Guntram Shatterhand: superdude72: I'm not sure this advice applies to 22 year olds who are not graduates of Ivy League universities.

Ages 18-26 is when most people make the contacts that are going to see them through the rest of their careers. Most of the successful people I know started with a college internship, were hired by the company where they interned, stayed there for 5-15 years, and that was the foundation of their career. Most of these people are still working with people they knew in college. The people who failed to follow this trajectory are struggling.

Sure, this is an extremely discouraging piece of news, completely at odds with what a lot of us have been told. But it is what I have observed.

Foundation of their career? 5-15 years?? How is the weather in the 1960s?

Next thing you'll be talking about these things called 'pensions' and 'bootstraps.'

Ah, so you've noticed that there aren't as many opportunities to build a career as there once were. Also, many more university graduates are struggling than would have 20-30 years ago. What's your point? If someone is telling you not to panic because you're only 22 years old, I would say: No, go ahead and panic. Things are much more competitive than they were when your parents were your age.

Fear the Clam: Does anyone know when they changed the rules about elementary school cutoff dates? When I was a kid, just about everyone was 10 years old in 5th grade, and graduated when they were 17/18.

Nowadays it seems like everyone's been held back a year. I see this stuff about someone graduating college at age 22 and my first thought is "Are you slow or something?"

I'm a Gen-Xer (born in the 70's,) and when I started elementary school in the early 80's, I missed the cutoff date by like 3 days, and they wouldn't take me one year because of that. I was still 18 when I graduated, though, 4 or 5 months away from being 19. My mom was pretty pissed about me not getting in, since I was already a very decent reader and so forth and was more than ready for it. Yet they wouldn't budge.

A 73 year-old woman just became the oldest woman to climb Mt. Everest. My mom is 72 and spends a few months of the year hiking around Europe with my dad. The only limits you have in life are those you set on yourself. Unfortunately, what people don't realize until they're much, much, older is that these limits are set in the past. If you have unhealthy habits and poor outlook when younger, it doesn't matter what type of attitude you develop later in life.

12212012

zzrhardy: eldritch2k4: What? Are you too fat to fit through the goddam office doors?

No-one likes fat people, or ugly people. God help if your fat and ugly.

Doesn't matter if it is a girl, some person behind a counter, a client or a job interviewer. Your appearance dictates how everyone responds to you.

The general consensus is "go be fat somewhere else".

Well sure, if you're a swimsuit model... But if you're goods at what you do, shouldn't matter.

i upped my meds-up yours: Animatronik: Because this is FARK, I can say what I'm thinking: if given a choice between being a progressive journalist living in New York and playwright, become the playwright; no one will notice that there's one less progressive journalist, and they aren't changing the world for the better, even less so when they seek out progressive enclaves in NYC, where they can hang out with other right-thinking people.

Actually, a lot of them are just there because media access is still chancey anywhere else. Especially for progressives.

/another large segment are there because they like the bagels.

Yes but good bagels, like good conversations, can be had outside of New York.

And you sort of made my point, which is that there's no shortage of progressive journalists these days. New York is so full of progressives it's overflowing. Kind of like personal injury lawyers in other cities. And a lot of them are progressives who came from somewhere else. The NYT used to present both sides of an issue, now it only does left and lefter.

eldritch2k4: orbister: zzrhardy:
For every top fat bloke with awesome skills, your got another 5 bitter fat blokes with chips on their shoulder and a nervous twitch.
Being fat is invariably a result of ignorance, stupidity or simply a remarkable lack of self control. These are not qualities any sensible interviewer looks for, even if there is a beautiful personality behind them.

Comments like this are invariably a result of ignorance or stupidity. Any sensible interviewer who sees a fat man walk into an interview overflowing with self-confidence realizes that, even though the fat ass might have made poor decisions earlier in life, they have learned from those lessons and don't let handicaps prevent them from excelling. This is a quality that all interviewers look for.

You're remarkably incorrect. You know what I think when I interview an obese person?

Nobody ever got a (gut,ass) like that from hustling.

We are young, heartache to heartache we stand No promises, no demands Love Is A Battlefield

Mr. Right: I'm one of the generation you think screwed you up. Actually, it my was Grandfather's generation. They started Social Security. That led people to believe that if they turned over control of their life to the government, the government would take care of them. So in the 60s my Dad's generation started Medicare and the Great Society and the War on Poverty. Also thrown into the mix was the notion that if you worked for a company for a few years, that company should add to your Social Security with a pension. All of these programs promise you security in exchange for giving up a substantial part of your income for your entire working life. In other words, you get paid only a portion of what you earn with a promise that, should you actually live long enough, Nanny State will take care of you. Of course, if Nanny is footing the bills, Nanny will decide what it is you get.

If social security didn't exist, companies would lower wages to compensate. Because even if you are special enough to think about retirement and plan accordingly (and be lucky enough that whatever risks you take with your money pan out if you want to increase your yield any), there are plenty of young people who won't who will gladly work for less because of it. Social security exists for a reason, and that reason is that people didn't plan their retirement or consider the worst case scenario, so it was cheaper to have SS than providing welfare to all the old people who couldn't afford to take care of themselves.

Your student loan debt is a great illustration. The government has convinced you that you needed a college education and that you deserve one. So they loan you the money - because everybody knows that colleges NEED to charge the exorbitant tuition rates they charge. You will then spend the next 20 years of your working life paying that off. While you are putting 15% of your income into FICA. And you will pay property taxes, income taxes - more than likely federal, state, and local - sales taxes and a host of other fees and taxes all of which take away from your ability to build wealth for yourself. Wealth that you could pass on to your heirs, should you be fortunate to have any. Instead, the government is gambling on the fact that you will die young so that all the money you put into the system stays there. Were you an ideal citizen, you would die after you have paid off all your loans but before you draw Social Security, pension, or qualify for Medicare. That will become the new definition of Patriotism.

If the government didn't offer student loans and grants, a lot less people would go to college. That would mean a less educated workforce. And since educated labor is a resource companies depend on, more companies would go overseas, and less companies would start up without the research universities provide. Before the government got involved, college was the domain for the rich or at least upper-middle class. And even now the people who get screwed are the ones who take out private loans, government loans by themselves aren't usually enough to break anyone.

EatCritAndDie: So, reading the article, this girl's gushing doe-eyed message was proven wrong by harsh reality.
Yet, it somehow makes her more right.
Whatever, kids.

She was president of the campus democrat wankfest. Ergo her being proven wrong made her more awesome.

If she was the leader of the campus republicans she would have been lipstick on a dog big oil wrong.

praxis44241: I know this is Fark, but that is truly heartbreaking story.

Oh so now the tingle-legged hippies like the 1%?

One less 1%er.

Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

Nope, it's just fine. You just don't have any useful skills. I had to let two companies fight over me once I finished school.

/24 and just bought a house. Will be debt free at 39 or less.

AverageAmericanGuy: It's sad this girl lost her life in an auto accident, but she wasn't wrong because her light was snuffed out so early.

Now she has no cares. She doesn't have to worry about making a good salary or wonder where to send her resume or how to climb the corporate ladder or wonder when she'll have time to climb Mt. Everest. She is dead and all those things are now meaningless to her. In Heaven with Jesus, she has all she ever could want.

She was the leader of the campus democrats. People who support abortion don't go to heaven, sorry.

zzrhardy: eldritch2k4: What? Are you too fat to fit through the goddam office doors?

No-one likes fat people, or ugly people. God help if your fat and ugly.

Doesn't matter if it is a girl, some person behind a counter, a client or a job interviewer. Your appearance dictates how everyone responds to you.

The general consensus is "go be fat somewhere else".

Fat people have already proven that they lack good decision making skills, among other things.

eldritch2k4: MadSkillz: I'm stuck in a shiat job right now that I can't just leave because I'm fat (working on that) and it's impacting my interviewing.

You're fat...and it's impacting your interviewing...

What? Are you too fat to fit through the goddam office doors? Is walking from the front desk to the interviewer's office giving you a heart attack? Being fat isn't a barrier to a good career, unless you are trying to be a farking model for Calvin Klein.

Here's an idea: man up, Nancy, and admit that you have trouble interviewing because you suck at interviewing. It has nothing to do with your weight; you should be walking into job interviews, kicking the door in (figuratively) and declaring, "fark you, you farking farkers! I'm fatter than hell and I'll still kick any one of your skinny asses at this job! I'm gonna waddle my fat ass in here and, even through my wheezing, I'm gonna be the best goddam worker this place farking has. I'm gonna leave sweat stains and awesome all over this joint! I'm gonna so much fatty awesome, the motherfarker is gonna spontaneously burn to the farking ground and I'm gonna keep on farking working and the fire isn't going to affect my fat ass because every ounce of my fat ass oozes work ethic and fabulous!"

Yeah, I'm shiatting on you, but only because people coddling you and saying, "Oh, it will get better," isn't going to do shiat. shiat gets done when people get mad. So, get mad. Get mad at doing shiatty interviews. Get mad at having a shiatty job. fark, get mad at being fat. Hell, stand up on your desk at your current job, channel your inner Howard Beale and scream, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

/best read in J.K. Simmons's voice

This may be the funniest, most inspiring, and disturbing post I have ever seen. Thank you.

Fat is OK. As long as you're not wheezy-fat. Mouth-breathing wheezy-fat people are trouble.

Gwyrddu:
If social security didn't exist, companies would lower wages to compensate. Because even if you are special enough to think about retirement and plan accordingly (and be lucky enough that whatever risks you take with your money pan out if you want to increase your yield any), there are plenty of young people who won't who will gladly work for less because of it. Social security exists for a reason, and that reason is that people didn't plan their retirement or consider the worst case scenario, so it was cheaper to have SS than providing welfare to all the old people who couldn't afford to take care of themselves.

What you've just said is that if it cost a company less to hire and pay an employee due to SS taxes being removed, they'd pay the workers less to compensate.

What is this I don't even.

If the government didn't offer student loans and grants, a lot less people would go to college. That would mean a less educated workforce. And since educated labor is a resource companies depend on, more companies would go overseas, and less companies would start up without the research universities provide. Before the government got involved, college was the domain for the rich or at least upper-middle class. And even now the people who get screwed are the ones who take out private loans, government loans by themselves aren't usually enough to break anyone.

Maybe, maybe not. The government offering loans has been shown as a leading indicator in the dramatic rise in tuition over the years. The goal of colleges seems to be "keep the out of pocket expenses steady" so as student loan amounts go up, so does tuition.

Secondly, many jobs don't actually need a college education. OJT would be sufficient, and not even that much of it.

I'm not anti-education at all, I feel it's important. However, it's quickly becoming a rubber stamp that's less and less relevant in today's workforce.

KrispyKritter: Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

absolutely that's what happened. blame your lot in life on your parents & grand-parents. damn them and their dickish ways. all the good stuff is gone.

They call it the Obama defense.

profplump: orbister: or simply a remarkable lack of self control

Exactly. Just like anyone without $100k in savings shows a remarkable lack of self control. Sure, it's a little easier for people who had rich parents, a sound financial education, and significant previous income, but it's certainly possible for any 27-year-old to have $100k in savings -- they could accomplish that simply by working for minimum wage since they were 15 and never spending a single dollar on anything like "food" or "sheller".

/ Or maybe your dismissal of fat people makes you a bad interviewer, and a detriment to your employer, just like any other non-work-related bias would

I'm 24, have an undergrad and masters, bought a house and have $50k in the stock market. I've been on my own financially since I turned 18.

Easy to do when college pays you to go to school there and you work anyway.

MadSkillz: Moonfisher: MadSkillz: dopeydwarf: MadSkillz: Kinda sad. Stuff happens. That people stress at age 22 about being too old for anything surprises me.

I'm 34. I know there are limits for me. But at 22, there were none.

Dude, you're 34. Start worrying about limits when you're pushing 50.

I'm acutely aware that at this point, I need to be paying into a place to live so I build equity, that I need to be saving for retirement... however, I'm stuck in a shiat job right now that I can't just leave because I'm fat (working on that) and it's impacting my interviewing.

I'm fat, too. Also working on it. I've never let it hold me down, though. If you're awesome and have the skills and experience, that's all you need. You need the confidence to shine through the love handles.

True enough. I'm working on it. A lot of confidence seems to be faking confidence. Like some self-fulfilling prophecy. Unfortunately when I get in a tight spot I kinda get spooled. Trying to learn to suppress it, but I've been so used to saying anything on my mind and letting my heart out for so long that I'm learning how to be a man the hard way..

I've got another issue. my concentration is terrible. I have a great memory if I can utilize it, but I'm so scatterbrained it's like thoughts are clawing their way out of my head. When I try to study like I have been today, it's damn near impossible ... every sound distracts me, no matter how minute.

ADD

HotIgneous Intruder: zzrhardy: The old saying is "beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes right to the bone".

True that. Whenever I meet a pretty woman and she starts prattling on about Jesus, it just kills it for me.

/Mass delusion: It's not just annoying, it's mental illness.

0/10

Fail troll is fail.

OBBN: Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

See, here is the thing. Every generation has blamed the previous one for it's problems. Newsflash, every generation does the best that it can. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't, but let's look back thirty or forty years from now and chances are your children will be blaming you and you generation for their problems as well.

Only the lazy part of every generation.

The dead chick in question had all these things simultaneously, unlike me:

1. Physically attractiveness
2. Privilege
3. Youth
4. Empowerment to the point of arrogance

Likewise, I suspect this very same dead chick would have looked right through me if she passed me on the street in life. If she HAD been forced to speak to me for some reason, I strongly suspect she would have been condescending and got away at the first opportunity (as well as finding an excuse to mention her boyfriend within the first thirty seconds of conversation).

I suspect submitter is much like the dead chick, and hence finds tragedy in her premature passing. I do not.

LadyBelgara: Fear the Clam: Does anyone know when they changed the rules about elementary school cutoff dates? When I was a kid, just about everyone was 10 years old in 5th grade, and graduated when they were 17/18.

Nowadays it seems like everyone's been held back a year. I see this stuff about someone graduating college at age 22 and my first thought is "Are you slow or something?"

You're missing the part where a lot of people end up taking 5ish years to get their degree now.

Only the lazy/stupid people.


She was a party line libtard, so we already know the answer to half that.

Gwyrddu: If social security didn't exist, companies would lower wages to compensate.

False. I know the leftists and the fatcat union bosses want you to believe that but employers will pay whatever it costs to employ someone and remain profitable. The sad fact now is that the government confiscates a substantial amount of that cost of employment. When health insurance is mandatory, that money is going to come out of the employee's pocket. I have worked in management in a number of different industries. We can afford to pay substantially more to employees in this country rather than outsource because we save a bunch in logistical and other costs. It is the fees and employment taxes that make domestic labor non-competitive. Consider that 15% of your paycheck goes to FICA (you pay roughly half, your employer must match that so it's a cost of employment that he wouldn't bear if he didn't hire you. It should be your money). If you took 15% of your wages for 40 years (an average working life) and put it and left it in a Dow Jones Index fund, regardless of the ups and downs of the market, at the end of 40 years you could draw your average salary for the rest of your life and not touch the principle. The principle could be passed on to your heirs. That is called wealth creation and it is why this country broke away from England. We got tired of "the nobility" deciding who could and could not acquire and maintain wealth. We got tired of royalty getting our estates during and after our lives. You apparently think that was a good system. You apparently don't think you are capable of handling your money or your life. Speak for yourself. The adults took care of themselves for generations before Social Security and we'd like the chance to do it again.

Gwyrddu: If the government didn't offer student loans and grants, a lot less people would go to college. That would mean a less educated workforce

Wrong again. I fail to see how degrees in any kind of ethnic studies or women's studies are ever going to be of value. I know a few art history majors that have gone on to brilliant (and profitable) careers as curators and other such jobs but don't count on it, any more than every guitar student is going to be the next Eric Clapton. Of course, we'd like our doctors, our civil engineers, and other such professionals to have degrees; even advanced degrees. Plumbers, Electricians, truck drivers, train engineers, etc. don't need college. Matter of fact, a degree is a waste of money for those professions - badly needed professions, I might add. The whole government backed student loan program is just another sop from government to academic elites, much as a lot of education funding does nothing for education but goes to support NEA and AFT.

Bullseyed: Easy to do when college pays you to go to school there and you work anyway.

Where did you go to school, and what degree do you have?

Oh, crap, I screwed up some grammar in my previous post. Dammit.

ronaprhys: What you've just said is that if it cost a company less to hire and pay an employee due to SS taxes being removed, they'd pay the workers less to compensate.

What is this I don't even.


What this is the truth. Productivity has been increasing dramatically over time but wages have stagnated since the 70s. Companies never pay you what you are worth, they pay you just enough to keep you from quitting.

Maybe, maybe not. The government offering loans has been shown as a leading indicator in the dramatic rise in tuition over the years. The goal of colleges seems to be "keep the out of pocket expenses steady" so as student loan amounts go up, so does tuition.

Secondly, many jobs don't actually need a college education. OJT would be sufficient, and not even that much of it.

I'm not anti-education at all, I feel it's important. However, it's quickly becoming a rubber stamp that's less and less relevant in today's workforce.

Student loans and grants may be one reason tuition has been increasing, but it is far from the only reason, which includes issues like decreased state funding and increased demand for degrees to get jobs. The other problem is that while more on the job training would decrease the need for college, companies tend to be pretty lazy in this regard and won't provide such training unless they are desperate for people.

ComicBookGuy: The dead chick in question had all these things simultaneously, unlike me:

1. Physically attractiveness
2. Privilege
3. Youth
4. Empowerment to the point of arrogance

Likewise, I suspect this very same dead chick would have looked right through me if she passed me on the street in life. If she HAD been forced to speak to me for some reason, I strongly suspect she would have been condescending and got away at the first opportunity (as well as finding an excuse to mention her boyfriend within the first thirty seconds of conversation).

I suspect submitter is much like the dead chick, and hence finds tragedy in her premature passing. I do not.

I felt very similar to you until I asked myself this question: does your seething bitterness get you closer or farther away from where you want to be in life?

PanicMan: Bullseyed: Easy to do when college pays you to go to school there and you work anyway.

Where did you go to school, and what degree do you have?

Stop with those elitest, libtardian questions!!!

The Great EZE:

I felt very similar to you until I asked myself this question: does your seething bitterness get you closer or farther away from where you want to be in life?

Oh, I wish I could discharge the bitterness, but it is hard.

MadSkillz: Kinda sad. Stuff happens. That people stress at age 22 about being too old for anything surprises me.

I'm 34. I know there are limits for me. But at 22, there were none.

34?Think of your entire life up until now. Learning to walk, grade school, the ups and downs. Now imagine doing ALL of it again, and you will be just a few years into retirement. 68. At sixty eight imagine have a change to do all of that YET AGAIN.

Sure, the longer you life the more likely you are to die, but we are lucky as hell to be alive when medicine has a good chance of pushing you up to a hundred plus with decent quality.

PanicMan: Bullseyed: Easy to do when college pays you to go to school there and you work anyway.

Where did you go to school, and what degree do you have?

Electrical Engineering + MBA

Aeon Rising: MadSkillz: Kinda sad. Stuff happens. That people stress at age 22 about being too old for anything surprises me.

I'm 34. I know there are limits for me. But at 22, there were none.

34?Think of your entire life up until now. Learning to walk, grade school, the ups and downs. Now imagine doing ALL of it again, and you will be just a few years into retirement. 68. At sixty eight imagine have a change to do all of that YET AGAIN.

Sure, the longer you life the more likely you are to die, but we are lucky as hell to be alive when medicine has a good chance of pushing you up to a hundred plus with decent quality.

"The future's uncertain, and the end is always near"

Whenever I walk through Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, that screams through my head (or something like it).

Btw, The Great EZE, anyone ever tell you look like this guy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/MAlshehhi.JPG

(I can't link photos)

/Memento Mori

If you took 15% of your wages for 40 years (an average working life) and put it and left it in a Dow Jones Index fund, regardless of the ups and downs of the market, at the end of 40 years you could draw your average salary for the rest of your life and not touch the principle.

Putting your money on the stock market is gambling with your money. This is no guarantee what if any your return will be. And past performance isn't a guarantee of future output either, as the buyers of Facebook's IPO have found out. Social Security is just that, it is security. If you are so good with the stock market then there is nothing preventing you from investing your spare money in the stock market, and then it won't matter what taxes are being taking out. And if you aren't making enough for a spare income, maybe you need to talk to those union bosses.


Wrong again. I fail to see how degrees in any kind of ethnic studies or women's studies are ever going to be of value. I know a few art history majors that have gone on to brilliant (and profitable) careers as curators and other such jobs but don't count on it, any more than every guitar student is going to be the next Eric Clapton. Of course, we'd like our doctors, our civil engineers, and other such professionals to have degrees; even advanced degrees. Plumbers, Electricians, truck drivers, train engineers, etc. don't need college. Matter of fact, a degree is a waste of money for those professions - badly needed professions, I might add. The whole government backed student loan program is just another sop from government to academic elites, much as a lot of education funding does nothing for education but goes to support NEA and AFT.

Enrollment for every major except education has been going up over time, not just the more obscure liberal arts. There are a lot more STEM students now, and the reason can be tied mostly to the availability to government aid. The jobs that have a living wage which you can't learn in technical school btw usually require a union apprenticeship, so you are suggesting people go talk to those union bosses? Also, there is no educational elite, at least in an economic sense. People in academia don't make crap compared to the money and time they spent getting to where there are. The real elites are no where near academia, and don't give a crap about what you or I think.

ComicBookGuy: Btw, The Great EZE, anyone ever tell you look like this guy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/MAlshehhi.JPG

(I can't link photos)

I don't know who he is, but I can see it. Guess I'll need to watch the hairline in the coming years.

Gwyrddu: What this is the truth. Productivity has been increasing dramatically over time but wages have stagnated since the 70s. Companies never pay you what you are worth, they pay you just enough to keep you from quitting.

Companies pay you what their customers will pay them for your services. Companies do not, however, care what is in your paycheck. They worry about what they have to shell out to employ you. You paycheck may have stagnated but the amount of money it costs to employ you has not.

As to paying you just enough to keep you from quitting. That's another leftist fallacy. Companies earn a percentage of what it costs to employ you as profit. They will employ anyone who can make them money. Under that scenario, they would rather pay you and all your friends a million dollars apiece because 6% of a million is a lot more than 6% of minimum wage. And making a few buck off a thousand employees is a lot more than making a few bucks off a handful. They pay you whatever they can get their customers to pay them.

Mr. Right: The principle could be passed on to your heirs. That is called wealth creation and it is why this country broke away from England. We got tired of "the nobility" deciding who could and could not acquire and maintain wealth. We got tired of royalty getting our estates during and after our lives. You apparently think that was a good system. You apparently don't think you are capable of handling your money or your life. Speak for yourself. The adults took care of themselves for generations before Social Security and we'd like the chance to do it again.

Ah yes, the complete idealization of a past that never existed outside of your head. Actually, the revolution happened for a number of reasons, including the monopolistic practices of the East India trading company, the fact that the south was heavily indebted to England for a number of luxury goods to the rumors that England would end slavery (which they did far before the US). And no, a lot of people weren't able to take care of themselves before social security. There was this thing called the Great Depression, maybe you need to look it up.

Gwyrddu: And if you aren't making enough for a spare income, maybe you need to talk to those union bosses.

My company fires you for even talking about unions, let alone trying to organize.

Wyldfire: This hits somewhat close to home. High school graduation and we all went up to a friends cabin for a classwide celebration. Most of us got totally smashed. This kid Aaron, who was a real straight arrow, didn't have a sip to drink. When he left, he took a turn down a hill too fast and ran head on into an 18 wheeler and died on impact. The guy passed out beside him walked away with a black eye.

That really sobered up our graduating class to the fragility of life.

In high school one of the kids in our class hit a tree while he was racing someone (unsanctioned) on the school-sponsored ski trip.

He was a Junior at the time. We never saw him again until graduation where he hobbled across the stage on crutches.

I'd been on skis and snowboards since I was six, as most of us in our grade had been as the result of growing up in Northern New England. And I like to think that most of us understood that there were consequences to our actions as well as things like, well, trees that hurt like hell when you're going too fast down a mountain and doing something you shouldn't be.

I like to think I wasn't the only one in my graduating class that spent a year and a half thinking "what a dumbass" every time I saw some event being held in his honor. Considering how many events there were in his honor (our goddamned yearbook was dedicated to him) I'm probably in the minority.

But in contrast to your story (which I don't intend to diminish the importance of) I viewed the event as the fact that folks who refuse to comprehend that there are consequences to their actions will live a life of pain and will almost constantly have people ponying up for them.

In retrospect I think this has something to do with why I have never attended a class reunion. The collective dumbass quotient over something like this seems unlikely to fade after two decades.

RickyWilliams'sBong: profplump: MadSkillz: I'm stuck in a shiat job right now that I can't just leave because I'm fat (working on that) and it's impacting my interviewing.

Unless you're a woman (which your profile implies you are not), or in one of a very few weight-concious industries (which your profile indicates you are not), statistics suggest that your weight is not a significant hindrance to employment or career advancement. I don't know your situation, so I won't call you a liar, but I'd suggest your concern over your weight is may be a bigger issue than your actual weight.

/ If you're asking potential employers to buy 2 plane seats for your interview you can disregard what I said
// I am also quite the fatty, and recently changed jobs, without any trouble about my weight

I agree. I think fat people worry about that too much. Hell, I'm a smoker (the root of all evil in modern America), and with the exception of it taking a few months to find my Boobies-college job -- labor market in 2007 had gone to shiat in Florida, but I got one in DC -- I've never had much issue getting a job.

If you can write well, use spreadsheets, make intelligent conversation (and have a good sense of humor), and be honest about what you're good at and not so good at (many fail on that last one and come off as either too scripted or just arrogant), you'll show enough potential that someone will hire you.

That's been my experience anyway.

Any interviewer that asks for your "greatest weakness" is being an asshole, there's no need for that kind of question. Ask what I have experience in, what I can do, and if I think the job sounds like a good fit for my skillset, not this pyschobabble bullshiat that I'm not going to answer honestly anyways.

So, boring cliche ridden graduation type speech takes on real meaning cause she died. Okay.

MAYORBOB - Bad things happen to good people all the time.

Yea, but good things happen to bad people WAY more often. And, it is very hard to ignore that fact. Especially when you are pushing 50 and have nothing to show for it. Whining? You're damn right I am. I never asked for a handout. I only asked for a decent chance at what I wanted out of life. You found what you wanted? Great. Stop thinking everyone can. Everyone cannot. I have determined that some of us were put here to be the failure so others can succeed. What 'chance' does that person get?

Mr. Right, your second from the last paragraph is spot on. However, your last paragraph sounds just like all the ads I see for colleges and such. One success story... so anyone can do it! That is a complete load of B.S. sir. Some of us will never have such luck. And without some luck, all the training and skill in the world will get you is training and skill. Both of which are just not something a lot of businesses want. It is way cheaper to grab some shmoe off the street and try to train him to do the one little job they need done. And, if it doesn't work out, fire him and grab the next warm body.

Oh, as to my position on all this, your results may vary. So far, mine have not. Is it my fault? Some of it is. But not all of it. What sux is that when I am NOT the one at fault, I still pay the price. Again, your results may vary. And if they do... congratulations. You were lucky.

ComicBookGuy: Aeon Rising: MadSkillz: Kinda sad. Stuff happens. That people stress at age 22 about being too old for anything surprises me.

I'm 34. I know there are limits for me. But at 22, there were none.

34?Think of your entire life up until now. Learning to walk, grade school, the ups and downs. Now imagine doing ALL of it again, and you will be just a few years into retirement. 68. At sixty eight imagine have a change to do all of that YET AGAIN.

Sure, the longer you life the more likely you are to die, but we are lucky as hell to be alive when medicine has a good chance of pushing you up to a hundred plus with decent quality.

"The future's uncertain, and the end is always near"

Whenever I walk through Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, that screams through my head (or something like it).

Indeed. Just saying counting years is something most people do wrong. It ain't over till it's over.

Gwyrddu: What this is the truth. Productivity has been increasing dramatically over time but wages have stagnated since the 70s. Companies never pay you what you are worth, they pay you just enough to keep you from quitting.

Stagnating wages are not the same as what you said. Way to try and move the goalposts there, sparky. What you said is that if you reduce the cost of an employee, the company will use that as an excuse to pay their employees less. Now, try to defend that actual statement or admit that you were wrong.

As for the "pay you enough to keep you from quitting", so what? Do you regularly pay more for goods and services just because you can? If the exact same steak is available for $10/lb from one grocery store and $15/lb from another, do you pay $15/lb because you want the grocery to earn more?

If so, you're a fool. Businesses pay employees based on their replacement value and value to the company. If you can be replaced by someone willing to earn less money and they can still get the same work out of you, then that's what they'll do. And honestly, that's what they should do.

Student loans and grants may be one reason tuition has been increasing, but it is far from the only reason, which includes issues like decreased state funding and increased demand for degrees to get jobs. The other problem is that while more on the job training would decrease the need for college, companies tend to be pretty lazy in this regard and won't provide such training unless they are desperate for people.

Of course they wouldn't pay for it if they don't have to. Why do so when they can force you to pay for it?

As for reasons, I'd argue that it's the primary reason. The states could decrease funding because they knew that the feds were picking up the tab via these loans. The economics of an education have switched and aren't based in reality.