The main problem today is nobody even knows what the middle-class is. It is not people who work a job that makes good money. Those are still working class. The middle class is small business owners. Period.
That is a pretty silly distinction. So a family headed by two brain surgeons is working class but a family that owns a struggling taco stand is middle class?
Desiring your prefered platform to "win" is not about wanting to feel superior. It is about wanting your platform to gain enough market share that vendors produce products for that platform.
Also, 100 long term jobs throwing nuts and bolts in boxes paying 9$/hr ? or 50 jobs paying 75-125k/yr? I'd take those 50 jobs.
What people really want back are the days where those 100 long term jobs throwing nuts and bolts paid $25/hr with good benefits. But we are slowly learning those types of careers that unions helped create were actually temporary as well, because they priced our workers out of the world market and hastened the movement of jobs overseas.
But it is a very hard problem to solve. If you stop the easy college loans now, then today's 18 year olds will be screwed. Employers will still have plenty of 22+ year old workers that received degrees when they were easy to get, so they will simply pass over those who missed out on the subsidized loans.
So when does it stop? This is far from the only program like this. I'm willing to phase it out gradually, say over a decade. But it's getting worse pretty fast. Something needs to be done, and sooner is going to be less painful than later.
Well, we currently have two problems. The first is that our high schools are not turning out enough competent workers. At the moment our society really does need an oversupply of college graduates or else we would have a much less skilled workforce. Until we fix that problem, it would be detrimental to fix the problems caused by subsidized student loans.
Excessive student debt really is a problem, but at least that investment is increasing this country's human capital.
But it is a very hard problem to solve. If you stop the easy college loans now, then today's 18 year olds will be screwed. Employers will still have plenty of 22+ year old workers that received degrees when they were easy to get, so they will simply pass over those who missed out on the subsidized loans.
It would be great if most college students today could have the same opportunity to pay for their own schooling as you did. But that simply is not the case anymore (for most). College tuition has risen inflation adjusted about 400% in the last 25 years (so perhaps only 300% since you were in college). So to do what you did it would take 9 part-time jobs while doing their undergrad (an exaggeration I know, but you get my point).
The availability of loans have risen prices to the point where loans are almost necessary, just like with housing and automobiles.
The artificially inflated demand is a result of the increased number of college graduates, not merely a concurrent problem. Companies could not be requiring these degrees for secretary jobs if there wasn't an oversupply of college graduates.
But like others have said, because of the woeful nature of our high schools, more schooling really is needed to make many people adequate employees. And fixing this problem will take a long time, because even if we fixed high schools today it would take decades until companies could confidently hire people without degrees.
Sorry, you'd rather have the umpire rule incorrectly against your team sometimes, because it pisses you off when it happens, and you want sport to piss you off sometimes. Is that really what you're saying?
Hey, whatever it takes to actually enjoy watching baseball. Especially on TV, without the atmosphere that comes from watching any sporting event live.
Agreed. From my experience the lack of continuous integration, unit testing, and automated regression testing is the norm, but the lack of version control is simply inexcusable. It's not like it's a new startup or anything; if their tools are already unsupported for 5-7 years then they have been working this way for at least a decade.
Every job you take is an opportunity to build your skillsets and improve your career, and I find it unlikely that this job is the best place to do either. Unless you are able to quickly get management support in your efforts to improve development practices (which could significantly improve your abilities depending on how involved you were with those processes at your last job), I don't see why you would want to work there. I cannot imagine your coworkers are the best of the best, and your IT management probably has no idea how to run a software development group. (I have seen small companies in an uncompetitive niche do well despite such environments, but then again I also know someone who won the lottery)
Then again in this economy at least you are working, and who knows how good the IT industry is doing in your area.
("anti-choice"? Really? Grow up already).
Yes really. Pro-life is the more emotionally charged term because it casts the other side as anti-life, which is inaccurate. One side cares more for the life and well-being of the fetus, while the other cares more for the life, well-being, and freedom of the parent (you could argue for the freedom of the fetus too, but you aren't really taking control away from something that has no control over the situation in the first place).
On the other hand, pro-choice and anti-choice are both very accurate terms for portraying each side. If you think the term anti-choice is too negative, perhaps you should rethink your position.
Say something you'll be sorry for, I love receiving apologies.