The 20 hour work week would be such an immense boon.
There are studies that say "40 hours is the optimal week", but I honestly don't buy it.
Society would just start developing to satisfy the needs of "overtimers" instead of "fulltimers."
I'm not sure where you guys get this "40 hour work week" crap from. Every job I've ever had you end up doing far more then that, and it's rather expected. You don't, and you won't last long. The better paying, and more authority I had at the job, the longer I worked.
If you're talking about a bullshit ladder-climbing job, then yes, that's how it works.
In my field, you get paid more by having more experience certified training under your belt. It's not uncommon for experienced and certified staff members where I work to make well more than their mid-level superiors. I know I do. Plus, I work a lot less and never have to be on-call.
I work in IT and yes experience, certs, and a clearance causes me to get paid more.
On the other hand, I've found that we all end up working crazy hours. It's part of the game.
Not sure IT is a good indicator of other jobs. It's a fundamental services thing where getting stuff done NOW is absolutely vital and crazy ass emergencies can happen.
I am a humanist and so while the gradual decline of industrial civilization that seems to be coming closer every year seems like a great opportunity to change a flawed system it'll probably be a giant suckfest for most people on earth.
Especially for those people in the third-world who instead of making shoes and televisions for $1.00/day will go back to inter-community bartering and halt all development whatsoever.
But I guess that's cool. National Geographic always needs a new tribe of mud hut dwellers to showcase.
Or they could develop a native industry. It's not like European colonies were held back by being forced to act as cheap producers and only flowered after fighting off said shackles or anything, right?
The 20 hour work week would be such an immense boon.
There are studies that say "40 hours is the optimal week", but I honestly don't buy it.
People tend to be more motivated and generally feel better if they can look out a window once in a while, but those are reserved for middle management. See, work hard, and maybe one day you too can buy yourself a window!
does anyone here have any suggestions for a good career I can have where I can work <40 hours a week, do something that's creative and helps people, and make enough money to live comfortably? This is a serious question.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
does anyone here have any suggestions for a good career I can have where I can work <40 hours a week, do something that's creative and helps people, and make enough money to live comfortably? This is a serious question.
Being a PA, RN, RNP, or CRNA fits just about all of that except the "creative part."
However, since you can work less than 40 hours a week (and most of that over three or four days) you should have plenty of spare time to do whatever.
None of them are extremely cost-prohibitive either, as far as requisite education goes.
does anyone here have any suggestions for a good career I can have where I can work <40 hours a week, do something that's creative and helps people, and make enough money to live comfortably? This is a serious question.
Being a PA, RN, RNP, or CRNA fits just about all of that except the "creative part."
However, since you can work less than 40 hours a week (and most of that over three or four days) you should have plenty of spare time to do whatever.
None of them are extremely cost-prohibitive either, as far as requisite education goes.
hmm, that's something I never considered. I thought nurses usually worked really long hours, though?
First, I hate vague generalizations. Who, exactly, is feeding us this propaganda? It's weaseling to simply name corporate conglomerates; these entities have operators. If you have accusations to make, make them. It's dishonest and cowardly to pretend that nameless & faceless Illuminati of some sort are controlling everyone's minds - and it certainly rings my bullshit alarm, whether you propose their mechanism is through televised memes or chemtrails.
Second, it's always easer to sit around cynically bitching and moaning rather than actually doing something. So, you believe that media conglomerates are deliberately and maliciously brainwashing you - what are you going to do about it, then? Argue about it in an Internet forum, apparently. How bold. Trotsky's passioned efforts to prevent Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler from killing so many people, while ultimately unsuccessful, at least involved doing something other than sitting around and gossiping - I suspect that the reason the examples of such men aren't followed is because few people are willing to pay the same price they did.
Third, the accuracy of the arguments are dubious. The most glaring flaw I see is that it only names American media conglomerates; globally, there are far more - and these days no person in a Western country is restricted to only watching media produced domestically. Another flaw is that there is no way to firmly establish causation - are we acting like we do because of corporate influence, or are the corporations acting like they do because of us? Or is it (much more likely) a much more complex relationship than either of those extreme views would suggest?
I should say that I'm most definitely a Trotskyist communist and most definitely urge caution and mistrust of individuals like Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, Robert J. Stevens, Erik Prince & Al Clark, Sarah Palin, etc, but desperate paranoia of anything resembling a collective effort (like, for example, a corporation) is destructive. Bill Gates, Steve Jobbs, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Eric E. Schmidt, Jeffrey L Bewkes, etc are all extremely decent human beings (though, as always, not without their own faults & errors) and their respective enterprises do much to diminish misery and rescue the unfortunate.
Don't decide that because you hate Newscorp, Blackwater, Halliburton & Exxon (as any thinking person does) you need to throw every business entity under the bus.
Kevin R Brown on
' As always when their class interests are at stake, the capitalists can dispense with noble sentiments like the right to free speech or the struggle against tyranny.'
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
hmm, that's something I never considered. I thought nurses usually worked really long hours, though?
It depends on where you work and what your specialty is. I'm a trauma/ER specialist, so I don't really take my work home with me. I work 12-hour shifts, three or four days a week. I do all of mine consecutively if I can, so I maximize my days off. If I butt them end-to-end, I can conceivably get up to seven days in a row off without missing a day of work.
If you work in a clinic, expect shorter days, but working at least five days a week. But you'll see less blood and guts.
I am a humanist and so while the gradual decline of industrial civilization that seems to be coming closer every year seems like a great opportunity to change a flawed system it'll probably be a giant suckfest for most people on earth.
Especially for those people in the third-world who instead of making shoes and televisions for $1.00/day will go back to inter-community bartering and halt all development whatsoever.
But I guess that's cool. National Geographic always needs a new tribe of mud hut dwellers to showcase.
I need you to please understand how absolutely orientalist and racist such a statement is.
Kippling died a long time ago, and I'm fairly certain invoking "White Man's Burden" is pretty akin to looking good in blackface.
The 20 hour work week would be such an immense boon.
There are studies that say "40 hours is the optimal week", but I honestly don't buy it.
People tend to be more motivated and generally feel better if they can look out a window once in a while, but those are reserved for middle management. See, work hard, and maybe one day you too can buy yourself a window!
does anyone here have any suggestions for a good career I can have where I can work <40 hours a week, do something that's creative and helps people, and make enough money to live comfortably? This is a serious question.
that's what i'm on track towards doing now. Unfortunately it tends to lead to very long hours for comparatively low pay. It does give you a nice amount of freedom in your work though.
that's my current plan with physics, which has the upside of giving me the opportunity to almost literally sell my soul and become a quantitative analyst and make lots of money fucking over poor people if I decide to later.
you know i did my undergrad in physics. When i was jobhunting it turned out that the whole "become a quant easily and make piles of money " thing is out of date. These days the job market for that is overcrowded with people who have degrees in quantitative finance.
You could become a teacher, I suppose. It depends on your definition of comfortable. Also, many find it unpleasant and stressful and quit fairly quickly.
If you're looking for a career, look at the lifestyle of the average person in that field and see if it appeals to you. Your job will play a large role in determining not just your access to money, but also how much free time you have and when you have it, and the people that you spend much of your time with. Just be sure to judge by the typical person in the field, not just the most visible (who are also generally the most successful).
Prepare to spend 4 (undergrad) + 2 (masters) + 4+ usually 5+ (ph. d) in school, being relatively poor.
Then, depending on your school, getting paid between 50 and 100,000. Though very rarely more than that unless you're an engineer and are earning money from patents, which are achieved without the degree anyway.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Prepare to spend 4 (undergrad) + 2 (masters) + 4+ usually 5+ (ph. d) in school, being relatively poor.
Then, depending on your school, getting paid between 50 and 100,000. Though very rarely more than that unless you're an engineer and are earning money from patents, which are achieved without the degree anyway.
In what field? Those 50-100k jobs aren't an entitlement, and are generally far more scarce than the people looking for them. In most science fields, you should be prepared to spend an additional 3 - <infinity> years as a post-doc making 30-40k (at well over 40 hours a week, if you want to advance further). Infinity because many PhDs never advance further than that. In the liberal arts it's even worse, as the faculty jobs are even more scarce and you don't even have the option of working as a post-doc in your field, so you're probably going to end up working at starbucks while you apply for your real estate license.
People complain that not enough American students go into science and think that it has something to do with the schools. The fact is that those jobs are very poorly compensated for the amount of education and intelligence they require. We bring in Indian and Chinese for the same reason we bring in Mexicans, to do the jobs that Americans won't do at the wage offered.
If science is your calling then by all means pursue it, and that's true for any field, but be brutally honest with yourself. If you got into it because you thought it was a good combination of compensation, free time and working conditions, then get the fuck out and start boning up for the MCAT.
Tiger Burning on
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
People complain that not enough American students go into science and think that it has something to do with the schools. The fact is that those jobs are very poorly compensated for the amount of education and intelligence they require. We bring in Indian and Chinese for the same reason we bring in Mexicans, to do the jobs that Americans won't do at the wage offered.
If science is your calling then by all means pursue it, and that's true for any field, but be brutally honest with yourself. If you got into it because you thought it was a good combination of compensation, free time and working conditions, then get the fuck out and start boning up for the MCAT.
Seconding this. Science, ESPECIALLY research, is brutally underpaid. Which is ironic, because it's the most important type of human activity by far.
i thought it was underpaid because there are far more people willing to do the job than needed/supportable by current infrastructure?
And aren't Indians and Chinese are over-represented because they're applying out of far more rigorous and brutally competitive systems, with higher standards for students? Your T.A from Guangzhou may be a shitty instructor because of their language proficiency, but this doesn't hamper their ability to do research, unless they literally don't know any English.
Seconding this. Science, ESPECIALLY research, is brutally underpaid. Which is ironic, because it's the most important type of human activity by far.
In my opinion teachers should have their paycheck doubled.
Such a thankless job.
I was reading an academia blog (theadjunct.net) where an adjunct prof talked about how there are government penalties for schools if they don't pay their non tenured instructors a certain amount.
they pay those penalties because it's still cheaper than paying their un-annointed employees a living wage.
it's brutal and sad, but I think it ultimately does raise the standards of academic departments, and ensures that they are at the very least maintained.
Sam on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited January 2010
Their undergraduate institutions are nothing special, but that's not the point. They can do the job, no question, but the reason they're needed here is that if you're an American with the drive and intelligence to succeed in science, then you also have the drive and intelligence to succeed in law or medicine or business, where you'll be compensated at an order of magnitude higher rate.
Tiger Burning on
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Their undergraduate institutions are nothing special, but that's not the point. They can do the job, no question, but the reason they're needed here is that if you're an American with the drive and intelligence to succeed in science, then you also have the drive and intelligence to succeed in law or medicine or business, where you'll be compensated at an order of magnitude higher rate.
Their undergraduate institutions are nothing special, but that's not the point. They can do the job, no question, but the reason they're needed here is that if you're an American with the drive and intelligence to succeed in science, then you also have the drive and intelligence to succeed in law or medicine or business, where you'll be compensated at an order of magnitude higher rate.
well academia is more selective than medicine and law, because there are far fewer open spots (inevitable when people who have the jobs tend to stay as long as they are physically able and then some)
the level of competition in Indian and Chinese universities is truly on a completely different scale. You need excellent work ethic just to survive in any half decent university there (and there aren't that many)
I mean it's a system where a single point on one exam can be the difference between you and the guy who gets accepted instead. It's a system where your letter grade is assigned based on the performance of the rest of the class, and given that only the top 5% are even allowed seats, you basically need to get full points, or as close as possible on everything.
It isn't hard to see why someone who made it through that kind of system is going to be preferred at corn-state university.
Sam on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Their undergraduate institutions are nothing special, but that's not the point. They can do the job, no question, but the reason they're needed here is that if you're an American with the drive and intelligence to succeed in science, then you also have the drive and intelligence to succeed in law or medicine or business, where you'll be compensated at an order of magnitude higher rate.
well academia is more selective than medicine and law, because there are far fewer open spots (inevitable when people who have the jobs tend to stay as long as they are physically able and then some)
the level of competition in Indian and Chinese universities is truly on a completely different scale. You need excellent work ethic just to survive in any half decent university there (and there aren't that many)
I mean it's a system where a single point on one exam can be the difference between you and the guy who gets accepted instead. It's a system where your letter grade is assigned based on the performance of the rest of the class, and given that only the top 5% are even allowed seats, you basically need to get full points, or as close as possible on everything.
It isn't hard to see why someone who made it through that kind of system is going to be preferred at corn-state university.
What do you mean by 'more selective'? Certainly not at the post graduate education level. It's much, much easier to get into a PhD program than medical or law school. And I am certainly not disparaging the abilities of Chinese or Indian students. They have the ability. But the reason they are so prevalent in american science isn't because they're out-competing anybody, it's because the jobs they are 'competing' for largely suck.
Tiger Burning on
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
my personal, extremely limited experience involving the science field sort of boggles my mind. My undergraduate degree program (from which I now have a bachelor's) kind of involved multiple fields of work -- math, statistics, molecular biology, and computer science. After seeking work for roughly a year during the recession, I was offered two jobs in the same week. One involved manufacturing molecular constructs in a lab for a vaccination research company contracting for the military. Another involved filling a networking technician position contracting for the military, unrelated entirely to the other job.
Both jobs would require relatively similar work. Relatively boring, easy jobs that require a decent amount of technical knowledge in order to perform well. One paid three times more than the other. One was pretty close to minimum wage.
Low end science jobs probably need to pay a little more.
Their undergraduate institutions are nothing special, but that's not the point. They can do the job, no question, but the reason they're needed here is that if you're an American with the drive and intelligence to succeed in science, then you also have the drive and intelligence to succeed in law or medicine or business, where you'll be compensated at an order of magnitude higher rate.
well academia is more selective than medicine and law, because there are far fewer open spots (inevitable when people who have the jobs tend to stay as long as they are physically able and then some)
the level of competition in Indian and Chinese universities is truly on a completely different scale. You need excellent work ethic just to survive in any half decent university there (and there aren't that many)
I mean it's a system where a single point on one exam can be the difference between you and the guy who gets accepted instead. It's a system where your letter grade is assigned based on the performance of the rest of the class, and given that only the top 5% are even allowed seats, you basically need to get full points, or as close as possible on everything.
It isn't hard to see why someone who made it through that kind of system is going to be preferred at corn-state university.
What do you mean by 'more selective'? Certainly not at the post graduate education level. It's much, much easier to get into a PhD program than medical or law school. And I am certainly not disparaging the abilities of Chinese or Indian students. They have the ability. But the reason they are so prevalent in american science isn't because they're out-competing anybody, it's because the jobs they are 'competing' for largely suck.
it's "easier" to get into a PhD program because unlike a bachelors and masters, there's no guaranteed benefit from a PhD alone*
*In fields like engineering it can be useful if you also have some work experience. In Psychology it's obviously useful. In the vast majority of fields though, academia is the only avenue, and academia isn't the same thing as pursuing a Phd anyway.
My uncle is a Phd researcher. He got his doctorate in the 90s and since then has been bounced around. UCSB dropped him, he landed in Harvard but now they've cut him due to lack of funding and now he's looking into unemployment benefits.
I don't think he has ever made more than 3K a month in his life.
Also, keep in mind that the jobs they're really competing for are tenured positions. Your prior life and career is one long audition.
So basically this topic seems to have drifted a bit, and I never think the main question (for me) was answered: We as a society spend huge amounts of time and effort to produce shit people don't want (like, say, a new exercising equipment or perfume) and then just as much effort convincing people they need and want that shit, largely by making them feel bad about themselves. The only response I saw to this was "Shake it off"/"grow up" which is basically saying that Marketing campaigns designed to ruin your self esteem won't work if your self esteem is great, which is probably true, but that's a pretty shit argument, about as good as "well nomatter how poor you are born you can make it!" which is sort of technically true, but a pretty poor argument against poor children having a way worse 'starting position'.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
So basically this topic seems to have drifted a bit, and I never think the main question (for me) was answered: We as a society spend huge amounts of time and effort to produce shit people don't want (like, say, a new exercising equipment or perfume) and then just as much effort convincing people they need and want that shit, largely by making them feel bad about themselves. The only response I saw to this was "Shake it off"/"grow up" which is basically saying that Marketing campaigns designed to ruin your self esteem won't work if your self esteem is great, which is probably true, but that's a pretty shit argument, about as good as "well nomatter how poor you are born you can make it!" which is sort of technically true, but a pretty poor argument against poor children having a way worse 'starting position'.
The only actual means of changing our culture, and by that we really mean the basic function of modern capitalism, is by moving (at least) away from the "free-market" ideal.
So basically this topic seems to have drifted a bit, and I never think the main question (for me) was answered: We as a society spend huge amounts of time and effort to produce shit people don't want (like, say, a new exercising equipment or perfume) and then just as much effort convincing people they need and want that shit, largely by making them feel bad about themselves. The only response I saw to this was "Shake it off"/"grow up" which is basically saying that Marketing campaigns designed to ruin your self esteem won't work if your self esteem is great, which is probably true, but that's a pretty shit argument, about as good as "well nomatter how poor you are born you can make it!" which is sort of technically true, but a pretty poor argument against poor children having a way worse 'starting position'.
The only actual means of changing our culture, and by that we really mean the basic function of modern capitalism, is by moving (at least) away from the "free-market" ideal.
I don't think culture and capitalism are necessarily the same, I'd certainly argue that the Internet is pretty capitalistic but with a very different consumer and advertising culture than say television. Second "Capitalism" is a missnomer, our society is not Capitalistic, it's consumerist, and it's with heavy government intervention and big non-profit actors, there's no reason these could not mobilize to fight the various ills talked about the in the OP.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
So basically this topic seems to have drifted a bit, and I never think the main question (for me) was answered: We as a society spend huge amounts of time and effort to produce shit people don't want (like, say, a new exercising equipment or perfume) and then just as much effort convincing people they need and want that shit, largely by making them feel bad about themselves. The only response I saw to this was "Shake it off"/"grow up" which is basically saying that Marketing campaigns designed to ruin your self esteem won't work if your self esteem is great, which is probably true, but that's a pretty shit argument, about as good as "well nomatter how poor you are born you can make it!" which is sort of technically true, but a pretty poor argument against poor children having a way worse 'starting position'.
The only actual means of changing our culture, and by that we really mean the basic function of modern capitalism, is by moving (at least) away from the "free-market" ideal.
I don't think culture and capitalism are necessarily the same, I'd certainly argue that the Internet is pretty capitalistic but with a very different consumer and advertising culture than say television. Second "Capitalism" is a missnomer, our society is not Capitalistic, it's consumerist, and it's with heavy government intervention and big non-profit actors, there's no reason these could not mobilize to fight the various ills talked about the in the OP.
We exist under capitalism, the particular forms it takes vary between "emerging markets", "communism", "democracy", "monarchy" etc. The essential driving force, and framework of all political discourse is existent within a capitalist framework. The market, exchange of goods, etc. governs all political and social decisions.
This is especially true in "democracy" and even more so in America. Particular forms exist in their own context, but they all rely on the stability of the market to allow for socio-economic growth.
So basically this topic seems to have drifted a bit, and I never think the main question (for me) was answered: We as a society spend huge amounts of time and effort to produce shit people don't want (like, say, a new exercising equipment or perfume) and then just as much effort convincing people they need and want that shit, largely by making them feel bad about themselves. The only response I saw to this was "Shake it off"/"grow up" which is basically saying that Marketing campaigns designed to ruin your self esteem won't work if your self esteem is great, which is probably true, but that's a pretty shit argument, about as good as "well nomatter how poor you are born you can make it!" which is sort of technically true, but a pretty poor argument against poor children having a way worse 'starting position'.
The only actual means of changing our culture, and by that we really mean the basic function of modern capitalism, is by moving (at least) away from the "free-market" ideal.
I don't think culture and capitalism are necessarily the same, I'd certainly argue that the Internet is pretty capitalistic but with a very different consumer and advertising culture than say television. Second "Capitalism" is a missnomer, our society is not Capitalistic, it's consumerist, and it's with heavy government intervention and big non-profit actors, there's no reason these could not mobilize to fight the various ills talked about the in the OP.
People have been ridiculing advertising since forever. It's hard to imagine that there's someone out there who's completely oblivious to how ridiculous the market can get with it's new penis pills and weight loss scams.
But it's also worth noting that an entire generation of kids to teenagers have gone through a serious recession which will probably have a positive impact on their spending habits for the rest of their lives.
well academia is more selective than medicine and law, because there are far fewer open spots (inevitable when people who have the jobs tend to stay as long as they are physically able and then some)
the level of competition in Indian and Chinese universities is truly on a completely different scale. You need excellent work ethic just to survive in any half decent university there (and there aren't that many)
I mean it's a system where a single point on one exam can be the difference between you and the guy who gets accepted instead. It's a system where your letter grade is assigned based on the performance of the rest of the class, and given that only the top 5% are even allowed seats, you basically need to get full points, or as close as possible on everything.
It isn't hard to see why someone who made it through that kind of system is going to be preferred at corn-state university.
Sam, are you honestly saying it's their work ethic/education and not the huge, huge, huge currency gap?
Hell, in an even situation, not being able to write or communicate natively in English ought to be a deal breaker for those candidates. It certainly would be if it weren't for the afore-metioned huge, huge, huge currency gap.
And aren't Indians and Chinese are over-represented because they're applying out of far more rigorous and brutally competitive systems, with higher standards for students? Your T.A from Guangzhou may be a shitty instructor because of their language proficiency, but this doesn't hamper their ability to do research, unless they literally don't know any English.
Sort of. The systems there are definitely more rigorous and competitive. However, I'm not sure that those systems actually do a better job of producing researchers that the more relaxed American system. Basically you have students there spending hours memorizing minute details that might come up on a test, so that they can score a few points more. Whereas American students are allowed to just look that stuff up if they need to know it. So at first it might seem like the American students don't know as much, but there usually just as good at doing actual work, as opposed to artificial test questions.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I am a humanist and so while the gradual decline of industrial civilization that seems to be coming closer every year seems like a great opportunity to change a flawed system it'll probably be a giant suckfest for most people on earth.
Especially for those people in the third-world who instead of making shoes and televisions for $1.00/day will go back to inter-community bartering and halt all development whatsoever.
But I guess that's cool. National Geographic always needs a new tribe of mud hut dwellers to showcase.
I need you to please understand how absolutely orientalist and racist such a statement is.
Kippling died a long time ago, and I'm fairly certain invoking "White Man's Burden" is pretty akin to looking good in blackface.
Which parts are orientalist, racist, and invoking White Man's Burden?
Your post looks like a whirlwind of self-righteous indignation, but intended for a different thread entirely.
those brown people sure need us to teach them capitalism or else they might get stuck with um
basic trading? Not quite sure how that precludes development, especially as compared to being borderline slave labour.
I am a humanist and so while the gradual decline of industrial civilization that seems to be coming closer every year seems like a great opportunity to change a flawed system it'll probably be a giant suckfest for most people on earth.
Especially for those people in the third-world who instead of making shoes and televisions for $1.00/day will go back to inter-community bartering and halt all development whatsoever.
But I guess that's cool. National Geographic always needs a new tribe of mud hut dwellers to showcase.
I need you to please understand how absolutely orientalist and racist such a statement is.
Kippling died a long time ago, and I'm fairly certain invoking "White Man's Burden" is pretty akin to looking good in blackface.
Which parts are orientalist, racist, and invoking White Man's Burden?
Your post looks like a whirlwind of self-righteous indignation, but intended for a different thread entirely.
Basically, your statement hinges on the idea that it is only the Western capitalist cultural act of imperialism that is able to sustain growth and stability within a society; that without the help of the glorious liberal West, the rest of the undeveloped "tribe" would revert back into some primitive culture of "mud hut dwellers".
Reading this a few more times I think there's a lot of sarcasm. If that's the case then the above doesn't really apply. It wasn't very clear, if that was the case.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
those brown people sure need us to teach them capitalism or else they might get stuck with um
basic trading? Not quite sure how that precludes development, especially as compared to being borderline slave labour.
Well, do me a favor and show me a group or nation in the third-world on an accelerated development course without the use of capitalist economic philosophy or massive amounts of aid from capitalist countries. I promise I'll admit I'm wrong if you do.
You're the third person to mention race in a conversation in which it was never brought up.
Posts
I work in IT and yes experience, certs, and a clearance causes me to get paid more.
On the other hand, I've found that we all end up working crazy hours. It's part of the game.
Or they could develop a native industry. It's not like European colonies were held back by being forced to act as cheap producers and only flowered after fighting off said shackles or anything, right?
How's that going, by the way?
It doesn't seem like National Geographic is actually hurting for pre-bronze age cultures to print articles about.
Being a PA, RN, RNP, or CRNA fits just about all of that except the "creative part."
However, since you can work less than 40 hours a week (and most of that over three or four days) you should have plenty of spare time to do whatever.
None of them are extremely cost-prohibitive either, as far as requisite education goes.
hmm, that's something I never considered. I thought nurses usually worked really long hours, though?
First, I hate vague generalizations. Who, exactly, is feeding us this propaganda? It's weaseling to simply name corporate conglomerates; these entities have operators. If you have accusations to make, make them. It's dishonest and cowardly to pretend that nameless & faceless Illuminati of some sort are controlling everyone's minds - and it certainly rings my bullshit alarm, whether you propose their mechanism is through televised memes or chemtrails.
Second, it's always easer to sit around cynically bitching and moaning rather than actually doing something. So, you believe that media conglomerates are deliberately and maliciously brainwashing you - what are you going to do about it, then? Argue about it in an Internet forum, apparently. How bold. Trotsky's passioned efforts to prevent Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler from killing so many people, while ultimately unsuccessful, at least involved doing something other than sitting around and gossiping - I suspect that the reason the examples of such men aren't followed is because few people are willing to pay the same price they did.
Third, the accuracy of the arguments are dubious. The most glaring flaw I see is that it only names American media conglomerates; globally, there are far more - and these days no person in a Western country is restricted to only watching media produced domestically. Another flaw is that there is no way to firmly establish causation - are we acting like we do because of corporate influence, or are the corporations acting like they do because of us? Or is it (much more likely) a much more complex relationship than either of those extreme views would suggest?
I should say that I'm most definitely a Trotskyist communist and most definitely urge caution and mistrust of individuals like Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, Robert J. Stevens, Erik Prince & Al Clark, Sarah Palin, etc, but desperate paranoia of anything resembling a collective effort (like, for example, a corporation) is destructive. Bill Gates, Steve Jobbs, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Eric E. Schmidt, Jeffrey L Bewkes, etc are all extremely decent human beings (though, as always, not without their own faults & errors) and their respective enterprises do much to diminish misery and rescue the unfortunate.
Don't decide that because you hate Newscorp, Blackwater, Halliburton & Exxon (as any thinking person does) you need to throw every business entity under the bus.
It depends on where you work and what your specialty is. I'm a trauma/ER specialist, so I don't really take my work home with me. I work 12-hour shifts, three or four days a week. I do all of mine consecutively if I can, so I maximize my days off. If I butt them end-to-end, I can conceivably get up to seven days in a row off without missing a day of work.
If you work in a clinic, expect shorter days, but working at least five days a week. But you'll see less blood and guts.
I need you to please understand how absolutely orientalist and racist such a statement is.
Kippling died a long time ago, and I'm fairly certain invoking "White Man's Burden" is pretty akin to looking good in blackface.
This is my everlong quest.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
that's what i'm on track towards doing now. Unfortunately it tends to lead to very long hours for comparatively low pay. It does give you a nice amount of freedom in your work though.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Haha, haha, ha, no. No it doesn't.
You could become a teacher, I suppose. It depends on your definition of comfortable. Also, many find it unpleasant and stressful and quit fairly quickly.
If you're looking for a career, look at the lifestyle of the average person in that field and see if it appeals to you. Your job will play a large role in determining not just your access to money, but also how much free time you have and when you have it, and the people that you spend much of your time with. Just be sure to judge by the typical person in the field, not just the most visible (who are also generally the most successful).
Prepare to spend 4 (undergrad) + 2 (masters) + 4+ usually 5+ (ph. d) in school, being relatively poor.
Then, depending on your school, getting paid between 50 and 100,000. Though very rarely more than that unless you're an engineer and are earning money from patents, which are achieved without the degree anyway.
In what field? Those 50-100k jobs aren't an entitlement, and are generally far more scarce than the people looking for them. In most science fields, you should be prepared to spend an additional 3 - <infinity> years as a post-doc making 30-40k (at well over 40 hours a week, if you want to advance further). Infinity because many PhDs never advance further than that. In the liberal arts it's even worse, as the faculty jobs are even more scarce and you don't even have the option of working as a post-doc in your field, so you're probably going to end up working at starbucks while you apply for your real estate license.
People complain that not enough American students go into science and think that it has something to do with the schools. The fact is that those jobs are very poorly compensated for the amount of education and intelligence they require. We bring in Indian and Chinese for the same reason we bring in Mexicans, to do the jobs that Americans won't do at the wage offered.
If science is your calling then by all means pursue it, and that's true for any field, but be brutally honest with yourself. If you got into it because you thought it was a good combination of compensation, free time and working conditions, then get the fuck out and start boning up for the MCAT.
Seconding this. Science, ESPECIALLY research, is brutally underpaid. Which is ironic, because it's the most important type of human activity by far.
In my opinion teachers should have their paycheck doubled.
Such a thankless job.
And aren't Indians and Chinese are over-represented because they're applying out of far more rigorous and brutally competitive systems, with higher standards for students? Your T.A from Guangzhou may be a shitty instructor because of their language proficiency, but this doesn't hamper their ability to do research, unless they literally don't know any English.
I was reading an academia blog (theadjunct.net) where an adjunct prof talked about how there are government penalties for schools if they don't pay their non tenured instructors a certain amount.
they pay those penalties because it's still cheaper than paying their un-annointed employees a living wage.
it's brutal and sad, but I think it ultimately does raise the standards of academic departments, and ensures that they are at the very least maintained.
And for an easier job, too
EDIT: Excepting medicine
well academia is more selective than medicine and law, because there are far fewer open spots (inevitable when people who have the jobs tend to stay as long as they are physically able and then some)
the level of competition in Indian and Chinese universities is truly on a completely different scale. You need excellent work ethic just to survive in any half decent university there (and there aren't that many)
I mean it's a system where a single point on one exam can be the difference between you and the guy who gets accepted instead. It's a system where your letter grade is assigned based on the performance of the rest of the class, and given that only the top 5% are even allowed seats, you basically need to get full points, or as close as possible on everything.
It isn't hard to see why someone who made it through that kind of system is going to be preferred at corn-state university.
What do you mean by 'more selective'? Certainly not at the post graduate education level. It's much, much easier to get into a PhD program than medical or law school. And I am certainly not disparaging the abilities of Chinese or Indian students. They have the ability. But the reason they are so prevalent in american science isn't because they're out-competing anybody, it's because the jobs they are 'competing' for largely suck.
Both jobs would require relatively similar work. Relatively boring, easy jobs that require a decent amount of technical knowledge in order to perform well. One paid three times more than the other. One was pretty close to minimum wage.
Low end science jobs probably need to pay a little more.
it's "easier" to get into a PhD program because unlike a bachelors and masters, there's no guaranteed benefit from a PhD alone*
*In fields like engineering it can be useful if you also have some work experience. In Psychology it's obviously useful. In the vast majority of fields though, academia is the only avenue, and academia isn't the same thing as pursuing a Phd anyway.
My uncle is a Phd researcher. He got his doctorate in the 90s and since then has been bounced around. UCSB dropped him, he landed in Harvard but now they've cut him due to lack of funding and now he's looking into unemployment benefits.
I don't think he has ever made more than 3K a month in his life.
Also, keep in mind that the jobs they're really competing for are tenured positions. Your prior life and career is one long audition.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
The only actual means of changing our culture, and by that we really mean the basic function of modern capitalism, is by moving (at least) away from the "free-market" ideal.
I don't think culture and capitalism are necessarily the same, I'd certainly argue that the Internet is pretty capitalistic but with a very different consumer and advertising culture than say television. Second "Capitalism" is a missnomer, our society is not Capitalistic, it's consumerist, and it's with heavy government intervention and big non-profit actors, there's no reason these could not mobilize to fight the various ills talked about the in the OP.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
We exist under capitalism, the particular forms it takes vary between "emerging markets", "communism", "democracy", "monarchy" etc. The essential driving force, and framework of all political discourse is existent within a capitalist framework. The market, exchange of goods, etc. governs all political and social decisions.
This is especially true in "democracy" and even more so in America. Particular forms exist in their own context, but they all rely on the stability of the market to allow for socio-economic growth.
People have been ridiculing advertising since forever. It's hard to imagine that there's someone out there who's completely oblivious to how ridiculous the market can get with it's new penis pills and weight loss scams.
But it's also worth noting that an entire generation of kids to teenagers have gone through a serious recession which will probably have a positive impact on their spending habits for the rest of their lives.
Sam, are you honestly saying it's their work ethic/education and not the huge, huge, huge currency gap?
Hell, in an even situation, not being able to write or communicate natively in English ought to be a deal breaker for those candidates. It certainly would be if it weren't for the afore-metioned huge, huge, huge currency gap.
Sort of. The systems there are definitely more rigorous and competitive. However, I'm not sure that those systems actually do a better job of producing researchers that the more relaxed American system. Basically you have students there spending hours memorizing minute details that might come up on a test, so that they can score a few points more. Whereas American students are allowed to just look that stuff up if they need to know it. So at first it might seem like the American students don't know as much, but there usually just as good at doing actual work, as opposed to artificial test questions.
Which parts are orientalist, racist, and invoking White Man's Burden?
Your post looks like a whirlwind of self-righteous indignation, but intended for a different thread entirely.
basic trading? Not quite sure how that precludes development, especially as compared to being borderline slave labour.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Basically, your statement hinges on the idea that it is only the Western capitalist cultural act of imperialism that is able to sustain growth and stability within a society; that without the help of the glorious liberal West, the rest of the undeveloped "tribe" would revert back into some primitive culture of "mud hut dwellers".
Reading this a few more times I think there's a lot of sarcasm. If that's the case then the above doesn't really apply. It wasn't very clear, if that was the case.
Well, do me a favor and show me a group or nation in the third-world on an accelerated development course without the use of capitalist economic philosophy or massive amounts of aid from capitalist countries. I promise I'll admit I'm wrong if you do.
You're the third person to mention race in a conversation in which it was never brought up.