The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

They say you can't get a good job without a Bachelors Degree.  Nowadays, it seems you can't get a good job even with one.  For the first time in history, there are more unemployed people who have attended at least some college than those who haven't.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/most-unemployed-americans-attended-least-college-first-time-152523538.html

Very disturbing trend.

Doesn't really make me feel better because I bet most of those people are not in science fields.  The science fields seem to be doing just fine. 

I have two jobs, but neither are in my field.  Do I count as unemployed?

Not surprising. They falsely led everyone to believe you needed a bachelor's to get a good job, so people started flooding the schools, including a lot of people who did not belong there. Not everyone belongs in college. There are many high paying to very good paying jobs in skilled positions.

No.  If you're not making enough money, you're considered UNDERemployed.  Unemployed means you're out of work but actively seeking work.  And this doesn't count the "distressed workers" or people who have gotten frustrated and stopped looking for work.


You hit it right on the head.  These for-profit colleges are the ones to blame.  They targeted the uneducated and low income families in order to get them enough financial aid to go to college.  They basically went after your typical "welfare mom" who had been working at fast food joints her whole life and put it into her head that "With a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice, you can be like the people on CSI Miami".  Jobs like that require advanced training in addition to a degree.  So once the welfare mom graduates, she has a degree that she can't really use in one hand, and a $50,000 student loan debt in the other hand that needs to be paid back.  She won't be able to find a job that will generate enough income to pay back that loan and she will end up in financial distress. 

They need to ban for-profit colleges altogether.

I said it in another thread and I'll say it in this on. College is one of the biggest scams that has been perpetrated on this country. Most employers aren't helping the situation. Take where I work for example. The want a Bachelors Degree to be a department manager/supervisor/babysitter or whatever they call it this week. These people literally do noting for half the day and don't do a good job the other half of the day. Really, 4 years in school for that. Most jobs that ask for a degree in reality only need 3-6 months of training, some maybe a little longer. I have actually been told twice now that I could fill any position at my facility but since I didn't have a degree that I didn't qualify. So I qualify because I can do a job but I don't qualify because I don't have a piece of paper.

Landshark, if they did ban for-profit colleges, wouldn't that put you out of work?

It seems to me that the wording is pretty important here...

"For the first time in history, there are now more unemployed Americans who attended at least some college than people who only graduated high school or dropped out of high school, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show."

"Seasonally unadjusted BLS data from April show that about 4.7 million of the nation's 9 million unemployed either graduated from a four-year or a two-year college program or attended college for some time before dropping out."

-------------------------------------------------------

Considering this, I am not shocked at all nor do I find a great deal of significance in the statistic.  The college dropout rate is well over 50%. 

Of all the people I would want to employ, a college dropout would be one of the lowest on my list.  These are people who are likely not able to finish what they start without being forced.  They may have found college to be too hard, so they are either lazy or not talented enough.  They wasted money on an education with nothing to show for it, so they have proven they are a bad decision maker and don't do their research before making choices.  Or perhaps they were just there for show and don't mind wasting other people's money.  Before you freak out on me, yes there are some who didn't complete college for well justified reasons.

Higher education isn't always perfect but it certainly has it's roll.  College reputation is very important, or at least the reputation of the particular program at the school that a student went through.  A degree in a useless field that isn't particularly challenging means very little.  A degree in something usefull has meaning and even more meaning when the school has a history of producing quality graduates in that field.  A degree in something useless can have meaning as long as there is strong evidence that the achievement required high level thinking, hard work and dedication.

I would venture to say that the main reason for this statistic is that society is creating a culture where youth believe they are entitled to get rich quick and without getting their hands dirty.  Everyone seems to think they are going to live out their dreams in some sort of premier career, but there is only so much demand.  High supply and low demand adds up to high competition in these premier career fields.  When people in our society don't make it, they don't suck up their pride and give their all to a lower "status" job.  They hold on to their fantasies and muddle around hoping they will catch their break.  In the mean time they either get fired for half ass effort or never get hired because they were sniffed out ahead of time.

This goes hand in hand with George Carlin's viewpoint on the pussification of america.  Not everyone has to roll up their sleeves and really work, but if you want the cushy life you better have what it takes to beat out the other people who want the cushy life.  And unfortunately, just about everyone wants the cushy life these days.

I am finishing my BBA in 10 weeks (finally). I did my AA and then took a "semester" off because I was burnt out from working two jobs, going to school full time, I needed a break. My semester turned into 8 years until I finally went back 3 years ago and now I'm just about done.

I don't think I'll have a problem finding a job in my field, it's just that entry level jobs in my field pay crap.

No, because I teach at a traditional college.  A lot of professors at traditional colleges teach online clases at for-profit colleges.  It's not the teaching that is the problem at for-profit colleges, it's the admissions reps.  Those guys are salespeople, plain and simple.  I've seen the requirements to be an admissions rep at one of those places, and they require car or timeshare sales experience.  WTH???

The total saturation of the legal market is a microcosm of this larger issue. In the boom time, new law schools seemed to open every other week and, I think, upwards of 40k newly minted lawyers were graduating per year. There was no way that could be sustained, and, now, with the glut of lawyers, salaries are waaaay down (if one can even find a full-time, non-contract job that is).

On the macro level, I would guess any "hot" area of the economy eventually becomes saturated and the opportunity there dramatically decreases (although perhaps not as violently as the real estate industry did four years ago). That would mean the so-called knowledge economy, which has been the "hot" area of the economy for close to 3 decades now, eventually was sure to decline. Perhaps that is what we are seeing.

In my view, in a few generations, there'll be certain segments of society which return to the land en masse. I don't mean to indicate that I believe subsistence farming will be the wave of the future, but I do think agriculture and manufacturing (along with computer technology, software, and internet products) will be some hot areas in the future.

...but in your opinion, a person who never attended college at all is a superior choice?

"Why try and fail, when you can just not try at all?"

Did it ever occur to you that that "piece of paper" shows a commitment to follow through with something and commit yourself to a task over the long haul, which absolutely sets you apart from those who don't have a degree? Why would a company want to promote someone to a position of higher responsibility and potential growth who hasn't shown a capacity for that already? They're investing in a position to make themselves better; OF COURSE they want someone who has further developed critical thinking skills and shown a commitment by having that piece of paper. -EK

You have proven what I said. Too many people have been sold the lie they need a college degree to be successful. Not everyone should be in college. You can make a nice living for yourself in a skilled job, especially if you have an inclination to that type of work. I see so many kids in classes that have no business being there, but they are churning through the workload( unhappily) towards a piece of paper. All because they were told they "need to have a degree".

Hogwash propaganda. You have been programmed...........

Getting a degree does show commitment, and yeah it probably helps.  But it's gotten out of control.  Do you really need an MBA in Business administration to fill out a form 4?  All the jobs I had they said if you want to be a manager you have to have a business degree.  Why?  You manage a movie theater or a call center.  Is the paperwork really that difficult?  It was no different than the paperwork we had to do at the grocery store I worked in. 

One of the other of many glaring problems, they offer degrees that won't get you a job.  Remember that movie PCU where the dean goes "I think Bisexual Elephant Studies (or something at the time that seemed ridiculous) should have its own department..."  the sad part is most colleges will let you major in it now.  Then they get a degree and a mountain of student debt, and the HR people that interview them (my hatred for HR departments aside) look at them and go what the hell does a degree in (insert ridiculous major here) do to make you more prepared for this job?  NEXT! 

Now you have a mountain of student debt, no career prospects, and no future.  Congratulations.  Thanks for the 4 years tuition the government paid on your behalf, have fun with your sports studies degree, and we'll send you a letter every year soliciting a donation.   Meanwhile, you flood the market with cheap college labor, and the world still needs plenty of bartenders and waitresses.

Doesn't possession of a high school diploma prove that you already have said commitment?

Unless, perhaps, you are only considering achievements earned entirely during adulthood.  In which case, wouldn't raising a child show an even larger commitment to following through and committing yourself to a task over the long haul?

Going to college was the worst decision I ever made.

My family is very wealthy so my parents paid for all my education, but if they had given me that money, I could probably have paid for my health insurance for the rest of my life.  

Going to get a phlebotomy certificate right out of college would have been a much better choice.  That has already paid itself off for me.    

No. Possession of a diploma, when kids still graduate who can't read above a third grade level shows me nothing. How does raising a child fit into this at all? No one even mentioned that it would or would not help with advancement. It's immaterial. -EK

I have to agree with this statement.  It seems like they give out high school diplomas as if they were toilet paper nowadays. 

Yeah... a high-school diploma really doesn't show you anything, especially when you're pretty well forced to go to high-school.

It sounds like you're now saying that the actual education from attending college is what is important, and not your previous claim about the commitment to a long-term goal.  That's an interesting position, since:

a) Since when does a college degree actually prove that you know a subject, any more than a HS diploma?
b) If it comes down to actual, practical knowledge, I would be happy to compare a person with many years of experience in the relevant position (but no degree) over a person with a Bachelor's degree in said field

Because originally, you were trying to qualify a degree from the standpoint of proving that you can follow through on a long-term commitment... and a child is a much longer-term commitment than any degree.

So which one is important?  The education (which the degree doesn't prove any more than a diploma does, and which can be easily outpaced by years of real-world workplace experience) or the commitment (which is no more than that of a HS diploma, and which is greatly outweighed by the commitment of raising a child, or making it to the Major Leagues, or serving two tours in Afghanistan, etc.)?

In High School you have teachers and parents (hopefully) who are always checking up on you to get your homework done and study for tests, etc. (High Schools have an interest in getting students to graduate).  In college most professors don't care whether you turn in assignments, show up for class, or do well on test.  They have no problem failing you.  For many in todays society it's the first time they have accomplished anything as an ADULT. (obviously there are exceptions).

As for Badger, I don't think NOT having the piece of paper should keep anyone from being promoted to a higher job if they have worked for a company and shown proficiency.

High schools have an interest in getting students to graduate (and also to pass the state standardized test) because it allows the school to get more money from the state and federal government and ensure that the teachers keep their jobs.  If a school has students that are consistently failing, the state eventually takes over and the first thing they usually do is overhaul the entire faculty.   

I am tired of hearing this mantra. There are many people out there with "legitimate" degrees who are out of work, or working low paying jobs because of the economy. A J.D. degree which has been long considered a "legitimate" degree is now worthless because of the economy and the fact the schools are failing to give students the skills needed to immediately start working at a high level without more training by their employers.
Schools, both for-profit and traditional have been ripping off students for years on tuitions, books, and education quality.

^^^ So you feel like your degree is more legitimate than mine?  I want to make sure I read that right because I don't want to go on a rant based on a misunderstanding.


 If you're tired of hearing people say what I posted, there must be an awful lot of people out there who feel this way and there must be a reason for it.

There is a huge difference between getting a degree in bisexual elephant studies and a JD. 

One has never been nor ever will be a path to a career.  The other has historically been very secure path which recently fell apart. 

I believe they have a better chance at being a superior choice.  There are lots of legit reasons for not going to college.  There are only a few to not finish college.

I don't think it's a meaningful distinction.  There's effectively no way to distinguish between the following:

- too lazy to go to college
- couldn't afford college
- had other family commitments preventing college enrollment
- decided that college was not a sound financial decision
- decided that they would rather pursue a tradeskill-based career

- college was too difficult
- unforeseen family issues interfered with continued attendance
- changing financial circumstances (e.g. layoff)
- costs escalated unexpectedly (e.g. tuition increase, changes in financial aid availability)

I understand that completely, Hoodie.  Forgive me for slipping a little humor in.   :P 

But evidently since the two of us are in the same boat, in that we have to work in jobs outside our field, I want to make sure I understand what it is he's so sick of before I go on the ulitmate higher education rant if it's not necessary.

I'm guessing you were implying that a lot of college students wasted money on majors that are really of no use to them in the business world and are now paying the price, while he's taking the position that there are a lot of people out there that majored in something useful in business and still can't find a good job.

Go ahead and write your rant.  I'd love to read it. 

Not always.  Case in point: Nursing.  I've been trying to move away from my per diem hours for years, literally, and I can't.  The hospital where I work per diem can't get their hands on enough qualified nurses.  I field calls on a weekly basis from six to ten other places within a 60 mile drive from my home offering me anywhere from per diem hours to pretty nice full time positions.

Whatever the reason (I have a lot of theories), nursing is a field where there is a lot of room for growth.  Straight out of the shoot, a new graduate is looking at earning anywhere from $25-$28 an hour (plus shift differential), plus very good benefits and hours.

It's hard work, but very rewarding.

Not true at all.

Let me ask you this:  It's late at night and you're walking.  No one is around.  You suddenly feel pain everywhere, however more in your left arm and radiating to your chest.  You can't move, you can't communicate and you aren't breathing well.  Would you rather the following be the best person be the next one to come across you:

1:  A very hard worker, however with their GED, or;
2:  Me?

See, I've been "programmed" as well.  My "programming" was in the form of undergraduate studies, some of which I tend to agree was eye rolling to an outsider point of view who has a closed mind about the importance of building critical thinking.  I'm not sure why I was allowed to take acting.  Yes, acting.  I fluffed out a few courses on my way to my first B.A.  However the first B.A. built the foundation to my bachelor of science - in nursing.  No fluff.  All science, math, nursing.  This degree led to my advancement to my MSN.  Very hard.  I was not reading about Socrates or discussing how large the Shakespeare canon is.

I was being "programmed."

So, I'll ask again.  You're suddenly dying on the sidewalk and you're not sure why.  Help is not a phone call away.  Do you want the forklift operator to happen upon you...or me?

Please do not discount, nor dismiss, the value of education (and the foundation of education).  Mine helps me save lives.

I think that college is very important.  I am very glad that I went, I consider it heavily when hiring, and I recognize its value.

I think where we went wrong is to assume that everyone needs to go to college.  I do believe that post high-school training should be a goal for everyone in this country.  But I don't think that needs to be college.  I have friends that I grew up with that weren't "college material".  It wasn't even a matter of whether they were book-smart enough (they were not), but more importantly, they weren't likely to end up with a job that was going to benefit from the collegiate skillset.

They eventually found their place, but only after wasting money and time trying to follow a path that didn't fit.

I think that we should be teaching our kids to choose a smart path for them and then prepare them for that path.  ...this should even start at the high school level.

Here's the rub:
With teacher influence, race and class become a problem when our natural tendencies to categorize students makes us push poor black kids toward manual labor and wealthy whites towards college, without truly evaluating their skill-sets and giving them the best advice.  I'm not quick to call it racism (especially not on purpose), but this is how things happen...

I think that's a logical result, Dave.  Put rather simply, if you are from a lower-income family, unless you can get a full ride scholarship to college, it's going to be very difficult to afford a degree in today's climate.  Conversely, if you are from a higher-income family, your parents can pay for your education.  So basically, poor kids go into trades, manufacturing, or service industry (unless they have exceptional grades), while more wealthy kids go to college.

It's a little disheartening from an egalitarian standpoint, but as long as certain groups don't completely de-fund college scholarships, poor kids at least have an opportunity to get out of the cycle.

What are your theories?

Consider yourself lucky, by the way...

I'd be willing to bet that more people who are employed have attended college now than ever before as well. I don't think it's so much of a indictment on the education system in this country but merely the trend that more people are going to college today than in the past. That naturally would mean that more employed and unemployed people are going to have attended college than in the past. Not really all that shocking if you ask me.

But this has always been true. A degree never guaranteed you a job, it merely allowed you to put something on your resume that might make you stand out from the crowd. At most having a degree might get you an interview, but it's that interview that will determine if you get the job or not. I've never had a single job that didn't require on the job training.

I have been told straight up that my resume was not as good as some of the people they turned down, but I was given the job because I aced the interview. In fact at SWA, your personality is more important to them than your work experience. They are looking for people that work hard and play harder. They are looking for people that have a positive attitude about their jobs. They are looking for people who are not as interested in getting a paycheck, as they are about contributing to the company. I got the job at SWA because I knew a few of the people that worked there already and they vouched for me that I would fit into the culture here at SWA, not because I was the best programmer or brightest person in the world.

Well, first, I'm not a new grad.  I've had my nursing license for a long time.  So I am not sure which portion of "luck" comes into play, however I am sure it's in there somewhere.  The economy wasn't completely in the toilet when I graduated with my BSRN, but it was close.

Nursing - the actually schooling is hard.  I know, for me, math and science do not come easily.  Math & science are the base of everything you do during your undergraduate studies.  I have to work very hard to not only learn anything in those fields, but to retain what I've learned.  So many of the courses continue to something where it's applied the following semester. I know I'm not alone in my struggles in math & science, so one theory centers around this portion of study:

Younger students come into nursing programs woefully under prepared for what they will experience / what is expected of them in this area.  For me, I was an older student (nursing was my third degree).  I'm not sure the public high school system adequately prepares these kids (base knowledge) for what they need to know in college (1) and they don't have the maturity to really roll up their sleeves and find the resources to make sure they obtain the knowledge (2).

In order to remain a nursing student or a nursing candidate (basically means you're on the waiting list) at my old school - you need to maintain an overall 2.67 GPA in all science classes (which basically translates to a B-).  Additionally, classes which have a "sequel"  (Anatomy I&II, example) - you can't take II unless you pass I with at least a 2.50, regardless of what your overall science GPA is.  I think I mentioned this in another thread once before, I generally averaged around a 3.00 in my sciences but had to retake one of my sciences after passing it, barely, with a 2.49. 

So say you're taking, whatever, 15 credit hours in the fall.  Six of them are lecture science, two lab, the rest are...whatever.  Something else.  You're pulling a 3.58 GPA overall, crushing it in your lab, doing really well in one science but one science class -- just one -- is threatening to derail your entire potential nursing program.  You're currently at a 2.17 at organic chem and have little to no hope to climb to a 2.50, much less the 2.64 that you need to round your entire science GPA to 2.67. 

You're allowed one semester to correct it (academic probation).  If you don't, you're dropped from the program due to the staggering amount of people waiting to get in (many of whom won't fare any better than you did). 

I started my freshmen year with over 400 people (candidates and full students).  We graduated under 100 from the nursing school.  There are two other colleges in my general area, both also graduated well under 100.

I once argued with my advisor, taking the stance the science requirements were far too harsh and were driving away perfectly good candidates from a field of work where for every ten nursing who retire we are only graduating one replacement.  The nursing core requirement was 2.60 (actual nursing classes), lower than science requirements.  Her stance was the basis of passing the boards was built in science and strength of science knowledge would be critical in passing the boards -- what good would a nursing degree be if you don't become licensed? 

I simply don't agree, especially once I obtained my MSN.  MSN schooling is far more advanced and built in modern - advanced thinking.  So much of the educational process of "building a nurse" is outdated and clinging from a bygone era.  Meanwhile our profession has lost Lord knows how many potential great nurses to another field because they could only muster a 2.50 in organic chem (which is a ball buster of a class, by the way), however excelled in so many other areas.

Nursing school is very hard to get into.  The waiting list is long - for any school.  Once in, it's hard to stay in.  The people educating our young nurses are trying the "let's break them first" way of thinking...and I don't agree.

Meanwhile, the hospital where I work per diem hours has had upwards of 10:1 patient to nurse assignments at times due to job postings they aren't able to fill with anyone other than per diems and traveling nursing (both counter productive, cost wise).

Of course I would rather have a nurse instead of a forklift driver to help me in that situation. I think you missed my point entirely. I never said or or meant that college was useless or unnecessary. But in many fields a college degree is highly overrated and unnecessary. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, architects and countless other professions are examples of useful college. But when companies unnecessarily require a bachelors degree for a basic supervisor or manager position, an IT position, or countless other basic jobs that only need on the job training or a 3-6 month training class, it's totally ridiculous. College does serve a purpose, but contrary to what" the system"  says, for a good majority of the population and employment, it is a sham and not needed. The whole system is structured WRONG and at the end of the day it is only about tuition and making the all mighty dollar. Student loan ponzi scheme that can't be discharged, ha ha.

Because this bs excuse keeps getting thrown out as to why so many college grads are unemployed or underemployed. There are many graduates with degrees that historically led to employment and were considered degrees that were a secure path a Hoodie states.
The reason so many graduates are in this boat has less to do with the choice of degrees as much as it does with the loss of millions of jobs since 2008.
The pundits, especially on the right, keep saying that all these people are getting "worthless" degrees, yet they ignore all the people with "credible" degrees who are out of work too.

But this is because industry is driving this trend. Colleges do not require businesses to only promote people who have degrees to upper management. This trend by businesses has led to higher enrollment as people try and get an extra feather in their cap for advancement.

For these jobs that should not require anything near 4 years of extra school, college does nothing more than indoctrinate you into the corporate structure.  You are proving to the master that you are dumb, obedient, and willfully ignorant enough to fall for anything and can not think for yourself. That is what the corporations want, but it already has more of them than it can pay. What they gonna want next ?

As George Carlin said, "They want obedient workers . . . Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to do what they are told. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.................

And I thought I was cynical. You might need to find a new employer if that's what you believe about your current one. I certainly don't share your opinion and I've worked for several large corporations. Sprint. MCI. Verizon. GMAC. Southwest Airlines. And with SWA at least it's the EXACT opposite. They WANT people with opinions. They encourage you to speak up and have a healthy discourse. They encourage you to be empowered, to fight through red tape to get things done. To ask for forgiveness rather than ask for permission. To make changes where changes are needed. To think outside the box and come up with unique solutions. This is a part of their culture and it's FANTASTIC. Maybe I've just been lucky.

Ah well if Carlin says it, then it must be true because he wouldn't say something, ya know, just to get a laugh out of it. :)

Why yes, corporations and businesses want people to be leaders who have a better understanding of micro and macro-economics, business, etc. For it is this knowledge that could help them understand and improve the company in the future. Working a productions line for 10 years does not allow you to understand the fundamentals of economics or global factors. There is a reason the leaders of industry rarely come from the assembly line.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, badger - but I think this needs to be said...this is also coming from a guy who was complaining about having to work harder because the older guys stand around while the young "horses" do the work.

It's not that educated people are "programmed" - it's you have become (1) very narrow minded and (2) very judgmental towards anyone who has something you don't.  You said it yourself earlier in the thread about people standing around with clip boards but they don't know anything:


I ran into a lot of this while I was in the military.  I had a lot of guys who had a thing about being told what to do.  They didn't like me because of the rank on my sleeve (prior to being moved to CID) and then didn't like me for obvious reasons after that.  I wasn't someone who earned my rank, I was just someone who "must have gotten lucky and rubbed up against a wall and had those stripes stick."  Yet these were the same guys who, five years later, were still sitting at E-3 with no shot at being promoted...for several reasons.  It was never their fault.  It was always someone else's.  They always had better ideas of what "they would do if they ran this place" - all the while having no idea of what it really took to run a platoon, squad or a unit.

Fact is, you aren't really privy to what those people did in school because you didn't do it.  I've heard the exact same statements before - it's general "out of sight, out of mind" - and, fact is, you don't know what else those folks are doing when you don't see them, because you don't know what else their job entails.

Everyone thinks they can hit a Justin Verlander fastball if "just given the chance."  They just can't.  Not without the proper tools.  My opinion on your opinion?  It's a very narrow minded way of thinking.  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder regarding people who "have that piece of paper that you don't have."  Why don't you remove the chip, find something you have an interest in and obtain training and / education in the field rather than trying to tell people who did spend time doing so they are, basically, "the walking dead, just doing what the man tells them to do?"  From the sounds of your previous rants about your job, it doesn't sound as though it's Nirvana there either.

Cynical, me ? Maybe or maybe not. Really doesn't bother me and rarely ever think about it much, just my opinion on the topic in this thread. When I first entered the workforce 22 years ago I bought into all that bullshit they try to sell you. You know, teamwork, determination, problem solving, and so on. But the older I get the more I see that it's a rigged game and none of that shit will get you anywhere. Not only do I think that of my current employer, I think that of most of my past employers also. So therefore in my opinion finding a new employer will not do much good. But hey, I guess that I could get lucky like you. 

I'm fairly sure that most of his more recent stuff was more on the serious side rather than the funny side.

Just keep in mind that Carlin didn't go to college, he's never worked a day in his life for a large corporation that I'm aware of, that he was basically kicked out of the military as a poor performer and that he's been nothing but a comedian his entire adult life. I'm not really sure he's the best authority on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I love Carlin, but he doesn't have a lick of experience when it comes to corporate america. He doesn't have any more insight into it then you or I and actually probably a lot less.

Since MaineDolfan mentioned the other thread, this seems like a timely followup:


Now, it is possible that:

a) you consider a paper route or lemonade stand to be "entering the workforce," or
b) you entered the workforce in some other country that doesn't have the rigorous child labor laws of the United States, or
c) you work with a lot of retirement-age males

But if not, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.

Tell that to a couple guys I know who have been with their company for over 10 years each. Guys who can do any job in the in the place from cleaning the toilets to running the whole facility and everything in between. These are the guys that management and supervisors go find to get things done when they and their fancy degrees can't figure out how to do things. And yet, every time even the most low level management or supervisor position opens up. What does the company do ? Do they hire from within, like they preach ? Absofuckinglutely not. They go hire some jackass with a mass produced toilet paper MBA who can't even make a work schedule for employees in the department they were hired to run.

Those are the guys I feel bad for. When it comes down to it do I really give a shit ? Nope, not really, but it's not right and I have seen it happen too many times at too many companies not to give an opinion on the matter.........

Ha, ha this isn't something worth fighting about anyhow.  But I'm glad you brought it up. I guess that since I see things differently than you that I'm narrow minded. I guess that I could say the same about you, but it's a moot point because you will never see what I'm talking about either because you can't or won't. But since you say that I'm judgmental toward people that have something that I don't. Please tell me what I don't have.....


I have no problem whatsoever being a subordinate and being told what to do. In fact it's my preference. I want the least amount of responsibility available to me. I do my job and I do it well. I go to work, do my job, and go home. That's it. As for company functions, company meals, holidays, picnics, singing the company motto while clapping hands during meetings like a 3rd grader, fuck 'em. I'm there to work and that's it, I have plenty of friends already. I think you have me all wrong !!!



I'll keep it civil, but this is an enormous assumption on your part. You see Maine, I have known a current manager where I work now for 9 years now and have worked with him at 3 other places in the past. So actually, I am privy to what he did in school, what he can and can't do, what he does on a daily basis, what his job entails and what he does when I'm not there. Maybe everyone doesn't have this luxury but I do.


No chip, just a different opinion than you.  If someone went to college to better themselves, good for them. Having said that, college is overpriced, overvalued and overrated in the name of the all mighty dollar.

Rants about my job ? Please enlighten me !!!!!

You have entirely too much spare time on your hands. Let's see here if my math is correct. I am 40 years old and I started working between 18-19 years old.


Retail store clerk job at 18 and promoted to assistant manager around 6 months later



Nope, wrong again. Good old US of A.


Strike 3 little fella....

3 people in their upper 40's, 4 people in their mid 50's and 1 in their lower 60's with about half of those females. In reference to that thread, it seems that my age and gender is the cut off point for actually working, which I am told is illegal according to federal law.



Does that mean that you think I'm lying ?

I presume that your memory has been refreshed.

Now then, in your original thread (the one where you complained about being singled out for a heavy workload because of your youth), I think the fact that you are 40 years old is a somewhat relevant detail.  If a 40-year-old man considers himself one of the "younger males" on a job site, it puts a considerably different spin on the entire story.

Based on the opinions you have expressed in this thread of what it takes to advance in the business world, I humbly suggest that maybe you are being asked to perform a larger share of the physical work for reasons unrelated to your age.

Once again for the most part I was referring to females and the few males older than 45 years old. There is no different spin on the entire story at all, it's the same as when I started the thread. I also wouldn't call it a rant, I was asking for opinions.  The fact that it's only females and a certain age range in one department that are consistently 100% being shown preferential treatment . Age and gender are protected groups just as equally as race and religious affiliation. So in fact what they are doing is just the same as saying that only black people have to do the hard manual labor while the white people stand around and do nothing. No other department does this, I wonder why ? EDITED to remove pending legal info. Let's just say the matter is being dealt with through different channels !!!


Not at all. Everyone that's not female and under the 45 age limit are being discriminated against. Spin it how you want.....

A couple guys you know. There is a reason that corporations and businesses want people with degrees working for them at higher levels. This does not mean that someone cannot climb the ladder from the mail room, but the majority of people who have gotten to the higher levels have usually backed their years of experience and management with a "piece of paper".

I really had to think twice about weighing in here as I really didn't want to get involved. I just felt compelled to weigh in here though. You are arguing a different beast than Badger is here. He is not discussing "higher levels". He is talking about the position of a retail store department manager. Having worked in retail at one stage in my life (and being a department manager) it really is a far cry from being considered at a higher level of the company.

I understand that, but where do you think they draw regional and higher level managers from? Having that "piece of paper" could be the difference between you and fellow managers who are all competing for the same position. As I said, it can be a useful feather in your cap for later down the road when the positions bottleneck and you need to seperate yourself from the competition.

Your first statement - you're correct.  It was an assumption on my end (clearly a wrong one).  I do wonder - why don't you respect someone more if you've worked with him for 9 years and three different jobs, though? Going by your original statements, it doesn't sound as though you care for the person all that much?

Second statement:  I'm not a person who needs a lot of material items, but I also am not one who minds having a dollar in my wallet!  This said, I do think I know where you are going with that one.