Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, could enable Labor to find something to do, regardless of actual jobs availability in their local area.
I know a lady who has a law degree with high honors from Florida A&M. She works as a paralegal. She is extremely overweight and knows this would make it very hard to get clients so she won't hang out her own shingle, and law groups won't hire her as a lawyer. However, she graduated ten or twelve years ago and won't do anything about the weight. She paid off her loans and then bought an okay house in an average subdivision. She is really smart and probably could do a whole lot better. I keep hoping she does.
Somebody who don't like capitalists don't have to work for them. But being born po' as pigs feet I was always damn glad when a capitalist could use me and me get a paycheck.
it is about natural rights. not specifically about guns, for y'all, right wingers; Or, is too much Individual Liberty for the poor, too much of a problem. Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, could enable Labor to find something to do, regardless of actual jobs availability in their local area.
I don't know, possible. I took his word for it as far as the figures go. But here was what I was talking, supply and demand for folks with a college degree. Way more people attain a college degree today than in the 50's or 60's. Around 8% in the 1950's and 10% in the 1960's. Today a full third of the population has attained a college degree. That is a whole lot more folks with degrees looking for a good paying job. When only 10% of the people had a college degree, I think that was worth a whole lot more to employers back then than when a third of the population has one today. If his figures are correct, could over saturation have something to do with it? https://www.statista.com/statistics...nment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/ In other words, there could be a tipping point, an apex where once hit or achieved, a college degree begins to lose part of its value as to employment.
Today's economy is a lot different than the 1950s as well. But lots of studies show that, on average, people with college degrees earn significantly more and are unemployed a lot less than people without degrees. Does that mean that every person with a poor academic background should run up scores of thousands in debt to obtain a degree from a subpar school? No. But is also inaccurate to infer a degree doesn't provide value for most.
we also don't know if he was willing to locate or far from home when he looked for work...working in remote areas may not be appealing to many people particularly young people exposed to big city life but often that's where you will find work, where no one else wants to go... it's hard leaving friends and family behind to gain experience in a career but sometimes that's what needs to be done...
Having a degree is better than not, but that wasn't what I meant. When you have a third of people looking for good paying jobs with a degree, it stands to reason that third would have a harder time than when you had only 10% of the people with degrees. The old numbers game along with supply and demand. Maybe good paying jobs that require a college degree has tripled since the 50's and 60's, I don't know. But if 60% of that third of the population with a college degree today are having a hard time finding a good paying job, assuming his figures are correct. I would wager back when only a tenth of the population had a college degree, perhaps only 10% of that 10% were having a hard time.
Which is exactly why it's so important for kids and their parents to stay abreast of such changes, and choose courses/trades accordingly. Long gone are the days when kids (other than the children of millionaires) could choose courses based on some personal interest only, or because a course was 'easy'.
A few of my classmates did get legal jobs. But I could not honestly say that the majority did. Trust me, none of us invested our life savings just to get jobs as floor sweepers, cab drivers, or para legals. It just turned out that way.
I did not spend my life savings because I was hoping to get unemployment insurance. Same for my classmates.
that's a good start I have read in the past where a farming community paid for a student's education in med school so that it could get the services of a doctor for a given period of time. It would do well for others to do the same. This way it can get all the doctors/lawyers/agricultural engineers or whatever they need.
You may have chosen something else, in the first place, if you had more time to find a career to pursue.
The only career [sic] path I had was in the tax field. It is not a career but merely a job. Ditto for the years I worked in maintenance. Lawyers, teachers, police officers, athletes - those folks have careers. Others only have jobs. In my youth I had hoped for a career in bio science having excelled in high school biology. However, I am partly learning disabled and could not do physics or math. In those days you had to have B's or A's in those classes as a high schooler in order to major in college biology. All I could manage was a C in physics and wouldn't even try calculus as I had no hope of passing the class. Thus, I could not major in college biology or get a career in bio sciences. Therefore, my ''career'' options were limited.
The point is, you could find something you like, given enough time and effort. Unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed, would enable Persons to pursue Happiness, even without a profit basis, until they found something they could enjoy doing; and, perhaps even make a living at it. Under our current regime, you have to find employment or go without recourse to an income. Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment would enable Persons to circulate capital, regardless of actual employment status. We can only solve simple poverty, not being poor.
You are spot on, at the time we are witnessing reverse mercantilism as countries with large industrial and manufacturing bases have moved out of their mother country and moved to low wage countries with lower cost of capital and wages. Saturation of markets because those at the top are there because they like the monies and lifestyle it brings yet they are so short sighted they can't see the long-term effects on the vexation of the masses through income disparity.
That is true yet companies require a degree to work in certain positions once occupied by on the job training members.
And....? That doesn't answer my question. Majority of degrees given out now a days are in the liberal arts category.
