"Disappearing Middle Class; Bilingual Ph.D. Can't Find Work, Accepts Rent Money From Church"
The middle class was built on savings, investment, and manufacturing jobs, not intellectuals (some might argue unions had a hand in this as well). If a bilingual Ph. D. can't find work, there are too many individuals with a bilingual Ph.D. It is not a sign of a disappearing middle class.
The subsidization of unneeded degrees and Ph.Ds is one of many causes of the destruction of the middle class. It represents a misallocation of resources that could have been better used to create new wealth.
Edit: The article can be found here. Its a sob story. An individual who took a risk and falled flat on her face during a very bad time to do so. She then spent 99 weeks taking unemployment benefits while only applying for jobs within her profession, instead of developing a new skill set that might help her obtain employment quicker. Now she relies on charity from her church, instead of herself.
When you lose your job, the ideal situation is to obtain a new one within your profession. The ideal situation is far from a guarantee and individuals need to ensure they have a backup plan, or they at least keep an open mind when searching for new employment.
More alarming than the sob story of one individual is the following graph:
5 comments:
Lol, what a dumb post.
It is the movement of jobs to China and Mexico that is the problem, not over-qualified individuals.
I read an article the other day that despite rising wages in China, and despite the opportunity for small wages elsewhere, companies will not leave China because 1. taxes are low, 2. the amount of capital already invested, and 3. regulations are limited. Businesses want to stay in a place where they've invested, taxes are low, and business isn't hindered by regulations even though wages are increasing...imagine that.
That is a pretty retarded analysis considering how low wages are in China. The PPP there is 20% of the US's.
Context, everything is context..
Yes, and you're using the wrong context.
Nope. 20% less means in real spending power.
Post a Comment