LOL
check out yahoos front page today.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/His-Re....html?x=0&.v=1
basically what i said above...
"Men are more concentrated in industries that are both more sensitive to the business cycle and trending down as a share of total employment.
However, women are more concentrated in state and local jobs that are now on the chopping block as a result of efforts to cut taxes and reduce public spending. About 52 percent of state employees and 61 percent of the much larger category of local employees are women - many of them working as teachers, secretaries, or social workers."
how many women plummers or mechanics do you know? my friend is the manager of a discount tire and makes a load of money...never stepped foot onto a college campus. is he underachieving? its all relative.
also, in this day and age with college degrees painfully expensive, dadda is more likely to pay for his little girls education than his son, who he thinks should go out and get a job immediately.
True. The parents of a college educated daughter who themselves are college graduates probably wouldn't look too favorably on her going out with a 27 year old assistant manager of a Discount Tire with only a HS diploma, no matter how much $ he makes.
These parental/social influences are important, and serve to create a class structure in what, in theory, is a flat society full of equal citizens before the law.
So naturally we end up with a bunch of college graduates who about how unfair life is while they are too good to step anywhere near something that looks like blue collar work, let alone actually interact with the blue collar creatures in a social setting.
more public sector jobs are requiring masters degrees. women take up a huge chunk of the public sector.
also, baby boomers arent retiring anytime soon, and the ones that are getting too old to do the handy work are hiring non-collegiate young men as apprentices.
"handier" degrees like engineering and computer science are still dominated by men. fine arts are mostly all women (including architecture, from my experience.)
ive taken alot of anthropology and archaeology courses, and they are completely dominated by women. im going on a field school for fun this summer, and im the only male out of 15 people. i wonder who theyre going to have digging the holes...
the women complaining sound like theyre going to school to get their MRS degree, and oops...theres no men left.
......
we are too spoiled as a society when we think achievement is based on a college degree and that everyone is en led to one. maybe thats the first problem.
if i couldve done it over again, i wouldnt have enrolled at the university. i wouldve taken some community college courses, earned my real estate license and went straight to development.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 03-07-2011 at 12:42 PM.
So you are good at using the computers the previous generation MADE for you?Talk about rationalizing...
Pursuing anything other than the collegiate path is American heresy. The college degree is now part and parcel of the American faith in progress, the American dream. In addition, it is part of the dream that parents have for their children. To have raised a mechanic who can support himself is deemed a failure in parenting, while raising a freeloading college dropout who is still trying to "find himself" at age 28 is somehow a more successful parenting result.
For when in polite company the bum can say that he did go to whatever college, while the mechanic has to admit that he went to work straight out of high school and is a member of the undesirable caste.
The advent of the matriarchal age begins with ing and nagging. Progress.
I spent about 4 minutes at a community college 12 years ago.
College and the expenses, time and investment it takes to derive value from it is completely overrated in this country.
All you need, will ever need and have ever needed is ambition and an everlasting work ethic with no equivocation.
What I see in the young men I hire is a lack of work ethic. Everyone wants to be a lawyer, programmer, banker, etc. because the job pays extremely well and its all done in about 40 hours a week.
Whereas I work 60+ hours a week and my employees routinely work 70-80 hours a week. What makes me laugh is that the youngin' who wants the bad-ass job doesnt realize that the compe ion for that job is disproportionate to his level of commitment.
Such as, the banker making all the cash? The job description says 9-5, but he/she routinely works double that because thats what it takes to be the best one can be, to be successful and a value to your employer.
All the people I see want a lot for the least amount of effort....
And therein lies the problem. If your true goal in your education/career is to have a job that requires a minimal amount of effort relative to pay, then youre going to be perpetually disappointed. There are exceptions abound, Im sure, but if you truly were exceptional, you wouldnt be complaining about the cost of college and the lack of opportunity in your chosen field.
This life is exactly what you make it to be, end of discussion. Youre either dedicated beyond any shadow of a doubt to success and how you define it or you are not. Everything is tertiary to your personal conviction of character. If you have that, you have everything you ever needed.
Or, women choose weaker degree programs (in aggregate), complete them, and get more of the jobs that require a BA (though really don't).
Here, here.
Great post.
x2
great post.
And Americans are sorting themselves into greater geneous pockets now more than ever. The children of doctors and lawyers are less likely to grow up with, go to school with, and in general, socialize with, the children of mechanics and carpenters.
What is seen as a gender difference really contains a class sensibility. It's not so much that jobs aren't out there, but rather the 'right kind' of opportunity for the 'right kind' of individual. Whereas the hardworking son of a lower class family has to bust his ass to advance, the bum son of a banker can F up multiple times yet still make out alright, even if he doesn't grow up until age 30.
What we have are parents with the financial wherewithal and the desire to keep their children from being forced to take care of themselves by taking an 'undesirable' job. No upper middle class parent wants to admit that their son is in an occupation of low social standing. It's much more acceptable to admit that he's a freeloading up and that you have the bank to indulge him.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 03-07-2011 at 01:19 PM.
DarkReign makes a great point.
the future of America isnt built on the "battle of the sexes" or ethnic and social equalities (however important they may be), or even education. its on the shoulders of the individual.
i think we've lost that through the movements of the past few decades. we feel en led because we belong to a particular group, and we've developed this mentality of oppression by another en y that in no way affects our work ethic and goals, but we let it do so because we've been indoctrined to believe that we cant control our own individual destiny.
In fairness the avuncular ing and nagging about eternal ing and nagging never stopped either.
I'm not talking about myself anecdotally, I'm talking about percents, averages, and trends among a huge swath of people. That's what this whole thread is about.
So you are good at using the computers the previous generation MADE for you?
You cannot argue that the average 10-35 year old is less tech-savvy than 35 and older. If you are arguing that, then I'm sorry, you're wrong. I'm not even going to google this for you, go do it yourself.
Should the average work week be 60+ hours?
Knowing somewhat what he does, I suspect it is a mutually beneficial and mutually appreciated relationship. He needs skilled work done right by employees he trusts and they want the overtime so they can give their family a higher lifestyle than if they worked a flat 40 hours. win/win.
He argues that the problem is a lack of worth ethic. His prospects want to work 40 hours a week (slightly above the national average), and to him this is sub-par.
The only prospects worthy of consideration are those who are willing to work 50-75% more hours than the national average.
I am baiting with my question, because I'll let you in on the answer: there isn't enough work in the country for everyone to work 60 hours a week. The only reason he can filter out and keep only prospects who are willing to work extreme hours is due to the oversupply of labor and undersupply of jobs. It's an employer's market right now.
Damn that was an bum ing ignorant post. If there was an oversupply of the skilled labor he needs and he was the predatory boss you are trying to paint him as he would be hiring 2 part timers so he wouldn't need to pay any benefits or overtime. He likes the guys that WANT to work overtime because they have a good work ethic and he doesn't mind paying them the overtime. What is so hard to understand about that?
The only thing predatory is the idea that a 40-hour work week is sub-par, and you and your buddy seem to be perpetuating it pretty well. You claim that I am ignorant, yet you seem to be ignoring the graphs I supplied up there and all the points I'm making.
its funny because yall dont even know what line of work he's in. maybe there is nobody willing to work part time because of the skill involved.
Actually, he has stated it in here. He was in the automotive subcontractor manufacturing business and had to transition to military supply in the downturn and seems to have made a successful transition. I'm glad for him that he is busy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
