I really see no hope for employment in the US

[gravenewworld]

A higher inflation adjusted income than you would have had 50 years ago?

And looked at another way, I'm currently making less money than a person with a high school diploma in 1998 and far less than individuals with Bachelor's degrees (see table P-20):

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/index.html

A salary that allows two-thirds of all households to own a house, start a family, and put children through college?

This makes critical and flawed assumptions, like the assumption that one is able to hold a job for a long period of time. Why would I ever own or even try to buy a house if I expect to get laid off every 3-5 years and need to move around easily to find a new job? Who would ever want to start a family and raise a child like this? No one collects data on things like length of held employment. All we have to go on is anecdotal evidence. I know absolutley no one in the 22-40 age group that has held a job in the chemical industry for longer than 8-10 years at the same company. Again, what's the point of owning a house if you'll never live in the same area for a long period of time? I expect my current glassware cleaning gig to get shipped overseas in about 2-5 years. My previous job only lasted 4 years.
It's a shame this got moved to politics. This was originally posted in chemistry, was targeted to the chemistry audience only, and was meant for chemists to discuss the future of their profession.

 

[gravenewworld]

You can ask for whatever you want. You are not entitled to it.

I'd say it's not coming out of a sense of entitlement, rather it comes out of a sense of just wanting to survive without living paycheck to paycheck.

 

[twofish-quant]

Part of the reason this is an issue that matters to me is that I'm coming in from the other end of the economic ladder, and it looks pretty scary to me from this end. I'm at the point where I'm looking at my paycheck, and I really can't believe that people are paying to do what I do, and the really scary part is that on the totem pole of finance, I'm not that high.

One thing that I find curious is the attitude of the universities that "it's not my problem that people can't get jobs." The bizarre thing is that it *does* happen to be my problem, because I work at a bank. When someone takes out a student loan, about 2-3% of that money goes into fees that ends in that oversized paycheck that I get.

There are slimeballs on Wall Street that will take the money and run, but I'm not one of them, and since I've taken your money, I feel that I have some responsibility to you to make sure that the student loan that you get is something that will make your life better and not worse. There's also the long term self-interest part of it. If you take out a student loan expecting a job, and you don't get that job, then there is a good chance that you will default, and that puts my job, and my bank account at risk.

So part of my job is to make sure that you can get a job so that you can pay back the money that I lent you. I'm a little astonished that universities are taking this "tough luck" attitude that "we aren't trade schools." We can get into abstract and long winded philosophical arguments about the purpose of education, but one thing that I've learned is that cold cash has a tendency of ending philosophical arguments.

If a university really thinks that they have no responsibility to help students find jobs, then it shouldn't be hard to get the university president to say that. At that point, I can put on my banker hat and make sure that no one gets a student loan to go to that school unless they have the same sort of collateral that ordinary consumer loans have, which immediate kills loans for most 18-21 year olds. At that point I think most of the professors will find that there isn't the money to fund their salaries.

 

[twofish-quant]

That's not what you asked me- you asked me why am I not entitled to have every wish fulfilled- and you answered it yourself, above.

Which is different from what the OP asked which is "is it wrong to ask for a sustainable wage that will let me buy a house, start a family, and send a kid to college?"

The more interesting question is, "Am I entitled to *anything*?" Am I entitled be alive? My answer is 'no'.

But the rationale for that isn't "physical reality". It's clear that you and I disagree about something fundamental, and I'm trying to figure out what we can agree on and what we can't.

If someone wants 200 pounds of gold, then we agree that this can't happen. If someone says that they believe that they are entitled to 0.5 micrograms of gold, then this isn't physical reality.

This matters, because I'd be in favor of something like the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. In Alaska, every resident gets a few hundred dollars each year just for being Alaskan, and I think it would be a good idea if you had a pool of stock so that everyone in the US gets $X each year that they can do whatever they want with.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's a shame this got moved to politics. This was originally posted in chemistry, was targeted to the chemistry audience only, and was meant for chemists to discuss the future of their profession.

Personally, I don't think you *can* discuss the future of the chemistry profession without getting into politics. What the chemistry profession looks like ten years from now is going to be primarily determined by how the world looks like in ten years.

 

[gravenewworld]

Part of the reason this is an issue that matters to me is that I'm coming in from the other end of the economic ladder, and it looks pretty scary to me from this end. I'm at the point where I'm looking at my paycheck, and I really can't believe that people are paying to do what I do, and the really scary part is that on the totem pole of finance, I'm not that high.

One thing that I find curious is the attitude of the universities that "it's not my problem that people can't get jobs." The bizarre thing is that it *does* happen to be my problem, because I work at a bank. When someone takes out a student loan, about 2-3% of that money goes into fees that ends in that oversized paycheck that I get.

There are slimeballs on Wall Street that will take the money and run, but I'm not one of them, and since I've taken your money, I feel that I have some responsibility to you to make sure that the student loan that you get is something that will make your life better and not worse. There's also the long term self-interest part of it. If you take out a student loan expecting a job, and you don't get that job, then there is a good chance that you will default, and that puts my job, and my bank account at risk.

So part of my job is to make sure that you can get a job so that you can pay back the money that I lent you. I'm a little astonished that universities are taking this "tough luck" attitude that "we aren't trade schools." We can get into abstract and long winded philosophical arguments about the purpose of education, but one thing that I've learned is that cold cash has a tendency of ending philosophical arguments.

If a university really thinks that they have no responsibility to help students find jobs, then it shouldn't be hard to get the university president to say that. At that point, I can put on my banker hat and make sure that no one gets a student loan to go to that school unless they have the same sort of collateral that ordinary consumer loans have, which immediate kills loans for most 18-21 year olds. At that point I think most of the professors will find that there isn't the money to fund their salaries.

You make too much sense.

 

[Evo]

Nothing is guaranteed. How your education is paid for is neither here nor there as far as you getting a job and it shouldn't be. Just because you paid for an education doesn't mean you're good enough. You go to school for the opportunity to compete, that's it.

It's very competitive out in the real world, too many people, too few jobs.

If you don't get a job, or the job you want, it's your failure, not the school.

 

[gravenewworld]

Nothing is guaranteed. How your education is paid for is neither here nor there as far as you getting a job and it shouldn't be. Just because you paid for an education doesn't mean you're good enough. You go to school for the opportunity to compete, that's it.

It's very competitive out in the real world, too many people, too few jobs.

If you don't get a job, or the job you want, it's your failure, not the school.

Right, and then when the education bubble busts and students stop going to college because banks stop giving out loans to finance educations since recent college graduates can no longer pay back their loans, professors will then be wondering why they are getting laid off left and right or will be forced to take pay cuts. What goes around comes around. Schools can rinse their hands of all responsibility when it comes employment of their graduates, fine. I'll laugh when the bubble bursts in their face and the only people that can afford an education from that point forward will only be the wealthy.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Which is different from what the OP asked which is "is it wrong to ask for a sustainable wage that will let me buy a house, start a family, and send a kid to college?"

I don't understand what you mean- why is the OP's laundry list reasonable? Who decides what is reasonable?

But the rationale for that isn't "physical reality". It's clear that you and I disagree about something fundamental, and I'm trying to figure out what we can agree on and what we can't.

If someone wants 200 pounds of gold, then we agree that this can't happen. If someone says that they believe that they are entitled to 0.5 micrograms of gold, then this isn't physical reality.

This matters, because I'd be in favor of something like the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. In Alaska, every resident gets a few hundred dollars each year just for being Alaskan, and I think it would be a good idea if you had a pool of stock so that everyone in the US gets $X each year that they can do whatever they want with.

I guess I don't understand what you mean- let's use your example 'am I entitled to free air?'. I say 'no.' They way I interpret your question is "am I entitled to free *clean* air?", because it doesn't make sense to argue for non-breathable air entitlement. It's clear that there are people who do not get access to clean air as a condition of employment- coal miners, for example. I'm not entitled to clean water, either- I have to pay for it.

So never mind arguing over scarce resources like gold- let's talk about basic things like food and water. Are you entitled to food? What kind of food? How much should you be forced to pay for food?

 

[Proton Soup]

seems that Obama is calling for us to keep jobs in america by creating a "brain drain", and keeping foreign students here if they want to stay.

 

[Evo]

Right, and then when the education bubble busts and students stop going to college because banks stop giving out loans to finance educations since recent college graduates can no longer pay back their loans, professors will then be wondering why they are getting laid off left and right or will be forced to take pay cuts. What goes around comes around. Schools can rinse their hands of all responsibility when it comes employment of their graduates, fine. I'll laugh when the bubble bursts in their face and the only people that can afford an education from that point forward will only be the wealthy.

Good students will continue to go and excel. Good *poor* students will get scholarships and grants that do not need to be repaid. If it weeds the dumb students out, oh well, there needs to be a cut off.

 

[Andy Resnick]

If a university really thinks that they have no responsibility to help students find jobs, then it shouldn't be hard to get the university president to say that. At that point, I can put on my banker hat and make sure that no one gets a student loan to go to that school unless they have the same sort of collateral that ordinary consumer loans have, which immediate kills loans for most 18-21 year olds. At that point I think most of the professors will find that there isn't the money to fund their salaries.

I don't follow- every university I have ever attended or visited has had a career services department, devoted to doing the exact thing you claim universities are not doing...?

And we have already discussed the fallacy that student tuition covers the cost of educating that student- it's not even close. Education is a money *loser*.

 

[gravenewworld]

Good students will continue to go and excel. Good *poor* students will get scholarships and grants that do not need to be repaid. If it weeds the dumb students out, oh well, there needs to be a cut off.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Sure "good" students, rich or poor, could still go to college through support from scholarships and grants. This is a completely irrelevant point, since at least someone has to pay a tuition so that schools make money. Many schools have seen their endowments drastically decrease over the last decade, so what props up many schools financially? Money from tuition. When banks stop giving students money to finance their educations because recent graduates can no longer find sustainable and livable wages and are defaulting on their loans, schools no longer get tuition money, and professors get the pink slips to go along with it. Yes, it very much is a schools' problem when their graduates are un- or under- employed and are defaulting on their loans. The education bubble burst is definitely coming.

 

[Mathnomalous]

This is just a circular argument where the people with jobs, money, etc. claim no one is entitled to a job, livable wages, life, etc. while the people without those see it differently. I honestly would like to see what >30% US unemployment looks like, what kind of arguments would be made in that environment.

 

[twofish-quant]

Nothing is guaranteed. How your education is paid for is neither here nor there as far as you getting a job and it shouldn't be.

If I loan someone money to go to school to get a job, then I do care very much that they get the job.

It's very competitive out in the real world, too many people, too few jobs.

And that's not the students fault. The number of jobs available is an issue of social policy.

If you don't get a job, or the job you want, it's your failure, not the school.

It's *MY* fault. If we had a better banking system, then we wouldn't have had things blow up in the way that they did. What really spooks things is that things could have been a lot worse. We came within one week of something that would have caused 30% unemployment.

 

[mugaliens]

If we make it, we make it. If we don't, we don't.

It's human nature to try, though. Can't fault anyone for trying.

 

[twofish-quant]

I honestly would like to see what >30% US unemployment looks like, what kind of arguments would be made in that environment.

Part of the reason I have the views that I do is that we came within a hair's breath of just that. Most people don't know how close we came to total economic collapse.

Once you stare down the abyss, it changes you.

 

[gravenewworld]

Part of the reason I have the views that I do is that we came within a hair's breath of just that. Most people don't know how close we came to total economic collapse.

Once you stare down the abyss, it changes you.

Elaborate. I'm just curious...

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't understand what you mean- why is the OP's laundry list reasonable? Who decides what is reasonable?

It's possible. If it's physically impossible there is no point in discussing if it is reasonable.

Whether that's the way we want society to go is another question, and that's why we have a political process. I think what he wants is reasonable. You disagree. They we go through the messy process of politics to see what happens.

It's clear that there are people who do not get access to clean air as a condition of employment- coal miners, for example. I'm not entitled to clean water, either- I have to pay for it.

Someone has to pay for it. It doesn't have to be you. Since I've got a ton of money that I don't know what to do with, I'd be glad spend something to pay for your clean air and clean water.

So never mind arguing over scarce resources like gold- let's talk about basic things like food and water. Are you entitled to food? What kind of food? How much should you be forced to pay for food?

1) Yes

2) Depends. But the fact that I can't give you an exact answer is irrelevant for the answer to 1). Also *someone* has to pay for the food, but it doesn't need to be the person consuming it. If I were on a desert island, and only I had access to food, then I think I'm obligated to give it to people who don't have it. Part of the reason I feel obligated is that they are going to take it anyone if I'm not nice.

Also a lot of the answers depend on social context. Right now, I don't think it's necessary to force someone to work for food. The answers are different in England-1600, where you have to force someone to work for food because there wasn't enough.

 

[chiro]

I have to agree with twofish about the banking system.

Anyone with any sense realizes that you can't lend 300,000+ dollars to people that are unemployed and expect them to pay it back.

If they used the same logic for some university degrees (I'm talking things like some of the arts and ****ing mickey mouse ******** degrees) then it would definitely be a lot better.

In the "normal" or "sane" banking systems you need to prove to the bank that you have a good chance at paying them the loan back. You get a job, rack up some credit history, get a deposit and the bank will say "they look like they can pay it" and in this case they are more likely to actually pay it.

Its just absolutely ****ing insane what is happening.

 

[mheslep]

I do have sympathy with your socialist instincts though, coming from a country where 70% of people live in government housing and find that excellent.

70% of the population live in government housing? What country is that?

 

[Zarqon]

Wow, this thread is a scary read.

I find it particularly strange/disturbing that so many see the future lack of jobs as the worst thing imaginable, while to me it's a situation that offers endless possibilities.

Just look at our situation today, we are now the most efficient we have ever been during the course of history at producing food. Similarly, we now have best production capabilities we have ever had for producing homes/houses etc. One person in aggriculture today, can support a huge amount of people, much more than one similar person could just a hundred years ago. It is also clear that this trend will continue. If we look at the total amount of services that our society is producing, that is required to give everyone a good life, we will only get more efficient at it, meaning it will take fewer and fewer people to do it with every generation.

Conclusion: It is the inevitable result that in the future, not every has to work to run the society!

I see my conlusion in a most positive view, as it frees up everyones time to do everything they want! Who wants to work as a trash collector when an automated system can take care of it? So why force people to do it? Much better that we build the future society without the requirement that everyone must work. There are much better/more fun things people can do with their lives, like culture, science (those who are really interested in it) and sports.

As I see it, we are going to have to build a society around the fact that not everyone has a job (and those should be happy not sad!) or our society will collapse. And I would prefer the former...

 

[azzkika]

I hope employment in the US falls to a point where it no longer can afford to go blowing up people around the world as it has been. Many countries get portrayed in western media as having bad human rights records, yet the US is among the worse. A bankrupt America can only be good for other countries in the long run. The way the US treats companies like BP or journalists like Julian Assange or it's own people like in Waco or innocent people in far away places makes me welcome its decline. Nothing personal to the American out of work, i wish you no malice, but your country is way too big for its boots and way too murderous and authoritive thinking it has the right to police the world.

I am English and regard my own government and EU dictators with equal disgust. The 5 permanent members of the UN security council are also the worlds 5 biggest arms exporters!

 

[gravenewworld]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41237865
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39872376/?So...y_Don_t_Need_8_Million_More_College_Graduates
If it can happen in Tunisia, why not here? 8000 people working as waiters with a PhDs? Like I said, soon we are going to have the most educated under/un- employed work force in the history of this country, and all swimming in debt. How can anyone say this is good for American society?

 

[Andy Resnick]

It's possible. If it's physically impossible there is no point in discussing if it is reasonable.

You are really losing me here- are you saying any physically possible wish is a reasonable entitlement demand?

You originally asked me a very specific question- is it unreasonable to be entitled to a job sufficient to support a house, family, and pay for kids to go to college- I said yes, that is unreasonable. You then re-framed the question in a very abstract way, talking about equally apportioning the world's supply of gold, which I tried to parse. What exactly are you trying to ask me?

Someone has to pay for it. It doesn't have to be you. Since I've got a ton of money that I don't know what to do with, I'd be glad spend something to pay for your clean air and clean water.

Please don't- just send me the money directly: Andrew Resnick, Department of Physics, Cleveland State University, 2100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland OH 44115. TIA.

1) Yes

2) Depends. But the fact that I can't give you an exact answer is irrelevant for the answer to 1). Also *someone* has to pay for the food, but it doesn't need to be the person consuming it. If I were on a desert island, and only I had access to food, then I think I'm obligated to give it to people who don't have it. Part of the reason I feel obligated is that they are going to take it anyone if I'm not nice.

Also a lot of the answers depend on social context. Right now, I don't think it's necessary to force someone to work for food. The answers are different in England-1600, where you have to force someone to work for food because there wasn't enough.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think someone else should have to buy my food.

You are also sliding off of 'entitlement' to the idea of 'charity'. They are not exclusive. The difference is that charity is entered into voluntarily, entitlement is a compulsive form of taxation (on someone else, of course...)

 

[Andy Resnick]

I find it particularly strange/disturbing that so many see the future lack of jobs as the worst thing imaginable, while to me it's a situation that offers endless possibilities.

<snip>

I tend to agree- there is an unprecedented amount of opportunity: the world is getting smaller and more interconnected.

I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with the reality that an increased opportunity to succeed also means an increased opportunity to *fail*.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I tend to agree- there is an unprecedented amount of opportunity: the world is getting smaller and more interconnected.

I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with the reality that an increased opportunity to succeed also means an increased opportunity to *fail*.

I agree. But, I think those opportunities will not be available for a while. In the meantime, we are going through a period of change, an information revolution. The reality is, that we are getting closer to a period where many of the basic needs and products we use will become cheaper, even free, and many of the big businesses and businesspeople of today stand to lose a lot of power. For an idea of where things are going, look at the music industry (1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job.

 

[Evo]

(1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).

Music is free where? They had radios in 1995. Unless your mean stealing music. And that's off topic.

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job[/].

And how did you get that house and that solar panel, and the money for the garden, and clothes, upkeep, taxes, etc...? Where is the money coming from?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Music is free where? They had radios in 1995. Unless your mean stealing music. And that's off topic.

Options:

A) Steal the music.

B) Copy the music from your friend(s).

C) Go on YouTube, download, and convert the video to an MP3 file.

D) Go to artists' websites and download their free offerings.

E) Save music from a radio station broadcast to a recording device.

And how did you get that house and that solar panel, and the money for the garden, and clothes, upkeep, taxes, etc...? Where is the money coming from?

The only item in your list I do not have a good answer for is taxes. Everything else can or may eventually be built by small groups of people with the appropriate tools. Mass produced items will become cheaper (price regulated by supply). Even money is cheaper to produce nowadays (1s and 0s).

We have more money, more food, more efficient technology, more knowledge. More and more people have access to almost every technology the human race has to offer. The world is slowly, but certainly equalizing; It will be painful and very difficult, but I have no doubt that in 50 years I will live in a world where most of the population will have access to adequate food and shelter. In the meantime, we just need to survive through the nasty transition period.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The reality is, that we are getting closer to a period where many of the basic needs and products we use will become cheaper, even free, and many of the big businesses and businesspeople of today stand to lose a lot of power. For an idea of where things are going, look at the music industry (1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job.

This is a lot of nonsense. First off, I have no interest in being a subsistence farmer. Second, just because music may be 'free' today (and it's not really- or do you not consider the costs of servers, electricity, programmer's time, etc) doesn't mean that artists have an obligation to provide you free entertainment.

The world is full of people who are willing to die to have the opportunities available in the US- people die all the time trying to enter the US. What does that tell you? What are you willing to die for? Free music? Grow up.

 

[gravenewworld]

Look at that, Abbott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.

 

[discrete*]

I agree. But, I think those opportunities will not be available for a while. In the meantime, we are going through a period of change, an information revolution. The reality is, that we are getting closer to a period where many of the basic needs and products we use will become cheaper, even free, and many of the big businesses and businesspeople of today stand to lose a lot of power. For an idea of where things are going, look at the music industry (1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job.

I don't want to jump down your throat for this post, but come on, man. This is just not realistic. First of all, it's full of all sorts of paradoxical situations. Like if your saying music is free, than why would anyone make music? Therefore, we'd hit a point where we wouldn't have music anymore. That extends to anything. What you're saying is not even possible in a Utopian future; perhaps in the most dire of dystopia, though.

If it were to happen the way you say, societies would crumble and we'd revert back to our more primitive selves. Human beings are not inherently in this to help each other out, we're in this to survive -- just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Take away commerce and barter systems, and we'd be killing each other for food.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Failure of imagination.

This is a forum of scientists and engineers, and they should be aware of the research efforts in every field of science that will bring us more efficient, cheaper, more advanced, and better technology and knowledge. I certainly hope to be one of those people who makes this a reality.

Perhaps the use of the word "free" was inappropriate since it is normally taken in the absolute. Still, I have no doubts that as more people gain access to knowledge and technology, things will become cheaper and more accessible to even more people.

Just 10 years ago I had to buy individual CDs for $13.99/ea to listen to music or watch movies. Today, for 14.99/mo I can watch as many movies as I want thanks to Netflix and for $10.00/mo to listen to as many songs as I want thanks to Rhapsody.com. Utopia? No. Neartopia? Yes.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Not in a big or medium sized University. But if you are willing to go teach at a small liberal arts school, there are usually a good number of those to pick from.

Have you applied for these jobs before? In my experience, teaching universities want people with teaching experience. Most of the people I know who went the small liberal arts route worked as adjuncts and lecturers rather than doing traditional postdocs. More research isn't going to make you a better teacher. Also, keep in mind that while there are a lot of liberal arts colleges, not many of them need a lot of physics professors.

 

[mheslep]

Look at that, Abbott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.

Have you considered starting your own show on the side, as has advertised by our noted PF'r with the Green Hair?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3082752&postcount=12
http://www.chembuddy.com/
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=Buffer-Maker&right=buffer-calculator
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=EBAS&right=equation-balancing-stoichiometry
http://www.ph-meter.info/
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-electrode

That's at least an option to consider before giving into a forecast of perpetual US unemployment.Edit: Exxon is hiring. I've heard they use a chemist or two.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1004/gallery.fortune500_most_hiring.fortune/12.html