Do people have choices?

[Warren Dew]

My point really was that the jobs are taken by migrant workers because the wages can be kept lower if they do. I was thinking of fast food restaurants and the like. Those jobs would be filled with non-migrant workers if there were no migrants, but presumably the wages would need to be higher to attract employees that were willing and able to do the job. We get cheap burgers because the wages are so low, if there were no migrant workers, our burgers would be more expensive. I'm not saying either scenario is right or wrong, just commenting on how things seem to have changed in the UK in recent years.

Possibly the situation is different in the UK than in the U.S. In the U.S., the migrant worker market is mostly illegal, so that may change what jobs they take. Fast food chains may be more careful about labor laws than are vegetable farmers.

Then again, were there many fast food places in the UK before the migrant work force was significant? From my visits a decade or more back, the lowest end places I can remember were cafeteria style places, which are half a step up from fast food places.

[Pappa]

My point really was that the jobs are taken by migrant workers because the wages can be kept lower if they do. I was thinking of fast food restaurants and the like. Those jobs would be filled with non-migrant workers if there were no migrants, but presumably the wages would need to be higher to attract employees that were willing and able to do the job. We get cheap burgers because the wages are so low, if there were no migrant workers, our burgers would be more expensive. I'm not saying either scenario is right or wrong, just commenting on how things seem to have changed in the UK in recent years.

Possibly the situation is different in the UK than in the U.S. In the U.S., the migrant worker market is mostly illegal, so that may change what jobs they take. Fast food chains may be more careful about labor laws than are vegetable farmers.

Then again, were there many fast food places in the UK before the migrant work force was significant? From my visits a decade or more back, the lowest end places I can remember were cafeteria style places, which are half a step up from fast food places.

There's not been much change in the types of fast food places over the past 10-20 years, maybe there's more variety, but it's still a load of McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, etc. (plus the non chain restaurants). 10 years ago those chain restaurant jobs were filled with mostly-retarded natives... now we have mostly-intelligent migrant workers. The difference is most noticeable when a fast food place with migrants is juxtaposed with one without. My town has little in the way of migrant workers, so the staff in KFC are mostly retarded locals and the service is awful. 8 miles away, the KFCs in the city are staffed with migrant workers and the service is excellent.

We do also have lots of illegal immigrants working in non-chain take aways, especially Chinese and Indian restaurants, plus lots of illegal immigrants working in agriculture and other sectors. I think this has been normal for a long time, though that's an assumption.

[Warren Dew]

There's not been much change in the types of fast food places over the past 10-20 years, maybe there's more variety, but it's still a load of McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, etc. (plus the non chain restaurants). 10 years ago those chain restaurant jobs were filled with mostly-retarded natives... now we have mostly-intelligent migrant workers. The difference is most noticeable when a fast food place with migrants is juxtaposed with one without. My town has little in the way of migrant workers, so the staff in KFC are mostly retarded locals and the service is awful. 8 miles away, the KFCs in the city are staffed with migrant workers and the service is excellent.

Do you think the retarded natives were and are paid more than the migrants? I would have thought that both would have been paid minimum wage. In that case the immigrants aren't depressing the wages, they're just displacing certain segments of the locals from their jobs.

I think the fact that fast food restaurants had to hire retarded people supports my point that the fast food business can't exist without low wage labor. Remove that labor, and the result will not be that they pay people more; it will be that they go out of business.

We do also have lots of illegal immigrants working in non-chain take aways, especially Chinese and Indian restaurants, plus lots of illegal immigrants working in agriculture and other sectors. I think this has been normal for a long time, though that's an assumption.

I don't think I'd trust an ethnic restaurant that wasn't staffed with some kind of immigrant.

Some of my impressions are from as far back as the 1960s, which might qualify as "a long time ago".

[stripes4]

We have the choices that we're allowed to have by the state. I am allowed to choose which type of tea I buy in the supermarket, only because the state permits it. If I want to call someone a politically incorrect name on national television, I wouldn't be allowed to do that. I am allowed to walk in the countryside, where it is permitted, but not allowed to walk in other areas. We have some choice, but we mostly have the illusion of choice.

[Pappa]

Do you think the retarded natives were and are paid more than the migrants? I would have thought that both would have been paid minimum wage. In that case the immigrants aren't depressing the wages, they're just displacing certain segments of the locals from their jobs.

I think the fact that fast food restaurants had to hire retarded people supports my point that the fast food business can't exist without low wage labor. Remove that labor, and the result will not be that they pay people more; it will be that they go out of business.

I think that if the wages were higher, they could/would attract non-retarded local people. As it is, migrant workers will settle for minimum wage because it's more appealing financially than the alternative.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, fuck. My parents couldn't afford to send me to school. I should have been a ditch-digger, I guess. That's what you're meant to be, if your parents aren't wealthy. Right?

????????

I loved this, too:
"I went to a community college and all I saw were people sitting in front of computers typing away, their eyes were fixed. Probably just facebooking away."

Or, taking notes? Getting work done? Diligently pursuing a degree at a college they can afford?

Something doesn't smell right about that Boehner quote. It doesn't sound like something he would say.

And, "the world needs ditch diggers?" That's a quote from Caddyshack the movie - Judge Smails says it to Danny when Danny is hitting him up for the Caddy scholarship.

I read the quote a few times, and it doesn't strike me as true. If it was said, it's abysmal. But, it doesn't read like anything anyone would ever say. I mean, "Can't pay your student loans? Face it, your parents were lazy and you couldn't afford college." I can't imagine anyone saying that. "The world needs ditch diggers and you were born into a family of them." I doubt he would say that.

Taibbi's quote reads like a caricature. If it's an accurate quote, then Boehner ought to be done. Question: did Taibbi keep his tape recorder running?

Boehner doesn't seem like the sort of guy who might have been a big fan of Caddyshack?

Maybe he was mis-quoted. But people unwittingly quote movies they like all the time.

Overall, it seems contrived. And, Matt Taibbi is a douchebag.

The only time someone uses a movie quote like that from Caddyshack is when they are making a joke. It's not a serious political comment. I'm willing to entertain the notion that Taibbi's quote is accurate - however, based only on Taibbi's word, with no tape, and no similar comments by Boehner in that same vein, I really find it hard to believe that he said it. First of all, the guy isn't a aristocrat - his parents are middle class Ohioans. It's not like he didn't grow up with people who didn't go to college or that not going to college was an indicator of lazy parents, and all that. It just doesn't smell right.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, fuck. My parents couldn't afford to send me to school. I should have been a ditch-digger, I guess. That's what you're meant to be, if your parents aren't wealthy. Right?

Are you "unable" to pay your student loans? If not, I don't think the comment applies to you.

He's talking about the people who complain about the government taking action to collect on student loans that people left unpaid. Often, those people use excuses like "I can't afford to pay, the degree didn't help me so I shouldn't have to pay", even if they actually could afford to pay if they wanted to. His point is that, if the degree didn't help you, then you probably shouldn't have gone to college and taken on the loans in the first place. Since you chose to do so, you get to be obligated to repay the loans, whether or not you think those loans helped you.

On this point - I don't think anyone has much of a leg to stand on about "affording" student loans. There is no reason a person doesn't know EXACTLY what he or she will have to pay, and when they will have to pay it, years in advance of their obligation to repay kicking in. It is an individual's responsibility to know if they ought to be borrowing the money they are borrowing.

I suppose the question might become whether college age students with the advice of their parents are sufficiently able to manage the weighty decision of how much to borrow to pay for college. If, however, we live in a country where an 18 year old can't be expected to decide whether to borrow money, and to understand that it has to be paid back according to the terms that they are expressly and explicitly explaining...well...we live in a pretty fucking stupid country and we have bigger problems on the horizon.

Personally, I think a better solution would be to tie repayment terms to income to make sure it's affordable - X% of income for Y years, or something like that - but that's not an option anyone has suggested, and the government workouts do come close. And it would still mean that people who think the degree didn't help them would still have to do some repayment.

I think that's o.k. in principle. Although, nowadays, they almost do that. Generally, for student loans they give you repayment options - 5, 10,15 or 20 years - one of those choices ought to be enough. But, to absolutely tie repayment to income has some issues - I mean - do people who go to college but then become house-husbands get to not pay their student loans?

I loved this, too:
"I went to a community college and all I saw were people sitting in front of computers typing away, their eyes were fixed. Probably just facebooking away."

Or, taking notes? Getting work done? Diligently pursuing a degree at a college they can afford?

He's talking about what people are doing that while attending lecture - and it's absolutely true that many of them are ignoring the professor and surfing Facebook. A lot of the professors complain about this.[/quote]

Most students attending college today, IMHO, either do not belong there or are not being "diligent." Some are. Most aren't. My evidence is the fact that most people these days who graduate college are not very well educated.

One quick example: The average English major graduates knowing much about racial, ethnic, and sexual politics, but very little about literary history and classic authors, according to a new study of undergraduate English programs by the National Association of Scholars, a higher education reform group in Princeton, New Jersey. http://www.popecenter.org/clarion_call/ ... tml?id=855

A study (PDF) released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Education shows that only 25% of college graduates were “proficiently literate,” that is, “using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.” http://www.makestupidityhistory.org/200 ... re-stupid/

Personally, I think the answer is for the professors to make their lectures more interesting. On the other hand, I do think it would be more polite for the students to simply skip lecture if they are going to be surfing Facebook, or even if they are getting other work done. They aren't taking notes, because you can't see what the professor has written on the board if your eyes are fixed only on the computer.

What colleges need to do is toughen up the standards. I mean - come on - most college students today take something like 12 credits per semester. 15 credits (5 classes) which was the norm 30 years ago, is rarer now. So, kids wake up hung over at 9am and run in their pajamas and flip flops to their 10am class, sleep through it, then go to lunch. Then they go to their 2pm class. Then they go back to their dorm or apartment throw their "ENG 230-003 Introduction to Lit: The Spirit and the Center: Of Magic in Literature" books on their desk and break out the bongs and the beer.

The courses taken by the vast majority of college students in the US, let's face it, are not very demanding and the course loads they take are not very demanding. They can go 1/2 the semester without opening the book, and then cram. They party 3 to 5 nights a week, spending way too high of a proportion of their time engaging in nonsense.

Up the credit hours to 18, and make the tests harder and more frequent. Penalize students for not attending class and use the "Socratic Method" of teaching http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html instead of lecturing. Put students on the spot to know what's going on in a class every time they go to class. Then they'll learn the subject.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you think the retarded natives were and are paid more than the migrants? I would have thought that both would have been paid minimum wage. In that case the immigrants aren't depressing the wages, they're just displacing certain segments of the locals from their jobs.

I think the fact that fast food restaurants had to hire retarded people supports my point that the fast food business can't exist without low wage labor. Remove that labor, and the result will not be that they pay people more; it will be that they go out of business.

I think that if the wages were higher, they could/would attract non-retarded local people. As it is, migrant workers will settle for minimum wage because it's more appealing financially than the alternative.

There is nothing wrong with employing retarded people. They need jobs too, and I think it's great that they are employed at levels that they are able to handle. Baggers at the grocery store and McDonald's workers - perfect jobs for the retarded.

[ksen]

Capitalism requires cheap labour

What? No it doesn't.

[Coito ergo sum]

We have the choices that we're allowed to have by the state. I am allowed to choose which type of tea I buy in the supermarket, only because the state permits it. If I want to call someone a politically incorrect name on national television, I wouldn't be allowed to do that. I am allowed to walk in the countryside, where it is permitted, but not allowed to walk in other areas. We have some choice, but we mostly have the illusion of choice.

Of course you're allowed to call someone a politically incorrect name on national television. It happens all the time, and there is no law against it.

But, needless to say, the fact that there are laws doesn't mean that people don't have the ability to make choices. I mean, the State says we can't murder each other, does that vitiate free will and make our choices mere illusions?

[hadespussercats]

Well, fuck. My parents couldn't afford to send me to school. I should have been a ditch-digger, I guess. That's what you're meant to be, if your parents aren't wealthy. Right?

Are you "unable" to pay your student loans? If not, I don't think the comment applies to you.

He's talking about the people who complain about the government taking action to collect on student loans that people left unpaid. Often, those people use excuses like "I can't afford to pay, the degree didn't help me so I shouldn't have to pay", even if they actually could afford to pay if they wanted to. His point is that, if the degree didn't help you, then you probably shouldn't have gone to college and taken on the loans in the first place. Since you chose to do so, you get to be obligated to repay the loans, whether or not you think those loans helped you.

On this point - I don't think anyone has much of a leg to stand on about "affording" student loans. There is no reason a person doesn't know EXACTLY what he or she will have to pay, and when they will have to pay it, years in advance of their obligation to repay kicking in. It is an individual's responsibility to know if they ought to be borrowing the money they are borrowing.

I suppose the question might become whether college age students with the advice of their parents are sufficiently able to manage the weighty decision of how much to borrow to pay for college. If, however, we live in a country where an 18 year old can't be expected to decide whether to borrow money, and to understand that it has to be paid back according to the terms that they are expressly and explicitly explaining...well...we live in a pretty fucking stupid country and we have bigger problems on the horizon.

Personally, I think a better solution would be to tie repayment terms to income to make sure it's affordable - X% of income for Y years, or something like that - but that's not an option anyone has suggested, and the government workouts do come close. And it would still mean that people who think the degree didn't help them would still have to do some repayment.

I think that's o.k. in principle. Although, nowadays, they almost do that. Generally, for student loans they give you repayment options - 5, 10,15 or 20 years - one of those choices ought to be enough. But, to absolutely tie repayment to income has some issues - I mean - do people who go to college but then become house-husbands get to not pay their student loans?

Regarding your point about "affording" college loans-- unfortunately I think it's very common for people even from educated families not to really understand what they're committing to in terms of student loans-- there's an overwhelming sense that college is the necessary entree to middle-or upper-middle-class society (and beyond), that paying for prestige is important, and that any other concerns-- such as what one might be likely to earn upon graduation, or what taking on that kind of credit burden might mean to one's quality of life in the long-term-- are trivial by comparison.

My husband and I are up to our ears in debt, mainly from grad school (fortunately, I had an academic scholarship for undergrad, or I might not have been able to go.) We got our masters degrees in costume design and architecture, respectively. Neither of these professions are big earners. We'll be paying these off, probably even after we start taking out loans to send our boy-o to school. And yeah, there have been many times when we've been worried about our abilities to keep up with the payments. I find myself grateful they can't repossess my mind.

I'm glad I got the education I have. But if the money had felt more "real" to me, back in my early twenties when I signed off a pound of flesh to Sallie Mae, I might have made different choices. No sense crying about it now, I guess-- but I think we need to prioritize understanding finances and credit when we're teaching our youth. And maybe re-thinking what's required to be able to land a job with good pay.

[Coito ergo sum]

That is quite "unfortunate," indeed. It's negligence. I mean, does an 18 year old not know that college costs money? The tuition is right on the websites of the colleges these days. Do they think that a loan to pay that tuition is not a loan? Do they think it doesn't carry interest? They have whole departments at universities there explaining this to people, such that you don't even need to read the paperwork. And, I mean, it seems to me to be a fucking laugh-and-a-half that a person is going to COLLEGE and doesn't read their loan paperwork. Really? Really???

I agree with the prioritizing understanding money and finances when we are teaching our children. Frankly, I hate to be that "the kids today..." guy, but FFS, we're raising a bunch of dependent boobs. I have friends with college age children, and nowadays they help move their sophomores and juniors and even seniors into their living quarters, buy groceries, and all that sort of thing. I mean - holy shit - "back in my day" I would have been horrified. I knew how to get a place to live, I figured out how to buy food, I did what I needed to do to keep my piece-of-shit beater car running, and YES I figured out how to finance college. Maybe I'm the exception, but the thought of whining about an accurate student loan balance 3 and 4 years after I took the loan out would fill me with disgust. I mean - it's like buying a fucking car on credit and then waiting until the payment book comes in the mail to scream and yell about the monthly payment.

The first mistake of our society was to start saying, with a straight face, that 18-21 year olds were "kids." We raised the drinking age to 21, and began holding colleges responsible legally for the irresponsible behavior of 18-21 year olds. This is the same age-group that took Normandy in June, 1944. Alexander the Great conquered nations before the age of 21. These aren't fucking children. They are adults, and they ought to be treated like adults, and when they are treated like adults then they will act like adults.

[hadespussercats]

That is quite "unfortunate," indeed. It's negligence. I mean, does an 18 year old not know that college costs money? The tuition is right on the websites of the colleges these days. Do they think that a loan to pay that tuition is not a loan? Do they think it doesn't carry interest? They have whole departments at universities there explaining this to people, such that you don't even need to read the paperwork. And, I mean, it seems to me to be a fucking laugh-and-a-half that a person is going to COLLEGE and doesn't read their loan paperwork. Really? Really???

I agree with the prioritizing understanding money and finances when we are teaching our children. Frankly, I hate to be that "the kids today..." guy, but FFS, we're raising a bunch of dependent boobs. I have friends with college age children, and nowadays they help move their sophomores and juniors and even seniors into their living quarters, buy groceries, and all that sort of thing. I mean - holy shit - "back in my day" I would have been horrified. I knew how to get a place to live, I figured out how to buy food, I did what I needed to do to keep my piece-of-shit beater car running, and YES I figured out how to finance college. Maybe I'm the exception, but the thought of whining about an accurate student loan balance 3 and 4 years after I took the loan out would fill me with disgust. I mean - it's like buying a fucking car on credit and then waiting until the payment book comes in the mail to scream and yell about the monthly payment.

The first mistake of our society was to start saying, with a straight face, that 18-21 year olds were "kids." We raised the drinking age to 21, and began holding colleges responsible legally for the irresponsible behavior of 18-21 year olds. This is the same age-group that took Normandy in June, 1944. Alexander the Great conquered nations before the age of 21. These aren't fucking children. They are adults, and they ought to be treated like adults, and when they are treated like adults then they will act like adults.

It's really not just "kids today"-- lots of Americans, of all ages, don't understand credit, how interest works, capitalization, etc., etc. There are too many examples of this to be worth listing.

And believe me, I'm not justifying my youthful ignorance when I say that. I should have known better. But there really was (and probably still is) a sense that a good education-- meaning prestigious schooling-- is worth anything you spend on it, so just sign on the dotted line and make it happen. And it's not like I didn't know how much I was taking out. But I thought I needed to take out those loans to ensure a good future for myself, and I figured I'd find a way to make it all work somehow. And I have, for the most part. And, well, most of the time I honestly think it was worth it.

But I think there are plenty of people who get swept up in the mythos of what a college degree will actually get you, once you're out and making a wage.
Not to mention the sorts of schools that seem to prey on the ignorant. I used to work in the collections department of American Student Assistance. Most of the calls I got were with people who'd taking out loans to go to Trucking Academy. There's got to be an affordable way to become a trucker, that doesn't involve going into debt to go to school for it. But a lot of these people didn't know any better, and let themselves be talked into taking out loans they couldn't afford to get a degree that is essentially worthless. This kind of manipulation does happen. And, of course, you're right, "Caveat Emptor" and all, but this kind of manipulation would be less successful if there was more of a push to educate the public about how finances work.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's really not just "kids today"-- lots of Americans, of all ages, don't understand credit, how interest works, capitalization, etc., etc. There are too many examples of this to be worth listing.

Well, I don't see it as a viable option to just let them off the hook, or means-test everything. If all tuition is means tested there is zero incentive to keep costs down - "fuck it! I'll sign up for anything and borrow the money! Either way, I'll just pay the legislated percentage of my income."

And believe me, I'm not justifying my youthful ignorance when I say that. I should have known better. But there really was (and probably still is) a sense that a good education-- meaning prestigious schooling-- is worth anything you spend on it, so just sign on the dotted line and make it happen.

I agree with that. Kids are told, falsely, that they have to go to college and that college is their ticket to secure income, when it isn't. They are told that a college education can't be put off and it's worth more than the tuition paid. Well, in many instances, it is not. And, unfortunately, guidance counselors in high schools are, offense intended to any guidance counselors out there, 90% of the time full of shit and behind the times. There, I said it. If they knew shit about shinola or could puzzle out the difference between their posteriors and their humorus bones, well, they wouldn't be a fucking guidance counselor.

And it's not like I didn't know how much I was taking out. But I thought I needed to take out those loans to ensure a good future for myself, and I figured I'd find a way to make it all work somehow. And I have, for the most part. And, well, most of the time I honestly think it was worth it.

I took out quite a bit in student loans too. I hated them and hated seeing them every month, so I cut corners and paid them off. I even went years without cable television and other personal expenses to get the loans paid off faster.

But I think there are plenty of people who get swept up in the mythos of what a college degree will actually get you, once you're out and making a wage.
Not to mention the sorts of schools that seem to prey on the ignorant. I used to work in the collections department of American Student Assistance. Most of the calls I got were with people who'd taking out loans to go to Trucking Academy. There's got to be an affordable way to become a trucker, that doesn't involve going into debt to go to school for it. But a lot of these people didn't know any better, and let themselves be talked into taking out loans they couldn't afford to get a degree that is essentially worthless. This kind of manipulation does happen. And, of course, you're right, "Caveat Emptor" and all, but this kind of manipulation would be less successful if there was more of a push to educate the public about how finances work.

Parents ought to really arm their kids in this regard, and train them to operate a bank account and handle money. After a couple times of being dejected because of a wasteful money management attempt, they'll get it.

[hadespussercats]

hadespussercats wrote:
It's really not just "kids today"-- lots of Americans, of all ages, don't understand credit, how interest works, capitalization, etc., etc. There are too many examples of this to be worth listing.

CES wrote: Well, I don't see it as a viable option to just let them off the hook, or means-test everything. If all tuition is means tested there is zero incentive to keep costs down - "fuck it! I'll sign up for anything and borrow the money! Either way, I'll just pay the legislated percentage of my income."

Oh, I'm not saying anyone should be let off the hook. Though sometimes I get pissed at all the MDs who defaulted on their loans back in the day, who made it impossible to get student loans forgiven via bankruptcy. I'd have to fake my own death to get out of these! And I'm not too keen on pulling out my own teeth to create a credible charred corpse...