Sanders just submitted college for all bill.

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Penelope, Oct 18, 2015.

  1. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,285
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,121
    If they're just going to be working minimum wage anyway, why are they bothering to go to college? Wasn't the whole point of a college degree to get a BETTER-than-minimum-wage job?
     
  2. Arianrhod
    Offline

    Arianrhod Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    11,060
    Thanks Received:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,687
    Is it common in your experience for people to get their dream job right out of college?
     
  3. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,285
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,121
    Big difference between "not getting your dream job" and "spending tens of thousands on a degree so you can get the same job you could have had right out of high school."

    If you graduate college and still can't move out of minimum wage, you did it wrong. Period. Hell, I did better than minimum wage at 20, just out of secretarial school, with no college at all.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Arianrhod
    Offline

    Arianrhod Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    11,060
    Thanks Received:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,687
    Fair enough, but situations vary based on location, market, and your field. The advice used to be "Go into IT; they'll always need programmers"...until they didn't. "There's a nursing shortage; they'll always need nurses." Well, maybe, until that changes.

    So unless you plan to live with your parents for years, you take whatever's available to earn some income and build your résumé (some employers are more impressed with a year "flipping burgers," to borrow the cliché, than "So, like, I just hung out with my friends and played WoW until I found something I felt like doing") while you look for something in your field.

    I'd also like to see the statistics behind the "spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree in basket-weaving" meme, but none have been forthcoming.

    One practical takeaway from your post that I'd pass along to every student: Learn to touch-type. It's a rare job that doesn't involve a keyboard at some point. Your may have the fastest texting thumbs in the Western hemisphere, but on a QWERTY board 85 w.p.m. will get you there faster.
     
  5. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,285
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,121
    Yes, well, the advice SHOULD be - and it should be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to expect to get a degree - RESEARCH YOUR FIELD. Do not just take someone's word for "they'll always need . . ." Get your happy ass on the Internet and access the jobs data from that field. There's certainly not a shortage of info about any job you can name.

    Use your damned head, and then don't come whining to me with these fucking, "It's supposed to be good, and now there are no jobs" excuse bullshit.

    And while we're at it, even if you can't find a job in your field, if you have a college degree that's worth a piss into a windstorm, you should NOT be working for minimum wage, whatever else happens. Hell, my ex-husband has a degree in Journalism, and another in Creative Writing, for God's sake, and has parlayed that into I-don't-know HOW many jobs that have very little to do with being a reporter (which was originally his goal), culminating in a job as a correctional officer, of all things.

    I stand by what I said: if you got a college degree and you're working for minimum wage, you did it wrong. I don't even care which "it" you choose; it was wrong. And college was clearly a waste of time and money in your case.

    As for "degree in basket-weaving", this isn't actually a hard one. Most universities have a College of Arts, and it is certainly possible to get a Fine Arts degree with a course emphasis on weaving and textiles, if that's your artistic focus. How useful it is you may judge for yourself. The "underwater" that's usually attached to that actually refers to the fact that many materials used in basket-weaving are woven while wet, sometimes even actually submerged in a shallow container of water, to keep them supple while they're worked.
     
  6. Arianrhod
    Offline

    Arianrhod Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    11,060
    Thanks Received:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,687
    And of course between the time you declare a major and 3-4 years later when you graduate, the goalposts may have shifted.

    As for the "basket-weaving" meme, I was referring to its overuse anytime the topic of college education comes up, as if that's all college kids are studying. Just anecdotally, frat boys are far more interested in majoring in beer.
     
  7. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,285
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,121
    Well, if you want to do research that limited and shallow, that's certainly your choice. Again, don't come crying to me about how you "have" to work as a bagboy at the local market afterward.

    First of all, there are scads of sources that track such trends over time and provide projections for the future. Second of all, if you pick a course and then don't bother to keep up on trends and projections while attending classes, you're a fucking idiot. Third, none of this changes the fact that it's not an either-or situation: EITHER you get the exact job you want, OR you flip burgers for jack shit. If you have a college degree in anything even remotely useful, and you can't parlay it into a better job than you can get right out of high school, your time and money in college might as well have been flushed down the commode.

    Most people use "underwater basket weaving" as a pejorative for a useless college major, probably because it largely IS useless. However, people who say that don't mean they ACTUALLY think lots of college kids are ACTUALLY studying basket weaving of any sort, Captain Literal. What they mean is that many college students are wasting their time in classes and degree programs that have little to no value in terms of future employment. Which is true.
     
  8. Arianrhod
    Offline

    Arianrhod Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    11,060
    Thanks Received:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,687
    How "limited and shallow"? Did I post anything so specific that you can make that assessment of all undergraduates? Fascinating.

    So how many times would you recommend changing majors?

    Nor did I say it was.

    This of course presupposes a uniformity of job markets nationwide. I'm sure your one-size-fits-all answer will be "Then move where the jobs are," amiright?
    Precisely.
     
  9. baileyn45
    Offline

    baileyn45 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,253
    Thanks Received:
    2,396
    Trophy Points:
    1,030
    Ratings:
    +4,019
    Wrong The Fed is part of the government.

    Nonsense

    "The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, with boards of Directors, under an umbrella direction of the 7 member Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the power to determine major aspects of banking activity, such as setting interest rates, and the reserve and other operational requirements. There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus). The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.

    Read the second sentence again,

    "There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size (they must subscribe to the shares with 3% of their capital plus surplus)."

    Try this
    Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

    "The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt."

    Do you have any idea how dumb that is? The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt ( Now carries 12% of fed govt debt). So if the fed gets in trouble they will turn to the fed govt, who will turn to the fed for loans??????????????.

    "No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."

    And you base this on what?

    "Ignored the WSJ link? LOL! Guaranteed bonds trading above par means lots of people want to purchase them."

    And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess? Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.

    'Nonsense. The banks got stuck with their toxic assets."

    If this were true the banks would be out of business. Those 'toxic assets" now reside at the fed.

    "Adds $1.7 trillion in reserves to the system and lowers interest rates."

    Lowers interest rates? To what? Negative numbers? The reason the fed bought this crap was because they could not lower interest rates below zero.

    "Citigroup worked the mortgages out with the homeowners and they began performing (paying the mortgage) again or Citigroup foreclosed on the homes and sold them for a loss.

    Now if Fannie or Freddie bought 10 basically identical mortgages and the homeowners defaulted, the buyer of the now guaranteed MBS wouldn't know, or care, because he'd get the interest and principal payments with no interruption or impairment.

    If the Fed bought this second, guaranteed MBS, they aren't taking a toxic asset off of anyone's hands, because the MBS is a high quality, guaranteed, trading above par, bond."

    I wish I lived in your world. The MBS at issue were wrapped up in derivatives that no one on the planet has yet to unravel. From the banks perspective they are now gone, handed off to the fed. Again from what you are saying there was never a problem. All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt. So why has the fed govt pumped $430bil into the big banks and the fed purchased $1.7tr in MBS from the big banks? Hell all was well. What was the problem?

    "Yes, when someone with unlimited resources decides to guarantee something, it's no longer toxic."

    Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt? The fed govt now$18tr in debt. 12% of which is held by the fed?

    "No, all the guaranteed debt is now good debt, whether the Fed bought it or you did."

    I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.

    And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to spend more to bail out the fed which would require the fed to buy more fed govt treasuries so the fed govt could continue to bail out the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the fed debt by borrowing more from the fed which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more fed debt by having the fed purchase more treasuries which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to have the fed buy more securities which would weaken the feds balance sheet requiring the fed govt to bail out more of the feds debt by having the fed buy more securities...

    What could go wrong?
     
  10. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,132
    Thanks Received:
    4,545
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,305
    The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend.'.

    Last year the "private owners" received $1.7 billion in dividends, the Treasury about $100 billion.

    "The federal government now backs this debt, of course it became good debt."

    Do you have any idea how dumb that is?

    Yeah, probably not a good idea, but when the US government guarantees a debt, that makes it solid.

    The fed is the last resort lender to the fed govt

    Lender of last resort to the banking system, not to the Federal government.

    So if the fed gets in trouble

    How in the world would the Fed get in trouble? Spell it out.

    "No, the lack of losses came before the Fed purchase, when the Treasury guaranteed them."

    And you base this on what?

    It was in all the papers. Here.

    A key component of the conservatorships is the commitment of the U.S. Department of the Treasury to provide financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to enable them to continue to provide liquidity and stability to the mortgage market.

    The Treasury Department has provided $189.5 billion in support, which includes an initial placement of $1 billion in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the time of the conservatorships and an additional cumulative $187.5 billion investment from the Treasury Department

    History of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Conservatorships | Federal Housing Finance Agency

    And you honestly believe that what is being purchased are the subprime MBS that went belly up at the beginning of this mess?

    No. The Fed did not buy subprime MBS. The Fed bought guaranteed MBS.

    Those "toxic assets will never see the light of day. They will reside on the fed balance sheet forever.

    The toxic assets that they never bought are not on their balance sheet. Not now, not ever, never.

    I wish I lived in your world.

    Me too, then I wouldn't have to correct all your errors.

    Again from what you are saying there was never a problem.

    There was a huge problem. Trillions in loans to bad risks, thanks in part to moronic government pressure on banks to get poor people to buy homes.

    All these "toxic assets" were actually good debt.

    No. Toxic assets are toxic assets. Assets that were guaranteed by the government are not toxic assets.

    Unlimited resources? This would be the fed govt?

    For all intents and purposes, yes.

    I challenge you to find any source that states that the fed reserve debt is guaranteed by the fed govt.

    They own US Treasuries. Are they guaranteed?
    They own Fannie and Freddie MBS. Fannie and Freddie are now in government conservatorship.
    I think that means they are guaranteed. If you can show they are not, I'll alter my claim.

    And if it was, the fed govt would have to turn to the fed to have the fed purchase more treasury notes which of course would weaken the feds balance sheet

    Ummmm......why would more Treasury Notes weaken the Fed's balance sheet?
    It sounds like you don't understand accounting either.
     

Share This Page