Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How so? Most of the people I hear crying about underemployment tend to be fresh grads. What exactly are their qualifications to say they are underemployed?
Having a degree does not mean they were trained for that profession, most degrees are not terminal and are broad/generic.
A degree in X rarely means you are a X professional. An English major working as a barista is no more qualified to make coffee as they are to call themselves a linguist. So how are they "over" qualified for Starbucks?
Do people think a degree is an automatic qualification? For what exactly? Qualified to complete homework and tests?
How so? Most of the people I hear crying about underemployment tend to be fresh grads. What exactly are their qualifications to say they are underemployed?
Having a degree does not mean they were trained for that profession, most degrees are not terminal and are broad/generic.
A degree in X rarely means you are a X professional. An English major working as a barista is no more qualified to make coffee as they are to call themselves a linguist. So how are they "over" qualified for Starbucks?
Do people think a degree is an automatic qualification? For what exactly? Qualified to complete homework and tests?
So why do employers demand degrees plus 2 years experience for entry level jobs? If a degree doesn't make you qualified then why is it a requirement?
You don't know that, really no one can knows exactly that rate because it's difficult to have an OBJECTIVE measurement (no, not one that fits a political or personal agenda of bitterness over ones personal situation). Some economists will try, but there numbers are hopelessly flawed and often biased. The only measurement we really have is the different between the U5 and U6 employment rate (number of people employed minus number of people employed that includes part time but want full time). These are government published rates, and the way of calculating it has not changed no matter what president is in office.
In 2010 that was at like 6%, it is now less than 3% I think. That's not a made up number.
So, based on the best numbers we have, there is not exceptionally high underemployment when you compare apples to apples, if anything it is decreasing. Yes people will disagree in this thread because this is like the official forum of bitterness and hopelessness, but it is what it is.
Most of the people I hear crying about underemployment tend to be fresh grads.
Then you are either inadequately informed for suffering from selective memory. Underemployment is a big problem among elders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
You don't know that, really no one can knows exactly that rate because it's difficult to have an OBJECTIVE measurement (no, not one that fits a political or personal agenda of bitterness over ones personal situation).
You mean like yours?
The reality is that there is an official, national metric, U-6.
Just because the reality doesn't serve your preferred narrative doesn't mean that there isn't a real problem and that real people aren't affected. Your decision to be callous toward their situation doesn't change anything.
Just because the reality doesn't serve your preferred narrative doesn't mean that there isn't a real problem and that real people aren't affected. Your decision to be callous toward their situation doesn't change anything.
No like yours - I mentioned U6 and specifically referenced to it to disprove your original statement.
Did you read my thread even? You didn't read it did you. How funny and embarrassing for you.
Don't forget, everyone, if you post anything that the economy is less than wonderful, then you are automatically labeled as negative and bitter.
I think that the economy is just great! Everyone that wants a good, high paying job has one (i.e I am not negative or bitter, please believe me!).
LOL. The response from "everyone" is a bit, shall we say...underwhelming. I will give you a hand and bump this up to the top, maybe you will have your swarms of people here to applause and support you. Likely no one cares or read it as this thread has sort of petered out and they have moved on. Yeah, "everyone" has sort of forgotten your plea to not forget, they didn't even know they weren't supposed to forget, they've already forgotten before they were told not to forget. Sorry. But that's OK - I'm here for you. I'll help a brother out.
Look dude, back to serious - you are obviously directing this at my remark, which was misrepresented. This is a public forum and "everyone" should encourage active participation. I have no problem with that, and if someone does then just ignore them. In fact I will fight for you and your right to say it - Im here for you (dont' forget)! My words were harsh indeed, but the point is this - personal anecdotes, political bias, or yes the fact that a person has run into hard times is not representative of a bad economy. If someone represents it as fact, not opinion, that is plain wrong. Do you disagree? There are published numbers for unemployment and underemployment, they aren't perfect, but they are unbiased as they haven't really changed the method of calculation from year to year. The other poster inadvertently agreed and in the process somewhat humorously totally contradicted himself. But that's OK. I'm here for him too.
Don't forget everyone.
Using proof of what I wrote to "disprove" what I wrote. What an interesting mind you have.
Oh youre back???? Wow, hat's off to you for the courage. Well if the shoe fits....
Sorry I made you look bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Exceptionally high underemployment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
You don't know that, really no one can knows exactly that rate because it's difficult to have an OBJECTIVE measurement...The only measurement we really have is the different between the U5 and U6 employment rate (number of people employed minus number of people employed that includes part time but want full time)...In 2010 that was at like 6%, it is now less than 3% ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The reality is that there is an official, national metric, U-6.
Just because the reality doesn't serve your preferred narrative doesn't mean that there isn't a real problem .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a degree doesn't make you qualified then why is it a requirement?
