Pretty sure that was just his dad's company.queencitybuckeye;946760 wrote:The Donald.
Protest can be effective in changing policy. Fully agree. I'm just not sure what policies they are trying to change (nor do they appear to know). Seems to me that the policies they'd hope to affect regard protectionist and socialist leanings, and I have to completely disagree with that direction.Bigdogg;946754 wrote: I support their efforts and hope they can have some impact on policies.
My point was nothing like the venom that came from leftist members of Congress directed at Tea Partiers. And I don't remember Tea Partiers occupying or camping out for months on end to make their point.I Wear Pants;946219 wrote:Are you ****ing kidding me? The Republicans have been saying tons of **** about OWS.
I know tons of people who miss double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and mortgage rates of 12%. :rolleyes:Footwedge;946558 wrote:What 2/3 want is a fairer compensation for the work they did. Not the unfair compensation that we have today. Nobody wants something for nothing. They want people to be paid, and the spoils divied up the way it was before the 1980's hit. You know, a period where one could work hard, and then stay above poverty. Not so today. That is an erroneous talking point from scoundrellous pigs like the fatman on the AM dial.
Best part of Writer's article:QuakerOats;946764 wrote:Graet column; thanks for posting Writer...
Even more disgraceful than the Occupiers ...... elected officials who support them.
Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It's not them. It's you.
Protests aren't a bad thing -- it's what these people want that's ridiculous and potentially more harmful than the current system.Bigdogg;946754 wrote:Here is an interesting article from USA Today. To me the Wall Street protesters are about bringing change to unfair economic policies. Contrary to Writer's post, protesting has been a very effective way of changing policies throughout history. As a person who has worked hard since my first job at 12 delivering papers, I support their efforts and hope they can have some impact on policies. I was not fortunate to have daddy and grand pa, pass down the family property management businesses to me, nor any other kind of silver spoon. I live on a comfortable middle class income. I may not have everything I want, but I do have everything I need.
I do not believe capitalism will survive if the disparity in income continues to trend this way.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-27/income-gap/50952720/1
To what end? What exactly will that accomplish, and how will it do it? We need regulation, but then argue that the businesses should have no input to that? We believe in the rights and interests of people and the individual, but what about the collective of stakeholders a company represents or is responsible for? I don't disagree with the implications of crony capitalism, but these businesses have a right to be heard because corporations aren't truly faceless.I Wear Pants;946843 wrote: They want the government to get out of bed with Wall Street and massive corporations and vice versa.
There is nothing wrong with the wages people make for their hard work. Please, if you want to drive more factories to China and India please demand more pay for union/manufacturing jobs. It is already cost prohibitive to start a factory in the US, by all means lets make it cost even more.Footwedge;946558 wrote:What 2/3 want is a fairer compensation for the work they did. Not the unfair compensation that we have today. Nobody wants something for nothing. They want people to be paid, and the spoils divied up the way it was before the 1980's hit. You know, a period where one could work hard, and then stay above poverty. Not so today. That is an erroneous talking point from scoundrellous pigs like the fatman on the AM dial.
Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It's not them. It's you.
I'm sure it's significantly higher.Mulva;946946 wrote:I'd be curious to see what the number is for more recent college graduates (let's say those who graduated in the last 1-2 years) vs. that 4% total.
[/COLOR]
Which would also mean that for older graduates, it's significantly lower.fish82;946953 wrote:I'm sure it's significantly higher.
I read somewhere the unemployment rate for those with degrees under the age of 24 is 9.5%.Mulva;946946 wrote:I'd be curious to see what the number is for more recent college graduates (let's say those who graduated in the last 1-2 years) vs. that 4% total.
[/COLOR]
| France | 11 | 9.7 | 9.1 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 9.9 | 8.7 | 7.9 | 7.4 | 9.1 | 9.5 |
Thanks for the info. I would guess that from the several dozen people (very small and not representative of the entire population sample, I know) I talked with who graduated in June or August of this year, probably at least 25% didn't have jobs lined up.sleeper;946997 wrote:I read somewhere the unemployment rate for those with degrees under the age of 24 is 9.5%.
Let's also not forget that a lot of recent college graduates are 'underemployed' meaning they've taken a job that likely has no salary and no benefits.
Take that for what its worth.
I know very few people from college and especially my high school who actually have full time jobs with salary + benefits. Most have taken crappy retail jobs or sales positions because they have student loans to pay off while they live with their parents. It really is almost a miracle for someone to get a job these days, especially a "real job" to a recent college graduate.Mulva;947016 wrote:Thanks for the info. I would guess that from the several dozen people (very small and not representative of the entire population sample, I know) I talked with who graduated in June or August of this year, probably at least 25% didn't have jobs lined up.
A lot of them found jobs within 2-3 months after graduating though.
The underemployment thing is definitely an issue too.
What we currently have isn't functioning like capitalism, so I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion, though I DO agree that what is currently happening cannot go on indefinitely.Bigdogg;946754 wrote:I do not believe capitalism will survive ...
In a sense, this is why the Tea Party started: a desire for less meddling between the two. Whether the central government is engaging in creating an oppressive, overbearing environment for the private sector or engaging in corrupt deals with entities in the private sector, it's still too much governmental involvement. I think that's the point.I Wear Pants;946843 wrote:They want the government to get out of bed with Wall Street and massive corporations and vice versa.
Honestly, this is a very fair point. I've worked for multiple companies who outsourced various elements of their business because US regulations made keeping that work (read "those jobs") here in the US too expensive to justify.jmog;946928 wrote:There is nothing wrong with the wages people make for their hard work. Please, if you want to drive more factories to China and India please demand more pay for union/manufacturing jobs. It is already cost prohibitive to start a factory in the US, by all means lets make it cost even more.
In a bad job market, the lack of experience hurts big time. Even back in '07 I took a retail job (hourly pay without benefits and retail hours) because my experience (or lack thereof) killed my employability at a job with a salary and benefits. That was even before we really started feeling the ramifications in the economy.Mulva;946946 wrote:I'd be curious to see what the number is for more recent college graduates (let's say those who graduated in the last 1-2 years) vs. that 4% total.
[/COLOR]
sleeper;946997 wrote:I read somewhere the unemployment rate for those with degrees under the age of 24 is 9.5%.
Let's also not forget that a lot of recent college graduates are 'underemployed' meaning they've taken a job that likely has no salary and no benefits.
Take that for what its worth.
It would seem that underemployment would be less of an issue if it didn't cost so much to employ someone. There's a reason that I will only hire people as independent contractors.Mulva;947016 wrote:Thanks for the info. I would guess that from the several dozen people (very small and not representative of the entire population sample, I know) I talked with who graduated in June or August of this year, probably at least 25% didn't have jobs lined up.
A lot of them found jobs within 2-3 months after graduating though.
The underemployment thing is definitely an issue too.
Maybe I'm a bad person, but I laughed at that statement.The demonstrators said they were angry over the violence in Oakland.
Classic ---- whatever is offered up will be devoured, even by the undeserving. It is proving the point that if you spend $2 trillion in the 'war on poverty' (as we have), you will not eliminate poverty, you simply will have purchased $2 trillion worth of it.queencitybuckeye;947089 wrote:Looks like a little class warfare breaking out in the ranks of the 47%
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL
Comedic GOLD!!!!!queencitybuckeye;947089 wrote:Looks like a little class warfare breaking out in the ranks of the 47%
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL
The Rockefellers?LJ;946775 wrote:Pretty sure that was just his dad's company.
Did his daddy also co-sign his note?Glory Days;947163 wrote:The Rockefellers?
I agree with that. But that doesn't automatically make it the fault of the unemployed college grads that they are unemployed (not implying you were saying that at all, referring to the original comment I quoted).O-Trap;947071 wrote:It is just what it is. Where the demand is low and the supply is high, more and more won't get the kinds of jobs they want. It's part of a competitive job market.
Catch-22s are frustrating. Can't get a job because you don't have the experience, can't get the experience because you can't get a job.O-Trap;947071 wrote:In a bad job market, the lack of experience hurts big time. Even back in '07 I took a retail job (hourly pay without benefits and retail hours) because my experience (or lack thereof) killed my employability at a job with a salary and benefits. That was even before we really started feeling the ramifications in the economy.
I agree. It just becomes a competition for the spots.Mulva;947272 wrote:I agree with that. But that doesn't automatically make it the fault of the unemployed college grads that they are unemployed (not implying you were saying that at all, referring to the original comment I quoted).
I disagree. After that experience is earned, your experience will validate your hirability, and your degree will place you ahead of the competition with experience equitable to yours. It still won't be worthless from an employment experience. It just may not pay out immediately.Mulva;947272 wrote: If the only jobs available to new college graduates are $10 hourly retail and food service positions, then the investment of a college education to allow oneself to land a better job is pretty much worthless. I know it will change eventually, but that's what some of the protesting is about. Current reality is what it is.
Yep. At that point, you have to be willing to do what others won't. Companies will indeed notice that.Mulva;947272 wrote:Catch-22s are frustrating. Can't get a job because you don't have the experience, can't get the experience because you can't get a job.
I agree. My parents are working class folks who held factory jobs. I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd ever have an opportunity to go to college or finance it.O-Trap;947391 wrote:Personally, I believe a college degree is valuable unto itself, so I don't even think they're losing out by getting one and not getting a job.
However, they paid for the education, not the job. They got the education. The job wasn't part of the deal.