rjung, Mr. Svineshla, let's discuss the result of conservative policies.

Great Debates
1

As long as we can keep this civilized, I think this is a worthy topic for GD. I think I can disuss this rationally.

Now then. In this thread I was lamenting my inability to get a job. In my angered state I posted this:

[sub]I hope the Mods will forgive the language.[/sub]

To which Mr. Svineshla responded:

And rjung followed up with this:

Apparently the belief being espoused here is that my inability to get a job is a result of Republican policies. In the interests of full disclosure, I will say that I am a registered Independent, but even so I am conservative by nature. I am, however, willing to change my mind given a good enough reason to do so (which I hope I’ve proven over the last few years). So here’s how I see things.

It is unfair to blame Republicans for the collapse of the job market. The tech bubble was about to burst when Bush took office, the leading market indicators had been trending downward at the end of 2000, and after an extended period of unprecedented growth a downturn was both inevitable and expected.

On top of that we have the events of September 11. I understand that people have been using that as a crutch for a lot of things, but following the attacks there was a general feeling of unease compounded by the collapse of the airline industry, which naturally had an effect in other places.

So what happened after that? The Republicans cut taxes, giving me money in pocket (adimttedly at the expense of the future), increase government spending (again, admittedly at the expense of the future), and now the economy is improving, though not at the rate of the 1990s boom era. Jobs are being created, albeit slowly, but the contraction is apparently over. People are getting jobs. Just not me (although I’m hoping that is just a temporary thing).

That’s my grotesquely simplified thoughts on the job market. Now, on to social spending.

The Republicans have expanded spending on a massive scale, virtually unheard of in previous times. Fine, I concede that. A lot of people think that it should go to health care, Social Security, and the like. Well, sure, that would probably help me now, but at what cost? Social programs have no return on investment. The money you spend on health care goes straight into the pockets of the people providing those services, i.e. Big Business. Is it not more cost effective to spend that money in a manner that causes them to increase real production, forcing them to create real jobs? That’s more a philosophical question than anything else, but it’s a reasonable one and is pretty much the question you have to answer in order to justify social spending.

There. That should get this puppy started. Your thoughts, gentlemen?

2

I can say one thing with surety…Once the first CEO job gets outsourced…the practice will stop.

Even if Bush does support it.

3

That is incorrect; well planed Social Programs yield huge benefits, think of accesible medical care for example; how many times have you seen in the GQs people asking “Hey, what are this spots all over my body?”, “there´s something growing in my…” When health care is not accesible, people, in general, only go to a doctor when simptoms are advanced. Sometimes at that time is too late or what began as a simple ailment has become a serious condition that requires expensive treatments.
Another example would be social programs to prevent crime, etc… It´s a matter of prevent rather than cure, the prevention is usually a lot cheaper than the cure; thus in the long run social programs save money, a lot of money.

4

For what it’s worth, Airman, all I got out of Mr. S and rjung’s comments was that your experience puts the lie to the position oft held by those of a conservative persuasion that the poor are poor because they’re too lazy to go out and get a job. It’s not always as easy as all that - if a military veteran in good standing can’t find any work, not even low-paying mindless drone work, the chances of some inner city kid with a lousy education and what have you can’t be too great either, one would think. Perhaps they meant more, that in fact your particular predicament is the result of, or at least characteristic of the results of current Republican policies. I can’t see that really being the case, for essentially the reason you suggest - the tech bubble was gonna burst, and there wasn’t a damn thing anyone could do about it. This is all still just fallout from that. If they did mean more, I’ll leave them to defend the claim.

I would have to agree with Ale, though, that intelligently run social programs can have a vast return on investment. (Which is not, of course, to say that governments are particularly good at running anything intelligently.) Public education, for example, results in a more competant, and therefore more productive workforce, which other things being equal will result in a much wealthier society overall. Publicly available health services can save society money, on the ‘ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure’ model - letting medical conditions become acute before seeking treatment is both the most expensive way to deal with them, and the usual practice for someone without access to health insurance. Publicly available health services can also keep a lid on nasty stuff like TB and cholera that could make a comeback if we decided to allow large chunks of the populace to go without any health care at all. Some sort of welfare safety net can diminish truly desperate levels of poverty which are guaranteed to breed high rates of crime, though admittedly welfare programs are extremely difficult to run in a fashion which doesn’t lead to abuse and yet which achieves that sort of goal.

I do not wish to argue here for the merits of any particular social program. I just don’t think it’s at all fair to suggest that they have no return on investment.

5

How about we start by doing a comparison between the U.S. and countries that have followed programs more in line with what the Democrats want?

We could start with Canada - and since the thread that Airman refers to is about unemployment, I’d like to point out that unemployment in Canada is 7.4%, vs 5.6% in the U.S.

In Europe as a whole, which is certainly further to the left than the U.S., unemployment is around 8%. In France and Germany, which have adapted very left-leaning policies, unemployment is around 10%, and both countries are also running huge deficits.

In fact, the U.S. has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the G-7, second only to Japan (and maybe Great Britain - I’m not sure).

In fact, looking at this chart, there seems to be a 1:1 correlation between unemployment rates and the level of socialization in a country.

6

You know, Sam, you harp on this statistic over and over and over again, and I have yet to be convinced that unemployment statistics mean much of anything at all. They all depend on this nebulous definition of who counts as an unemployed person. Obviously that isn’t just everyone who doesn’t have a job, and just as obviously minor variations in how one distinguishes between people who don’t have a job but are looking, and people who don’t have a job but aren’t “part of the labour force” will have a huge impact on these numbers. Comparing this month’s report from Stats Can to last month’s is meaningful. Comparing this month’s report from Stats Can to this month’s report from the US Dept of Labour - not so meaningful.

I mean, don’t you find it very interesting that for the past couple years, virtually every labour report in Canada has had substantial job growth, but the unemployment rate near steady, and during the same time period, the labor reports in the US have had substantial job losses, but the unemployment rate near steady?

Canada actually has a higher percentage of its population employed than does the US. Cite. Make of that what you will.

7

I take issue with that statement. The basis of public education is naturally to educate, but who, and to what level? If everybody is super-educated, who does the menial jobs? Are there enough technical or specialized jobs to go around? Of course not. What’s worse, with outsourcing to other countries we’re bleeding jobs, jobs that we’re told that “nobody wants to do anyway”, jobs that I would give my left arm for, leaving a workforce that you can only break into with “more education”, education that is not guaranteed by law.

Public education is where we should be separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. As unfortunate as it is, not everyone can be a lawyer or an engineer or a doctor. Some people will end up being floor moppers. Like me, for instance. I weeded myself out when I failed out of college. Whether I like it or not, it’s the truth.

I frankly don’t see where spending more money on education than we do now will generate a vastly larger return on our investment.

8

Sam: I wish we had a similar “problem” like in the UK:

November 24, 2003

As for the Canada-US unemployment gap: I do think it is more complex that that:

http://www.csls.ca/journals/cpp0.asp

And very recently, the LA times had a report that showed that the unemployment level in the US is actually worse that the official numbers, AFAICR the US number had a higher % than the reported Canadian one.

9

That’s an interesting article. Thanks for that.

10

Well, I should have thought that the least controversial of my examples. :slight_smile: Think in terms of averages. Suppose that the work force in Country A has an average education level of Grade 12, and the work force in Country B has an average education level of Grade 8. Other things being equal, the market will value the work that the average worker from Country A can perform more highly than the work the average worker from Country B can perform. This means that, again, other things being equal, the average worker in Country A will contribute more to Country A’s GDP than his counterpart in Country B contributes to Country B’s GDP. So Country A has a higher GDP per capita, which nearly always translates to a higher standard of living.

This issue with the outsourcing of jobs is another thing entirely, albeit one which is causing a fair bit of employment pain for the US right now. Basically, it’s a case of other things not being equal. It has to do with global disparities in labour prices, the increased mobility of goods and services, and the general relaxing of protectionism. Labour prices in the US are high, because the standard of living (and hence its cost) is high. Workers won’t put up with salaries that are only sufficient to maintain tiny hovels and subsist on rice three meals a day. They demand more. And, historically, have been able to get it, because until recently it’s either been cheaper to put up with the high US labour prices than to transport the product halfway around the world, or because outsourcing simply hasn’t been an option (no tech support call centre outsourcing to India prior to reliable phone service between here and there, for example). That’s changing, and now the American blue collar labourer, who demands wages sufficient for a 3-bedroom bungalow, 2 cars, and a college fund for the kids, is competing with a guy in Madras who’s content with a tiny apartment and no car, in a country where housing costs vastly less than the US.

Obviously, in the short term, this is extremely painful for the lower echelons of the US workforce. In the long term, it will become beneficial, since eventually the standard of living in India will rise and the difference between the labour prices will shrink, resulting in a loss of the competitive advantage, and a greater overall demand for stuff (since the guy in Madras is gonna want a dvd player and a big screen tv).

Of course, the long term prospects are cold comfort to you right now, since they do nothing to feed your kid. But that doesn’t mean that the public education system doesn’t result in a net benefit to society.

(As an aside, and perhaps this would be more suitable in your other thread, but have you looked at construction at all? I’m under the impression that the housing market is one segment still going gangbusters down there, not surprising with mortgage rates being what they are, and a steady, reliable, hard-working guy who knows which end of a hammer to grab onto is a valuable commodity to a contractor. I know enough about framing that that’s my own fallback position. I think I could have a job within 2 phone calls if my current job vanished for whatever reason. Course, that’s kind of a case of who I know, not what I know.)

11

Airman:

I am quite certain that that was not what was being said (though, of course, Svineshla and rjung can speak for themselves). I think Gorsnak got it about right.

Most people (and certainly most liberals) would say its the other way around. When the government opens, say, a weapons factory, many new jobs are created, and that is a benefit (though, ironically, it’s the sort of benefit that honest-to-God “pinkos” seek – a planned economy), but the same is true when the government spends on education or health care. Hospitals and schools require employees, as do the bureaucracies that support them.

The difference is in the allocation of tangible resources – that is, the creation of real wealth instead of mere salaries. Schools and hospitals are useful things to build. Obviously, so are guns and tanks, but only to a point.

I agree, but maybe not in quite the sense that you meant it. If you believe that it is important to do the sorts of things that you can do with a $400 billion army but not with a $100 billion army, then the extra $300 billion is being speant usefully – that is, it is creating “wealth.” On the other hand, if you’d rather not do the sorts of things a $400 billion army can do, then the extra $300 billion is extraordinarily wasteful – yes, it creates some jobs, but so would $300 billion worth of schools and hospitals, and then we’d have a healthier and wiser populace instead of merely a better armed one.

It’s not nearly that simple, of course, but it would take me several hours to go into this thoroughly (besides which, I Am Not An Economist). It’s just that it would certainly be good if we could devote more resources to social programs like education and health care, but it is debatable whether our current level of defense spending (let alone an increased level) is desirable.

I think that liberals and conservatives have honest disagreements about how to get the most utility (wealth) out of limited resources, but the rhetoric that we use as shorthand for our conclusions tends to obscure exactly what our conclusions are (or, more commonly, what the other side’s conclusions are). As a result, we often wind up talking past each other when it comes time to debate, say, whether to build a school or a platoon Abrams tanks.
The article linked and quoted by GIGObuster is a better contemplation of the general topic than I could offer (". . . The greater degree of social equity provided by social programs may also be a highly valued characteristic of society . . ." etc.), so you’re probably better off reading that than this, I suppose. In any event, I wish you luck and peace of mind while you look for employment.
– Jer

12

<snip>

Keep in min that the purpose of an education is not for the workplace alone – not even primarily. Who? Each child. To what level? To the highest level that she or he is capable of attaining. Why do you even ask these questions?

You don’t have to worry that everyone will become “super-educated.” There will always be those whose education cannot go much beyond training.

Spending more money wisely on education would allow school systems to lure those who are naturally gifted at teaching, hire clerks to take care of much of the bookkeeping and paperwork that is done by professionals now, hire more and better educated counselors who actually spend their time counselling rather than record-keeping, hire disciplinarians that would deal with students who interfere with the process, build classrooms that aren’t in portable rooms or in crumbling buildings, make computers available in every classroom, make emergency communications possible between the classroom and the main office, provide enough copy paper to last a full year. Even items that are considered standard in every office in the country are still “prized possessions” in some classrooms. Staplers, for example. A desk that locks. A chair on rollers.

If you think of investments only in terms of money, what’s the point? Investing in the health and education of human beings is reward in itself. Wellness and knowledge are the payoff.

Why is your question addressed only to men?

13

Airman:

Wow. I’ve seen people in GD get pitted often enough, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen someone in the Pit get “Gded!”

:slight_smile:

No, that wasn’t my intention. Your ability to get a job is determined by the intersection of your skills, your business contacts, your social IQ, the labor market in your surroundings, and luck. Since survival on an open labor market is something of crap shoot, even someone with a high skill level can wind up unemployed: consider DCU’s fate from the linked Pit thread. (In other words, what Gorsnak and VarlosZ said.) However, the issue I wanted to raise was that of the condition of the poor and unemployed in the US. In other words, as I see it, your current situation is made particularly precarious by virtue of the many draconian policies which form the core of today’s conservative political ideology.

Were you to be unemployed in Sweden, by contrast, your situation would be radically better. For example, you would probably have A-Kassa benefits here, meaning that, thanks to your membership in a labor union (or, at the very least, your participation in the A-Kassa system), you would be earning about 80% of the salary you had at your last job, while looking for more work. Those benefits would last for 300 work days. If you got sick, you could go to a doctor for about 12 bucks. If he decided that you need an EKG, a KAT scan, a full blood work-up and a set of chest x-rays, you would still pay about 12 bucks. Your child, meanwhile, would be guaranteed completely free medical treatment. And so on.

The point is not that a socialist system can provide more or less work on the open market. Employment rates are affected by the world economy, and can go up or down in relation to it. Rather, the point is that, ideally, such a system provides a kind of safety net, or cushion, to offset the fluctuations of that market when necessary. A bout of unemployment does not put one into desperate straits, or strip one completely of one’s dignity.

So I agree with you that it would be unfair – completely unfounded as well, as far as I can see – to blame the Republicans for the tech bubble burst. But the question arises, how should a society deal with these fairly profound shocks to the market? To oversimplify somewhat, the left says, “We must pursue programs that help the poor get back on their feet.” The right says, “We must cut taxes for the rich, and press wages/benefits down.” Basically.

Even the positions of those who are employed in the US, especially that large body of low-skill, minimum-wage earners, is precarious. They have no rights and all obligations in relationship to their employer. He/she can insult them, mistreat them, yell at them, humiliate them, and then, at his whim, fire them. He can force them to piss in cups or undergo idiotic psychometric tests. The dishwasher down at the local steakhouse has no recourse when treated in this manner. I speak from experience. You should pick up a copy of Nickle and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich, for a taste of what it’s like to belong to this class of America’s working poor. When I think about it, I find it simply astounding that people would allow themselves to be treated this way, that they wouldn’t rise up in mass and demand better working conditions, more power in the workplace, and so on.

Well, I don’t know how it is in the States these days, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Health care expenses in Sweden, for example, do not wind up in the hands of “Big Business,” as you can probably imagine. Welfare benefits stimulate the local economy; after all, poor people gotta eat, rent a living space, buy clothes, gas, bus tickets, rent the occasional movie or drink the occasional beer down at the local, etc. So the money goes back into the economy as a kind of subsidy, but it is a subsidy for basic goods.

Please don’t get the idea from the above that I’m promoting Sweden’s social welfare system as anything close to perfect. There are downsides to the system as well, to which any economist can attest. GIGObuster’s cite – especially the second quotation – pretty much sums up my view on the matter. A well-functioning social welfare system does exert a toll on the society that it serves, it’s just that from my perspective – having grown up in the States, and then moved to Sweden – the price of the system is more than worth the costs. In fact, I’d like to reiterate some of the conclusions drawn in the study GIGO posted:

As far as that goes, YMMV, but I’ll tell you this, when you’re down – when you begin to feel that you’re worth more dead than alive – then that kind of system might not seem like such a totally bad idea. But be careful!

Next thing you know, you start talking like a pinko.

:slight_smile:

14

Part of the problem is that it is undesirable to have virtually total employment in a capitalist economy, as this will push wages rates up, and skill levels down.

If you look histoically at Conservative politics in the UK you willsee that htis has always involved the creation of labour pools.

One of the great ironies of British employment is that in the 1950’s, black migrant workers were encouraged to come here to seek a better life.

These workers would usually end up in the lower echelon of employment, despite whatever skills and qualifications they might have.

The reason that they were ‘imported’ was simple, there was a shortage of manual labour in the UK at the time and there was a huge post war economic boom.

The irony was the the minister largely responsible was the ultra extreme and later to become famous for his sheer racism - Enoch Powell, who turned into the darling of the racist British National Party.

The people who benefitted most from this importation of cheap labour were of course the owners and investers.

This is the reality of Conservative values.

Right now the UK is in a situtaion where demographics will ensure that there will be a shortage of all types of labour, but especially trade skill labour in the next 10 years or so, and our Conservative factions are trying desperately to fight off the waves of so-called freeloading ‘asylum seekrs’ who are largely economic migrants.

We will need these imported workers to support our aging population, but British politics is about envy and greed, we will end up with what we deserve.

When you look at the outsourcing of employment, to call centres in India and the like, what you notice is that capiltalists are talking about ‘cost bases’ and ‘shareholder value’ and ‘competing within the industry’ . This simply means that since one company is behaving like this then sheep herd mentality of capitalism ensures all other companies are forced to behave in the same way.

What you will notice is that its actually the ‘pinkos’ who are condemning the practice.

This is kind of odd, since a true ‘humanist pinko’ would look at the worldview and say that at least wealth is being spred around the world, and those in the G9 nations are hardly straving anyway.

15

I must admit, when I saw your pit thread, I was thinking “it’s a bit rich for a conservative to complaining about this” - not because I think conservative economic policy created your situation, but because I believe that the extremity of your situation was exacerbated by conservative policy. You mentioned in the pit thread that you were waiting for welfare to come through, prompting me to wonder “isn’t it conservatives that are always telling us that welfare discourages the unemployed from finding work” and that “there’s always money out there for those who want to work for it.” Hell, according to some conservatives I know of, by now you should have sparked up some entrepreneurial spirit, made millions and should be comfortably living the American dream by now.

However, I didn’t say that there because it seemed unfair to kick someone while they’re down, and while I can attribute those beliefs to many conservatives, I couldn’t, and still can’t be sure that you hold them.

I think I’m missing something in your critique of public education. Surely free, high quality education ensures that those with the most ability and drive will be able to take full advantage of life, regardless of their financial situation? Shouldn’t the lawyers and engineers be those who will do the best job? If a kid from the projects has the potential to become a better engineer than a rich kid, then surely society is advantaged by giving the poor kid the opportunity to do that job? And I’m not just talking about the best of the best, who will be able to win scholarships. A free, high quality education levels the playing field so that those who can make the most of that education have the opportunity to do so.

As for outsourced jobs, I thought that was just a free-market in action. Because the companies outsourcing their labour are reducing their costs, they pass on those reduced costs in savings on the products you buy, which promotes spending, improving the economy, meaning more businesses will open and require the services of floor-moppers and security guards - which is where you come in. Isn’t that how economic rationalism works?

I mean, it’d be nice if those foreign workers were being paid decently and had reasonable workplace standards, so that people like yourself would be more likely to be able to compete with them, but, the way I understand it, this outsourcing should be resulting in you getting employed soon anyway.

It’s silly to compare economies in this way, because each economy is differen, with different needs and different advantages. I can’t speak for the ones you mention, but I know that Australia will never have the economy the U.S. is capable of because of the make up of the country. Australia has a small population spread out over a large continent, requiring lots of infrastructure, despite a relative lack of taxpayers to fund it. Nor do we have the resources of the U.S. I imagine Canada suffers from similar problems, though I couldn’t speak authoritively on the specifics.

16

Your average person thinks of his college career entirely in monetary terms. They choose a major specifically to maximize their return after graduation. I find that more realistic than education for its own sake, which anybody can do without the mortgaged future that college provides. Since a high school education is a virtual requirement and the bar is set so low, the diploma has been seriously devalued as an instrument of achievement to the point where we almost can’t consider that an academic achievement anymore. It used to be that a diploma was good enough, now it’s a degree. Where will the education inflation stop?

Health care is an entirely different issue, one that I’ll get into later. Aaron needs a bath. :slight_smile:

Because they were the ones that raised the issue with me. Sorry.

17

“Unemployment” is not the same as welfare. It’s a temporary income you collect between jobs, if you qualify for it. Welfare is a permanent income given to people who cannot work, and some who will not work, and I wasn’t aware that supporting those who could really support themselves was strictly a conservative complaint.

Free education ends at 12th grade. We’ve been professionalizing areas of employment for years now so that a high school diploma doesn’t grant entry into the jobs it used to. Thus, it is worth less, college becomes a necessity, and then the playing field is no longer level. I’m not sure how conservatism is to blame for this either…but I haven’t put much thought into it.

I don’t think it’s unfortunate that not everyone can be degreed, because the world does need people to mop the floor and pick up garbage and haul lumber up and down stairs. (My “fallback” position is and has always been waiting tables. Which I enjoy.) There’s also a huge middle ground between the two, and you seem a bit overqualified for the ground floor if you don’t mind me saying so. Are you aiming too low?

18

Permanent? It may have been permanent in the past, but not now.

Also, many people on welfare work. If you have children and are only bringing in minimum wage, you will require supplements to survive. Welfare provides supplements.

Please check your myths at the door.

http://www.fair.org/extra/9505/welfare-myths.html
http://socialpolicy.ca/52100/m10/m10-t13.stm
http://hcom.csumb.edu/welfare/resources/myths_facts.html

From the link above:

MYTH: The reason people need welfare is because they won’t work.
FACT: The only adults receiving AFDC are those who are caring for children and over two-thirds of them have recent work experience from employment while receiving aid or before they applied for aid.

38% of unemployed people are eligible for unemployment benefits at any given time. If you can’t find a job and you can’t receive unemployment benefits, what are you supposed to do? Starve to death? How about your children? Will the soup kitchen downtown sustain you while you pound the pavement? I say thank God there’s such thing as the little welfare assistance we have. Without it, there would no hope for people in Airman’s situation and worse.

The idea that people want to dismantle the weak safety net we have in place absolutely sickens me. And yet the same people have no problem spending a billion dollars a day for the “welfare” of some other country’s citizens. It’s unbelievable how hypocritical we are as a nation.

19

That’s why 4-5% is typically considered “at full employment” because at any time there are people not working who are willfully unemployed, either because they don’t need the money, or are in the process of transferring jobs.

20

I agree with everything youve said. I would also like to point out to many here that it isnt necessarily conservatives who are to blame for college degrees being a requirement for many poisitions that really dont call for a degree.

As far as Im concerned, degrees are necessary for positions in the physical sciences; brain surgeons, aeronautical negineers, those types of things.

I think it profoundly rediculous that, as some wild ass example, someone with no degree can start off in, say, the shipping dept of a company and work their way up, but cant go into middle management; instead, someone with a degree in something like english or gender studies gets hired straight out of school and becomes the boss of the person who is really far more qualified, and in many cases has to train their own new boss in how the company works.

There is a bigotry that goes on, from both liberals and conservatives, that a college educated person is just somehow a ‘better’ person. Its apparent in some of the posts on here; equating non-college educated people with floor moppers for example. Myself, when I picture someone without a college education, Im more likely to think of a telephone lineman, or an electrician, or a plumber; all fields that your average college graduate are woefully unprepared for and incapable of doing.

I would go so far as to claim that at least a slight majority of positions in this country that require a college education are positions that have nothing really to do with any particular type of degree; in middle management jobs especially, its unimportant what your degree is in as long as you have one. This is just plain rediculous.

And its this fact more than any other that in my opinion underlies some of the the latest push towards protectionism. Its white collar stuff being outsourced overseas, Oh No! I shouldnt have to compete with anyone, I have a degree! I have a piece of paper guarenteeing me a certain level of income throughout the rest of my life! A college education is not a tool that I use to achieve things, its an achievement all on its own! Because I achieved a degree, because I didnt color outside the lines, because I followed the laid-out path, now I deserve to be able to kick back and rest on…my degree! Leave the struggles for the poor uncouth who werent good enough to get degrees!

I dont hear any liberals commenting on how practical work experience is just as valuable an education in many fields as a college education. I dont hear any liberals wanting to alter things such as due-diligence rules to account for this fact. I dont hear any liberals declaring how a college education is only one form/way of education out of many. I only hear liberals not only accepting the status quo, but embracing it, cementing it, and wanting only to compensate people for the artificial (i.e social) barriers it puts in their way.

Things are changing. Yes, an education is far more necessary now than it ever has been…that doesnt necessarily equate to a college education. Id hire an, I dont know, ex-carpenter who took night classes at the local community college to learn programming - or learned on the job - long before Id hire someone with a degree in history, or english, or gender studies, or political science, straight out of school; simply by virtue of the fact that the ex-carpenter is far better educated.

An education, even an AA degree or technical certificate, in some area of the physical sciences is far more necessary now than at any time in the past, yes. Degrees in the non-physical sciences, or the liberal arts, are actually becoming more and more worthless. Which is a shame considering recent stats I saw which showed 60% of US college grads were in the liberal arts.

Airman Doors, I dont know what to tell you. I dont know what you do, what you want to do, what youre willing to learn, whatever. Personally Id flip burgers or wait tables or mop floors before Id ever go on welfare, but Im not you. All I can say is, use the time well; take night classes, get certificates, but most important just read, educate yourself on the field you want to pursue; and even if you arent qualified to the criteria put out in a specific job ad, if you want the job, send your resume to them anyway, all they can say is no. Time and perserverence, and youll do it. Anyone can.