Re: Occupy America For anyone else that's allergic to 50 item maximums, I put it in a spreadsheet yesterday. Which ones are you referring to? The only one that really surprised me was Engineering And Industrial Management at 9.2%. This is all relative of course, because like Aetius said, it's representative of the entire career, not just new entrants. I work in Actuarial Science, I am the 100%.
Re: Occupy America Well, just for example, I was surprised to learn that neuroscience majors had a 7 % unemployment rate. Now I know little about the field, but when you think about worthless majors, I don't think that one comes to mind. And again, yes these numbers need to be put into proper context. But when college undergrads are considering a major,I think it would be important to consider both new entrant unemployment rates and general rates. Both figures are important. The point I'm trying to make is it is inaccurate to say that all of these unemployed twenty somethings are so because they are english lit majors (6.7% btw). This gets said to delegitimize the movement and blame the protesters for the very things they are protesting.
Re: Occupy America How in the world do you plan for something as fluid as supply and demand 4-5 years into the future? Let's say I decide to get a degree X in 2007 and when I graduate in 2011, my field is saturated with people who had the same idea I had 4 years ago. If you told me that I should have planned ahead, I would have punched you in the neck.
Re: Occupy America This all seems kind of a moot point, as it confuses cause and effect. More often than not, people don't get rich because they are in Congress; they are in Congress because they are rich. Have you seen Congressional salaries? They aren't THAT high. Have you seen Congressional net worths? They are pretty damn high. The average Congressman or woman is a million dollars, give or take. For most of, they make less money in Congress than they did before election, and they'll make more afterwards. Being an ex-Congressman is much more lucrative than being a sitting member of Congress (often leads to become a partner at a law firm, being a high paid consultant, etc.). Working in politics is a really shitty way to get rich. The reason these people like to stay in Congress is that they are crazy enough to want/like the job, and they either have been in politics their whole life or are rich enough to have the luxury of running. Also, this argument relies on the tenuous assumption that the pool of applicants are somehow better than the current crop. 1) If they're any good, why didn't we elect them last time? 2) If this is their first foray into Congressional politics, they're likely to be on the whole less nimble. 3) Sometimes experienced people just know how to get shit done. Say what you will of Ted Kennedy's politics, for example, but that motherfucker knew how to get a bill passed. By the way, you guys know what would happen if everyone studied engineering, right? There'd be too many engineers. A major part of the reason these "marketable majors" are marketable is due to supply restrictions. It's all well and good to say "Should have majored in something better" on the marginal level, but one can only take that so far.
Re: Occupy America No, no, I think I worded that poorly. I agree with you. College kids shouldn't determine what field they are going to study based on what they think the demand will be in 4 years. I was just making the case for why these numbers are relevant to the argument as compared to recent graduates unemployment rates.
Re: Occupy America It must be some other factor then. As the U.S. unemployment rate currently stands at 9.1%, someone with a degree in anything is much more likely to be employed than those without. Only 13 majors of the 173 listed have unemployment rates above 9.1%; the other 160 are doing better than the general population. That includes drama and theater arts at 7.1%. Maybe that other factor is the combination of choices they have made throughout their lives. If they are spending time at a protest that will turn out to be largely impotent, maybe they don't have the best decision-making abilities. Why do I say the protest will be impotent? Because OWS still hasn't found any mechanism to force the changes they demand. What do the firms on Wall Street care about them? They're a nuisance at best. Are the OWS protesters threatening to move their money out of the banks? Ha! Are they demanding the resignations of the Congress members who voted for the bailouts? No. Are they doing anything that would actually cause a change in the way things are run in this country? So far I haven't seen it. They did set an example of forced change for the rest of the world though. When the NYPD threatened to remove them all so the park could be cleaned, they took it upon themselves to start cleaning up. The NYPD has a mechanism to force change; OWS does not, and until they find one, they will be just another page on Wikipedia. I meant that the people with the money are on Wall Street while the people with the power are in Congress. People don't get elected to Congress to get rich; they do it for the power. It's not the love of money that is the root of all evil. It's the quest for power. OWS should be protesting the people with the power, not the money. 1) It's much easier for an incumbent to win an election than for a newcomer to unseat him. He has more opportunities for fundraising and plenty of people in his district who owe him. 2) Yes, an incumbent is experienced in working a system of quid pro quo that shouldn't exist in the first place. 3) Again, promising something in return; i.e. come to your district to campaign, vote for the tax break you want, etc. Kennedy had so much power because he'd been there so long and so many people owed him. It wasn't his personality that got things done. He was never able to secure a presidential nomination.
Re: Occupy America Yes, because he was a drunk who killed someone. I think you're severely underrating the learning process of legislature. The idea that the only skills one picks up are illegitimate seems absurd on its face. I don't know why you assume that overseeing the drafting of legislature, negotiating legislature, understanding what exactly goes into an appropriations bill, etc. are unimportant or easy-and-quick skill sets. Running a government, even an ideal one, is not easy work. I guess I'm of the view that Congressmen and women aren't ineffectual, petty, and stupid because of the limitations and foibles of Congress, but rather because of the limitations and foibles of mankind. Also, I question the wisdom of treating money and power as discrete entities here. A lot of money will get someone an awful lot of power. Someone like Lloyd Blankfein might arguably have more political push than the average member of the House of Representatives.
Re: Occupy America To be fair, Ted Kennedy only made one attempt at the democratic presidential nomination, and that was against the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, in 1980. He probably would have made it to the White House sooner or later if it weren't for his escapades on a bridge in Chappaquiddick. He was a successful legislator because he knew how to work the legislative process. Call it quid pro quo, compromise, dealmaking--it's how politics works, and he worked it well for his agenda of social reform.
Re: Occupy America There is an interesting irony to this for me. Not trying to derail this thread by bringing in the Penn State molestation scandal thing, but in reading an article at SI.com, there was this He retired over ten years ago and still has these benefits / amenities. Isn't this the sort of "Wall Street Fat Cat" benefits that were being protested?
Re: Occupy America How long had he been working for the school? Pensions are considered a common and reasonable benefit that many organizations, private or public, give their employees after they've reached a certain age.
Re: Occupy America Just a thought after reading an article (<a class="postlink" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/05/17/education.stem.graduation/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/05/17/ed ... index.html</a>) about why there are fewer math, science and engineering graduates: it's a huge fucking gamble for a 17-year old to make. If my chances of graduating are higher elsewhere and I'm taking on $80k in debt, you're damned right I'll bail on an engineering degree. If you flunk out, you still owe that forty grand.
Re: Occupy America They tried implementing term limits in California and what actually happened was a whole wave of innocent your congress critters got elected and them steamrollered by all the veteran lobbyists. By the time that they figured out what was going on they were term limited out and the next wave of clueless folks came in. It's possible that term limits are part of the answer but I think that limits on lobbying and gerrymandering are probably as, or more, important. More transparency and clearer legislation would be good as well but perhaps harder to achieve.
Re: Occupy America Saw this on Cracked, and it seemed to line up with my experience. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-we-ruined-occupy-wall-street-generation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-we-r ... eneration/</a>
Re: Occupy America Two days ago about 25 of the protesters started a march from NYC to DC with stops along the way at each Occupy movement. That actually sounds pretty cool.
Re: Occupy America Sounds like these people have way too much fucking time on their hands. Why don't they get damn . . . oh. Oh yeah.
Re: Occupy America <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15749348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15749348</a> Evictions. Is this how it ends? Or does it fizzle out from lack of attention?