queencitybuckeye;946760 wrote:The Donald.

Pretty sure that was just his dad's company.

Bigdogg;946754 wrote: I support their efforts and hope they can have some impact on policies.

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.

I don't see a disillusioned protest that seems to be looking for the govt to spend more and redistribute more income as having its pulse on the problem. Implicit here is a belief in the govt intervening to make it even less of a free market. My perception isn't one of "how can you enable us to be more competitive" but of mandating simply that they get a bigger piece of the pie, the latter pointing to policies that we might predict yield a bigger piece of a smaller pie and equaling less pie for everyone.

I Wear Pants;946219 wrote:Are you ****ing kidding me? The Republicans have been saying tons of **** about OWS.

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.

Tea Partiers and OWS have 2 things in common:
1) they're both made up of human beings
2) they're both upset about something.

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.

I know tons of people who miss double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and mortgage rates of 12%. :rolleyes:

QuakerOats;946764 wrote:Graet column; thanks for posting Writer...
Even more disgraceful than the Occupiers ...... elected officials who support them.

Best part of Writer's article:

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.

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

Protests aren't a bad thing -- it's what these people want that's ridiculous and potentially more harmful than the current system.

I don't want government becoming even more powerful and dictating who can earn what. I don't want a government that gives me everything -- because that same government can also take it all away.

I'd prefer people be responsible for their own lives, debts and wealth than have a nanny state do it for them.

If these protesters were looking for change that was good for this country, I'd support them. They aren't.

In general the OWS protesters don't want more government. Some of them are espousing stupid ideas of getting rid of all debt, etc but they should be ignored.

They want the government to get out of bed with Wall Street and massive corporations and vice versa.

I Wear Pants;946843 wrote: They want the government to get out of bed with Wall Street and massive corporations and vice versa.

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.

To be honest, if something is going to hurt my company and threaten my job as a result, I WANT my company to have a say. I don't support or favor crony capitalism, but I do think we need it to counter-balance the growing class warfare and sense of entitlement. IMO, the corporate interest is the only thing preventing our govt policy, spending and taxation from spiraling completely out-of-control. Vote pandering free of any such business input dynamic is a scary place to go. Call it a necessary evil if you will, but removing any accountability to the business community can't be good for the long-run health of this country.

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.

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.

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'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.

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]

I'm sure it's significantly higher.

fish82;946953 wrote:I'm sure it's significantly higher.

Which would also mean that for older graduates, it's significantly lower.

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]

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.

Avg unemployment rates in France for the past decade, hovering around 9%. The liberals wanted this country to be more like France, and looks like they're getting their wish.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=fr&v=74

France	11	9.7	9.1	9.7	10.1	9.9	8.7	7.9	7.4	9.1	9.5

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bigdogg;946754 wrote:I do not believe capitalism will survive ...

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.

I Wear Pants;946843 wrote:They want the government to get out of bed with Wall Street and massive corporations and vice versa.

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.

Corporatism is going to kill the economy, one way or another.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Everything in our economy is uncompetitive because prices of everything are too high. Sure we could bring back some manufacturing jobs if they pay lower wages, but people would starve on them. During the most prosperous time in our history, the industrial revolution, from 1869 until the founding of the Federal Reserve, prices fell by 30%. Imagine if prices fell by 30% over the last 40 years. Even if wages were stagnant since 1970, people wouldn't be complaining. And if wages were still at 1970 levels you can bet we would still have a lot of manufacturing jobs.

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 demonstrators said they were angry over the violence in Oakland.

Maybe I'm a bad person, but I laughed at that statement.

Violence in Oakland is like corn in Ohio.

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

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.

The beat goes on...

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!!!!!

"They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day." - so they are turning away those looking for a handout....HOW IRONIC

". A dozen cops on scooters tried to force them back to the sidewalk." - need a Ponch facepalm

"A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.” - so tell them to go cook for the Tea Party, you know you want to

"A team of 10 security volunteers moved in to the trouble-prone southwest section of Zuccotti Park in a show of force to confront them." - awww, look, they even got their own ghetto where the thugs hang out

"Overall security at the park had deteriorated to the point where many frightened female protesters had abandoned the increasingly out-of-control occupation" - Joe Biden warned us this would happen

"But protesters and a cop on duty told The Post that most of the crime goes unreported, because of a bizarre “stop snitching” rule." - not fans of whistle-blower laws, eh?
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]

LJ;946775 wrote:Pretty sure that was just his dad's company.

The Rockefellers?

Glory Days;947163 wrote:The Rockefellers?

Did his daddy also co-sign his note?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 agree. It just becomes a competition for the spots.

It's like musical chairs. It's not necessarily anyone's fault that they lose, but that also doesn't mean that everyone should be said to be winners. Like I said, out of college, I took a job with no benefits and an hourly wage that was barely livable. It gave me experience and a chance to prove myself. Should I have held out for a better job? Did I deserve more?

No. I didn't "deserve" a job. Nobody deserves a job. A college education helps your odds by making you more qualified, but it doesn't earn you a job.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yep. At that point, you have to be willing to do what others won't. Companies will indeed notice that.

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.

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.

The only viable route for a degree in my world was to serve some military time in exchange for the GI Bill.

Not only did I find a college degree a worthwhile pursuit, my military service gave me the life experience I needed to have the inside track on landing my first "degree worthy" job.

A degree in and of itself doesn't guarantee a job. It merely says you have proven yourself to be trainable.

Like everything else in life you still need to market yourself and be willing to shovel shit for a while to demonstrate to potential employers you are willing to get the job done.

When I've interviewed entry-level applicants that require degrees, I always looked for that "you owe me this job because I have a degree" mentality. If I see it, that applicant is far less likely to impress me.

The kid who worked his way through college, flipped burgers for a while after college, or served some military time (as well as earned that degree) are far more likely to impress me.