We all know that Benjamin Franklin is one of these amazing people that printed almanacs, made scientific findings, invented things that are still used today, and was a skilled diplomat.
Did he go to college?
No!
While schooling is great, isn't it a bit sad that the net effect is that it ends up pigeon holing a person into pursuit?
Today, Ben Franklin would have had to either:
1. Rot away in an engineering or science program for well over a decade. In the meantime, he would have to keep his head down and work as a minion on whatever the professors were researching before he was allowed to develop his own study for his final project.
2. Go to college, then apply to the State Department for the opportunity to become a diplomat and go through a series of objective tests and an intense background check before they sent him off to work as a low-level gopher in Sri Lanka so that he could "pay his dues" for a few years before being sent to a more important country.
3. Work as a columnist for a podunk paper and writing about the local corn festival because he didn't have the Ivy League education to get a job with CNN or the New York Times.
Then, of course, whatever career path he went in meant that everything else would be relegated to "hobby" status.
If he ended up being a scientist, he'd probably have a blog on the state of the world. If he was compelling enough, he might end up on the radio or on TV. Since he would have no direct ties to what was going on in Washington as he gave up his political pursuits to focus upon a scientific career, he might rise to the rank of "talking head nut ball" like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, or Michael Moore. If he was vocal in the wrong way, he may end up on the FBI watch list.
If he ended up being a politician, then surely nobody would come within 1,000 feet of whatever he invented. Seriously, can you think of anything in your home that you used that was personally invented by John F. Kennedy? If he had unveiled a machine that turned all garbage into usable potting soil within 30 minutes, how excited would you be to purchase such an item knowing that this was something he was tinkering around with on the weekends? Women copied his wife's fashion, but that's about as far as people are willing to go as far as putting their trust in politicians to improve their daily lives.
....and when you think about it, it's kind of weird that we don't use politician-made inventions. Think of all of the stuff invented in ancient Greece and Rome that were instituted by visionary leaders...or, at the very least, they had a good eye if someone came up with something good. Today, if President Obama published his recipe for Buffalo Wings, it would certainly not catch fire with the populace regardless of how tasty they turned out. It's almost like we expect a great level of incompetence from the people who lead the free world.
"I went to Harvard, was a Rhode's Scholar, and I helped come up with a peace plan for Eastern Europe."
"Nope, sorry. I will use a McCormick's seasoning packet before I use your recipe for four alarm chili."
Oh well. Here's to you, Ben Franklin!
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
These are the people who need to be helped
Just the other day, a friend of a friend was telling me about said friend (we shall call her "amiga" for shorthand), that barely has a high school education and has not been in the workforce because she had been a stay at home mom. However, a question arose about whether this lady should go to school and become something like a dental hygienist. This person is otherwise screwed because they don't have any job skills and they can't rely upon nepotism. While large cities like NYC have a strata of incomes, most other places resemble a third world nation. You have a few people who have good jobs, while everyone else is busing tables at the Luby's. There are some in-between jobs like being a nurse's assistant that require some additional training that a person normally can't receive in high school. While those jobs offer some stability and full-time employment prospects, the trade off is that these people do not earn much more than a cashier (especially when you consider that they will now have student loan debt). This creates a quandary where they are perched precariously on a ledge, and one tiny slip could have the student loan ghosts haunting the fuck out of you for the rest of your life and eating away what financial benefit the person would have gained in even bothering to go to school.
I thought about it.
Honestly, we all know that you need some sort of training to have some job skills that don't involve being a cashier for the rest of eternity. But what options are there for the poor?
The jobs I'm thinking of require some training, but the wages aren't that amazing in spite of the fact that you forked out a few grand for schooling. Naturally, you would have to get a loan. However, we all know what happens the minute that something happens and you miss payments. Suddenly, that piddling amount of money balloons in a way that would make a loan shark in the Ukraine smile. Now, that debtor is turning tricks in a Turkish brothel and will be left paying the ever-expanding loan to their handlers until they are all clapped out and past menopause.
So, I seriously sat there and wondered if it would be worth the risk for such a person to go to school. Sure, they're going to make shit working as a cashier, but if they show up and do their job for a few months and act motivated, you'd think they'd at least be whisked off to Hamburger U and become a manager.
That's when I started to reflect upon how the school system is truly failing its students.
Somewhere along the way, someone got the idea into their noggin that high school should simply be a preparatory institution to go onto other schooling. In Europe, they divert students into one of two tracts. They'll either put them on the university tract, or they send them off to learn a trade.
People in the Oprah Winfrey age can't handle this. Saying that the child needs to learn a trade is like saying that this child is never going to be President. Somebody is telling that child "no," and by golly, we should know better than to tell that child "no!" We have irreparably crushed that child into thinking they are worthless if we don't demand that they take classes where they can read poetry.
They think that we can cram every last child into the few computer programming, doctor, lawyer, and teacher job, regardless of their abilities. However, what ends up happening instead is that the school system ends up prolonging the agony where they puke out an 18 year old who is incapable of simply walking into a dental hygienist job and now must find money that they don't have to pay for additional schooling.
How many more students would we keep in high school if the schools offered free training in a trade? How many students look around them and see that John, who dropped out of school in the 10th grade, is working the exact same job as Mark, who actually graduated with a diploma?
Nobody wants to actually sit down with these people and learn what is wrong. They're the same set that think that teenage pregnancy is being glorified because these women were placed in front of a camera--never mind that teenagers were popping out babies for centuries before this show came along. They're the same people who thought that keeping rap music off of the radio would make gangs go away.
The sheer fact that so many students don't finish high school should be a big enough clue that the current system isn't working. Yet, we continue to press onward in a fantasy that every single child will eventually graduate from college in the same way that we choose to believe that we can completely eradicate teenage sex and underage drinking.
Maybe Oprahfication is responsible for the lack of technical training. Sometimes, I wonder if its simply cheaper for the school to not offer technical training in the way way that its great business for law schools to pack as many people into a classroom and charge them out the wazoo. Instead, they can make the colleges happy by making sure that their territory isn't encroached upon. If that's the case, surely we can just bus the high school students over to the community college and let them take those same classes on the taxpayer dime.
I thought about it.
Honestly, we all know that you need some sort of training to have some job skills that don't involve being a cashier for the rest of eternity. But what options are there for the poor?
The jobs I'm thinking of require some training, but the wages aren't that amazing in spite of the fact that you forked out a few grand for schooling. Naturally, you would have to get a loan. However, we all know what happens the minute that something happens and you miss payments. Suddenly, that piddling amount of money balloons in a way that would make a loan shark in the Ukraine smile. Now, that debtor is turning tricks in a Turkish brothel and will be left paying the ever-expanding loan to their handlers until they are all clapped out and past menopause.
So, I seriously sat there and wondered if it would be worth the risk for such a person to go to school. Sure, they're going to make shit working as a cashier, but if they show up and do their job for a few months and act motivated, you'd think they'd at least be whisked off to Hamburger U and become a manager.
That's when I started to reflect upon how the school system is truly failing its students.
Somewhere along the way, someone got the idea into their noggin that high school should simply be a preparatory institution to go onto other schooling. In Europe, they divert students into one of two tracts. They'll either put them on the university tract, or they send them off to learn a trade.
People in the Oprah Winfrey age can't handle this. Saying that the child needs to learn a trade is like saying that this child is never going to be President. Somebody is telling that child "no," and by golly, we should know better than to tell that child "no!" We have irreparably crushed that child into thinking they are worthless if we don't demand that they take classes where they can read poetry.
They think that we can cram every last child into the few computer programming, doctor, lawyer, and teacher job, regardless of their abilities. However, what ends up happening instead is that the school system ends up prolonging the agony where they puke out an 18 year old who is incapable of simply walking into a dental hygienist job and now must find money that they don't have to pay for additional schooling.
How many more students would we keep in high school if the schools offered free training in a trade? How many students look around them and see that John, who dropped out of school in the 10th grade, is working the exact same job as Mark, who actually graduated with a diploma?
Nobody wants to actually sit down with these people and learn what is wrong. They're the same set that think that teenage pregnancy is being glorified because these women were placed in front of a camera--never mind that teenagers were popping out babies for centuries before this show came along. They're the same people who thought that keeping rap music off of the radio would make gangs go away.
The sheer fact that so many students don't finish high school should be a big enough clue that the current system isn't working. Yet, we continue to press onward in a fantasy that every single child will eventually graduate from college in the same way that we choose to believe that we can completely eradicate teenage sex and underage drinking.
Maybe Oprahfication is responsible for the lack of technical training. Sometimes, I wonder if its simply cheaper for the school to not offer technical training in the way way that its great business for law schools to pack as many people into a classroom and charge them out the wazoo. Instead, they can make the colleges happy by making sure that their territory isn't encroached upon. If that's the case, surely we can just bus the high school students over to the community college and let them take those same classes on the taxpayer dime.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Drug Addiction is not that Funny After All.
Charlie Sheen performed his first "Torpedo of Truth" show in Detroit. I will refrain from using a pun on how he torpedoed his own show as I am not a hack.
It can only get better from here, Charlie.
I was curious as to how a white guy who got his break because of his family connections and who is now complaining that his employer asked him to curtail his substance use, would fly in Detroit.
It's a bit like being Tom Collichio when complaining that your rack of lamb was slightly overcooked when there are people digging in their couch cushions in order to buy something off of the dollar menu. Yet, he's taking his great tragedy on a nationwide tour.
I'm not sure what these people were thinking they were going to find when they decided to go to the show. God knows how many strung out people on the sidewalks they stepped over and fled from while going to the theater. Yet, they handed over their hard-earned cash to some guy that they already know is going to put it straight up his nose. Poor Golden Voice Guy got literally 15 minutes of fame before people figured out he wasn't just a cuddly, smiling, homeless guy. So, what is different? What motivated this audience to show up with actual expectations of actually seeing a professional show on the same level as Conan O'Brien?
The only thing I can think of is that they must view him as some sort of anti-hero. Just like how President George W. Bush won the election based upon the false belief created in people's minds that he is the President that the average person could have a beer with, Charlie Sheen must have tapped into that same mentality. He became their funny drunk friend with all of the bat shit stories.
"He's just the life of the party. Just like Ted. Ted's cool because he gets super wasted and always has the best stories of how he woke up in the bottom of the dumpster after he got his ass kicked by a tranny."
That, or the audience viewed him as the fellow creature who lost his job, but was in the position to actually say something about it. There is none of this keeping quiet out of fear that the next employer will think that they are a complainer or were let go for a real reason. No, by golly! This guy organized an entire tour and let the entire world know that it sucks to be trod on by the Man!
However, Charlie Sheen trots out there, and suddenly, the audience sees for themselves that he is not their anti-hero. In fact, his life isn't anything like theirs. He lives in Hollywood and never once had to hold a job like they've held one. He's had a string of marriages to beautiful women and lived a lifestyle that they cannot imagine. They had mistaken "Duh, winning!" for sheer stand-up comedic prowess on the level of George Carlin. All of the hopes and expectations of what this guy is instantly evaporated. They saw a person who was severely affected by his problems and who they absolutely cannot relate to.
Instead of acknowledging that they got what they paid for, they chose to boo him as if they got ripped off.
You knew he wasn't a standup comedian.
You knew he had a lot of problems in his life.
You paid to see a trainwreck, and now you are pissed because that's exactly what you got.
THE END.
It can only get better from here, Charlie.
I was curious as to how a white guy who got his break because of his family connections and who is now complaining that his employer asked him to curtail his substance use, would fly in Detroit.
It's a bit like being Tom Collichio when complaining that your rack of lamb was slightly overcooked when there are people digging in their couch cushions in order to buy something off of the dollar menu. Yet, he's taking his great tragedy on a nationwide tour.
I'm not sure what these people were thinking they were going to find when they decided to go to the show. God knows how many strung out people on the sidewalks they stepped over and fled from while going to the theater. Yet, they handed over their hard-earned cash to some guy that they already know is going to put it straight up his nose. Poor Golden Voice Guy got literally 15 minutes of fame before people figured out he wasn't just a cuddly, smiling, homeless guy. So, what is different? What motivated this audience to show up with actual expectations of actually seeing a professional show on the same level as Conan O'Brien?
The only thing I can think of is that they must view him as some sort of anti-hero. Just like how President George W. Bush won the election based upon the false belief created in people's minds that he is the President that the average person could have a beer with, Charlie Sheen must have tapped into that same mentality. He became their funny drunk friend with all of the bat shit stories.
"He's just the life of the party. Just like Ted. Ted's cool because he gets super wasted and always has the best stories of how he woke up in the bottom of the dumpster after he got his ass kicked by a tranny."
That, or the audience viewed him as the fellow creature who lost his job, but was in the position to actually say something about it. There is none of this keeping quiet out of fear that the next employer will think that they are a complainer or were let go for a real reason. No, by golly! This guy organized an entire tour and let the entire world know that it sucks to be trod on by the Man!
However, Charlie Sheen trots out there, and suddenly, the audience sees for themselves that he is not their anti-hero. In fact, his life isn't anything like theirs. He lives in Hollywood and never once had to hold a job like they've held one. He's had a string of marriages to beautiful women and lived a lifestyle that they cannot imagine. They had mistaken "Duh, winning!" for sheer stand-up comedic prowess on the level of George Carlin. All of the hopes and expectations of what this guy is instantly evaporated. They saw a person who was severely affected by his problems and who they absolutely cannot relate to.
Instead of acknowledging that they got what they paid for, they chose to boo him as if they got ripped off.
You knew he wasn't a standup comedian.
You knew he had a lot of problems in his life.
You paid to see a trainwreck, and now you are pissed because that's exactly what you got.
THE END.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
This Week on Frontline....Something Unexpected
I noted that there will be a repeat of the story about the for-profit schools.
College, inc.
Digging around on the website, I found a section documenting the response to the subject. I stumbled across a letter in which directors of homeless shelters railed about how the schools were deliberately recruiting students from the homeless ranks and sticking them with a worthless degree. That in itself is not news.
However, Frontline then revealed something a tiny bit odd about the origin of the letter through a link:
Down the rabbit hole we go...
To simplify, what they are saying is that there is a certain group of people who buy stocks in these companies with the expectation that the shares will drop in price so that they will short sell the stocks. What's more, they have gone as far as to engage the services of others to publicly trash these companies so that they can help increase the drop in price.
Now, I'm not saying that these schools that promise you a degree in basket weaving are noble heroes. What I want to know is why is this phenomenon not more widely known or taken into account in media coverage?
Sure, I can legitimately see this happening, so I'm not questioning the validity of the article. It's just that I can't see publicly traded universities being the only investment out there that is the target of special interest groups such as this.
It's a bit like the dot.com bubble all over again. Many of those companies raised capital fairly quickly and spent it down to nothing in the span of a year or more by wasting it on everything from salaries that were out of step with the market, high dollar advertisements, and fancy amenities. In the end, certain people cleanly walked away with some of that money. Yet, even though it was staring everyone in the face, it wasn't until these companies gasped their last breath and had their bones danced upon by the Feds that anybody really bothered to assess what was really going on during that time.
I personally find this sort of thing to be interesting because it adds another depth to the discussion. In essence, the very owners of these schools (stockholders are owners of corporations, n'est-ce pas?) are praying for their product's destruction. They are glad for every single one of those homeless people who come out saddled with $80,000 in debt and nothing to show for it beyond an associate's degree in polishing turds because those people only function as an argument for the stock price to be driven down.
College, inc.
Digging around on the website, I found a section documenting the response to the subject. I stumbled across a letter in which directors of homeless shelters railed about how the schools were deliberately recruiting students from the homeless ranks and sticking them with a worthless degree. That in itself is not news.
However, Frontline then revealed something a tiny bit odd about the origin of the letter through a link:
Down the rabbit hole we go...
To simplify, what they are saying is that there is a certain group of people who buy stocks in these companies with the expectation that the shares will drop in price so that they will short sell the stocks. What's more, they have gone as far as to engage the services of others to publicly trash these companies so that they can help increase the drop in price.
Now, I'm not saying that these schools that promise you a degree in basket weaving are noble heroes. What I want to know is why is this phenomenon not more widely known or taken into account in media coverage?
Sure, I can legitimately see this happening, so I'm not questioning the validity of the article. It's just that I can't see publicly traded universities being the only investment out there that is the target of special interest groups such as this.
It's a bit like the dot.com bubble all over again. Many of those companies raised capital fairly quickly and spent it down to nothing in the span of a year or more by wasting it on everything from salaries that were out of step with the market, high dollar advertisements, and fancy amenities. In the end, certain people cleanly walked away with some of that money. Yet, even though it was staring everyone in the face, it wasn't until these companies gasped their last breath and had their bones danced upon by the Feds that anybody really bothered to assess what was really going on during that time.
I personally find this sort of thing to be interesting because it adds another depth to the discussion. In essence, the very owners of these schools (stockholders are owners of corporations, n'est-ce pas?) are praying for their product's destruction. They are glad for every single one of those homeless people who come out saddled with $80,000 in debt and nothing to show for it beyond an associate's degree in polishing turds because those people only function as an argument for the stock price to be driven down.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
I.B.R. vs. I Be Po'
I am intrigued by Income Based Repayment and trying to figure out how it stacks up as an actual aid to borrowers, or if it leaves people paying more in the long run.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding of how it works:
They take your loans and info about your income and personal circumstances. They run everything through a magic machine to determine what your monthly payments are. Every year, they dig through your earnings and adjust your payments accordingly. If your monthly payments are computed to be less than what you would pay on interest, the government picks up the difference for the first 3 years of repayment.
However, IF you start making too much money and your computed payments turn out to be more than what you would pay on standard repayment, then you make your payments at the standard repayment level.
If you work in public service and started paying your loans back in 2008, then the remainder of your loans are forgiven after making 10 years' worth of "qualifying payments" either at IBR level or at standard repayment level. No other repayment plan can be substituted as a qualifying payment.
If you work in a regular old job, then the balance of your loans is wiped clean after 25 years (if you meet all of their requirements).
Now, the latter one sounds like it would be difficult to actually achieve. I don't even want to know how much money someone is going to shell out in interest over the course of two decades. Barring that, let's say that at year 10 of repayment and you had a relatively small loan principal to begin with (about $100,000). And, because you came into the right financial circumstances, you are now paying what you would pay at standard repayment levels. Does that push up your repayment date? What I mean is, does the lender calculate your payments based upon the expectation that it will take you 30 years to repay your loan even if you are now paying more? Or, do they say, "based upon your monthly payments, you should have this loan paid off by year 20," which means that you'll never get to the magical 25 year mark?
I point out that it's usually better to pay things off sooner so that you aren't wasting money on unnecessary interest. However, if the latter is the case, I wonder how many people out there might have been motivated to pay extra every month just to get rid of their student loans and pay less in interest over the life of the loan instead of thinking that they'll get a big chunk of their debt wiped away.
Additionally, it seems like it would be very hard for for a borrower to be able to anticipate how this repayment plan will financially benefit the borrower the most.
If you owe $250,000 in student loan debt, and can see the writing on the wall that you will always have a $30,000 a year job and are never going to marry someone rich, it looks like more of a no-brainer that your loans might make it to the 25 year mark (even if it will make you cry how much money you spent on interest making it to that milestone).
As for public interest jobs, the question becomes slightly different. The quandary becomes this:
Would it be better to eat top ramen and pay off your loans in about 5-7 years, or should you just go ahead and ride the white lightening for the full 10 years?
Yes, I know the answer depends heavily upon how much you owe and the income you have over the next 10 years. But, once again, let's say that a person had a principal of less than $100,000, and they expected to make about $60,000 by the 4th year of their employment, is that person better off living in a shed and paying above the monthly amount? Or, should they just make the minimum payments on IBR for 10 years with the full expectation that they will always work in public service for that entire decade and wait to see what debt gets wiped away?
I know there are money gurus out there who could calculate this stuff faster than Rain Man, but they still can't calculate variables such as your promotional potential, whether you lose that job due to unforeseen circumstances, or if they give up on public service at year 7 of repayment, which would then presumably put them on the road to the "25 or die" track unless they go back to public service at some point in the future. Unless you owe a very large student loan debt, at which it is going to be hard to pay the full standard repayment amount regardless of what happens in your career, it seems like people who are right on the edge could end up paying more than what they had to should they make the wrong decision (whether it be to try to pay off the debt early or to do IBR for the full 10 years).
What do you think?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding of how it works:
They take your loans and info about your income and personal circumstances. They run everything through a magic machine to determine what your monthly payments are. Every year, they dig through your earnings and adjust your payments accordingly. If your monthly payments are computed to be less than what you would pay on interest, the government picks up the difference for the first 3 years of repayment.
However, IF you start making too much money and your computed payments turn out to be more than what you would pay on standard repayment, then you make your payments at the standard repayment level.
If you work in public service and started paying your loans back in 2008, then the remainder of your loans are forgiven after making 10 years' worth of "qualifying payments" either at IBR level or at standard repayment level. No other repayment plan can be substituted as a qualifying payment.
If you work in a regular old job, then the balance of your loans is wiped clean after 25 years (if you meet all of their requirements).
Now, the latter one sounds like it would be difficult to actually achieve. I don't even want to know how much money someone is going to shell out in interest over the course of two decades. Barring that, let's say that at year 10 of repayment and you had a relatively small loan principal to begin with (about $100,000). And, because you came into the right financial circumstances, you are now paying what you would pay at standard repayment levels. Does that push up your repayment date? What I mean is, does the lender calculate your payments based upon the expectation that it will take you 30 years to repay your loan even if you are now paying more? Or, do they say, "based upon your monthly payments, you should have this loan paid off by year 20," which means that you'll never get to the magical 25 year mark?
I point out that it's usually better to pay things off sooner so that you aren't wasting money on unnecessary interest. However, if the latter is the case, I wonder how many people out there might have been motivated to pay extra every month just to get rid of their student loans and pay less in interest over the life of the loan instead of thinking that they'll get a big chunk of their debt wiped away.
Additionally, it seems like it would be very hard for for a borrower to be able to anticipate how this repayment plan will financially benefit the borrower the most.
If you owe $250,000 in student loan debt, and can see the writing on the wall that you will always have a $30,000 a year job and are never going to marry someone rich, it looks like more of a no-brainer that your loans might make it to the 25 year mark (even if it will make you cry how much money you spent on interest making it to that milestone).
As for public interest jobs, the question becomes slightly different. The quandary becomes this:
Would it be better to eat top ramen and pay off your loans in about 5-7 years, or should you just go ahead and ride the white lightening for the full 10 years?
Yes, I know the answer depends heavily upon how much you owe and the income you have over the next 10 years. But, once again, let's say that a person had a principal of less than $100,000, and they expected to make about $60,000 by the 4th year of their employment, is that person better off living in a shed and paying above the monthly amount? Or, should they just make the minimum payments on IBR for 10 years with the full expectation that they will always work in public service for that entire decade and wait to see what debt gets wiped away?
I know there are money gurus out there who could calculate this stuff faster than Rain Man, but they still can't calculate variables such as your promotional potential, whether you lose that job due to unforeseen circumstances, or if they give up on public service at year 7 of repayment, which would then presumably put them on the road to the "25 or die" track unless they go back to public service at some point in the future. Unless you owe a very large student loan debt, at which it is going to be hard to pay the full standard repayment amount regardless of what happens in your career, it seems like people who are right on the edge could end up paying more than what they had to should they make the wrong decision (whether it be to try to pay off the debt early or to do IBR for the full 10 years).
What do you think?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Waste that Money in a Way that Will Make You Happy
I wish word would spread far and wide to the "if only I had a degree in X, I will be saved from my misery" crowd that another degree isn't going to save them.
I have your interests at heart, my friend, and it's time for some tough love. I may look like a hypocrite because I've got the letters "J.D." after my name, but if you were looking for buried IED's, and you sent Private Tim out there to find the bombs, and he hobbles back carrying his bloody limb, would you doubt his word that there were explosives buried beneath the road?
If you go into something like nursing or teaching about 10 years into your career, you actually stand a decent shot of beginning a new career without a lot of pain.
If you are going back to school because you think a MBA or some other degree is going to magically open a door to the riches you were denied, I have a better idea: Why don't you get a credit card with a $50,000 limit and use it to buy airline trips to Cancun, triple mocha lattes from Starbucks every day of the week, a brand new stereo system, a 3-D television, Prada clothing, and front row tickets to see the Rolling Stones?
Come on. You might as well put that money to actual use, and in a way that will make you happy. We all know that most of you tossing around the "maybe I'll get a M.B.A." aren't really that interested in business. If you were that interested in business, you would actually sit down with a few trade papers.
Still, you reply, "buying thousands of dollars worth of mocha lattes sounds like a complete waste of money! A business degree will help me make money!"
Will it?
Just like the law, the high-paying jobs are only available to the very few from the top schools, with special emphasis on the young.
And here you are. You've probably already established a family and are in a comfortable routine, even if you want more money or to get away from your dead-end situation. Yet, if you're going to school because you don't want to take one for the team and pick up and move yours stuff to another city where they might be more opportunity, I am not sure what you think additional schooling is going to bring.
If you graduate with an M.B.A., only to find out that the job market in your chosen city is bone dry, what will you do then?
You can become like a lot of other people and simply let that new degree gather dust on the shelf while you continue to work in the bull shit job you were working before-hand while secretly harboring hope that someone will respond to your resumes.
It is sort of like if a sous chef from a 3-star French restaurant decided to move to Boonie Lake, Arkansas and is surprised that they can't find any fancy restaurants to work in.
Even so, you might find jobs in your chosen abode. As so happens in many of these cases, you may also feel offended that these starter jobs pay so little. Now, you have a house, family, and student loan debt. You were counting upon the big salaries that you had read in a tiny blurb in U.S.A. Today, but as I said, those jobs went to a select few. Again, the degree gathers dust. This is especially true of those who were actually making good money before they went back to school. It never fully crosses their mind that employers aren't that excited about what they used to do. In fact, those people tend to be the biggest losers as it is only after they sunk all of that money and time into that degree that they are fully confronted by the reality that it didn't double their salary. They even discover to their horror that their salary noticeably shrank because that added income is now going to pay for student loans, and will be doing so for the next 10-30 years.
So, what I propose is that you actually enjoy that money with fabulous vacations to China and pay it off at a crippling interest rate instead of having years of your life being eaten up by boring subject matter and hours of study that have robbed you of time with friends and family and THEN paying a crippling interest rate. You get to go to China, have a constant caffeine high on the good stuff (instead of being relegated to Maxwell House), and dress well.
In fact, quit being a wuss and cut out the middle man and go ahead and start applying for jobs elsewhere with your current background because that is what is going to end up happening with the new degree.
I have your interests at heart, my friend, and it's time for some tough love. I may look like a hypocrite because I've got the letters "J.D." after my name, but if you were looking for buried IED's, and you sent Private Tim out there to find the bombs, and he hobbles back carrying his bloody limb, would you doubt his word that there were explosives buried beneath the road?
If you go into something like nursing or teaching about 10 years into your career, you actually stand a decent shot of beginning a new career without a lot of pain.
If you are going back to school because you think a MBA or some other degree is going to magically open a door to the riches you were denied, I have a better idea: Why don't you get a credit card with a $50,000 limit and use it to buy airline trips to Cancun, triple mocha lattes from Starbucks every day of the week, a brand new stereo system, a 3-D television, Prada clothing, and front row tickets to see the Rolling Stones?
Come on. You might as well put that money to actual use, and in a way that will make you happy. We all know that most of you tossing around the "maybe I'll get a M.B.A." aren't really that interested in business. If you were that interested in business, you would actually sit down with a few trade papers.
Still, you reply, "buying thousands of dollars worth of mocha lattes sounds like a complete waste of money! A business degree will help me make money!"
Will it?
Just like the law, the high-paying jobs are only available to the very few from the top schools, with special emphasis on the young.
And here you are. You've probably already established a family and are in a comfortable routine, even if you want more money or to get away from your dead-end situation. Yet, if you're going to school because you don't want to take one for the team and pick up and move yours stuff to another city where they might be more opportunity, I am not sure what you think additional schooling is going to bring.
If you graduate with an M.B.A., only to find out that the job market in your chosen city is bone dry, what will you do then?
You can become like a lot of other people and simply let that new degree gather dust on the shelf while you continue to work in the bull shit job you were working before-hand while secretly harboring hope that someone will respond to your resumes.
It is sort of like if a sous chef from a 3-star French restaurant decided to move to Boonie Lake, Arkansas and is surprised that they can't find any fancy restaurants to work in.
Even so, you might find jobs in your chosen abode. As so happens in many of these cases, you may also feel offended that these starter jobs pay so little. Now, you have a house, family, and student loan debt. You were counting upon the big salaries that you had read in a tiny blurb in U.S.A. Today, but as I said, those jobs went to a select few. Again, the degree gathers dust. This is especially true of those who were actually making good money before they went back to school. It never fully crosses their mind that employers aren't that excited about what they used to do. In fact, those people tend to be the biggest losers as it is only after they sunk all of that money and time into that degree that they are fully confronted by the reality that it didn't double their salary. They even discover to their horror that their salary noticeably shrank because that added income is now going to pay for student loans, and will be doing so for the next 10-30 years.
So, what I propose is that you actually enjoy that money with fabulous vacations to China and pay it off at a crippling interest rate instead of having years of your life being eaten up by boring subject matter and hours of study that have robbed you of time with friends and family and THEN paying a crippling interest rate. You get to go to China, have a constant caffeine high on the good stuff (instead of being relegated to Maxwell House), and dress well.
In fact, quit being a wuss and cut out the middle man and go ahead and start applying for jobs elsewhere with your current background because that is what is going to end up happening with the new degree.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Why More American't Don't Travel Abroad
As this is a blog that also touches upon the prospects of education and upward mobility, I thought I would share this article from CNN:
Why American's Don't Travel Abroad
When explaining why only 30% of Americans hold a passport, the article boiled down the problem down this way:
"Why there is no such thing as rampant poverty, unemployment, and jobs that don't permit you to travel at will! Nobody travels because they persist in their backwards, racist, hatred of foreigners!"
Once again, another American commits the crime of believing that foreigners do not engage in racism. Back in the 1960's, about 20 years after the holocaust, some European hotel let Sammy Davis Junior stay in the same room that other people would stay in. Now, they've gone from a land of genocide to being a post-racial utopia whose example we can all learn from.
Anyway, I think it was a bit too depressing for this travel expert to recall the exact number of people who live below the poverty line. In 2009, one in six in the U.S. experienced food scarcity at some point during the year. A large portion of those people depended upon handouts to be able to eat, and many got into that position because they had issues with employment, because they were either unemployed or had to take a lower-paying job. Pray tell, where are those people supposed to find $3,000 to jaunt off to Europe and live off of authentic pizza from Napoli like Julia Roberts?
In spite of the fact that the actual author of Eat, Pray, Love paid with her trip with an advance from her publisher to write about the experience, what that book sells is only slightly different from what is said in the CNN article: You're supposed to "throw caution to the wind" and live abroad for a year to "find yourself" because the money is going to magically appear in your couch cushion. Nevermind that you don't have money to eat and pay your bills.
Also, I wonder how many Americans out there who are gainfully employed, but who have had such a big chunk of their salary wiped out by student loans that they can't even think of going to Europe? Maybe they could have gone on the cheap about 10 years ago with that $30,000 a year salary because they owed much less in student loan debt. Now, if you're sending about $600 a month to Sallie Mae, on top of paying more in health insurance premiums, rent, and gasoline, a $3,000 trip is much more extravagant. In fact, I know lots of people who would love to go to Europe, but the cost is too high in spite of what the jackal in the CNN article says. If people are living at home because they cannot afford to have their own apartment, it would be a tad irresponsible to even go on a "cheap" vacation to Ireland. If you are already barely making it to the end of the month as far as paying the bills, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you don't have any extra money to pay for a trip to Europe.
And if we're going to acknowledge that the majority of jobs don't pay enough for a luxury trip, then we can also point the finger at the fact that two weeks of vacation is not enough to live out those fantasies. That is, unless you want to work through the holidays without going home for Christmas, forego traveling to see your sister in Wisconsin during the summer, having any three day weekends to relax, or taking days off to run some necessary errands. Unless your family lives in town, you are single, have no children, and have a constitution of iron where you can go for months without taking a day off, and are lucky enough that you will never need to take a day off to meet with a repair person because of plumbing and cable issues, saving up enough vacation time to be able to go somewhere for an extended period of time is difficult.
...That is, if you are lucky enough to work in a place that offers paid vacation, and does not frown upon their employees taking several days off in a row.
Yes, so, in spite of this person's theory that America is so incredibly affluent that everybody should be spending months in Europe, the reality is that, even for the people who aren't too poor to travel, there are many more who can't simply because of logistics.
Why American's Don't Travel Abroad
When explaining why only 30% of Americans hold a passport, the article boiled down the problem down this way:
Tourism experts and avid travelers attribute Americans' lack of interest in international travel to a few key factors, including: the United States' own rich cultural and geographic diversity, an American skepticism and/or ignorance about international destinations, a work culture that prevents Americans from taking long vacations abroad and the prohibitive cost and logistics of going overseas.Yes, it is like someone from the Land of the Out of Touch had a baby with the NPR Junkie. Sort of like a Glenn Beck meets the Academic liberal.
"Why there is no such thing as rampant poverty, unemployment, and jobs that don't permit you to travel at will! Nobody travels because they persist in their backwards, racist, hatred of foreigners!"
Once again, another American commits the crime of believing that foreigners do not engage in racism. Back in the 1960's, about 20 years after the holocaust, some European hotel let Sammy Davis Junior stay in the same room that other people would stay in. Now, they've gone from a land of genocide to being a post-racial utopia whose example we can all learn from.
Anyway, I think it was a bit too depressing for this travel expert to recall the exact number of people who live below the poverty line. In 2009, one in six in the U.S. experienced food scarcity at some point during the year. A large portion of those people depended upon handouts to be able to eat, and many got into that position because they had issues with employment, because they were either unemployed or had to take a lower-paying job. Pray tell, where are those people supposed to find $3,000 to jaunt off to Europe and live off of authentic pizza from Napoli like Julia Roberts?
In spite of the fact that the actual author of Eat, Pray, Love paid with her trip with an advance from her publisher to write about the experience, what that book sells is only slightly different from what is said in the CNN article: You're supposed to "throw caution to the wind" and live abroad for a year to "find yourself" because the money is going to magically appear in your couch cushion. Nevermind that you don't have money to eat and pay your bills.
Also, I wonder how many Americans out there who are gainfully employed, but who have had such a big chunk of their salary wiped out by student loans that they can't even think of going to Europe? Maybe they could have gone on the cheap about 10 years ago with that $30,000 a year salary because they owed much less in student loan debt. Now, if you're sending about $600 a month to Sallie Mae, on top of paying more in health insurance premiums, rent, and gasoline, a $3,000 trip is much more extravagant. In fact, I know lots of people who would love to go to Europe, but the cost is too high in spite of what the jackal in the CNN article says. If people are living at home because they cannot afford to have their own apartment, it would be a tad irresponsible to even go on a "cheap" vacation to Ireland. If you are already barely making it to the end of the month as far as paying the bills, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you don't have any extra money to pay for a trip to Europe.
And if we're going to acknowledge that the majority of jobs don't pay enough for a luxury trip, then we can also point the finger at the fact that two weeks of vacation is not enough to live out those fantasies. That is, unless you want to work through the holidays without going home for Christmas, forego traveling to see your sister in Wisconsin during the summer, having any three day weekends to relax, or taking days off to run some necessary errands. Unless your family lives in town, you are single, have no children, and have a constitution of iron where you can go for months without taking a day off, and are lucky enough that you will never need to take a day off to meet with a repair person because of plumbing and cable issues, saving up enough vacation time to be able to go somewhere for an extended period of time is difficult.
...That is, if you are lucky enough to work in a place that offers paid vacation, and does not frown upon their employees taking several days off in a row.
Yes, so, in spite of this person's theory that America is so incredibly affluent that everybody should be spending months in Europe, the reality is that, even for the people who aren't too poor to travel, there are many more who can't simply because of logistics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)