Slime All The Way, How Democrats ARE

[MSimon]

Managers do not look at that school crap. What they look at is how well what you have done recently matches what they need done. The final cut is done with the interview. I was always confident in interviews. A go getter. I could close.

So scenario here, you're fresh out of high school, 18 years old and your experience consists of fries at McDonalds. How does that translate to Aerospace bench technician? It doesn't and there aren't bench technicians at major companies anymore. I'm trying to tell you as someone who has more recently gone through this experience than you, that times have changed. There's really no such thing as bench technicians anymore. All jobs state as a requirement "Degree or equivalent experience" and when you have neither you're not considered. I get that you had an easier time way back when, but times have changed and now companies want degrees and experience and the only way to get experience is through internships during college. You can take my word for it at this poitn or you can continue to ignore it, your choice, but I personally went through it in the last decade.

It doesn't translate as aerospace bench technician. You start as a bench technician for anyone who will hire you. I started out studying electronics at age 10. I passed the General theory test for an amateur license at age 13. I got a no pay summer job sorting tubes at an electronic store. A TV repair man buying tubes at the store liked me and hired me for summer work. Next summer I was doing juke box and pinball machine repair. Did that every summer until I went to College. At college I found girls that liked nerds and spent my time chasing them. Dropped out.

Well any way - where there is a will there is a way. The trouble is that everyone takes your advice to heart and assumes it can't be done. How I would do it? Same way I did before. Contract where the requirements are a good resume and a good interview.

How did I get my present job? I wrote for free for several years. Just to get my foot in the door. I have yet to meet any of the people who have hired me. What is their criteria? Can I drive traffic. Every piece I write is judged by the numbers. I do low traffic stuff just to maintain my electronic bona fides. BTW how is advertising sold on the 'net? By the numbers. If you can make some one a profit you can get ahead.

In fact if you want to break in to the field my magazine is looking for writers. Go here:

http://www.ecnmag.com/articles/2012/05/call-freelancers

Let me add that writing is not difficult. What is difficult is driving traffic. You need a certain type of bent mind. My blog editor (I also have one for the print magazine) has a mind similar to mine. It is a pleasure working for him.

====

Note "or equivalent experience" - lots of ways to get that. If you want it bad enough.

[palladin9479]

BTW I learned my trade - aerospace engineering - without going to school. I suggest that route to anyone who will listen.

This simply isn't as big a possibility as it was in years past. Grandfathering into a discipline is virtually unheard(Today) of especially as technology has changed. Take Aerospace Engineering these days, you're not going to get picked up by Lockheed without a degree, it just isn't going to happen. You can listen all you want, but without that degree, they have nothing to say to you.

Well .... I could present evidence that directly disproves what you just said, but that's in the IT field.

LM doesn't hire aerospace engineering's with degree's if they haven't worked anywhere else. The most one can hope for is an internship that pays nothing or extremely low, all the while their college loans are building interest. By the time they actually get a *real* job at some small company (very few interns actually get hired) their up to their eyeballs in debt.

Simon is right that the current post-secondary education system is doing the same thing the health-care system is doing, milking the middle-class for every dime they can. College rates go up every year at the rate of inflation at a minimum, typically 2~3x inflation. It's constantly testing ever higher price ceilings. We really need to switch to a system more like Germany's where your engineering students spend time every week doing industrial work as part of their coursework.

Within IT university degree's hold very little value. Their far more concerned with previous work experience, demonstrable skill-sets and certifications. Though even certifications are starting to be looked at as little more then a check in the box. Too many cert monkeys running around who did nothing but memorize a bunch of dumps prior to taking tests and loaded themselves up with tons of certs. That's actually the easiest way to spot them, too many unrelated certifications with no advanced specialized certs.

[ScottL]

Well .... I could present evidence that directly disproves what you just said, but that's in the IT field.

I work in the "IT" Field, but within the field there is a heirarchy. If you have a degree, you *should* be doing software development or hardware development (included embedded systems). If you don't and you wish to get into the field, then you should be pursuing CCNA certs or MSCP certs of some sort fresh out of high school. These can be expensive, but not impossible for a resolute person wanting to enter the field. It should, however; be pointed out that most in the IT field represent server/network admins, tech support, etc., which one would not necessarily need a degree, but you would likely experience a glass ceiling eventually.

LM doesn't hire aerospace engineering's with degree's if they haven't worked anywhere else. The most one can hope for is an internship that pays nothing or extremely low, all the while their college loans are building interest. By the time they actually get a *real* job at some small company (very few interns actually get hired) their up to their eyeballs in debt.

True and False, if you intern with them they'll hire you. 2 of my friends did exactly that while in college, interning with LM and then working for them after. 1 of these 2 still does and last I checked they were making a pretty penny off their degrees to the tune of a nice new million dollar home. I agree college is expensive, but the interest in federal loans has been ridiculously low for years. For my student loans, I paid a grand total of 2% which started accumulating at the time of graduation (you get a 6 month buffer to start paying back).

Simon is right that the current post-secondary education system is doing the same thing the health-care system is doing, milking the middle-class for every dime they can. College rates go up every year at the rate of inflation at a minimum, typically 2~3x inflation. It's constantly testing ever higher price ceilings. We really need to switch to a system more like Germany's where your engineering students spend time every week doing industrial work as part of their coursework.

I agree the current system is deeply flawed. The knowledge/education is great, the cost, not so much. I agree with your assessment and wish it were done this way, but if you want to be an engineer in the U.S. today, that degree is a requirement.

Within IT university degree's hold very little value. Their far more concerned with previous work experience, demonstrable skill-sets and certifications. Though even certifications are starting to be looked at as little more then a check in the box. Too many cert monkeys running around who did nothing but memorize a bunch of dumps prior to taking tests and loaded themselves up with tons of certs. That's actually the easiest way to spot them, too many unrelated certifications with no advanced specialized certs.

This could be because there is no IT degree really. The degrees focused around the field consist of CIS (Programming), CSE (Programming/Engineering), CSEE (Programming/Hardware/Electrical Engineering), and MIS (Business Management). There are no degrees outside of software and hardware and when the field is predominantly filled with tech support, what's the point of going to college for them. I mean......anyone can answer a phone and/or clear a paper jam, I did it for 4 years while in college.

In all honesty, I can only tell my story. I interned during college doing mostly tech support (phone calls, paper jams) while getting the occassional how-to for server/admin stuff. After graduation, this bit of experience was key to getting a job, however; I quickly learned that these types of jobs have a very real pay/promotion ceiling. Being unsatisfied with not being able to move up, I switched in the field to what would serve me best, that being a software developer. The pay is higher, the workload is more challenging, and it's the first time I think I've been satisfied with a job. I feel it's about where you want to go, however; and the path up is significantly harder and/or longer without a degree.

[MSimon]

the path up is significantly harder and/or longer without a degree.

True. But it is profitable all the way. And you learn the business from the bottom up. Very handy.

And kids are not starting families because of debt. That will seriously hurt the country.

And then there is the problem of credentials vs knowledge. There have been quite a few times in my career where I was called on to clean up after a "degree" who didn't know what he was doing. Servo systems with flat spots in the response curve designed in. Servo systems with a desired 1 Hz response that updated at 1 Hz.

Never having been "trained" I'm never sure if I know what I need to know. So I study continuously. There is an advantage to that.

[Diogenes]

[Diogenes]

What the Democrat Party Told Me

They told me that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would turn our streets into rivers of blood.

They told me that taking trillions of dollars from the successful and giving it to those "who truly needed it" would cure poverty.

They told me that giving home loans to those who couldn't afford them would make the American dream achievable for all.

They told me that paying into the Social Security "Trust Fund" would guarantee a comfortable retirement for everyone.

They told me that allowing teachers to unionize in public schools would help inner city students reach for the stars.

They told me that the federal government could run a guaranteed, affordable health care program for seniors forever.

They told me that the new employment paradigm consisted of millions of "green jobs".

They told me that their support for immoral and criminal behavior wouldn't result in the breakdown of the two-parent family.

They told me that spending trillions on Stimulus programs would heal a damaged economy.

They told me that raising taxes on corporations and "the rich" would create more jobs.

They told me that our borders were "as secure as they've ever been".

They told me that intentionally restricting access to our own sources of energy would reduce dependence on foreign oil.

They told me that recklessly spreading unemployment benefits and food stamps would jump-start the economy.

They told me that, in spite of the VA and the Indian Health Service, they could successfully run the entire American health care system.

They told me that their record-breaking borrowing could never result in a downgrade of the United States' AAA credit rating.

They told me that "the Constitution doesn't matter".

They told me that the Constitution has to change with the times.

They told me that I exist to serve the government and not the other way around.

They told me that anyone who opposes their unconstitutional, reckless and failed policies are racists.

Well, I'm here to tell you:

Everything they told me was a lie.

Everything they told me was wrong.

Intentionally, diabolically, criminally wrong.

And if we don't begin to turn back the tide of centralized government, if we don't politically obliterate the Democrat Party, this beautiful Republic, this magnificent country, this bastion of free enterprise and private property rights, this shining city on a hill... well, it will be finished.



http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... ld-me.html

[GIThruster]

I have to agree with all this above, Dio; but I would disagree that the response is to obliterate the Democratic party. First of all, that's not really an option that's on the table. There's no PR campaign, no political techniques, no common sense reasoning that you can use to simply "fix" all the people who want handouts. Too, much of the trouble we have in this country is we're so polarized.

IMHO, it is the growing inability to sympathize with those on the other side of the aisle that has brought us to this terrible place. It's because the two bases have so effectively demonized their opponents and stopped people from trying to see both sides, that the two sides can't work together.

Left or right, labor or management, capitalist or socialist, these really do need to live in a "creative tension" to come to the best solution. Left unchecked and unregulated, capitalism does take severe advantage of the common man. Think about the way people lived building this country--steel, railroads, textiles, mills filled with children who worked their fingers to the bone and died poor, while robber barons amassed obscene wealth. And then came the unions. They actually are good things when not left unchecked. It's when this tension between management and labor gets off center that there is a problem. Teachers probably should be unionized, but their unions have no checks and have become too powerful.

For every one of the lines above you posted, there is some salient truth to the other side of that issue. So long as people refuse to at least understand and sympathize with the other side, there can be no dialog, no cooperation, no creative tension. What we need, is Hegel's dialectic method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, where both sides are heard, understood and addressed. Otherwise we know either side of the fence is ready to be our task-masters, just in different forms. We still have the chance to reclaim the greatness in this country we once had, but not unless and until we find real balance.

[Diogenes]

I have to agree with all this above, Dio; but I would disagree that the response is to obliterate the Democratic party. First of all, that's not really an option that's on the table. There's no PR campaign, no political techniques, no common sense reasoning that you can use to simply "fix" all the people who want handouts. Too, much of the trouble we have in this country is we're so polarized.

IMHO, it is the growing inability to sympathize with those on the other side of the aisle that has brought us to this terrible place. It's because the two bases have so effectively demonized their opponents and stopped people from trying to see both sides, that the two sides can't work together.

Left or right, labor or management, capitalist or socialist, these really do need to live in a "creative tension" to come to the best solution. Left unchecked and unregulated, capitalism does take severe advantage of the common man. Think about the way people lived building this country--steel, railroads, textiles, mills filled with children who worked their fingers to the bone and died poor, while robber barons amassed obscene wealth. And then came the unions. They actually are good things when not left unchecked. It's when this tension between management and labor gets off center that there is a problem. Teachers probably should be unionized, but their unions have no checks and have become too powerful.

For every one of the lines above you posted, there is some salient truth to the other side of that issue. So long as people refuse to at least understand and sympathize with the other side, there can be no dialog, no cooperation, no creative tension. What we need, is Hegel's dialectic method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, where both sides are heard, understood and addressed. Otherwise we know either side of the fence is ready to be our task-masters, just in different forms. We still have the chance to reclaim the greatness in this country we once had, but not unless and until we find real balance.

I have a grasp of what you see. I don't think you have a grasp of what I see. Rather than attempt to explain what I see, I think I will just present you some more information and let you think on it.



http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... elfare.htm

[Stubby]

Be real hard to obliterate politically them with the Republican party. The base of the party is getting older and whiter and soon will be extinct.

[hanelyp]

Anyone else thinking the democrat tactics of demonizing the opposition wouldn't work as well if the election system didn't favor 2 strong parties?

[Diogenes]

Be real hard to obliterate politically them with the Republican party. The base of the party is getting older and whiter and soon will be extinct.

I keep forgetting, are you the Canuck or the guy in Korea? You guys sound so similar that I can't remember which is which.


No matter. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the demographics at work. The Democrats are the National Socialists, and the Republicans are the Vichy.


The current and future resolution to this situation is not going to be resolved as a result of politics. It's going to be resolved in a similar manner to the previous National Socialists and the Vichy.

[GIThruster]

I have a grasp of what you see. I don't think you have a grasp of what I see. Rather than attempt to explain what I see, I think I will just present you some more information and let you think on it.

I get it. However, even when Kennedy was positing all they needed was 51%, you don't think he considered himself some sort of monster, do you? He considered himself a champion of the people. It is this inability to sympathize with the other side, be you left or right that makes politicians ineffective.

Too, though I'm certainly a conservative I'll note to you, the right hasn't been playing ball very well. They were happy to absorb the Tea Party but they haven't represented it. The right's main concern continues to be that they not allow taxes to be raised on the wealthy. That was never a part of the Tea party platform. rather, the Tea partiers were very explicit that they were NOT Republicans or Democrats, but rather were a third voice, calling for fiscal responsibility. (Which brings to mind hanlyp's curiosity about the 2 party system, however; since almost all issues only have 2 sides, the 2 party system is vastly more efficient than other systems. Really, almost all disputes are between labor and management.) If the Republicans were to start playing nice, they would put tax raises back on the table, and see what cuts they could get for this. Instead, they're going to take their ball and go home, and we all lose.

You can't then blame the evil leftists who have platted all along to take power, when in fact it is the right who has proven themselves unwilling to do their job.

It's everyone's fault and the real cause is that civility has been left behind.

But lets take then a final look at an answer. From Dio's link:

What would happen to the Democrats if all the poor in this country suddenly became rich? They'd never win another election, would they?

Well they certainly would, but the point is well taken: if the right makes a way for all Americans to prosper, most of the country's ills are then fixed. People don't need handouts if they're so wealthy they don't need them. So how does one accomplish the enriching of an entire nation? By making energy cheap.

It is the energy policy in this country that has kept us all out of balance. The left--all "progressives" have a vested interest in making people unhappy without knowing they're making them unhappy. People who are paying too much for a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas are going to be grumpy and demand change or "progress". People with free electricity, and a transport system that is all plug-in can suddenly find they can afford almost anything. They're going to want to protect that.

Just saying, if the republicans can just get over protecting the billionaires from more taxes and focus on a positive energy agenda, then we could see this polarization come tumbling down.

[Diogenes]

No amount of tax increases will solve the problem. "The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much." (and on crap that is not part of it's mandate.)



I regard any suggestion of raising taxes to be completely unserious on the face of it. It fails to acknowledge the actual cause of the fiscal problems facing the nation. More Taxes are nothing but giving the junkie another fix.




You might find this amusing.
http://moelane.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... adness.jpg

[GIThruster]

I regard any suggestion of raising taxes to be completely unserious on the face of it.

You're proving my point. Until you can sympathize with those who want to raise taxes, you can't get to the negotiations table. No dialog means no dialectic method. For any motion to occur between opposed interests, there needs to be negotiation. If either party digs in their heals behind some imposed line past which they will not go, they are at fault for failing to negotiate.

I agree its the spending that's the problem. You can't solve that problem while at the same time refusing to negotiate. Congress may as well just go home.

[hanelyp]

If the objective of raising tax rates is "fairness" (which the occupier of the white house has said it is), it's a dead issue on arrival. What could be more fair than producers enjoying the fruits of their labors?

If the objective is more revenue, top marginal tax rates are already well past the futility rate, and higher rates will produce at best a momentary revenue boost before the economy adjusts. The image of a junkie getting one more hit seems fitting here.

Taxed Enough Already!