Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

Interesting analysis.  I’ve known where most of the folks I’ve flown with went to school but not all of them.  I couldn’t tell you what any of their majors were in college.  The biggest difference I’ve seen is who was a prior E.  

Flying long deployed tanker sorties sometimes leads to discussions other than “would you rather…” 😂

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


I agree that easy government loans contribute to the student debt problem, particularly since it's not tied to a degree program. Easy money also probably also contributed to the rapid rise in the cost of college, an unintended effect of trying to increase access.

A way to shape or workforce is to provide incentives, for example, only providing loans for certain courses of study (like engineering or hard sciences). Or changing proportions of degree programs that are eligible for government loans (more loans for technical degrees than for soft degrees). Though it's admittedly hard to determine how many of each degree to fund via loans. (Is business or poly sci a soft degree not worth finding via government loans?)
 

 

Just stop fucking with college loans entirely. Like you said, supply and demand. If the government keeps destroying one side of the equation, we can't expect the other side to balance. If the world needs more xxxxx degrees, the market will incentivize those degrees. The problems with advanced education are entries caused by government intervention. The trend line is not good. 60% of college kids today are women. 60% of the workforce is not women. Another imbalance.

 

If you want to make social change you have to get to the chosen minority as toddlers. If they fall behind as small kids then no amount of college loans, affirmative action, or fake degrees will make up for it. But fixing those problems would completely unravel the current social justice narrative that many people are making millions from, so don't expect it anytime soon.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites






I agree that easy government loans contribute to the student debt problem, particularly since it's not tied to a degree program. Easy money also probably also contributed to the rapid rise in the cost of college, an unintended effect of trying to increase access.

A way to shape or workforce is to provide incentives, for example, only providing loans for certain courses of study (like engineering or hard sciences). Or changing proportions of degree programs that are eligible for government loans (more loans for technical degrees than for soft degrees). Though it's admittedly hard to determine how many of each degree to fund via loans. (Is business or poly sci a soft degree not worth finding via government loans?)


If you want to see the self licking ice cream cone of debt that Soft “Science” degrees invented for themselves look no further than criminal justice/criminology/justice studies/etc…

Go interview at either a major state or federal agency involved in law enforcement with that degree field. It will yield you little to nothing in a field that literally has its name in your BA degree… or right.. it’s not actually a science.

The Ohio State patrol awarded rated grades based off certain circumstances to their initial entry exam. Having a Bachelors degree awarded 10 points, a social science like CJ or Psych awarded 15… you know who got 20? The Army Cook who did 4 years and got a 214 with an ASVAB score measured in single digits.

Yeah… gotta spend 80k of government money on that program. What a big help.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just stop ing with college loans entirely. Like you said, supply and demand. If the government keeps destroying one side of the equation, we can't expect the other side to balance. If the world needs more xxxxx degrees, the market will incentivize those degrees. The problems with advanced education are entries caused by government intervention. The trend line is not good. 60% of college kids today are women. 60% of the workforce is not women. Another imbalance.


While I used to take this line, we can't leave it up to the market-there's a lag between demand and supply. From a national security standpoint, it makes sense for the government to invest in talent, especially in STEM, to create a pool of talent for industry to draw on. This helps keep the US at the forefront of technology and innovation, which helps us both economically and in equipping our warfighters with equipment and technologies that give them an unfair advantage when they go to fight for our country.


If you want to make social change you have to get to the chosen minority as toddlers. If they fall behind as small kids then no amount of college loans, affirmative action, or fake degrees will make up for it. But fixing those problems would completely unravel the current social justice narrative that many people are making millions from, so don't expect it anytime soon.


K-12 is an important investment in our country's future, especially in minority populations for the reason you state. But that takes money, especially if you want better teachers. But that alone won't fix it, it takes support from the families and embracing academic success as a good thing (rather than labeling kids who want to do well in academics as nerds...). So while money is probably needed, throwing only money at the problem won't work.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

As someone with a social science (Political Science) bachelors, a STEM masters (Cybersecurity), and worked for Apple and a software company I can tell you that “soft skills” of just being a people person completely outweigh any technical ability. I can always tell you to read a book and get smarter, I can’t teach you people skills.

I see this a lot of project managers in IT fields, the dorks that have people skills because they can speak nerd, yet know how to management projects and people. Reference Tim Cook with an industrial engineering degree from Auburn and an MBA from Duke.

Also, the push for nothing but STEM majors always made me laugh. Do you want a society of STEM majors? I sure as shit don’t.

In my experience the STEM educated pilots were the worst ones to fly with because they were over-analytical to a fault and had terrible skills. The good ones usually came from a “social science” background.

I agree on people skills, you either have them or you don't and  you certainly can't teach them at Berkeley.

I never said we should push for nothing but STEM majors, the world needs artists.  The problem comes when people with good people skills can't do basic math, as you know and underlying requirement for high end IT/Cyber/programing. 

I was a STEM major pilot, I guess I am the exception 🙂

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Me working at the same company as CH with my measles degrees in social science 🤣

Almost like that episode was written for you and your measly* social science degree.

 

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Just as an aside...I know why y'all are using UC Berkeley* in examples, but it's really a poor choice for "these graduates have worthless/useless degrees."

Berkeley is one of the very best universities in the country. It's top-20 in terms of "best universities" by whatever formula Payscale uses, #22 in US News rankings, and produces 42% STEM-related degrees.

So I mean yea, a BA in Underwater Basket Weaving from the University of Phoenix paid for by unsubsidized federal loans is probably the more apt example of what we need less of 🤷‍♂️

Another funny aside from that Payscale data...the military academies all score really well because of honestly quite high "early career salary" i.e. O3 pay, high-meaning career fields, and high % of STEM degrees, however anecdotally I have yet to meet a single academy grad that recommends their alma mater to anyone else 🤣

*I did not go to Berkeley nor do I know anyone who did.

I know several including a classmate from ASG.  He was brilliant and spoke terribly of his time there being and brainwashed.  Yes, it is a prestigious school but as he said "that nice sheepskin also came with a health dose of ultra liberal dogma brainwashing."

6 hours ago, jazzdude said:

K-12 is an important investment in our country's future, especially in minority populations for the reason you state. But that takes money, especially if you want better teachers. But that alone won't fix it, it takes support from the families and embracing academic success as a good thing (rather than labeling kids who want to do well in academics as nerds...). So while money is probably needed, throwing only money at the problem won't work.

 

1000% agree.  The pay we give teachers is a national crime, this is our future and it is horrible don't make a better investment.  That being said teachers unions have become far too political which is not making the problem any better.

What do you think about some liberal school districts cancelling and discouraging gifted programs in the name of "equity"?

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is many times, the bottom of the academic barrel who become teachers (I know there are exceptions). I'm constantly amazed at the unmotivated and/or substandard students who fail out of one of our business majors here at school who then goes over to the College of Education and gets a teaching degree. If pay is raised we might get better talent headed towards teaching K-12 as well.

Edited by bfargin
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1000% agree.  The pay we give teachers is a national crime, this is our future and it is horrible don't make a better investment.  That being said teachers unions have become far too political which is not making the problem any better.
What do you think about some liberal school districts cancelling and discouraging gifted programs in the name of "equity"?


Agree on teachers unions becoming too political.

And yes, cancelling gifted programs in k-12 is a disservice to kids that are ahead of the curve. People learn at different speeds, and holding back students hurts their development as well as further academic or career pursuits (particularly if those careers require formal education). Also, maybe "advanced" or "accelerated" is a better word than "gifted" to describe these classes.

Less talked about is advancing students for social reasons; good for social reasons, but for subjects like math and science where all the coursework builds on understanding of previous concepts, it can cause students to be overwhelmed and fail with no real ability to catch up (unless provided outside help). There probably needs to be a slow kids class to ensure those concepts are learned, so they can build on the knowledge. There's also generally time for students who are behind to catch up on math and science by the time they graduate high school.

The equity argument is dumb. People excel at different things, or have different interests, and can learn at different rates; everyone is not the same. At the same time, how students get placed in advanced classes (or catch up classes) should be monitored for bias (both for and against); placements should be based on student performance, and not on race, ethnicity, sex, etc.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again this issue (like all others) comes down to the one simple question:  Do you believe the government should be more involved/have more control over X issue, or less.

It’s obvious from all the other posts on this site who favors more government control, and who favors less.  And if you are only a favor of more government control when your person/party is in control, then you’re also part of the problem.  It will be our downfall.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Once again this issue (like all others) comes down to the one simple question:  Do you believe the government should be more involved/have more control over X issue, or less.

Applicable must read (or listen) to why government shouldn't be involved. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of government involvement, anyone else see the proposal hidden in the Build Back Better bill that mandates banks provide the total inflow and outflow data of all accounts with over $600 in transactions?

That’s probably one of the most blatant invasions of financial privacy the government has ever attempted. Even the awful “Patriot Act” caps mandated reporting at $5,000 for suspicious transactions. Nearly every American would be subject to this, yet the administration will still tell you with a straight face that it’s to catch rich people who are cheating on their taxes…  
 

As an example, I could potentially draw the attention of the IRS simply because my fiancé and I do not have joint accounts, so she pays her portion of rent to me and then I pay the full amount to the landlord. As such, my bank account would show $18,000 in cash inflow that is not reflected on any W2. As far as I can tell under this proposed new system, that could get me noticed by the IRS even though I have done nothing wrong. Pretty sure that meets the definition of 1984 style Big Brother. 
 

Edit: Perhaps a better example is selling a car. I sell my several year old used car as a private party to another private individual for $17,500 that is wired to my account. I am under no obligation to pay tax on this money. However, IRS AI algorithm flags me because my tax filing claims I made $100k in taxable income, yet my checking account shows $117,500 went into my account in one year. Mr IRS then wants me to prove I actually don’t owe taxes on that money. Provable? Yes, but it’s basically akin to “show me your papers”.  
 

Here is an article discussing it, however plenty of others out there as well. 
https://fee.org/articles/treasury-department-seeks-to-track-financial-transactions-of-personal-bank-accounts-over-600/

Edited by kaputt
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Speaking of government involvement, anyone else see the proposal hidden in the Build Back Better bill that mandates banks provide the total inflow and outflow data of all accounts with over $600 in transactions?
That’s probably one of the most blatant invasions of financial privacy the government has ever attempted. Even the awful “Patriot Act” caps mandated reporting at $5,000 for suspicious transactions. Nearly every American would be subject to this, yet the administration will still tell you with a straight face that it’s to catch rich people who are cheating on their taxes…  
 
As an example, I could potentially draw the attention of the IRS simply because my fiancé and I do not have joint accounts, so she pays her portion of rent to me and then I pay the full amount to the landlord. As such, my bank account would show $18,000 in cash inflow that is not reflected on any W2. As far as I can tell under this proposed new system, that could get me noticed by the IRS even though I have done nothing wrong. Pretty sure that meets the definition of 1984 style Big Brother. 
 
Edit: Perhaps a better example is selling a car. I sell my several year old used car as a private party to another private individual for $17,500 that is wired to my account. I am under no obligation to pay tax on this money. However, IRS AI algorithm flags me because my tax filing claims I made $100k in taxable income, yet my checking account shows $117,500 went into my account in one year. Mr IRS then wants me to prove I actually don’t owe taxes on that money. Provable? Yes, but it’s basically akin to “show me your papers”.  
 
Here is an article discussing it, however plenty of others out there as well. 
https://fee.org/articles/treasury-department-seeks-to-track-financial-transactions-of-personal-bank-accounts-over-600/


https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4977386/user-clip-bank-accounts

Just two small little pieces of harmless information, that’s all.

Yeah, went generally unnoticed because it was during the Del Rio debacle among other things, but it will allow monitoring of nearly every financial transaction of almost every American. Sounds like one big warrant.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:


 

 

 


Yeah, went generally unnoticed because it was during the Del Rio debacle among other things, but it will allow monitoring of nearly every financial transaction of almost every American. Sounds like one big warrant.

 

 

I mean with the rapid rise of inflation, a $600 transaction is pretty minimal. I can't understand how they are arguing this targets the super wealthy? I probably make 3-5 $600 transfers a month between wife's account, my account, etc.... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Speaking of government involvement, anyone else see the proposal hidden in the Build Back Better bill that mandates banks provide the total inflow and outflow data of all accounts with over $600 in transactions?
That’s probably one of the most blatant invasions of financial privacy the government has ever attempted. Even the awful “Patriot Act” caps mandated reporting at $5,000 for suspicious transactions. Nearly every American would be subject to this, yet the administration will still tell you with a straight face that it’s to catch rich people who are cheating on their taxes…  
 
As an example, I could potentially draw the attention of the IRS simply because my fiancé and I do not have joint accounts, so she pays her portion of rent to me and then I pay the full amount to the landlord. As such, my bank account would show $18,000 in cash inflow that is not reflected on any W2. As far as I can tell under this proposed new system, that could get me noticed by the IRS even though I have done nothing wrong. Pretty sure that meets the definition of 1984 style Big Brother. 
 
Edit: Perhaps a better example is selling a car. I sell my several year old used car as a private party to another private individual for $17,500 that is wired to my account. I am under no obligation to pay tax on this money. However, IRS AI algorithm flags me because my tax filing claims I made $100k in taxable income, yet my checking account shows $117,500 went into my account in one year. Mr IRS then wants me to prove I actually don’t owe taxes on that money. Provable? Yes, but it’s basically akin to “show me your papers”.  
 
Here is an article discussing it, however plenty of others out there as well. 
https://fee.org/articles/treasury-department-seeks-to-track-financial-transactions-of-personal-bank-accounts-over-600/


Agree with just about everything you said, except for car tax. Fairly certain you owe tax on the car sales as a capital gain, unless you sold it for a loss.

The $600 transaction monitoring is ridiculous. But it's cheaper to go after the poor/middle class since they probably don't have access to a good lawyer to defend themselves. (But it's there a net gain for the government? Are the funds recovered by IRS enough to offset the cost of the monitoring/legal costs to pursue small violations?)

Don't forget that carrying large sums of cash is also considered suspicious, and what constitutes a "large sum" is whatever the police (or TSA if flying) feels like that day. And that threshold seems to go down if you're not a white male who's dressed well, because then it's "possible drug money" and at risk for being seized
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

And that threshold seems to go down if you're not a white male who's dressed well, because then it's "possible drug money" and at risk for being seized

 

So this why Hunter Biden is getting away with all of his crimes…now I get it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


Agree with just about everything you said, except for car tax. Fairly certain you owe tax on the car sales as a capital gain, unless you sold it for a loss.

The $600 transaction monitoring is ridiculous. But it's cheaper to go after the poor/middle class since they probably don't have access to a good lawyer to defend themselves. (But it's there a net gain for the government? Are the funds recovered by IRS enough to offset the cost of the monitoring/legal costs to pursue small violations?)

Don't forget that carrying large sums of cash is also considered suspicious, and what constitutes a "large sum" is whatever the police (or TSA if flying) feels like that day. And that threshold seems to go down if you're not a white male who's dressed well, because then it's "possible drug money" and at risk for being seized

 

I guess in this market anything is possible...but it's pretty rare to sell a car and make a profit over what you paid for it. Cars are depreciating assets. 

Unless you're putting up a rare sports car at auction or something...

Edited by pawnman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A second part of this legislation, Biden also plans to DOUBLE the size of the IRS and hire 87,000 new employees.  Before you say great, catch all the cheats, remember every agent comes with a mandate to bring in funds.  I am all for catching the cheats to raise revenue but with the IRS it rarely turns out that way.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

A second part of this legislation, Biden also plans to DOUBLE the size of the IRS and hire 87,000 new employees.  Before you say great, catch all the cheats, remember every agent comes with a mandate to bring in funds.  I am all for catching the cheats to raise revenue but with the IRS it rarely turns out that way.

If the Feds really wanted to cut the cheating then they would adopt the Fair Tax, but they won’t.  The Feds are about picking winners and losers…and they suck at that as well.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

I guess in this market anything is possible...but it's pretty rare to sell a car and make a profit over what you paid for it. Cars are depreciating assets. 

Unless you're putting up a rare sports car at auction or something...

Raising this more as a fun-fact to your point that shocked me, too:

Sold a used 2017 Dodge Challenger in May than had been in a wreck that required rebuilding the front-left side of the vehicle for $25,000 to CarMax. It was leased (Dave Ramsey taught me after afterwards to never do that again! 🤣 ) for a hair under that price.

Couldn't believe it, as a previous offer from CarMax was only for $18,000 in February. IDK what happened between February and May, but they jumped the price by $7.5k. Recently looked into selling my wife's SUV but not quite getting the same level of offers from CarMax 3-4 months later. So IDK if there was a huge spike in demand/panic in May, or if maybe something specific to sports cars is in demand, or it was a mistake, but you best believe when they handed me the paper with $25k on it I immediately said "YES. WHERE DO I SIGN!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, GreenArc said:

Raising this more as a fun-fact to your point that shocked me, too:

Sold a used 2017 Dodge Challenger in May than had been in a wreck that required rebuilding the front-left side of the vehicle for $25,000 to CarMax. It was leased (Dave Ramsey taught me after afterwards to never do that again! 🤣 ) for a hair under that price.

Couldn't believe it, as a previous offer from CarMax was only for $18,000 in February. IDK what happened between February and May, but they jumped the price by $7.5k. Recently looked into selling my wife's SUV but not quite getting the same level of offers from CarMax 3-4 months later. So IDK if there was a huge spike in demand/panic in May, or if maybe something specific to sports cars is in demand, or it was a mistake, but you best believe when they handed me the paper with $25k on it I immediately said "YES. WHERE DO I SIGN!".

What happened is a fucked supply chain with microchips that run everything from phones, cars, to airplanes being in short supply due to the pandemic. The lack of microchips is affecting new vehicles inventory making them in short supply and raising their prices. People are freaking out due to the low inventory and now they’re having bidding wars between each other for used vehicles, thus driving up the prices for them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

What happened is a fucked supply chain with microchips that run everything from phones, cars, to airplanes being in short supply due to the pandemic. The lack of microchips is affecting new vehicles inventory making them in short supply and raising their prices. People are freaking out due to the low inventory and now they’re having bidding wars between each other for used vehicles, thus driving up the prices for them as well.

Anecodotally, I have friends who have difficulty finding rental cars for TDYs.  That might be an indicator that cars/parts are in short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, guineapigfury said:

Anecodotally, I have friends who have difficulty finding rental cars for TDYs.  That might be an indicator that cars/parts are in short supply.

Yep, we had the same issue when going TDY to Alaska in August.  Not only were cars tough to find, they were also quite expensive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...