Fair Share?

[franklin]

The term "college grad" has become almost meaningless. In this day and age, a huge amount of "college degrees" consists of nothing more than a training certificate in a specific field of practice where job availability is not necessarily that great. Look at all of the colleges that advertise on TV. Most of the degrees they advertise are for jobs that barely pay a livable wage but leave you $40-$80K in debt.

Colleges are using the promise of guaranteed money from the federal government to sell very expensive yet nearly meaningless degrees. I recall reading that many of these privately owned colleges are actually owned by Sallie Mae.

I have a hard time believing this considering the unemployment rate for grads barely hit over 4% during the worst recession of our lifetime. One of the largest problems in this recovery seems to have been our inability to match available job to talent (think construction being the main drag). There simply weren't enough grads/techs for the jobs available.

It takes superior intelligence to go to college while working full time. Many people just are not able.

Back when I was washing dishes, most of my coworkers had a second job.

Way to anecdotal for me. Also way to sympathetic to young kids with no responsibilities. Also, no way I buy loosely throwing around "superior intelligence" & linking it to the work required.

Talking about specific demographics is one thing, but claiming the vast majority must suffer through such harsh conditions as working two dishwasher jobs doesn't capture the big picture at all.

 

[Gameface]

I'd say when everyone can see a doctor, go to school, and minimum wage can actually get you to survive.

I know, totally irrational.

Those things are tied directly to the proportion of income the top earners should pay?

 

[babe]

really, I just want to abolish income tax entirely and reduce government to whatever can be supported by tariffs.

 

[candrew]

I have a hard time believing this considering the unemployment rate for grads barely hit over 4% during the worst recession of our lifetime. One of the largest problems in this recovery seems to have been our inability to match available job to talent (think construction being the main drag). There simply weren't enough grads/techs for the jobs available.

Traditionally you're correct; but to be unemployed you'd had to have been employed at one time. Most college grads today have to get on line with people willing to work for entry level positions and have 10-15 years experience - they have no chance.

Of all the lucky breaks in my life I'd say one of the best was graduating college in 1995 just as the economy was taking off

 

[franklin]

Traditionally you're correct; but to be unemployed you'd had to have been employed at one time. Most college grads today have to get on line with people willing to work for entry level positions and have 10-15 years experience - they have no chance.

Of all the lucky breaks in my life I'd say one of the best was graduating college in 1995 just as the economy was taking off

This may be true overall, but I haven't yet found a comprehensive data set breaking it all down, only limited surveys. Definitely was for new finance degrees. The artsie fartsie degrees & playtime degrees like recreation management were destined for unemployment during such a recession where state and muni's were forced to chop away. Throw in all the construction management and we've come up with a huge chunk were their economy simply vanished.

I wouldn't mind some sort of incentive for students to go into more in demand degrees. Anything dealing in math, engineering, and all these skilled factory jobs that US companies can't find trained workers to fill. The corporations can pay for the benefit of well trained graduates though.

 

[One Brow]

Way to anecdotal for me. Also way to sympathetic to young kids with no responsibilities. Also, no way I buy loosely throwing around "superior intelligence" & linking it to the work required.

Last I heard, about 20% of the people in poverty were unemployed. I know I was classified at being poor/impoverished even when working 50-60 hours a week, at times.

The recommendation for the average college student is two hours of study outside of class for every hour in class, and that presumes that being a student is the first job. How many classes can that average student realistically take after a 40-hour work week, factoring the effects of exhaustion on the ability to concentrate.

... as working two dishwasher jobs doesn't capture the big picture at all.

It captures a lot a lot who the poor really are.

 

[moevillini]

one thing that's not really clear to me from the video or this discussion is whether or not it's referring to "wealth" as income? Is this discussion about income inequality? Or do they actually mean "wealth" in terms of net of assets over liabilities?

Talking about specific demographics is one thing, but claiming the vast majority must suffer through such harsh conditions as working two dishwasher jobs doesn't capture the big picture at all.

and pray, dear Franklin, do tell! What is the big picture?

 

[franklin]

one thing that's not really clear to me from the video or this discussion is whether or not it's referring to "wealth" as income? Is this discussion about income inequality? Or do they actually mean "wealth" in terms of net of assets over liabilities?





and pray, dear Franklin, do tell! What is the big picture?

What are you getting at, Moeseph? I'm confused.

 

[SaltyDawg]

 

[larryselbows]

I didn't read any of this thread other than the OP and the memes... I have a short attention span, sorry... BUT I WILL SHARE MY OPINION! (you're welcome)

I think the problem is two-fold... on one end of the spectrum, you have sponges; although the bottom 40% of the country has 2% of the wealth, I wonder how many of these people work? I also grow concerned that people that can work but choose not to, are taking advantage of the system. The reality is, compared to the rest of the world our country has an unbelievable standard of living. Take some time to read about Camp 14 in North Korea, or the conditions in parts of Colombia, and we all know about the repression in the Middle East. I am very concerned that most Americans, liberal and conservative, have me-first tendencies that are further exacerbated by our consumerist culture, and as a side effect, we're going to bankrupt the country.

On the flip-side, the very, very wealthy need to show some responsibility. I don't have a problem with doctors, small business owners, and other high-earners making the incomes that they do, nor do I have a problem with their tax rate. What I do have a problem with are the extremely wealthy that sit on boards of corporations, hedgefund managers, and the like. The difference between these two groups is that for doctors, small business owners, engineers, and other similar career paths, the market dictates their incomes. There is a relative short supply of well-educated and highly skilled labor, and thus, incomes elevate for these positions. Conversely, as a hedgefund manager or corporate board member, markets don't have as much of a bearing on the amount that these people make, rather, they decide what their compensation should be, regardless of if they deserve it.

Finally, although the very wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, for many, their effective tax rate is lower than for most Americans due to access to accountants and other professionals that are able to manipulate loopholes and tax shelters. Most of us do not have these options, so I do support raising taxes on the very wealthy so that their effective tax rate becomes more commensurate to the tax rates that rest of us pay - I believe in proportionality. However, I also grow tired of people like Warren Buffett who speak about other people's money. Although he supports a higher tax rate for the very wealthy, I haven't seen him donate any of his money to the federal government, nor do I see him reinvest it back into his own company. I understand that he has given a large portion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but that is different than what he proselytizes about when he speaks on tax reform.

 

[One Brow]

I think the problem is two-fold... on one end of the spectrum, you have sponges; although the bottom 40% of the country has 2% of the wealth, I wonder how many of these people work? I also grow concerned that people that can work but choose not to, are taking advantage of the system.

Not the ones over retirement age. Not the ones with severe mental or physical disabilities. Not the ones who count in the unemployment rate (that is, they are still looking for work, but have not found it). Not the ones who have made the choice to earn less money so they can stay home to take care of their kids. Are those the people you are worried about taking advantage of the system?

Because, if you only mean the working-age, able-bodied, able-minded, not-seeking-work person who has no child care commitments, you are talking about well under 5% of the population, and well under 10% of the poor.

...and as a side effect, we're going to bankrupt the country.

Most developed nations pay tax rates far in excess of ours. If we are close to bankrupting the country, it is as much from keeping taxes low as anything else.

Finally, although the very wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, for many, their effective tax rate is lower than for most Americans due to access to accountants and other professionals that are able to manipulate loopholes and tax shelters.

Also. the nominal tax rates on dividends and capital gains is actually lower than on incomes middle-class and higher.

However, I also grow tired of people like Warren Buffett who speak about other people's money. Although he supports a higher tax rate for the very wealthy, I haven't seen him donate any of his money to the federal government, nor do I see him reinvest it back into his own company. I understand that he has given a large portion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but that is different than what he proselytizes about when he speaks on tax reform.

Even if Buffet were wealthy enough to significantly fund the federal government, would doing so help or hurt our policies, long-term?

 

[PearlWatson]

There are more of the poor working 50 hours a week than are jobless, and some much more than that. However, thank you for your clueless offering.

Liberals never bother to acknowledge or come to terms with the other side of the equation of inequality of outcome...the inequality of effort, skill, talent, values, morality, choices, parenting, IQ, attitude, motivations.

Yeah, it takes a certain type of effort to become rich. One person can put a lot of effort into participating on a chat forum while someone else could use all that time doing something constructive like building a house and they will have different outcomes. It would be silly to expect or desire the same outcome for a different type of effort. Liberals need to quit slamming their fists against the laws of nature in their unworthy quest for equality of outcome. Quit pulling down the crabs trying to escape the bucket of mediocrity. Quit coveting their neighbors wife.