About half of college grads underemployed => disaster?

[XZ923]

Does underemployed only mean underpaid?

I'm happy with my pay. I feel like I'm underemployed because my job is easy and not challenging.

I think in the sense of the thread the point is "underpaid", however underemployed could certainly also mean being in a lower level position than you'd like.

However, I would just point out that in most fields you usually have to start at the bottom and work your way up. I have no idea what your background is, but just to make a hypothetical, if you have a Ph. D in chemistry that doesn't mean they're not going to make you clean the beakers every day. I would suggest evaluating your position within your employer's corporate structure and deciding whether you are being restricted to a job that does not take full advantage of yours skills or if they're simply trying to get you some experience before moving on to more challenging opportunities. IMO there's a fine but very important distinction there.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I don't have a PhD. Because of that I don't think I will ever be in a job that takes full advantage of my capabilities. I don't believe there are many jobs out there that require technical, quantitative problem solving. The employer wants that, but the job doesn't require it. I think most of my team and fellow graduates are underemployed in this sense.

But the pay is right and, most importantly to me, I like my boss and team.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation.

 

[fresh_42]

Moderator's note:

I was inclined to follow the suggestion to move the detour above, which I now removed, into a different new thread about a universal payment. Unfortunately we do not have a section for social sciences. But not only that we don't have it, it also became obvious to me, why we don't have it: the discussion was led by politics and very general statements, which were far from being on a scientific base, neither in political science nor in social science. So as we don't debate about politics for this reason, I wasn't able to gather those posts in a new thread. I saw that the participants in this little detour had interesting points and spent considerable effort on their arguments, so I apologize for the removals, but the posts did not comply with our rules.

Thread re-opened.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One of the few relevant parts to the removed detour (always an issue when splitting a thread - there's no good solution) was:

I'd go even further and say the majority of people were 'not clever' about their choices at that age.

I agree. That's why the government should make these choices for them. In fact, I don't think it should stop there. At that age, people are not clever about their choice of partner. Same solution - they should be assigned by the government.

 

[XZ923]

I agree. That's why the government should make these choices for them. In fact, I don't think it should stop there. At that age, people are not clever about their choice of partner. Same solution - they should be assigned by the government.

I seriously hope you're being sarcastic...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why do you say that? Once one has decided that the proper role of government is to prevent people from making bad decisions, isn't this the natural conclusion?

 

[WWGD]

Why do you say that? Once one has decided that the proper role of government is to prevent people from making bad decisions, isn't this the natural conclusion?

Who has said/implied that? I mean re the government's role.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It may have been part of the pruned branch. But the point is, I think relevant - if we want the government to step in and keep people from making unwise choices - such as taking out huge loans to get an education placing them in a difficult spot re: paying them back - where does it end?

 

[Fervent Freyja]

This is a petty thing to complain about when American's waste trillions each year on things that only benefit them for an instant. Even if restrictions were placed on energy and water consumption, that would give us at least an extra $500 billion to spend (the same the government spends on education). What do you think even “underemployed” American's would spend those monthly savings on? Not their college loans. Maybe: fast food ($100B), soda ($60B), wasted food ($165B), gambling ($145B), lottery tickets ($60B), alcohol ($50B), tobacco ($80B), porn ($10B), bottled water ($10B), nail polish ($1B), video games ($30B), to keep their lawn pretty ($40B), a romance novel ($10B), a traffic ticket ($6B), girl scout cookies ($1B), an STD treatment ($16B), a top 10 NCAA football team ($1.5B), or send it back home to Margarita ($30B).

As you can see, for most, the situation ain’t that dire. Some people prefer to spend their money on education and books, hobbies, experiences, and other things that are intrinsically profiting. There are also many reasons a person might be “underemployed” contrary to their qualifications. Society demands that people fill positions that don’t require a degree. Only occasionally are those positions more profitable than a degree, the number of degrees being “unused” reflects that people didn’t want to take the risk to wait for that position (having a high demand) and actually took a better risk. I think you are making a little too much of this. There are also creatures called children that require supervision and raising, so you are going to find that many with degrees are underemployed or unemployed for many years on account of it, that doesn’t mean it won’t be used later on.

Are you against the government funding college (less than $50B year, I think), so that they can ultimately partake in the general American wasteful lifestyle and only consider it a waste, well, when they cannot waste later on? What’s worse, a person in debt for a degree they didn’t use or a person in debt on account of one-use things? Oftentimes, we find people in debt for both reasons. The problem really isn’t with American’s making the wrong choice of degree and being in debt. A bigger problem is the overall acceptance of a wasteful lifestyle and behaviors- money burned in other places. How many employed college grads are in debt unrelated to education?

Whether or not education translates into considerable monetary profit, a large debt, or it’s funded, I'm all for it if it can: keep people out of our legal system and reduce crime, get people out of bad communities or social associations, increase their self-esteem and quality of life, give them more skills, capabilities, and general knowledge that only the lucky acquire from their childhoods and parents, allow them to earn at least a living wage and participate in basic citizenship, improve the quality of their health and relationships, create more mindful parents, and prevent childhood poverty, abuse, neglect, homelessness, or any of the other detrimental conditions that we know are correlated with poverty and lack of parental college education. Education is protective to society and enhances the quality of life for everyone. Education is protective to children. Its value surpasses the monetary.

Anybody that complains about the government having to pay for college education, in light of the sh*t above that they and the government both waste money on, when there are 15 million children living in poverty largely because of their prior generations lack of college education, should be ashamed. When you complain about funded education of adults, you might as well go up them and tell it to their face while they are still children. When you think that current minimum wage is not detrimental to the welfare of our nations children or contribute to a considerable amount of their suffering; in addition to complaining about having to help their parents or them with education later on so that they can take care of themselves, then I find you hypocritical and I question your decency. This would especially get under my skin if the person complaining is ultimately earning millions from military service, in addition to millions more from the private sectors. But, of course, they aren't going to be for anything that doesn't profit them, because that profit allows them to waste things, even if it costs many childhoods. We have a problem placing value in this country. Children are worth more than adults, plain and simple- that's the only real purpose we have as humans. Either have them or help keep them alive and thriving (the point of education). Opposition of children having decent resources for survival and transcendence, which includes their parents having a livable wage, is sabotage to the entire human race.

 

[Rika]

One of the few relevant parts to the removed detour (always an issue when splitting a thread - there's no good solution) was:
I agree. That's why the government should make these choices for them. In fact, I don't think it should stop there. At that age, people are not clever about their choice of partner. Same solution - they should be assigned by the government.

I think the solution is always the same - proper education. We educate young people in various ways but not the most important imo - how to make proper life choices and what kind of possibilities are out there. Young people should know their strengths, weaknesses, preferences - in job and life general BEFORE they go to college. Or at least they should know how to learn about themselves and how to be exposed to different stuff (trying new things, gaining new experiences is the only way to find about yourself). They should be aware of higher education's reality. You can't make good choice if you don't have necessary knowledge.

Instead we brainwash them into thinking: "go to college, get good grades and good jobs will be waiting for you" or that college education is good for everyone and any major is good for anyone.

 

[fresh_42]

I think all major arguments have been exchanged.

The thread remains closed.