Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:why does an art degree cost 160k?

Undergrad degrees at many schools cost >$160k. One should probably not take out a loan for $160+k if they can help it, particularly if the prospects for lucrative employment upon graduation are dim. Many fields require advanced education beyond undergrad to get the desired job.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:why does an art degree cost 160k?

Undergrad degrees at many schools cost >$160k. One should probably not take out a loan for $160+k if they can help it, particularly if the prospects for lucrative employment upon graduation are dim. Many fields require advanced education beyond undergrad to get the desired job.

You don't really mean that passage I've italicized.

What you mean is that despite individuals not actually requiring the advanced education to satisfactorily perform the job, employers insist upon evidence of it anyway. Most people don't outright fake the officially required credentials, though there are plenty of examples, in plenty of professions, of people who have successfully performed such occupations lacking practically any aspect of the academic requirements. Many probably should consider faking them, when they are required.

Increasingly jobs, especially "good" jobs, have aught to do with skills and talents, and plenty to do with connections tangential to performance of actual work. We've gotten to a place where jobs and work are ever more distantly related.

And I believe we might agree that within the truth of this observation lies an important element of our social challenge.

Werthless wrote:the math doesnt add up. It doesnt matter if it's privately funded or funded by your employer; one must put a lot of money of way per year if one is to expect that 30 years of work will fund 30+ years of retirement and health care. The fact that the auto workers had previously successfully negotiated for unsustainable pension plans (that the companies could not affford) does mean that pension plans are clearly superior to 401k plans.

Werthless wrote:No, I mean it. If you want to:

1. Practice medicine.
2. Be a lawyer.
3. Practice psychology.
4. Teach at the college level.

These all require advanced degrees to GET the job that you want.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:the math doesnt add up. It doesnt matter if it's privately funded or funded by your employer; one must put a lot of money of way per year if one is to expect that 30 years of work will fund 30+ years of retirement and health care. The fact that the auto workers had previously successfully negotiated for unsustainable pension plans (that the companies could not affford) does mean that pension plans are clearly superior to 401k plans.

let's see; who's the more perfidious in that equation - the employees who conceded current earnings in return for the employer's promises regarding pension payments, or the lying (hey, they're not stupid, so they must be lying) employers who knew they wouldn't be able to honor those promises?

It's not math - it's integrity. Or if you prefer, it's human nature. People don't honor contracts generally, and don't honor long term contracts especially. Management - "ownership" if you prefer - have not honored their end of the bargain.

And in the case of public pension promises, management is us

allentown wrote:The stock half of my 401K took a pounding but has fully recovered. If [redacted] got creamed, likely he switched out of stocks near the bottom and didn't participate in what has been a very strong recovery. If you had normal, relatively safe and diverse stock portfolio and made no changes since the crash, you really should be whole today.

TenuredVulture wrote:Personal rate of return for 2012--14%. Thanks Obama! (That does unfortunately include my contributions. But still, better than a kick in the nads.)

drsmooth wrote:please god make Paul Broun the Republican nominee for Chambliss's US Senate seat

it's in Your hands almighty father

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:No, I mean it. If you want to:

1. Practice medicine.
2. Be a lawyer.
3. Practice psychology.
4. Teach at the college level.

These all require advanced degrees to GET the job that you want.

but not necessarily to DO the job you want. You understand the distinction.

swishnicholson wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:No, I mean it. If you want to:

1. Practice medicine.
2. Be a lawyer.
3. Practice psychology.
4. Teach at the college level.

These all require advanced degrees to GET the job that you want.

but not necessarily to DO the job you want. You understand the distinction.

Let's not forget librarians! Love you, dr, but I don't think werthless really neglected that distinction. You're being a little testy.

(I know, hard to believe, Harry!)

drsmooth wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:No, I mean it. If you want to:

1. Practice medicine.
2. Be a lawyer.
3. Practice psychology.
4. Teach at the college level.

These all require advanced degrees to GET the job that you want.

but not necessarily to DO the job you want. You understand the distinction.

Let's not forget librarians! Love you, dr, but I don't think werthless really neglected that distinction. You're being a little testy.

(I know, hard to believe, Harry!)

Good call - on the matter of the over-academicizing of the grubby realm of commerce, my skin's become so thin you can read a cot-tam sports message board right through it! The neglect of the distinction drains meaning from all discussion of education/jobs/future of the economy/life as we know or may imagine it. You read it here 1st.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:the math doesnt add up. It doesnt matter if it's privately funded or funded by your employer; one must put a lot of money of way per year if one is to expect that 30 years of work will fund 30+ years of retirement and health care. The fact that the auto workers had previously successfully negotiated for unsustainable pension plans (that the companies could not affford) does mean that pension plans are clearly superior to 401k plans.

let's see; who's the more perfidious in that equation - the employees who conceded current earnings in return for the employer's promises regarding pension payments, or the lying (hey, they're not stupid, so they must be lying) employers who knew they wouldn't be able to honor those promises?

It's not math - it's integrity. Or if you prefer, it's human nature. People don't honor contracts generally, and don't honor long term contracts especially. Management - "ownership" if you prefer - have not honored their end of the bargain.

And in the case of public pension promises, management is us

pacino wrote: this is much more fun, it's like a videah game!

Houshphandzadeh wrote:so what is the reason it would be legal for foreigners but not Americans?

I can understand being against drone strikes, but drawing the line at American citizenship makes no sense to me

jh said this better a few pages ago