Once again we are confronted with ‘if this is what a college degree does for you then who needs it’ conundrum. Interestingly enough, this particular article straddles the dubiousness of both economic AND journalism degrees!
First we look at what ‘Modern Economics’ endows its followers with then we can follow up with some ‘critical reading skills’ which is a skill journalism school supposedly endows its students with…
In their book “Freakonomics,” Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt explain, among other things, the odd economic behavior that guides many drug dealers. In one gang they described, the typical street-corner guy made less than minimum wage but still worked extremely hard in hopes of some day becoming one of the few wildly rich kingpins. This behavior isn’t isolated to illegal activity. There are a number of professions in which workers are paid, in part, with a figurative lottery ticket. The worker accepts a lower-paying job in exchange for a slim but real chance of a large, future payday. [snip]
Okay, wait a minute slim…why is Bobo on the corner, breaking the law in the first place?
Did he take a ‘wrong turn’ on the career path of life? Did his ‘gang affiliation’ somehow preclude him from seeking honest work? I mean just look at all of the ‘entry level positions’going begging today…all NONE of em!
What fucktard ‘overlooks’ is ‘less than minimum wage’ is still better then ‘no wage’.
And the official figures repeatedly omit those who don’t (and never have) collected unemployment because they never had a ‘legitimate wage’ job…
You gotta pay in BEFORE you can collect!
Another thing fucktard overlooks is that the criminal world mirrors the corporate world, it’s not what you know but who…the guy on the corner has no ‘illusions’ about his future, he’s just doing what he can to ‘get by’.
If there’s no ‘legitimate work’ then you have to take work on the other side of the fence, it’s all about survival…not ‘illusions of grandeur’ (as numbnuts would have you believe!)
Hollywood is, in some ways, the model lottery industry. For most companies in the business, it doesn’t make economic sense to, as Google does, put promising young applicants through a series of tests and then hire only the small number who pass. Instead, it’s cheaper for talent agencies and studios to hire a lot of young workers and run them through a few years of low-paying drudgery. (Actors are another story altogether. Many never get steady jobs in the first place.) This occupational centrifuge allows workers to effectively sort themselves out based on skill and drive. Over time, some will lose their commitment; others will realize that they don’t have the right talent set; others will find that they’re better at something else. [snip]
Here we see the ‘it’s just a means to an end’, pitch in play. Those who ‘really want it’ will persevere in the end. Which isn’t the case at all! Again it is not ‘what you know but who…’
This puts the lie to that other old capitalist bromide ‘there’s always room at the top!’ the fuck there is! The top keeps getting smaller all the time as the foolish bastards continue to undermine the public’s faith in all varieties of currency, and by extension, organizations!
These idiotic journalists keep making the capitalist arguments that simply DON’T EXIST!
These people aren’t ‘striving to get ahead’, they’re taking what’s offered because it’s the ONLY game in town…and let me tell you, ‘DESPERATION is a TERRIBLE thing!’
Trying to mask it as ‘clever business strategy’ is something the fucking Libertarians would come up with!
Now, many economists fear that the comfortable Plan B jobs are disappearing. Technology and cheaper goods from overseas have replaced many of the not-especially-creative professions. A tax accountant loses clients to TurboTax; many graphic designers have been replaced by Photoshop; and the small shopkeeper by Home Depot, Walmart or Duane Reade. Though a lottery economy is valuable to various industries, the thought of an entire lottery-based economy, in which a few people win big while the rest are forced to toil in an uncertain and not terribly remunerative dead-end labor pool, is unfair and politically scary. If large numbers of people believe they have no shot at a better life in the future, they will work less hard and generate fewer new ideas and businesses. The economy, as a whole, will be poorer.
Ah me! What can you say in the face of such ‘profound stupidity?’ First they lay out the case against globalization and the global race to the bottom and then they propose we do absolutely nothing about it! Bemoaning the loss of ‘hardworking low wage strivers’ as a sort of self-inflicted wound!
Um, this article is titled something along the line of ‘Harvard Grads in the mailroom’ and the general thrust of the article runs along the idea that not EVERY Harvard Grad goes straight to Wall Street.
Well Bubba, what about the countless millions who DON”T FUCKING GO TO HARVARD?
What about them? (I’m going to guess people who can’t afford to pay $50,000 a semester tuition are NOT his concern…)
It’s not clear what today’s eager 23-year-old will do in 5 or 10 years when she decides that acting (or that accounting partnership) isn’t going to work out after all. The best advice may be to accept that economic success in America will come as much from the labor lottery as from hard work and tenacity. The Oscars make clear that there is only so much room at the top. In a lottery-based economy, you need some luck, too; now, perhaps, more than ever. People should be prepared to enter a few different lotteries, because the new Plan B is just going to be another long shot in a different field. The role model of our time should be an actress who was never nominated for an Oscar. Hedy Lamarr did well enough on the screen but, just in case, she spent her free time developing something called frequency-hopping spread-spectrum. It’s a wireless-communication technique still in use in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. Not bad for a fallback.
I’d LIKE TO kick ‘fucktard’ in the nuts for providing us with only a single ‘success story’ but, in his defense, there probably aren’t a whole lot more.
So is it ‘the best advice’ that ‘economic success’ will come from what might be more straight-forwardly be labeled as ‘luck’ than hard work and tenacity?
Well, the ‘win some lose some’ philosophy only works during periods of social stability…and the current period is rapidly coming to an end on a global basis.
How sad is it good citizen that the Libertarians among us are willing to ‘roll the dice’ with the future of our species…
How frightening is it that the typical Libertarian also believe it is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven?
I once again ask you, quite candidly, is this the best our ‘education system’ can do?
Thanks for letting me inside your head,
Gegner
No comments:
Post a Comment