|
In the closing days of the election, there were a handful of discussions with sentiments expressed that we seemed to be on a slow recovery poised for real economic movement in 2013, regardless of electoral outcome, and that the winner stood ready to inherit credit for any success. Now on the other side of 2013, there is some uncertainty whether we'll continue the slow growth, or if our legislature may tip us back into a recession or leave us treading water for longer then necessary. Largely credited to a drop in defense spending, it was announced on Wednesday that GDP dropped 0.1%. Despite steady private sector job growth, unemployment rose to 7.9%, and government hiring continues to remain stagnant. As another generational cohort begins to come of age, the lingering lack of movement among what is popularly termed the Millennial Generation (and what many of us on the forums like to think of as another Lost Generation) remains a continued concern. Unemployment among 18-29 year old is considerably higher than the national average. PRNewswire posted:
 Link What is even more worrisome is that the delay of finding a good entry level job hurts long term earnings. NBER posted:Graduating in a recession leads to large initial earnings losses. These losses, which amount to about 9 percent of annual earnings in the initial stage, eventually recede, but slowly -- halving within five years but not disappearing until about ten years after graduation. And furthermore, longterm unemployment makes it hard to find any job, let alone a good paying one. Not only leading to more permanent, structural unemployment but hampering economic growth well into the future and perpetuating these sorts of conditions for another generation of young people entering the workforce and graduating students. Forbes link Forbes Magazine posted:New Study: Long-Term Unemployment Viewed By Hiring Companies As Worse Than A Criminal Record What is most unfortunate and grating is despite these young people being at economic whims largely out of their control, the lazy and directionless caricature of millennials continues to persist, lending inertia to an ugly, self-perpetuating myth. Some among the young are ready to blame themselves for extravagant educations and put the nose back to grind stone. Among the older generation, boomers are resentful that their Boomeranging children still can't manage financial independence, and that older generations are suffering because of it. NYTimes blog posted:... And on the political agenda, domestically what seems to be grabbing attention are gun control and immigration reforms. In the upcoming budget fights entitlement spending is going to be an issue, but stimulus spending is likely going to be contentious, unlikely and not directed towards the young. Given the stigma attached to the long-term unemployed and the lingering inability for the young to begin their careers, a lack of focused attention from government actors stands a good chance of making this a multi-generational problem. The current democratic coalition ignores the issue at their own peril. National Journal[/quote posted:The Democratic coalition is centered on the millennial generation (young voters 18 to 30), women (especially single women), minorities, and the highly educated, and is geographically focused in the Northeast and West. In the context of all of this, what should this Lost Generation be pushing for in the upcoming budget discussions and the ongoing debate? For our cohort, it seems stimulus is greatly in need along with further extension of unemployment benefits. In pushing for stimulus, given the intransigence of the minority party, should the democratic coalition be open to entitlement cuts? Given the longterm effects of unemployment, lower starting wages and delayed career development on the young, should stimulus in short and medium term be more important than cuts to entitlement programs which remain decades out of reach? Or, is the pain inflicted on older generations and the delayed exit from the workforce not worth it? Where are we going to find the necessary pound of flesh?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 17:52 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 18:27 |
|
|
It has to begin with forgiving student loan debt. There is no greater financial burden on the young generation than that, and it fucks them up for decades.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 17:58 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It has to begin with forgiving student loan debt. There is no greater financial burden on the young generation than that, and it fucks them up for decades. While I do agree, I think it'll be far more workable to ensure they can pay back those loans. The drop in income and job opportunities, plus the rising cost of living, has made any debt untenable. Forgiving debt is not a real solution to the poo poo Millennials are in. It doesn't address the Boomer's working beyond retirement. It doesn't address the lower salaries of 30-somethings, even if they're paying for student loans. It doesn't address the massive fortunes of the top 200 families compared to everyone else, or the damaging things these 1%-ers do with their wealth.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 18:15 |
|
|
We should just implement a basic income and stop wringing our hands over some fake number.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 18:19 |
|
|
I absolutely agree that every single person should be guaranteed either a job with a livable wage or a livable subsidized income as they go to school. But lets be realistic here, there is literally no chance that happens in this political climate.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 18:39 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I absolutely agree that every single person should be guaranteed either a job with a livable wage or a livable subsidized income as they go to school. But lets be realistic here, there is literally no chance that happens in this political climate. I'm interested in right solutions, not viable ones. The "viable" solution would be to allow a hunting season on homeless people. Also, a basic income isn't a guaranteed job or a check while you go to school.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 20:18 |
|
|
redmercer posted:I'm interested in right solutions, not viable ones. The "viable" solution would be to allow a hunting season on homeless people. Also, a basic income isn't a guaranteed job or a check while you go to school. What is a basic income then? I'm not familiar with the term.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 20:22 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What is a basic income then? I'm not familiar with the term. The government will ensure that every citizen receives enough money to buy some very modest foo/shelter/medicine (something like $15k), then typically you prorate the benefits so that the subsidy tapers off as your income increases (such that you never make less money for earning more). It's offered to everyone, not just people going to school. The idea is that it provides an effective wage floor and reduces the leverage employers hold over their employees (which is why it'll never happen). If you're not getting enough hours to live or your employer is abusive or underpays then you have something to fall back on instead of staying in a bad situation or starving to death.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 20:29 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The government will ensure that every citizen receives enough money to buy some very modest foo/shelter/medicine (something like $15k), then typically you prorate the benefits so that the subsidy tapers off as your income increases (such that you never make less money for earning more). It's offered to everyone, not just people going to school. That sounds pretty good. Are there any countries that currently have that?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 20:37 |
|
|
If we couldn't accomplish universal healthcare, what chance does implementing basic income have?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 20:38 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:That sounds pretty good. Are there any countries that currently have that? The most prominent example: quote:Mincome is the name of an experimental Canadian Basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income actually caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be. I guess what I was actually describing was more of a negative income tax, whereas everyone receives a basic income and there's no pro-rating. quote:While the notion has long been popular in some circles, its implementation has never been politically feasible. This is partly because of the very complex and entrenched nature of most countries' current tax laws: they would have to be rewritten under any NIT system. However, some countries have seen the introduction of refundable (or non-wastable) tax credits which can be paid even when there is no tax liability to be offset, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit in the United States and working tax credit in the UK. Under President Richard Nixon, a NIT proposal almost made it through Congress.[7] For what it's worth it's an idea that sees equal support on the far left and the far right. Arch-conservative Milton Friedman was one of the original advocates of the negative income tax, as he viewed it as much more efficient and less patriarchal than administering an in-kind welfare system. Mandating that workers receive a minimum of a month of paid vacation per year isn't a bad idea as well. It would cut the labor supply which should lead to more people getting jobs.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 20:44 |
|
|
We can only create jobs when businesses are more profitable. Haven't you guys heard? The Dow passed 14,000 for the first time since late 2007! You're just Marxist naysayers trying to bring everyone down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdQ3ztGk0D4 This is from 1999, by the way.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 20:53 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Haven't you guys heard? The Dow passed 14,000 for the first time since late 2007! You're just Marxist naysayers trying to bring everyone down. "Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?" - Alan Greenspan, 12/5/96
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 20:58 |
|
|
I think he tried to walk that one back because it caused a market panic, lol Also in 2004 I thought we had already dealt with the 'irrational exuberance' in the slump that happened around September 11th, 2001  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQs0IzLTQu4 We need more tax cuts, clearly.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 21:03 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:That sounds pretty good. Are there any countries that currently have that? The formula is actually more complicated than that, but the basic idea is that entitlements aren't on/off. In theory, you get as much as you need to make up the gap between whatever you're earning from work and what you need to survive. Makes some sense, but then you have to ask the question that what's the point of any of it if the base dole isn't enough to survive off in the first place. In truth it very nearly is, but it's a much better deal if you live outside of the big cities where housing costs aren't utterly buttfucked. We also have a complicated but really quite good system for young people called Youth Allowance which works on similar principles, but is geared more towards students. If you're between 21 and 24 and a full-time student, you will get just over $400 per fortnight from the government, plus two ~$1000 lump sums at the start of each semester, plus potential additional money if you pay enough rent, scaled down much as with the dole if you have other income such as a job. The main catches here are: a) you don't get as much if you're not a student, and there are a lot of young unemployed people not in a uni or trade school; b) if you're under 21 you need to pass either a parental means test, or an 'independence' test, neither of which are particularly easy. Youth Allowance is a pretty good system overall, but I don't think it actually benefits the young people who actually need it most. I qualify for about 70% of the full payment at 23. As in, I could fill out some paperwork and the government would send me money with very few questions asked, on top of my generous government scholarship. And I sure as gently caress don't need it. But a lot of my peers when I was 18-20 absolutely did need it a hell of a lot more than they or I do now that we qualify for it, but there were a lot more hoops to jump though, in some cases for no more than $50 per fortnight. The younger you are, the more the government expects your family to support you, and it wants a lot more proof that you need what's on offer before you get it. It's not a broken system by any means when you look at many other countries' support systems for young people. But it's far from perfect either. There's also AUSTUDY which is basically a continuation of Youth Allowance for students over 24, but you can't get it if you're a research masters or PhD student, which is extremely stupid.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 21:38 |
|
|
When was Australia's current system set up? Has it been continously upgraded or was it mostly set up in a single go and then left alone ever since? Is the relative generosity of the system attacked by conservative parties? Are these systems in danger or still being expanded? If you don't feel like answering all of that or if you don't want to derail the thread too much then can you suggest a place I could read more?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 21:43 |
|
|
Things really suck. Personal story time: I'm a 25 year old guy. I started university in 2006, got a B.Sc. in History, and went to grad school. Was set to finish my M.A. thesis in Spring 2012, but also spent the semester applying to jobs in expectation of that. I had a 4.0 in the classes I had to take, and numerous awards for my research and writing. I even got accepted to my dream PhD program in Scotland, too. After hearing nothing for six months, and getting told that I was not qualified for an $8/hr secretarial job, I had a giant existential crisis and spent a week basically sitting in my bathtub with a bottle of whiskey and a gun. I ended up quitting school, since there was no chance of ever getting a job in academia (Which is what I wanted) or getting one in general. I ended up moving back home and spent another six months applying to jobs ranging from selling cars to working at the local pizza place. I got two callbacks out of hundreds of applications I sent out, but they never went anywhere. I gave up by November or so and am taking a few community college IT classes mainly so my parents don't end up kicking me out. Came very close to shooting myself a number of times during the fall, but I am on some new meds so that doesn't seem as likely anymore. I don't really know what I am going to do, or what I want to do. I'm lucky that my mother married a well-off guy, but they obviously don't like me sitting around unemployed, or understand how hard it is for young people right now. I don't really have any real reason for posting this beyond it's something I really needed to get out before I go insane. high six fucked around with this message at Feb 3, 2013 around 22:34 |
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 22:22 |
|
|
Helsing posted:When was Australia's current system set up? Has it been continously upgraded or was it mostly set up in a single go and then left alone ever since? Is the relative generosity of the system attacked by conservative parties? Are these systems in danger or still being expanded? I can't really answer questions about its history as I don't know. What I suspect is the case is that the generous foundations were laid in the 70s by the Whitlam government (which also made university completely and totally free for about three glorious years) and subsequently eroded over time by Tory governments, and probably reformed into something closely resembling their current state during the Keating years, with many a relabelling and reshuffling and needless complicating in the Howard era. Is the generosity of the program attacked? Hmm, not in general, I don't think. At least, not in the way you're probably imagining. We have a different system for indigenous students called ABSTUDY which pays a substantially higher base rate and has more flexibility with how much a student can earn. This is attacked regularly by idiots inside and outside politics who think its part of some sort of reparations scheme and a bunch of bleeding-heart liberal guilt-tripping faggotry. It's really just blatant social engineering built on simple accountancy designed to get black kids into trades and professions, thereby reducing the dependence of future adult indigenous generations on the dole. In fact, I think ABSTUDY may well be a thing the previous Tory government did. As for how much danger these programs are in, I don't think very much, really. I mean, we are likely to have a Prime Minister by the end of the year who, before he was Opposition Leader, suggested doing away with the dole for under 25s so as to encourage young people to fill labour shortages in our Western desert mines. But as stupid as this guy is, his party isn't ever going to simply do away with these programs or really overhaul them in any substantial way without a catastrophic change in this country's broad economic circumstances necessitating it. They'll be chipped away at in minor fashions and turned into bigger pains in the arse to actually get at, but the actual programs will likely remain. Tories can always gently caress stuff up with their cronyism if they want, but I think the cost-to-benefit ratio of these programs from the government's perspective is largely too good for them to screw them up too much, at least not directly and deliberately. Our national discourse on policy, as infantile as it is, tends to be about who has the better vision and plan on what to do with our outrageously fortunate position. We give a much smaller poo poo as a country about GOVERNMENT SPENDING than the USA does. The bigger threat as far as young people are concerned here is going to come in the form of a motherfucker of a property crash and a rise in the cost of education coupled with a decrease in the ease of paying said cost back through the government student loan scheme (a la the UK). humanservices.gov.au is where you should go if you want to learn the whats, whos, and how-muches of our myriad entitlement programs. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at Feb 3, 2013 around 23:02 |
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 22:54 |
|
|
high six posted:Came very close to shooting myself a number of times during the fall, but I am on some new meds so that doesn't seem as likely anymore. This is also another good point. Most of my friends are on or need to be on some form of pharmaceutical just to cope with their situations. Instead of providing "a good life" for all citizens, we're medicating everyone and just compensating for it. The Rat Society studies always come back to haunt me whenever I get to thinking about the poo poo we're in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink quote:In it, Calhoun described the behavior as follows: quote:Calhoun had phrased much of his work in anthropomorphic terms, in a way that made his ideas highly accessible to a lay audience.[5] Tom Wolfe wrote about the concept in his article "Oh Rotten Gotham! Sliding Down into the Behavioral Sink", later to be made into the last chapter of The Pump House Gang.[7] Lewis Mumford also referenced Calhoun's work in his The City in History,[8] stating that quote:Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against. After day 600 the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones”. quote:During his studies, Calhoun coined the term "behavioral sink" to describe aberrant behaviors in overcrowded population density situations and “beautiful ones” to describe passive individuals who withdrew from all social interaction.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 23:06 |
|
|
anonumos posted:This is also another good point. Most of my friends are on or need to be on some form of pharmaceutical just to cope with their situations. Instead of providing "a good life" for all citizens, we're medicating everyone and just compensating for it.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 23:17 |
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Why are you referencing rat studies on overpopulation? The problem is not that there are too many people, it's that there aren't enough jobs. Or, more specifically, the problem is that there is no viable mechanism for distributing goods and services that doesn't depend on each individual "earning" it through human labor, which we are needing less of every day. Calhoun's studies weren't just on overpopulation. He created rat utopias with plenty resources, but the societies collapsed because of a lack of niches within the population. You nailed it: there aren't enough ways to employ the human labor we have access to. In reality, we are nowhere near overpopulating the earth. In fact, birth rates are falling in just about every developed country (this is now considered a side-effect of development). Even China has begun to see a lack of population replacement. It refers not to physical overcrowding but, really, societal marginalization. anonumos fucked around with this message at Feb 3, 2013 around 23:29 |
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 23:25 |
|
|
high six posted:Things really suck. Have you looked into teaching English overseas?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2013 23:35 |
|
|
TheBalor posted:Have you looked into teaching English overseas? I know a few people doing this, but I'm not sure what the point is? More people speaking English won't make us any better or worse off as a global society - we're headed into really rough times with climate change and resource scarcity pushing us towards World War 3. Superpower politics are very hairy these days - we just like to pretend this isn't the case since history ended in the 90's. In America the Boomer generation sees the end of history as their great success; most of the Digitally-Inclined younger generations see reality with that narrative frame - famine, nuclear war, spies, army clashes - the messy politics of 19th and 20th century Europe - they are all seem imprisoned in history books. We feel safe and, like people always have; we blind ourselves to how bigger events shape our individual lives. But it's only a matter of time before the great social earthquakes of the 21st century take shape. Look at the Deep Space 9 episode 'Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges' - Bashir is living the end of history myth by assuming the Romulan-Federation Alliance means the two sides aren't still fighting a bitter conflict over territory/technology/resources. McDowell fucked around with this message at Feb 4, 2013 around 03:59 |
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 00:01 |
|
|
TheBalor posted:Have you looked into teaching English overseas? HAHAHAHAHA. Don't do this. All the advice I have gotten from the people I know in HR (my mum is in the field, and has a staggering network) is that teaching overseas is seen as a vacation, not even a working vacation. Don't try teaching overseas unless you really want to do it or have a job lined up when you get back; in most other situations it's just not worth it.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 00:16 |
|
|
McDowell posted:I know a few people doing this, but I'm not sure what the point is? More people speaking English won't make us any better of worse off as a global society - we're headed into really rough times with climate change and resource scarcity pushing us towards World War 3. Superpower politics are very hairy these days - we just like to pretend this isn't the case since history ended in the 90's. I think the point is that he can make money doing it.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 00:26 |
|
|
nutranurse posted:HAHAHAHAHA. Don't do this. All the advice I have gotten from the people I know in HR (my mum is in the field, and has a staggering network) is that teaching overseas is seen as a vacation, not even a working vacation. Don't try teaching overseas unless you really want to do it or have a job lined up when you get back; in most other situations it's just not worth it. If you've already hosed up badly enough that you are getting rejected from $8 an hour McJobs, surely there's not much lost.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 01:15 |
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Why are you referencing rat studies on overpopulation? The problem is not that there are too many people, it's that there aren't enough jobs. Or, more specifically, the problem is that there is no viable mechanism for distributing goods and services that doesn't depend on each individual "earning" it through human labor, which we are needing less of every day. Will people ever come to the realization that we as a society shouldn't demand that every single person needs to "earn" a living by working a job?
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 01:36 |
|
|
I've considered going overseas to teach English, but I don't think I'm of the mental fortitude right now to pick up and leave everything familiar, including my support network. My main problem is I don't really see any sort of a future for myself, and it seems like most of the people my age are in the same position. At least the ones I know personally.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 01:39 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:If you've already hosed up badly enough that you are getting rejected from $8 an hour McJobs, surely there's not much lost. From 2011: http://rt.com/usa/news/mcdonalds-ap...a-middle-class/ quote:Harvard accepts about 7 percent of applicants. At a recent "National Hiring Day" McDonalds accepted only 6.2 percent, according to CBS2Chicago. Besides that, you don't have to "gently caress up" to be declined a job offer. You can be "overqualified", too old, too young, too white, too black, too feminine, too good looking, too ugly, too fat, a smoker, a non-smoker....let's face it, employers have the upper hand right now. They can pick whoever the gently caress they feel like and your average unemployed worker isn't going to be able to do anything to pick up those bootstraps.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 01:42 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:If you've already hosed up badly enough that you are getting rejected from $8 an hour McJobs, surely there's not much lost. What do you think is involved in hiring for those kinds of jobs?
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 01:57 |
|
|
I was rereading the older Lost Generation thread a few days ago; seems like nothing major has changed since then. On a personal level things certainly do not feel better even though we're apparently in an economic recovery. I was fired at the beginning of the year, my mom had her hours slashed, my uncles finally found jobs that start at pay they were making 20 years ago. Happy new year I guess.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 02:04 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What do you think is involved in hiring for those kinds of jobs? I was just pointing out that Starbucks, McDonalds, and other food service jobs are really indifferent towards long periods of unemployment. You only need to worry about what HR thinks if you are in the running for a white collar job.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 02:04 |
|
|
McDowell posted:In American the Boomer generation sees the end of history as their great success; most of the Digitally-Inclined younger generations see reality with that narrative frame - famine, nuclear war, spies, army clashes - the messy politics of the 19th and 20th century Europe - they are all seem imprisoned in history books. We feel safe and, like people always have; we blind ourselves to how bigger events shape our individual lives. But it's only a matter of time before the great social earthquakes of the 21st century take shape. This isn't reallly an intergenerational thing. It's the rich loving everyone else. Millenials are probably going to be hit harder just because it's happening earlier in our lives, but it's not like boomers are going to be able to easily retire or anything. It's entirely possible they will be the first generation since the great depression to have a large number of elderly starving in the streets.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 02:08 |
|
|
I have to wonder at which point we'll start to see a ramp up of suicides linked to student loan debt. I try not to think of my own since it'll wreck me emotionally for days on end. When your saddled with life destroying debt that can only be paid off with money or death and you know you'll never be able to pay those loans back the other option starts looking a lot better. I can honestly say I don't feel like I'm living at all right now. I just kinda move around from my parent's house to work and back. I don't have money to do anything else
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 03:16 |
|
|
Lyesh posted:This isn't reallly an intergenerational thing. It's the rich loving everyone else. But the rich people making decisions right now are mostly boomers who don't really understand or appreciate the benefits of information technology or the dangers of fossil fuels. It's an intersectionality thing (generation and class in this case). Dr. VooDoo posted:I have to wonder at which point we'll start to see a ramp up of suicides linked to student loan debt. I try not to think of my own since it'll wreck me emotionally for days on end. When your saddled with life destroying debt that can only be paid off with money or death and you know you'll never be able to pay those loans back the other option starts looking a lot better. I can honestly say I don't feel like I'm living at all right now. I just kinda move around from my parent's house to work and back. I don't have money to do anything else Suicides became the leading cause of death in 2012  Not becoming a statistic has been an issue for me as well.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 03:16 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:If you've already hosed up badly enough that you are getting rejected from $8 an hour McJobs, surely there's not much lost. The error you made here is that someone needs to "gently caress up" in order to not be able to find a job. But then again, you don't really think about you write so it isn't really surprising.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 03:19 |
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:I have to wonder at which point we'll start to see a ramp up of suicides linked to student loan debt. I try not to think of my own since it'll wreck me emotionally for days on end. When your saddled with life destroying debt that can only be paid off with money or death and you know you'll never be able to pay those loans back the other option starts looking a lot better. I can honestly say I don't feel like I'm living at all right now. I just kinda move around from my parent's house to work and back. I don't have money to do anything else Don't most student loans have to be cosigned by the parent as well?
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 03:30 |
|
|
Harry posted:Don't most student loans have to be cosigned by the parent as well? Some do. Federal loans are discharged if the student dies. Private loans co-signed by a parent are not. Welcome to the future, kids!
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 03:34 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:I was just pointing out that Starbucks, McDonalds, and other food service jobs are really indifferent towards long periods of unemployment. You only need to worry about what HR thinks if you are in the running for a white collar job. It's not an instant disqualification, but it doesn't look good. I've worked in food service all my life, and I can tell you for a fact that managers will always go for someone who's had steady employment over someone with periods of unemployment that aren't because of attending school. And, since there are about 10 people applying for every job, that doesn't bode well for a person who's been unemployed long-term. Also, corporate places do have HR people, they just don't work in one store, they cover a number of stores and they read your application before they pass it along to the manager who would actually hire you, so there's that.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 03:35 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 18:27 |
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:The error you made here is that someone needs to "gently caress up" in order to not be able to find a job. But then again, you don't really think about you write so it isn't really surprising. You don't have to gently caress up to not be able to find a job, but having a bunch of mental health and family issues sure isn't going to help you any. There's always people like this guy out there. BUSH 2112 posted:It's not an instant disqualification, but it doesn't look good. I've worked in food service all my life, and I can tell you for a fact that managers will always go for someone who's had steady employment over someone with periods of unemployment that aren't because of attending school. And, since there are about 10 people applying for every job, that doesn't bode well for a person who's been unemployed long-term. They look for this because it's a surefire way of sussing out some other issues that probably make the person unreliable. They don't care about what kind of employment it is though, so teaching english overseas is fine. shots shots shots fucked around with this message at Feb 4, 2013 around 03:56 |
| # ? Feb 4, 2013 03:53 |
|
