By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Generation Screwed: Or why my generation will never get anywhere

SaviorX on 14 August 2012
Euphoria14 said:
SaviorX said:
Euphoria14 said:

Just go into Nursing, they are hiring all over.

My fiance went into an accelerated course to get her LPN license and now she already got bumped up to nursing supervisor at the pediatrics office she works at.


Speakingo of baby-boomers, I have a 79 year old at my job. He builds aircraft parts. I have another 70+ year old male who works in Quality Control.

Exactly what my mother did.

Took her longer than normal but with the right LPN program you can finish in 11 months and make 6 figures in less than a year.


Where do LPNs make 6 figures?! O_o

I know in places like Colorado you can make 60k/year, but here in NY it only starts at around 40-45k. RN makes over 70k/year to start. My fiance's sister is an RN at Stony Brook University Hospital and they started her at $37/hour.

Here, in Connecticut.

Start pay is 70k like you said. But then again no one says you can't work 2 jobs.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

Around the Network
wfz on 14 August 2012
Kasz216 said:
wfz said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
It's insidious to hire the most qualified people for the jobs you have available?

I mean what.... employers should let people who were most likely laid off for reasons no fault to their own, just stay unemployed because there are a bunch of college graduates without experience that need jobs?

It's the same reason why it's a problem in spain... and worse there.

Surplus qualified labor means that there aren't enough jobs for everyone.

That means the least qualified people aren't going to get jobs...

Fire the old people. Fix the social safety net so they can actually live off retirements (or restore pensions, or something), institute mandatory retirement ages after which these people can not work. Set aside positions to help transition recent graduates into the industry, that is, paying internships or some sort of short-term training program to get them off to work, the thing that Sal-Paradise mentioned about banning upper income individuals from renting in the city was also a good idea, to keep rent inflation from occurring.

If the moneymen keep giving us the middle finger, their whole house-of-cards is going to collapse. Already the vaunted 18-34 marketing demographic is becoming weaker and weaker because we don't have any damn money to spend. It's their fault, and they should fix it, or be prepared to suffer.

So your answer is more or less Ageism.

Screw old people's rights and the fact that they can do the job better because the young need jobs.

Seriously?

I'm not sure quite how to argue this other then saying it's a HUGE violation of peoples rights, based soley on their age ignoring their capabilities.


I'm going to follow this narrow scenario for a moment. If it truly is this "one or the other" scenario, I would as well choose the younger population. You need to keep your bases and youth strong if you want to stay stable. Sacraficing the old for the young is a better scenario than sacraficing the young for the old!


(I just came in here to muse, not actually start any real debates about the working environment).

It would be my position that such a thing isn't a choice government should make.

It's no more valid than telling women they shouldn't be able to work, because it's still socially acceptable for women to be supported by a man, while men being supported by a woman are looked at as losers... therefore "Kept women" will be better off.

 

I believe that is an entirely different situation. If you keep "sacraficing" the youth for the old, then when the old are gone, what will you have left? It seems to me like the middle part of society would collapse due to this. The other way around, however, would keep society moving and young as the old people would be "sacrafice" for the young. If old people don't have money, they will be unhealthy, starve, die, etc. If young people don't have money, they'll do the same. How then will these young people have families, and how will they support them? I'd much rather we all die early than cut out our bottom support (which is the youth).

 

But like I said, I'm speaking in general terms on a really focused example. I didn't actually mean to start any debate about this. But hey, while I'm here, I'm going to make one last comment on your post. I just hope for their children's sakes that one of their parents is there at home to raise them!



sperrico87 on 14 August 2012

The problem is that people equate "education" with learning job-related skills, and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are lots of jobs available, but companies have a lot of trouble finding skilled labor, because many people graduate from college today with almost no computer proficiency or bilingual skills. Many companies have to import labor from India or elsewhere where skilled labor is more readily available. Getting into student loan debt with a bachelor's of Art or Medieval History is your own fault. Our educational system is a disaster, it doesn't work at all.



 

Kasz216 on 14 August 2012
wfz said:
Kasz216 said:
wfz said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
It's insidious to hire the most qualified people for the jobs you have available?

I mean what.... employers should let people who were most likely laid off for reasons no fault to their own, just stay unemployed because there are a bunch of college graduates without experience that need jobs?

It's the same reason why it's a problem in spain... and worse there.

Surplus qualified labor means that there aren't enough jobs for everyone.

That means the least qualified people aren't going to get jobs...

Fire the old people. Fix the social safety net so they can actually live off retirements (or restore pensions, or something), institute mandatory retirement ages after which these people can not work. Set aside positions to help transition recent graduates into the industry, that is, paying internships or some sort of short-term training program to get them off to work, the thing that Sal-Paradise mentioned about banning upper income individuals from renting in the city was also a good idea, to keep rent inflation from occurring.

If the moneymen keep giving us the middle finger, their whole house-of-cards is going to collapse. Already the vaunted 18-34 marketing demographic is becoming weaker and weaker because we don't have any damn money to spend. It's their fault, and they should fix it, or be prepared to suffer.

So your answer is more or less Ageism.

Screw old people's rights and the fact that they can do the job better because the young need jobs.

Seriously?

I'm not sure quite how to argue this other then saying it's a HUGE violation of peoples rights, based soley on their age ignoring their capabilities.


I'm going to follow this narrow scenario for a moment. If it truly is this "one or the other" scenario, I would as well choose the younger population. You need to keep your bases and youth strong if you want to stay stable. Sacraficing the old for the young is a better scenario than sacraficing the young for the old!


(I just came in here to muse, not actually start any real debates about the working environment).

It would be my position that such a thing isn't a choice government should make.

It's no more valid than telling women they shouldn't be able to work, because it's still socially acceptable for women to be supported by a man, while men being supported by a woman are looked at as losers... therefore "Kept women" will be better off.

 

I believe that is an entirely different situation. If you keep "sacraficing" the youth for the old, then when the old are gone, what will you have left? It seems to me like the middle part of society would collapse due to this. The other way around, however, would keep society moving and young as the old people would be "sacrafice" for the young. If old people don't have money, they will be unhealthy, starve, die, etc. If young people don't have money, they'll do the same. How then will these young people have families, and how will they support them? I'd much rather we all die early than cut out our bottom support (which is the youth).

 

But like I said, I'm speaking in general terms on a really focused example. I didn't actually mean to start any debate about this. But hey, while I'm here, I'm going to make one last comment on your post. I just hope for their children's sakes that one of their parents is there at home to raise them!

I'm guessing you've never been poor.  Unhealthy is an issue... but starving... people don't starve... not in western countries.  Additionally, it's not like old people will be around FOREVER.

Worst case scenario is you get a "Lost Generation".. and in reality, it will never be a real lost generation.  Just a larger percentage of people unemployed or underemployed then normal.

Khan for example isn't upset he can't get a job, it's that he can't get a job he likes, preferably in his career.  He just had a job that he quit (or is going to quit.)



Kasz216 on 14 August 2012
badgenome said:
"Market distortion has made it hard for me to find a job."

Solution? MOAR DISTORTION.


More and more I'm coming to the conclusion that we are heading into Stagflation.   Or rather... are already there... and just haven't caught up to it yet on the indicators, due the the inflation occuring in sneakier ways that aren't tracked as eaisly, such as product repackaging rather then product price increases.

The big problem of this is of course... the cure to stagflation is the EXACT opposite of what we're doing now... and grinds the economy to a halt short term.



Around the Network
badgenome on 14 August 2012
Kasz216 said:

More and more I'm coming to the conclusion that we are heading into Stagflation.   Or rather... are already there... and just haven't caught up to it yet on the indicators, due the the inflation occuring in sneakier ways that aren't tracked as eaisly, such as product repackaging rather then product price increases.

The big problem of this is of course... the cure to stagflation is the EXACT opposite of what we're doing now... and grinds the economy to a halt short term.

Yeah, I think we're there. We're only missing high inflation according to the CPI, but CPI is a notoriously bad measure of actual inflation.



Mr Khan on 14 August 2012
Kasz216 said:
wfz said:

I believe that is an entirely different situation. If you keep "sacraficing" the youth for the old, then when the old are gone, what will you have left? It seems to me like the middle part of society would collapse due to this. The other way around, however, would keep society moving and young as the old people would be "sacrafice" for the young. If old people don't have money, they will be unhealthy, starve, die, etc. If young people don't have money, they'll do the same. How then will these young people have families, and how will they support them? I'd much rather we all die early than cut out our bottom support (which is the youth).

 

But like I said, I'm speaking in general terms on a really focused example. I didn't actually mean to start any debate about this. But hey, while I'm here, I'm going to make one last comment on your post. I just hope for their children's sakes that one of their parents is there at home to raise them!

I'm guessing you've never been poor.  Unhealthy is an issue... but starving... people don't starve... not in western countries.  Additionally, it's not like old people will be around FOREVER.

Worst case scenario is you get a "Lost Generation".. and in reality, it will never be a real lost generation.  Just a larger percentage of people unemployed or underemployed then normal.

Khan for example isn't upset he can't get a job, it's that he can't get a job he likes, preferably in his career.  He just had a job that he quit (or is going to quit.)

That one i'm classifying as a scam job. It's bogus to have to drive multiple hours away to a work-site with no compensation when you're only getting paid $8 an hour to begin with. I would easily accept a minimum-wage job if they had any that would hire me (because of overqualification), and aren't scams, since Inventory was the second job i quit/got fired from this summer because it was completely bogus and borderline illegal (i actually had to report the first employer to the PA Labor Dept in order to get them to pay me)

Minimum-wage jobs won't hire me. This has been my curse for some reason since i was 16.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

green_sky on 14 August 2012

I agree with Mr. Khan. The young generation in the west is quite screwed. Canada is about 5 years behind the US. We as a nation didn't learn any lessons from Americans and acted smug. Today we are where US was in 07 and our real estate market. One of the most inflated real estate market if you consider incomes to prices is starting to fall. The biggest loss of wealth about to happen. Why am i talking about that is that unemployment will go up and the highest strain is going to be felt by the youth.

Personally looking into self employment options in the long term but that is just easy to say.



Soleron on 14 August 2012

Khan, are you actually applying to all these 2-3 years experience jobs? Maybe some of them would settle for less.



Conegamer on 14 August 2012

Whilst this may be true, I'm just heading into University, so won't be out for another 3-4 years, whilst my sister found a job as soon as she left Uni, in fact, 4 months before her course finished.

I think the big difference, at least here in the UK, is that if you don't do the right degree, you won't get the right job, if any. Not that anything you said was wrong, of course, and it's something I may well change my mind on when I'm looking for a job



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.