Anti-vax zealots are coming.

Companies will pay you what it takes to keep you and what it takes to keep you motivated.

Companies will pay you as little as they can possibly get away with and then 5% lower. The job market sucks, especially for new grads. They think you should consider yourself lucky that they allow you to keep working there.

Complaining that companies don't pay you more than you are worth is no different than companies complaining that they have to pay you at all.

Who's saying I should be paid more than I'm worth? My point was that the employers get to decide what you're worth, and that's as little as possible.

Would you rather have a job was just some form of charity because your boss feels bad for you?

No, I'd rather have a job that pays me what I'm worth, which, incidentally, I have.

If you answer yes to that then I am not surprised that you have had such bad luck in the job market.

I have a job. A good one. I've tripled my salary over the last 8 years or so. I can tell you that even highly-sought, highly-skilled workers like myself have to go through the HR bullshit you-should-be-grateful-we're-interviewing-you nonsense.

Employers don't care if you're happy or that you're getting paid what you're worth. They want power over you. They're kind of like car dealerships: So long as they all treat you like shit equally, that won't change. The right-wing freakout over fewer hours worked due to the ACA was really inspired by the fact that your employer can't hold your healthcare hostage as easily anymore, so they have less control over your life. (Anti-ACA trolls can fuck off.)

What makes you think employers base the salaries they offer on what you need or want? You'll take what they give you and you will like it, or go fuck yourself.

Kindly link to the vetted, double-blind, peer-reviewed "evidence" that you speak of. Jenny McCarthy spewing bullshit on "The View" is not evidence.

The MIT or Harvard, for a degree in Computer Science doesn't offer you superior education, it just looks nice on your resume

You assume that anyone gives a shit about the quality of education once you're trying to get a job, they care about WHERE you went, not if you got a good education or not.

Now we have some employers who get impressed by the fancy name, but those balance out by the ones who get turned off by it.

Yeah, bullshit. What color is the sky on your planet?

In general companies do not like their employees with a lot of debt, because they are under more stress, and stress causes more irrational behavior. Sell their car, sleep in the office, or just get snappy at customers.

They want their employees as stressed out as possible, because they think that's the way they'll be the most productive. They're wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean they don't work people to death. If someone acts up they'll just fire them and replace them with another cog.

A degree from a State University vs a prestigious college isn't toilet paper, especially if you are interested in going to the corporate world. Your education in a State School espectially for undergrad work is probably better then the big names. Why? They get more professors who want to teach undergrads, vs the big names where you have more professors involved in their own research projects and teaching undergrads is one of those useless chores they need to do. So you have undergrads getting better teaching, and more time understanding the content, and less time just being bullied by the professor who wants the class to fail out so he can use the rest of the semester on his research.

Again, nobody gives a shit about the quality of education, they care where you went. Let's say you've got two resumes on your desk. One is from someone who had a 4.0 at Aggie U, the other is from someone with a 4.0 at Harvard. Guess which resume winds up in the bin with no further scrutiny? Hint: It's not the one from the Harvard grad.

Debt interest is the eraser of wealth. That and taxes.

Aaaand we're done.

No, I didn't, I contradicted it. I don't know where these folks got their numbers (probably from the PR assholes at these universities) but in my experience, if you've got a degree from a public university like I do, it goes on the last page of your resume in very small print, lest it work against you.

It's an educated assumption. If you look at it from the employer's point of view.. what are they looking for? Cheap, not good. Easily abused, not possessing self-respect. Indebted, not independent. They want interchangeable cogs that will accept horrible treatment, because it's cheaper to treat employees like shit than it is to treat them like human beings.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. A degree from a state university is basically toilet paper as compared to, say, MIT or Harvard or any other prestigious college/university. Second, a degree from a "cheaper" college works against you in another way - chances are that you didn't pay as much to go to that aggie school, so you don't have as much debt. Employers like indebted fresh graduates, because they're 1) idealistic and enthusiastic, having not had their souls crushed yet, and 2) a $1000 student loan payment makes it harder to quit when they treat you like shit and make you do the work of 3 people. Combine that with lower salaries and you've got a winning combination for an employer.

You bust my chops for quoting Wikipedia, and then tell the GP to go watch a movie for more information?

Are you for real?

The point is there is no credible scientific evidence because science is not credible, instead it is mutable, malleable and suffers from the same failings as individuals making up the whole.

You're missing the point of science. Science accounts for the fact that human beings are fallible by leaving the possibility open that we could be wrong about just about anything, and new evidence must be compared for consistency with currently accepted theories. Dismissing science as not credible because people are human means that nothing in this world is credible.

Then again, you could just be an asshole.

Interesting - you seem to be saying that the doctor lost his medical license (a pretty egregious penalty for a flawed study) because the media misinterpreted it. That seems pretty odd, but I don't really know the story, and far be it from me to be thrown in with the lizard people like you have done to the GP.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that the study was such junk that he lost his medical license. Had it merely been the media misinterpreting a paper, that would not have happened; if journals retracted every study that the media misinterpreted, there'd be no point in their continued existence.

I wasn't tossing anyone in with the lizard people. I was using that as an example of a totally unsupported hysterical conspiracy theory.

I don't think anything is being dismissed as not possible. I think things are being dismissed because there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support them. There is no credible evidence that vaccines/food supplies/whatever cause autism. (You could say that there's no credible evidence that they DON'T cause autism, but then you'd be an idiot, as you can't prove a negative.)

an anomalous rise in autism has nothing to do with the lifestyle they promote.

It's far more likely that there isn't any more autism than there used to be, it's just more diagnosed now than it had been in the past.

We know that the standard bureaucratic processes often fail the public from stories like Lorenzo's oil, the Dallas Buyer's Club, and we are just starting to recognize that the people warning about wheat gluten may not be crackpots after all.

And when there are double-blind, peer-reviewed studies that stand up to scrutiny on those matters, then talk to me. Until then, the plural of anecdote is still not data.

It couldnt be anything wrong with vaccinations. Someone important said it wasnt and of course Medicine knows what it is doing and has all the answers.

Read the comments to find out how long it'd be before one of these people showed up.

Science/medicine freely admits it doesn't have all the answers (at least that's the ideal). The only evidence that vaccines cause autism is one study done in 1998 that was so horribly flawed that not only did The Lancet issue a full retraction in 2010, the doctor who led the group that authored the paper lost his medical license. The sample size was 12 children, nowhere near the size required to generate statistically significant results. In layman's terms, it was complete and utter bullshit promoted by someone who had undeclared conflicts of interest, and got drummed out of the medical profession for his actions. (Insanely enough, the paper itself never claimed a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, yet that's how the media/idiots took it.)

Of course, you don't care about any of that. You want to blame something other than random chance for your child being autistic. There is no credible scientific evidence that you people will listen to or consider; you just toss it out as a giant conspiracy, because chemtrails or lizard people or something.

Ask yourself what would make you abandon your belief that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism. If the answer is "nothing", you're a grade-A moronic zealot who has decided to believe in a simple answer instead of thinking. I am sorry your son is autistic. What's your excuse?

There's always one, isn't there.

Yeah, because drivers are never buggy shit developed in some third world country for 25 cents an hour.. Some bugs may not emerge for years.