News I really see no hope for employment in the US

[twofish-quant]

Bingo. Just because I went to school and took out some student loans doesn't mean that there should be a job waiting for me.

Again, why not?

The reason I ask is that most people go to universities with the implicit notion that they are going to get a job from their education. If it was clear that this isn't the situation, then people won't take out loans and go to school, and a lot of the schools would have bad financial problems.

The reason I'm a bit sensitive to this is because of subprime mortgages. The thing is that you can arrange a situation in you don't provide any *explicit* guarantee that something good will happen if they sign a piece of paper, but what happens is that you wink and you nod, and the person somehow gets the idea that if they sign a piece of paper, then good things will happen. They when something goes bad, it's not your fault.

Personally, I think it's slimey, but I see schools do the same thing. There is this concept in finance called fiduciary duty. If someone has a fiduciary duty to you, then they have a duty to keep you from doing stupid things. Most financial transactions *don't* have fiduciary duties attached to them, so if the salesman sees that you are doing something stupid, they have no responsibility to stop you.

What bothers me is that I *do* think that schools have something like fiduciary duties in the moral sense, which means that if a school needs to actively make sure that you aren't doing something stupid rather than "buyer beware."

Also there is this enlightened self-interest thing. You might not care if the bank issues bad loans, except they are doing it with your money. If someone takes a student loan and is in permanent debt, it's your checking account money that's involved.

When a professor says that it's not my fault that someone can't get a job, that won't do, because the loan that they took out in expectation of paying it back has gone to their pocket. I might be old fashion, but I happen to believe that if you take someone's money, that you have some sort of duty toward them.

People hate to hear it but this is how life works. If it were easy, it wouldn't be worth it.

Funny that people give all sorts of lessons about how life works *after* the person involved has taken out the loan and their money is in your pocket.

 

[twofish-quant]

Are you seriously asking me why I am not entitled to whatever I want?

Yes. If the answer is obvious they it should be an easy answer, but I've found that you can learn a lot by asking "obvious questions."

If you think you are entitled to 200 pounds of gold, then the answer is that we don't have enough gold in the world for everyone.

If you think you are entitled to free air, then that answer doesn't work, and I'm curious what answer will.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

Not true at all.

 

[twofish-quant]

Your solution, while perfectly reasonable, is unrealistic on a timescale comparable to my lifetime (or my students' lifetimes)- there's too much existing disparity and poverty worldwide.

One of the purposes of education is so that you can do things that last more than a lifetime. In any case, China and India are growing at 10% year and that changes things a lot. There are parts of China that are at US standards of living. I'd estimate that about 5% of China is developed world standards, but that's >100M people.

Personally, I think having access to a global pool of talent is great: it's a natural extension of accessing the pool of talent currently labeled as "underrepresented minorities". I'm interested in getting the best students I can, I don't care where they come from.

Sure but that won't last long, and in five years, the best and the brightest are likely to stay in China.

Again, in order to be competitive in a global environment, I have to focus on skills that distinguish me from everyone else, and not only that, I have to recognize that my skill set must constantly evolve and change- lifelong learning.

But what if even that doesn't work?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Yes. If the answer is obvious they it should be an easy answer, but I've found that you can learn a lot by asking "obvious questions."

If you think you are entitled to 200 pounds of gold, then the answer is that we don't have enough gold in the world for everyone.

If you think you are entitled to free air, then that answer doesn't work, and I'm curious what answer will.

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.

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

 

[drankin]

twofish,

Acquiring debt seems to be the problem IMO. Basically, borrowing towards a chance to get a job to pay it back. It's a gamble. A good one, usually, but a gamble none-the-less. I did it, but to do it over I would have worked my way through it. It would have been harder but I could have done it. When debt so easily acquired and it doesn't work out as planned there is a whole lot of unhappy folks.

Great posts, BTW.

 

[Andy Resnick]

One of the purposes of education is so that you can do things that last more than a lifetime. In any case, China and India are growing at 10% year and that changes things a lot. There are parts of China that are at US standards of living. I'd estimate that about 5% of China is developed world standards, but that's >100M people.

China and India have a ways to go, but in any case as you noted, the unskilled manufacturing jobs are starting to be outsourced from China to other countries. The world is bigger than China and India. How long until sub-saharan Africa enjoys a US standard of living?

Sure but that won't last long, and in five years, the best and the brightest are likely to stay in China.

That's fine- the world is a big place. Hopefully in 5 years I'll still have a reason to attract people to my lab.

But what if even that doesn't work?

It's worked so far, but there are no guarantees.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Again, why not?

The reason I ask is that most people go to universities with the implicit notion that they are going to get a job from their education.

That's not exactly true- besides the difference between "education" and "training", I have a lot of students who are in school because they want a *better* job than the one they have: they already have a job.

Since there is clear documentation that a person with even some college experience outearns someone with no college experience, it's hard to say what you are objecting to.

 

[WhoWee]

The chemical industry is in a race to the bottom: lay off as many people as possible until only a skeleton crew is left. Create a huge pool of unemployed scientists (with M.S.'s and Ph.D's) on the job market, and then hire them back as low-paid temps to fill work that would have been filled by a B.S. or even a high school diploma before 2007. That way, they have no commitment to the employee and can dispose of them and replace them as easy as they hire them.

I feel you dude. The only answer is socialist revolution and a scientist union that demands to be treated better and sets a minimum wage for itself.

In the US - it might also be possible to find a well capitalized smaller company in need of R&D that's willing to offer a modest base pay with very generous incentives.

 

[gravenewworld]

I don't know it for a fact. I was guessing that the situation was not completely dissimilar from what it is in Physics.

The last figure has some interesting data. First off, unemployment is definitely lower among PhD's than it is among BS's and MS's. Also, notice the dip in unemployment in the 30-40 age group. That's not the demographic that's making its way through grad school; it's the group that includes a lot of recent PhD's and postdocs.

And, in general, it seems to me like the employment numbers are trending roughly with the overall health of the broader economy. It's hard to tell from the 10-yrs worth of numbers that there is a definite downtrend in the field.

PS: Didn't read any of the text besides what's in the figures.

No one ever believes ACS or CEN data. They are only surveys. Only 35% of ACS members even replied to the survey. Not all chemists belong to the ACS, therefore ACS salary and employment figures have to be taken with a grain of salt since they only report statistics among ACS members only, not for all chemists in general. The surveys add positions like post docs, temporary workers, part timers, and the underemployed into their "employment figures" and completely fail to report things like U-6 employment statistics, which is gives a much clearer picture of employment trends. Post docs used to last 1-2 years; these days it is very common to find post docs who have been moving around from post doc to post doc for 3, 4, or even 5 years or more. I'd hardly say that they have found a real job.

 

[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.