'Young people these days ...'

[Wilber]

I said that it was a pervasive theme, and didn't make any comment on the validity of that idea as you have here.

Well it's just an opinion but I don't think it is valid.

That's a false dichotomy. Manufacturing is a service so what are you referring to ?

No it isn't, it's manufacturing. It's producing something that didn't exist before you made it. Selling or servicing it is just taking a cut of something someone else created. Without the creator, you have no job or income.

We can, and in several ways. For one thing industrial work is difficult, unhealthy and environmentally damaging. Of course, if you push that kind of work to another country then you're saddling them with those problems but to the point it does have a positive effect on some levels to lose that kind of work.

Depends on the kind of manufacturing and how you do it. All we are doing is downloading it to 3rd world sweat shops where it truly is dangerous at the expense of the ability to produce goods ourselves.

[overthere]

Of course you have to deal with what is dealt but to blame young people because the good paying semi skilled jobs their parents and grand parents enjoyed no longer exist makes no sense. How did they do it to themselves?

By choosing an expensive degree in a clearly useless field- a choice that is available to anybody with the ability to do research and assemble facts. You know, a university student.

By choosing to not avail themselves of better betting jobs elsewhere.

I don't blame them for the demise of manufacturing jobs in Ontario, or the demise of careers at the tomato packing plant that gave their parents a comfy lifestyle..

But I do insist that they accept responsibility for making informed choices regarding their own lives. I have no wish to fund unrealistic expectations or fantasies of entitlement. Playtime is over when we the citizens have finished subsidizing that first undergrad degree.

[eyeball]

But I do insist that they accept responsibility for making informed choices regarding their own lives. I have no wish to fund unrealistic expectations or fantasies of entitlement. Playtime is over when we the citizens have finished subsidizing that first undergrad degree.

I guess the trick is taking this sentiment and turning it into a public policy with laws, regulations, penalties and rewards. But how?

[overthere]

I guess the trick is taking this sentiment and turning it into a public policy with laws, regulations, penalties and rewards. But how?

Why are laws required to enact this 'sentiment'? Why is the state responsible?

The penalty comes from a life of bad entry level jobs. The reward comes with changing that. Most people recognize this and act to change their lives. I'd expect the supposedly intelligent university grad complaining of a life serving lattes to plumbers to be the first to recognize their own dilemma and act accordingly.

[Wilber]

By choosing an expensive degree in a clearly useless field- a choice that is available to anybody with the ability to do research and assemble facts. You know, a university student.

By choosing to not avail themselves of better betting jobs elsewhere.

I don't blame them for the demise of manufacturing jobs in Ontario, or the demise of careers at the tomato packing plant that gave their parents a comfy lifestyle..

But I do insist that they accept responsibility for making informed choices regarding their own lives. I have no wish to fund unrealistic expectations or fantasies of entitlement. PlaytimeMost p is over when we the citizens have finished subsidizing that first undergrad degree.

I think this is a straw man. Certainly there are those who make some questionable decisions when it comes to education but there always have been. Most people do not go to university and couldn't even if they wanted to. Entrance standards are much higher than they were 40 years ago and the cost is a lot higher.

Even in the trades, because most are now non union, the apprenticeship programs which used to have employers working with trade schools have pretty much disappeared. Increasingly, companies are taking no responsibility for producing the workers they will need in future. This is one reason temporary foreign workers have become such a big issue.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Wilber

[eyeball]

Why are laws required to enact this 'sentiment'? Why is the state responsible?

The economic damage caused by huge numbers of people making stupid decisions is threatening to undermine our way of life. Maybe this should this be a national security issue.

[overthere]

Most people do not go to university and couldn't even if they wanted to.

False. If you have reasonable grades, money is not an issue. Loans and grants are available to those who cannot afford the highly subsidized tuitions at CDN universities.

Entrance standards are much higher than they were 40 years ago and the cost is a lot higher.

False. The admission averages at the U of A, for example, are almost exactly the same as they were 40 years ago. This is a Stats Can chart of education trends in Canada. Even with a higher population now, the ratio of uni grads has shot up . http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/educ42-eng.htm

Increasingly, companies are taking no responsibility for producing the workers they will need in future.

They clearly have failed by forcing so many high school kids to major in Anthropology.

[Wilber]

False. If you have reasonable grades, money is not an issue. Loans and grants are available to those who cannot afford the highly subsidized tuitions at CDN universities.

False. The admission averages at the U of A, for example, are almost exactly the same as they were 40 years ago. This is a Stats Can chart of education trends in Canada. Even with a higher population now, the ratio of uni grads has shot up . http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/educ42-eng.htm

True. The minimum requirement at UBC is a B+ average but you would be lucky to get in because there are far fewer spots in Canadian universities than people who want to attend and even fewer in fields that are in demand. Fifty years ago all you needed was a high school diploma and money. I don't know why you keep harping on university when a majority of people don't go to them.

They clearly have failed by forcing so many high school kids to major in Anthropology.

Then perhaps they should provide some incentive for people to enter fields that they need. Blowing up the social contract and merely regarding people as another commodity is not progress.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Wilber

[overthere]

The minimum requirement at UBC is a B+ average b

72% percent for Arts at U of A 2014, 70% in early 70s. Easily attained. Some faculties are competitive for entrance, not surprisingly these are often fields that have jobs at the end.

Then perhaps they should provide some incentive for people to enter fields that they need. Blowing up the social contract and merely regarding people as another commodity is not progress.

"Thye" who is "they? The companies? They do provide a huge incentive for people who take the time to research employment trends, gain knowledge and skills, and graduate in fields that are required. It's called a job.

Since when was skills not a commodity? You know, supply and demand determines pay and employability?

Oh wait, it is always somebody elses fault.

[Michael Hardner]

Well it's just an opinion but I don't think it is valid.

You really missed my point didn't you ? I was trying to show that the many unemployed of this era were victims of economic circumstances, ie. technology replacing people, and yet that the people of the day blamed THEM for their unemployment. These same people benefited directly from the technological change also.

No it isn't, it's manufacturing. It's producing something that didn't exist before you made it. Selling or servicing it is just taking a cut of something someone else created. Without the creator, you have no job or income.

It's actually a service in that it's adding people power to raw materials, as far as I can see. Maybe you're right, though, that it's not considered a service industry but it's still wrong to set up 'good jobs that produce wealth' vs 'service'.

You're thinking of service industry as fast food but lots of 'service' jobs pay very very well.

Depends on the kind of manufacturing and how you do it. All we are doing is downloading it to 3rd world sweat shops where it truly is dangerous at the expense of the ability to produce goods ourselves.

Manufacturing isn't a great job, especially since the pay is decreasing now. There are much better things to do with your life than work a machine, IMO. Unless you're crafting things with more thought, I just thing the Henry Ford model is as bad as Charlie Chaplain depicted.

[Wilber]

72% percent for Arts at U of A 2014, 70% in early 70s. Easily attained. Some faculties are competitive for entrance, not surprisingly these are often fields that have jobs at the end.

So lets get rid of all the courses that don't have jobs at the end.

"Thye" who is "they? The companies? They do provide a huge incentive for people who take the time to research employment trends, gain knowledge and skills, and graduate in fields that are required. It's called a job.

Since when was skills not a commodity? You know, supply and demand determines pay and employability?

Oh wait, it is always somebody elses fault.

Companies invest in all sorts of things but apparently not future employees. They expect the skills they need to be brought to them and complain when they aren't. It's a two way street.

[Wilber]

You really missed my point didn't you ? I was trying to show that the many unemployed of this era were victims of economic circumstances, ie. technology replacing people, and yet that the people of the day blamed THEM for their unemployment. These same people benefited directly from the technological change also.

And they were often right. They were forced off the land into industrial sweat shops.

http://www.england-history.org/2009/10/enclosures-of-the-18th-century/

It's actually a service in that it's adding people power to raw materials, as far as I can see. Maybe you're right, though, that it's not considered a service industry but it's still wrong to set up 'good jobs that produce wealth' vs 'service'.

You're thinking of service industry as fast food but lots of 'service' jobs pay very very well.

Top have a service industry, you need something to service and people who can pay for it. Doesn't matter what the service is.

Manufacturing isn't a great job, especially since the pay is decreasing now. There are much better things to do with your life than work a machine, IMO. Unless you're crafting things with more thought, I just thing the Henry Ford model is as bad as Charlie Chaplain depicted.

But someone has to work the machine and someone has to extract and produce the resources that are used by those machines. Without it, there is no wealth to service.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Wilber

[overthere]

So lets get rid of all the courses that don't have jobs at the end.

No, lets let those Liberal Arts grads serving lattes(remember the OP?) make their own life decisions and accept both the profitable and less profitable consequences of both. They all had as a birthright the experience of 12 years of free education and another four years of heavily subsidized education. Everybody has to stand up on their hind legs at some point.

Companies invest in all sorts of things but apparently not future employees. They expect the skills they need to be brought to them and complain when they aren't. It's a two way street.

Perhaps you've never had a job or been an employer.

I've hired many tech school and uni grads. They all come with some skills for sure, but there is always a heavy investment in time and money to get them into a position where they understand the business at hand and are productive at their jobs. This particularly true of busoiness and IT grads. They cannot be expected to understand how their technical skills apply until they are actually on the job.

And of course lets not overlook the fact that corporations also pay taxes, and some of those taxes go to...education of their future employees in public schools. And if they don't bring the skills with you you want the company to train them from scratch? Every company that employs an engineer has an engineering school in house? That might get a tad expensive.

Did you want companies to recruit high school grads in high school and pay for their four year program at uni or elsewhere?

[eyeball]

Every company that employs an engineer has an engineering school in house?

Maybe not every company but certainly every industry should.

Edited December 12, 2014 by eyeball

[Wilber]

No, lets let those Liberal Arts grads serving lattes(remember the OP?) make their own life decisions and accept both the profitable and less profitable consequences of both. They all had as a birthright the experience of 12 years of free education and another four years of heavily subsidized education. Everybody has to stand up on their hind legs at some point.

If these courses are useless why waste the resources on them? Get rid of them or at least make them fully user pay and put those resources toward science based programs, technical and trade schools. This fixation on college degrees is getting tiresome. A majority of people going into the work force do not have or need four year degrees.

Perhaps you've never had a job or been an employer.

I've hired many tech school and uni grads. They all come with some skills for sure, but there is always a heavy investment in time and money to get them into a position where they understand the business at hand and are productive at their jobs. This particularly true of busoiness and IT grads. They cannot be expected to understand how their technical skills apply until they are actually on the job.

And of course lets not overlook the fact that corporations also pay taxes, and some of those taxes go to...education of their future employees in public schools. And if they don't bring the skills with you you want the company to train them from scratch? Every company that employs an engineer has an engineering school in house? That might get a tad expensive.

Did you want companies to recruit high school grads in high school and pay for their four year program at uni or elsewhere?

Yes I have had jobs and had to requalify myself to stay employed over the years but training specific to what my employer wanted was looked after by the employer, although some cut rate operators want new hires to go out and pay for heavy jet type ratings out of their own pockets before they will hire them.

Pay for their four year program? No, but why wait till they graduate before you recruit them? Pick promising students before they graduate, give them some assistance and on the job training during their school breaks and they will be ready to go by the time they graduate. It is done in some countries and that is almost exactly what our trade apprenticeship programs used to do.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Wilber

[Michael Hardner]

Top have a service industry, you need something to service and people who can pay for it. Doesn't matter what the service is.

But someone has to work the machine and someone has to extract and produce the resources that are used by those machines. Without it, there is no wealth to service.

This says nothing about your false comparison of 'good paying jobs' vs 'service jobs' though.

[Wilber]

This says nothing about your false comparison of 'good paying jobs' vs 'service jobs' though.

Some service jobs can be good paying but if we reach a point where we have nothing but service jobs working for each other, we will just be recirculating the same pot of money and producing nothing. When we want to buy stuff we used to produce from places like China, we will either have to take it out of that pot or provide a good or service that they are willing to pay for in return. It's called trade and historically, trade is how countries become wealthy.

[Michael Hardner]

Some service jobs can be good paying but if we reach a point where we have nothing but service jobs working for each other, we will just be recirculating the same pot of money and producing nothing.

That seems like a philosophical problem more than a practical one, or maybe just a problem with identity. Some might take your argument further and say we're not 'producing' things if we're not extracting natural resources too. Economies don't need those things: look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Services are part of the economy just as manufacturing and resources are.

When we want to buy stuff we used to produce from places like China, we will either have to take it out of that pot or provide a good or service that they are willing to pay for in return. It's called trade and historically, trade is how countries become wealthy.

I thought for a second you were echoing the fixed pie fallacy, but you're not - you correctly indicate that they have to be paying for Canadian goods and services.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2013-55-e.htm

"Over the 2007 to 2012 period, the value of Canada’s exports to China grew at an average annual rate of 15.3%, compared to 0.2% worldwide. The value of Canada’s exports to China as a share of the value of Canada’s total exports grew from 2.1% in 2007 to 4.3% in 2012."

[overthere]

Pay for their four year program? No, but why wait till they graduate before you recruit them? Pick promising students before they graduate, give them some assistance and on the job training during their school breaks and they will be ready to go by the time they graduate. It is done in some countries and that is almost exactly what our trade apprenticeship programs used to do.

The military does this with professionals like engineers and doctors, but of course the worker is then required to lock into their military service for at least an equal number of years and be subject to all the usual military strictures and benefits..

You'd have no problem with mandatory longterm contracts at non negotiable rates of pay and the possibility of mandatory transfers for all skilled workers- for all employers?? That is an interesting proposition, comrade.

[Argus]

Couldn't disagree more. Seniors stand to benefit the most from automation. I love cars and driving them but automated vehicles could allow me to use a car long after I should no longer be driving. I'm just hoping they will be available and affordable before my time comes.

This is absolutely true. I'm a guy who had to get around without cars for a long time. It was so time-consuming and difficult, especially if you had multiple errands, and worse if you had a lot of packages, ie, groceries, say. When seniors lose their cars they lose most of their mobility and wind up being stuck at home. Add in that long walks to bus stops are harder, and particularly in winter, more dangerous, and fears of going out after dark and they often wind up housebound. An automated car would be a godsend to many of them.

[Argus]

So lets get rid of all the courses that don't have jobs at the end.

Companies invest in all sorts of things but apparently not future employees. They expect the skills they need to be brought to them and complain when they aren't. It's a two way street.

That's why I feel so little sympathy for the whining from companies about the lack of 'skilled' people. Train them or go bankrupt.

[overthere]

An automated car would be a godsend to many of them.

They already have them, the most common name is 'taxi'.

I don't want a senior programming a car any more than I want one driving a car.

[Wilber]

They already have them, the most common name is 'taxi'.

I don't want a senior programming a car any more than I want one driving a car.

Why? They aren't driving, the worst that can happen is they wind up in the wrong place. You don't have to be a senior to do that.

[overthere]

That's why I feel so little sympathy for the whining from companies about the lack of 'skilled' people. Train them or go bankrupt.

Or just go somewhere else, where government and industry form partnerships with industrious individuals.

Oh right, they're already fleeing Ontario. No need for us to do anything..

[Argus]

They already have them, the most common name is 'taxi'.

I don't want a senior programming a car any more than I want one driving a car.

Taxis cost a lot of money, and are also inconvenient.