useful info, but the picture amongst new grads might be a bit different, because new grads aren't getting the benefit of entry level jobs the way prior "generations" did.
Re: Occupy America I agree, but I still believe it flies in the face of some people on this thread saying the reason why these OWS protesters are unemployed is because they picked a bad major.
Re: Occupy America In theory, these ideas (vote incumbents out, term limits, etc.) sound good but don't even begin to get to the crux of the issue. I will also address the concept that 'OWS is stupid because they can't articulate a definitive agenda.' I challenge you, how is the Republican or Democratic party any different? Can anyone actually articulate, in a concise, easy to understand, concrete way, what either of these parties is for? I sure can't, and I spend a lot of time reading and watching debates and interviews with candidates. Sure, you get a lot of soundbytes, but you get nothing in the way of substance. And whose fault is that? Yeah, ours unfortunately. Anyway, here's a great quote from a book I just read (that I highly recommend to anyone that is concerned about politics in general: "It is Dangerous to Be Right when the Government is Wrong" by Judge Andrew Napolitano. Yes, he's from Fox. As I've said elsewhere, I don't care who makes an argument, the argument either fails or succeeds on its own merits. I watch Politically Incorrect, Michael Moore movies, Fox News, Glen Beck, etc. not because I look for affirmation for my political ideas, I don't need that. I watch to see other points of view THAT I MAY NOT AGREE WITH RIGHT NOW. How else can I test my ideas other than to compare and contrast them to folks that may not agree with me? Maybe there's another way, but this is the way I go with. Anyway, here's the quote: "Do we have a two-party system in America today? I think not. We have one Big Government Party. It has a Republican wing that prefers war, deficits, assaults on civil liberties and corporate welfare; and a Democratic wing that prefers war, taxes, assaults on commercial liberties, and individual welfare. Neither wing is devoted to the Constitution, and members of both wings openly mock it. Will the Tea Party Republicans be devoured by the Big Government Republicans? I hope not; but I fear so." - Judge Napolitano, Id. pg. 263. What you are seeing with OWS (and to some extent the Tea Party) appears ineffectual because they're not sure what to do. Why? Because the current entrenched powers don't have a concrete public agenda that can be attacked. It changes everyday. At least the public expression of that agenda, but the true agenda has remained consistent throughout the last 30 years: make sure the wealthy (i.e. the folks that fund elections - for both parties) come out all right. Also see the famous in-house memo from Citibank talking about 'Plutonomy.' I wish I could make this shit up, I'd be a very successful writer. The most important agenda, for whatever cause you may have (unless you're wealthy, in which case, keep spending the money to keep things the way they are, because it's working) - is campaign finance reform. Some in OWS have advocated such. Other folks have as well. With TV ads being so successful (see incumbent re-election rates) and so expensive, it's damn near impossible to get elected unless you have access to a shitload of money. And the only way to get access to that kind of money for most politicians is to join a party. You work your way up, the money gets spent, and you get bought before you ever serve day one. Makes no difference whether you got a D or an R before your name. Also see: 60 Minutes Interview with Abramhof from Sunday, November 6, 2011. He was one of the best at buying candidates, so I think he knows his shit. Start there, and if that gets accomplished, well, then anything else potentially is possible.