News Are Airlines Outsourcing Maintenance to Other Countries Increasingly?

[edward]

Just when I thought the outsourcing of jobs to other countries had hit a peak, I find this little gem.

quote: JetBlue, Southwest, America West, Northwest and United are among the carriers who outsource major maintenance of their aircraft to contractors in other countries, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.quote:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/airline_maintenance.html

Do El Salvador mechanics have an FAA approved A&P (airframe and Power plant) certification from the FAA? I really doubt that. Has anyone heard about this?

 

[loseyourname]

Given that I can fly to New York for about the same amount of money it costs me to drive down to LA, I'm not complaining.

 

[misskitty]

I find it irritating enough when I call up the airline to ask if they have a military discount for my fiance (because they never list them on the website) and don't speak to someone who is articulate with English. I understand they need jobs too but this is getting a bit annoying.

~Kitty

 

[misskitty]

Airfare is still expensive though. It took us 2 1/2 hours to find an airfare that would fit in our alotted budget. I don't see how outsourcing the maintanence jobs is going to help the consumers the way economists are saying it does if they don't lower the price of their tickets.

~Kitty

 

[edward]

I find it irritating enough when I call up the airline to ask if they have a military discount for my fiance (because they never list them on the website) and don't speak to someone who is articulate with English. I understand they need jobs too but this is getting a bit annoying.

~Kitty

They have been outsourcing ticketing and booking for some time now, but engine maintenance being done in south America is the pits from my point of view.

 

[edward]

Given that I can fly to New York for about the same amount of money it costs me to drive down to LA, I'm not complaining.

You are not complaining because you only think you are not paying. The FAA has to send hundreds of inspectors to those countries and the taxpayers pick up the tab.

 

[loseyourname]

You are not complaining because you only think you are not paying. The FAA has to send hundreds of inspectors to those countries and the taxpayers pick up the tab.

I haven't paid any taxes in three years.

 

[loseyourname]

Airfare is still expensive though.

Not on Jet Blue and Southwest, it isn't.

 

[misskitty]

It was for southwest when we were looking. I haven't heard of Jet Blue so I don't know. The fare from Southwest was over $400 and that was in coach!

~Kitty

 

[loseyourname]

It was for southwest when we were looking. I haven't heard of Jet Blue so I don't know. The fare from Southwest was over $400 and that was in coach!

~Kitty

I suppose it depends on where you're going. I managed to fly home for $29 once on Southwest. Edit: That's Oakland to LAX, by the way. In contrast, it takes about $90 worth of gas to drive home.

 

[misskitty]

That was after I priced it out on their website. When he tried to price it out he put in the same info I did and got an even higher price. It seems like they can't be consistant.

~Kitty

 

[misskitty]

I find it does depend on when and where you are flying from, but over $400 for a coach seat on an early flight seems ludrious in my mind.

What is the point of outsourcing jobs that we have here in the states anyway? There are plenty of aeronautical mechanics in the US who need jobs.

~Kitty

 

[TRCSF]

What is the point of outsourcing jobs that we have here in the states anyway? There are plenty of aeronautical mechanics in the US who need jobs.

~Kitty

There's plenty of out of work telemarketers too. The reason for the outsourcing is that they can pay people to do it for cheaper overseas, lay off american workers, and give their executives nice fat bonuses.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, the most I ever paid to fly on either of those airlines was $129 to go from LAX to JFK on Jet Blue. As long as you book in advance, both always seem to have great fares, at least from my experience. Where were you going when you had this problem?

I've got to say, I swear by Southwest. I was flying from LAX to BWI a couple years back and had a really bad ear infection so that my hearing was impaired. They were incredibly helpful, allowing me to preboard and bumping me to first class.

 

[loseyourname]

There's plenty of out of work telemarketers too. The reason for the outsourcing is that they can pay people to do it for cheaper overseas, lay off american workers, and give their executives nice fat bonuses.

Telemarketers work on commission. What's the benefit in outsourcing a telemarketer?

 

[TRCSF]

Telemarketers work on commission. What's the benefit in outsourcing a telemarketer?

Because telemarketers from India work for a significantly smaller commissions.

Why do you think the telemarkter or tech support you hear all the time now is speaking with a thick Indian accent?

 

[SOS2008]

Given that I can fly to New York for about the same amount of money it costs me to drive down to LA, I'm not complaining.

I believe this to be short-term thinking. I won't shop at Wal-Mart to save a few cents because I believe in the long run they will destroy competition in America. In general I believe people who look out for themselves and never give back to their communities/country will pay a price one way or another.

 

[misskitty]

Well, the most I ever paid to fly on either of those airlines was $129 to go from LAX to JFK on Jet Blue. As long as you book in advance, both always seem to have great fares, at least from my experience. Where were you going when you had this problem?

I've got to say, I swear by Southwest. I was flying from LAX to BWI a couple years back and had a really bad ear infection so that my hearing was impaired. They were incredibly helpful, allowing me to preboard and bumping me to first class.

My fiance was flying from Boston to Nashville. We were looking to book the flight 3 weeks in adavance.

~Kitty

 

[edward]

Because telemarketers from India work for a significantly smaller commissions.

Why do you think the telemarkter or tech support you hear all the time now is speaking with a thick Indian accent?

There are all kinds of jobs being outsourced including high tech.

By TODD BISHOP
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A Seattle-based labor union says newly surfaced documents show that Microsoft Corp. has looked to outsource to Indian companies high-level jobs in software architecture and development.

The union, WashTech, says the previously confidential agreements between Microsoft and Indian outsourcing companies Infosys Technologies and Satyam Computer Services debunk the popular notion that only lower-level technology positions are vulnerable to outsourcing.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/178021_msftindia09.html

The loss of jobs is bad in itself. But when we outsource high tech, we dumb down America.

 

[edward]

My fiance was flying from Boston to Nashville. We were looking to book the flight 3 weeks in adavance.

~Kitty

So did he ever get there?

 

[Skyhunter]

I believe this to be short-term thinking. I won't shop at Wal-Mart to save a few cents because I believe in the long run they will destroy competition in America. In general I believe people who look out for themselves and never give back to their communities/country will pay a price one way or another.

I try to be conscientious with every purchase I make. I buy my food from farmers markets, use green cleaners and toiletries, have a bio-diesel pickup, and get my clothes from second hand stores. So many corporations claim to be community and green oriented but with a little digging I find out it is just cosmetic for PR purposes.

There are no easy solutions. The people with wealth and power will continue to accumulate more wealth and power. And that means outsourcing everything.

As long as corporations have the same rights as people, corporations will have control, because they have the most money and the strongest lobbies. If the people want control of their government they must take it back from the corporatist elite, otherwise known as George W. Bush's "base"!

I think Outsider said it best:

YES, I believe that America is poised for world domination, but the American People (in general) will be used to acquire this success, but will not really share in the rewards (although this is what they will want you to think). The reward for the people is freedom, safety and security (things that monetary values cannot be placed, or better referred to as those things that money can't buy). But call me crazy, or call me a visionary, I believe the ultimate goal is social slavery and building the ultimate business machine.

 

[solutions in a box]

Since the majority of posters here are most likely not A&P airline mechanics, nor telemarketers, I doubt that they get the gravity of the situation.

The trends in outsourcing indicate that we are in big
Sh@t. A few years back when the blue collar jobs (nearly 20 millon) dissappeared, we were told we were going to have a service economy, retrain go back to school and learn technology.

We older Americans did. Now those jobs are disappearing. And the jobs are leaving the country by the thousands per year just like the factory jobs did.

India is doing every kind of service job immaginable. Every thing from: U.S. income tax preparation to software writing to processing medical insurance claims.

A few years back a person who had a reasnonably good knowledge of HTML always had a job. Ah but no more, his job was sent to Bangalor.

OK I done ranting now. The link below has some good info on outsourcing, but most will probably be too busy to see where their jobs will be in a few years.
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Norma_Sherry/out_sourcing_america-job%20loss%20and%20unemployment.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds pretty bleak - unemployment must be awful today...

 

[outsider]

There's plenty of out of work telemarketers too. The reason for the outsourcing is that they can pay people to do it for cheaper overseas, lay off american workers, and give their executives nice fat bonuses.

eBay outsources to india... the responses are mostly canned... makes it easy enough

 

[loseyourname]

I believe this to be short-term thinking. I won't shop at Wal-Mart to save a few cents because I believe in the long run they will destroy competition in America. In general I believe people who look out for themselves and never give back to their communities/country will pay a price one way or another.

When you're going to college and you don't even work, you take the lowest fare. Period.

By the way, Southwest has done amazing things in reinvigorating the airline industry and being a model of what the industry should be, maintaining profitability when other airlines were being bailed out by federal subsidies. I have no shame flying with them.

 

[loseyourname]

My fiance was flying from Boston to Nashville. We were looking to book the flight 3 weeks in adavance.

~Kitty

Jesus Christ, are you kidding me? When was this? I flew from Nashville to LAX in Spring 2000 on Southwest for about $150 or so (it was actually RDU to LAX, but there was a plane switch in Nashville).

 

[loseyourname]

Why do you think the telemarkter or tech support you hear all the time now is speaking with a thick Indian accent?

I've heard of the tech support outsourcing, but I wasn't really aware of telemarketers being outsourced. I haven't heard the voices of either, though. I don't even have a phone, so I guess that means I'm helping to put them out of work, here and in India.

 

[edward]

Sounds pretty bleak - unemployment must be awful today...

We have to work at the jobs we have not the jobs we wish we could have.

Of course people are working, but not at the jobs they once had or would prefer to have.

http://www.collegegrad.com/press/underemployed.shtml
Press Release

Underemployment Affects 18 Percent of Entry Level Job Seekers
"I’ve got a job, but I’m looking for something better..."
MILWAUKEE, WI--September 9, 2004--18 percent of recent college grad job seekers are underemployed, according to a recent survey of college graduates by the #1 entry level job site, CollegeGrad.com. "The last four years of slow economic growth has caused many students to take any job after graduation, even if it didn’t meet their expectations," said Brian Krueger, President of CollegeGrad.com. “The net result is that there are a large number of underemployed entry level job seekers still looking for their first entry level job in their field of study.”

The survey found that while many recent graduates are working, they are in a job that doesn't match their degree or their skill set – they are classically underemployed."

And the above is amomg college grads.

People in the 'Rust Belt" are currently working at what ever they can find, for a fraction of the pay that they made in manufacturing jobs 15 years ago.

Those who did update their skills are currently losing their jobs to outsourcing.
Current emploment rates mean little, underemployment isn't even measured in any meaningful way.

 

[solutions in a box]

Quote by Edward: "Under employment isn't even measured in any meaningful way".



That sentence is probably the most important one in this thread.

I have a friend who used to be the safety supervisor in a steel stamping plant. He is 55 years old and is now selling shoes in a mall in Orlando.

Under 30 and over 50 seems to be the new awkward age.

Few people really care. Over the last twenty years we have been dumbed down as a nation to the point of no return. People would rather watch a high speed chase on Fox news than try to figure out why they have had three jobs in the last five years.

 

[loseyourname]

I think you're misusing the term "underemployed." From what I know, it means that you are employed, but have been unable to find full-time employment. You can actually qualify for unemployment benefits by being underemployed in this way (assuming the law hasn't changed in the last four years).

 

[edward]

I think you're misusing the term "underemployed." From what I know, it means that you are employed, but have been unable to find full-time employment. You can actually qualify for unemployment benefits by being underemployed in this way (assuming the law hasn't changed in the last four years).

No, the definition I am referring to is the one that is currently happening in our economy. Who in hell wants to draw unemployment when they have an engineering degree?

The more current and applicable definition is:
"A situation in which a worker is employed, but not in the desired capacity, whether in terms of compensation, hours, or level of skill and experience. While not technically unemployed, the underemployed are often competing for available jobs."

 

[loseyourname]

Never mind then. I thought the technical definition was narrower than that.

Edit: Oh, the thing about unemployment benefits wasn't meant to imply that people enjoy receiving them. It's just that unemployment is measured based on how many people apply. Since people that are underemployed (at least in the sense of not getting full-time hours) can apply for benefits, their numbers can be measured. You're right to say it would be damn near impossible to measure the number who desire or are qualified for a better job, though.

 

[edward]

Never mind then. I thought the technical definition was narrower than that. You're right to say it would be damn near impossible to measure the number who desire or are qualified for a better job, though.

Actually it could be done fairly easily with an online questionnaire, but that would let the cat out of the bag on the American employment/underemployment situation.

The Department of labor, statistics gathering capability, is quite impressive. If a statistical analysis were to be done, it would show our economy in its true light and no one wants that to happen, especially Wallstreet.

Notice that in the extensive data contained in the link below, Underemployment is not even mentioned, yet underemployment is a much
more revealing statement of our true economy than employment.

http://www.bls.gov/

 

[russ_watters]

Current emploment rates mean little, underemployment isn't even measured in any meaningful way.

You are making a postivie claim (underemployment is increasing) that you then say there is no data to support. So on wha do you base that claim?

The fact of the matter is that income levels are rising across all income groups (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/inchhtoc.html ). That, to me, is the most relevant piece of data on the employment situation The fact that people are unhappy with their level of employment is not an indication that the employment situation is a bad one. In fact, to me it points to an increase in the sense of entitlement, not a decrease in the strength of the job market. Put another way, the number of college graduates is increasing faster than the job market is expanding. But there's a catch - a large number of those college graduates have utterly usless degrees. I know many people who went to college and got useless degrees and are now unhappy with their level of employment. I am unsympathetic. Regardless though, their dissatisfication with their lives is not an indicator of a poor job market.

Notice that in the extensive data contained in the link below, Underemployment is not even mentioned, yet underemployment is a much
more revealing statement of our true economy than employment.

Why do you consider underemployment so important? To me, its just a perception that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. Just because someone thinks they deserve a better job, doesn't mean they actually do deserve a better job. Ie:

We have to work at the jobs we have not the jobs we wish we could have.

I wish I had a Dodge Viper instead of a Mazda 6. Wishes are not a valid indicator of the strength of the economy.

 

[The Smoking Man]

To me, its just a perception that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. Just because someone thinks they deserve a better job, doesn't mean they actually do deserve a better job.

Granted ...

It is when the cost of the education outstrips the ability to pay back student loans that you figure out the GOVERNMENT and your institution thinks your education is worth more than it is.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Granted ...

It is when the cost of the education outstrips the ability to pay back student loans that you figure out the GOVERNMENT and your institution thinks your education is worth more than it is.

Woah ... are we off topic or what!?

 

[russ_watters]

It is when the cost of the education outstrips the ability to pay back student loans that you figure out the GOVERNMENT and your institution thinks your education is worth more than it is.

No. Colleges are businesses. What they charge for their service is based on supply and demand, not any intrinsic value to their product. Demand is going up, so price is going up.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No. Colleges are businesses. What they charge for their service is based on supply and demand, not any intrinsic value to their product. Demand is going up, so price is going up.

Yeah, but ian't a loan guarantor .. government ... supposed step into see the possibilities of a loan being defaulted upon?

It isn't as if they can reposess your frontal lobe!

You don't guarantee loans to buy a BMW to run a pizza service so why do you guarantee loans to people who will eventually work at Mickey D's?

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, but ian't a loan guarantor .. government ... supposed step into see the possibilities of a loan being defaulted upon?

Government isn't going to "step in" - they are already in. But to the question of whether government should use better judgement in providing of college loans to people who may not be able to pay them back, the answer is no. Government is not a business and college loans are a form of charity - a subsidy. They don't put much effort into ensuring they will be paid back because they aren't concerned with profit, they are concerned with sending as many people to college as they can. That's the purpose of government (backed?) college loans.

(caveat: I'm not sure if college loans come directly from the government or if they are just backed by the government, but the difference is immaterial.)

 

[Smurf]

in BC they come directly from the Government

 

[edward]

No. Colleges are businesses. What they charge for their service is based on supply and demand, not any intrinsic value to their product. Demand is going up, so price is going up.

Based on the total debt burden of graduates , colleges and universities should have booming profits, but many state affiliated schools are struggling.

Student loan debt is 85 percent higher among recent college graduates who took on debt while attending public four-year colleges than among graduates from a decade ago.

http://www.cepr.net/publications/debt_college_grads.htm


Google "student loans available" and then compare the number of hits with the number of students who are not earning up to their expected and potential salaries.
Then perhaps (but I doubt it) you will get an idea of what underemployment really means.

 

[Burnsys]

Google "student loans available" and then compare that with the number of students who are not earning up to their expected and potential salaries.
Then perhaps (but I doubt it) you will get an idea of what underemployment really means.

that is what i call "Connecting the dots"

 

[edward]

You are making a postivie claim (underemployment is increasing) that you then say there is no data to support. So on wha do you base that claim?

The link below is an 18 page excerpt from a book. Reading the first two pages should give you an idea of what I am talking about.

http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/0140/sample/0521810140ws.pdf

Data is hard to find and it sure as hell won't be found on a government web site. One easy source Russ; is to just talk to people. As far as nationwide statistical data, only the department of labor could do that and that is highly unlikely. It also would require a big clean up on Wallstreet when all of those "suits" deficated in their pants after seeing the results of a statistical analysis of Underemployment.

 

[edward]

Original topic outsourcing

There is much more to this topic than just the loss of jobs. The older persons who become unemployed must start again. And they of course must find new jobs. I know skilled workers who have been forced to take on menial labor and sales jobs. New entrants into the work force are not finding meaningful work.

Yes folks meaningful work is important to people, it is not just an Entitlement as some have stated, it is a part of human nature. For instance children born to parents who are unemployed or underemployed have a lower birth weight than children born to parents working at their full potential. (Journal of American Psychology)

Unemployment and Underemployment even effects ones health and productivity.

The link below has a short video on outsourcing.


http://www.rescueamericanjobs.com/

 

[BobG]

You are making a postivie claim (underemployment is increasing) that you then say there is no data to support. So on wha do you base that claim?

The fact of the matter is that income levels are rising across all income groups (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/inchhtoc.html ). That, to me, is the most relevant piece of data on the employment situation The fact that people are unhappy with their level of employment is not an indication that the employment situation is a bad one. In fact, to me it points to an increase in the sense of entitlement, not a decrease in the strength of the job market.

True enough, although the chart that converts all income to 2003 dollars to take inflation into account is the most pertinent. It's what you can purchase with those dollars that matters most.

Since '67, the adjusted income for the poorest has increased 28%, the fourth fifth 25%, the middle 40%, the second fifth 57%, and the top fifth 74%. The problem is that people don't look at the long term trend when faced with a short term problem - not when short term is measured in years!

From 2000 to 2003, the adjusted income for the poorest fell 6%, the fourth fifth fell 3.6%, the middle fell 2.3%, the second fifth fell 0.5%, and richest fifth fell 0.7%.

Besides, it's not the numbers that have the biggest impression on people. It's the fact that outsourcing has started taking a new class of jobs - jobs the general public thought were secure career fields. That makes more than just those directly affected wonder what the future holds.

 

[russ_watters]

Google "student loans available" and then compare the number of hits with the number of students who are not earning up to their expected and potential salaries.
Then perhaps (but I doubt it) you will get an idea of what underemployment really means.

edward, I acknowledged the people percieve themselves to be "underemployed" - my argument that that perception does not reflect the reality of the US economic sitiuation, it simply reflects a growing sense of entitlement and growing number of people going to college because they think they should go to college (not for the sake of learning a specific trade to get a good job).

I guess we could fix this perception problem by offering less student loans - then less people would go to college and they wouldn't be overqualified for their jobs. Personally, I don't think that's the way to go...

I'm sorry, but its no one's responsibility but yours to get you the job you think you deserve. But what I can promise you is that if you (on average) perform as well as your parents, you will do better financially than they did.

Regarding that study from Cal, its a real eye-roller. Its an examination of the social effects of something it takes as gosphel: it isn't an attempt to prove the existence of an underemployment problem, it assumes it exists and discusses its effects.

 

[outsider]

There is much more to this topic than just the loss of jobs. The older persons who become unemployed must start again. And they of course must find new jobs. I know skilled workers who have been forced to take on menial labor and sales jobs. New entrants into the work force are not finding meaningful work.

I'm observing the same thing... but I don't agree with your feelings completely.

Yes folks meaningful work is important to people, it is not just an Entitlement as some have stated, it is a part of human nature.

Why do people want education? To feel "important" in society by qualifying themselves to do something with their lives to feel a sense of self satisfaction. Let's put it this way: there is a selfish motive. It is this self perception that disqualifies average jobs as meaningful work. So the definition of meaningful work is defined by each person. As an example we can use examples that people can somehow relate to: Government street workers, meter maids... etc... do people consider this meaningful work?

For instance children born to parents who are unemployed or underemployed have a lower birth weight than children born to parents working at their full potential. (Journal of American Psychology)

Unemployment and Underemployment even effects ones health and productivity.

The link below has a short video on outsourcing.


http://www.rescueamericanjobs.com/

Not everyone who completes training will receive the job that they were trained for. This is not a closed system where if there was one "meaningful" job available, they would only train one person to fill the position. Almost any monkey can sit through a class, memorize the info and pass an exam. Companies feel entitled to hire the most qualified candidate from their perspective. From a marketing standpoint, this may be that the staight C buxom blonde is hired over a straight A frumpy fat old black lady... the intrinsic value of a beautiful woman is far greater than the educational value from a business perspective. (also if you are too smart, you may easily get bored with work, or worse... you become a threat).

Since business and education (in most cases) are not connected, business has no responsibility to maintain the jobs that education promises it's students. Just the same way that if the marketplace isn't buying new computers... DELL will not buy more chips from INTEL. It's all based on needs. So no one is (technically) entitled to a job due to qualifications. When you pay for a meal at a restaurant you get a meal. When you pay for an education, you shouldn't expect a job.

Education to some degree gives it's students a false hope of reality, but that IS reality.

Every entity has it's own agenda...

 

[russ_watters]

BobG, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, there - yes, incomes fell from 2000-2003. That's a reflection of the employment (unemployment) situation and is cyclical in nature. But if what edward was saying were true, incomes would be decreasing even as unemployment is decreasing. Since they are not, that makes the "underemployment" problem entirely a perception problem.

Outsourcing is an interesting problem because it typically affects (or appears to affect) entire specific fields, but not the economy as a whole. What we read in the papers is that 10,000 workers for a garment company lost their jobs due to outsourcing, but what you don't hear is that that company's profits rose so much as a result, it bought a retail chain (made-up, but typical example). If outsourcing was really hurting the economy it would manifest in higher unemployment rates.

 

[BobG]

Perception is everything. People can't be blamed for seeing a problem.

After adjusting for inflation, wages should increase a little over 1% per year (a little less for the lower income groups, a little higher for middle and upper class groups, with the richest gaining about 2% per year).

By time Reagan took office, wages had lagged quite a ways below what they should be compared to inflation. By time Reagan left office, wages were slightly ahead of where you'd expect them to be (in other words, the perception of his economy was affected as much by Carter's poor economy as his own steady growth economy).

By time Clinton took office, wages had lagged way behind again (Bush I's economy sucked!). The economy during Clinton's years were phenomenal! First, they naturally caught back from the Bush I years. Second, wages kept growing at a rate way above what could be sustained long term. Wage growth wasn't just above average during his presidency - it was double it's long term rate of growth!

If you think Clinton's a miracle worker, you believe that gain was real and should never be given back. If you think he was a lousy president, you salivate at what the economy is going to be like when the next president takes over. If you think he was fair to middling, or even just a little above average, you cringe at what's ahead for the economy.

In fact, a president inheriting a bad economy is probably destined to be a two-term president and a president inheriting a good economy is probably destined to be a one term president - the most recent exceptions are Carter who inherited a bad economy and left an even worse one; and Bush who inherited a great economy and had wages fall to below average by reelection time (in other words, the economy wound up doing even worse than expected).

Outsourcing does contribute to some worker's problems and 9/11 contributed to some of the economic problems. The main reason, though, is that wages have to fall back to that slow steady rate of gain.

 

[edward]

edward, I acknowledged the people percieve themselves to be "underemployed" - my argument that that perception does not reflect the reality of the US economic sitiuation, it simply reflects a growing sense of entitlement and growing number of people going to college because they think they should go to college (not for the sake of learning a specific trade to get a good job).

I guess we could fix this perception problem by offering less student loans - then less people would go to college and they wouldn't be overqualified for their jobs. Personally, I don't think that's the way to go...

I'm sorry, but its no one's responsibility but yours to get you the job you think you deserve. But what I can promise you is that if you (on average) perform as well as your parents, you will do better financially than they did.

Regarding that study from Cal, its a real eye-roller. Its an examination of the social effects of something it takes as gosphel: it isn't an attempt to prove the existence of an underemployment problem, it assumes it exists and discusses its effects.

When an older person who once was a software engineer is now selling shoes, it is much more than a problem of perception Russ. Talk to people Russ.

Cal didn't spend all of that money and energy on a perceived notion. Neither did the Journal of American psychology.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...+workforce+investment+act+underemployed&hl=en

If the problem doesn't exist why was there a Work Force Investment Act passed in 1998? And why is its implementation currently hidden deeply withing the department of Labor?

Can you give me a link that indicates that the outsourcing of American jobs has improved the life of the average American?