Slashing the Faculty at BGSU

Researcher said: When the ditch diggers all have bachelor's degrees, you'll just need to get your master's.

Brilliant. Somehow you missed the point that there's no economic model to afford such spending in order to obtain such low-paid work. Eventually the system breaks down... which is what we face today.

The future holds more horrors. More and more degree holders will displace the non-degreed. That will increase unemployment. That also ramps up crime, welfare and punitive tax levels. Eventually the tensile strength of the lid can't contain the pressure within, socially speaking. Then we get social catastrophe.

Looks like you academics have failed to think this through again, which is part of your schtick. Your mental radius is limited to your own pockets.

HistoryMike, I hate to say this, but there are a couple points to argue about/for the existence of a higher education bubble. The first one concerns the number of "ditch-diggers" with degrees who haven't got any use of them. Higher ed and advanced degrees were, and are still being, pushed on kids as a path to more money and better jobs... but that's not materializing, in part because lots of jobs were sent overseas, in part because employers would rather import foreigners for less on H1B visas (Google that for a hoot - Big Business cries they can't find enough Americans, gets Congress to allow more and more H1B visas, etc. and of course some Johnny Foreigner will be happy to get out of the crap-hole country he's in to move here and work 110 hour weeks for less than an American would get paid... if Big Business was actually honest about instead of lying their asses off that they can't find "qualified Americans"), and in part because there's tons of old people/Baby Boomers who should have retired by now and can't because they did jack shit for retirement planning, or because their pensions and 401(k)s were blown away. I know kids with teaching degrees who can't find a job and work at Walmart "full-time" (34 hours a week), because, hey, the GZarthys and Lie-tossers and 6th_Bores are screaming "Taxed Enough Already!" and "COMMIE LIBRUL SOCIALIST NO-GOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS!" and "Evil-lution is a lie, the Earth is the center of the Universe, flat, and created 6000 years ago!" and otherwise fucking over the ability of kids to get a goddamn education worth a rusty fuck. So the schools make cuts because those damn teachers only work 9 months a year and it's a cushy job and there's a union etc. (insert several similar rants used against HM here).

The second point is that the higher ed system is facing a lot of questioning over exactly what good these degrees are and if someone actually needs to sit in a lecture hall for 4+ years, when there's the ability to self-study or take classes over the Internet... and that right there lends itself to more outsourcing and consolidation. Doesn't MIT have their materials all online now? The question becomes "why the hell are people paying $200+ a credit hour for something they could download for a buck fifty in bandwidth?"

I'm just gonna leave one of my favorite movie scenes here, it'll do a better job of illustrating some of my issues with the whole higher ed thing:

AC Said
"because, hey, the GZarthys and Lie-tossers and 6th_Bores are screaming "Taxed Enough Already!" and "COMMIE LIBRUL SOCIALIST NO-GOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS!" and "Evil-lution is a lie, the Earth is the center of the Universe, flat, and created 6000 years ago!" and otherwise fucking over the ability of kids to get a goddamn education worth a rusty fuck. So the schools make cuts because those damn teachers only work 9 months a year and it's a cushy job and there's a union etc. (insert several similar rants used against HM here)."

Is this the point where you lost your mind?

Nope. I have a full working mind.

Yours, on the other hand, couldn't pass a Turing test.

But feel free to let the random shouts of "communism!" and "socialism!" and so on continue. Clearly, having Fox News and talk radio repeat them long enough and loud enough convinced you, so if you keep doing it and collecting your paycheck for it, others will concur!

Hmmm.... RedX fail above:

Hmmm... RedX fail, then RedX unfail. Must be my ISP. Never mind.

Oh, and thanks, jr, for the kind words. Now, off to work at 6:30 am to that Easy Street job. :-)

I think it was the Sundance Kid remark earlier in the thread.

"In fact, since an academic degree cannot be transfered or sold, calling it a "commodity" is somewhat awkward, since it stays with you your entire life, like a heart valve replacement or a titanium knee."

Agreed. They lack fungibility, a key aspect of common commodities.

There are so many opportunities for commentary that I can't decide what to post first. Well, almost can't decide.

From HistoryMike: mentalité
Mentalité? Pedantic cynophilist.

From GuestZero: ...staying in port while the pirates raided beyond the horizon line, was fairly safe for you, but now the harbor chain's been sundered and you have the barbarians INSIDE the gate. 'Tis to be one more craven death for you, one more to fulfill your thousand.

Town Crier: The barbarians are over the horizon!
HistoryMike: ::Yawn::
TC: The barbarians would be withing range of that 5000mm cannon we were going to build, except funding was cut in favor of education. We have nothing to shoot at them with!!
HistoryMike: Old news.
TC: The barbarians have sundered the harbor chain!!!
HistoryMike: We didn't need it anyway. Haven't used it in years - I didn't know it still worked.
TC: The barbarians are inside the harbor!!!!
HistoryMike: And?
TC: The barbarians are at the gate!!!!!
HistoryMike: Is the gate open?
TC: The barbarians are inside the compound!!!!!! What'll we do?
HistoryMike: Assimilate them into society. They have a map to the new world.

From HistoryMike: I applied and hit a home run in the interview ( several times a year I train foreign nationals who relocate to the US about American culture, history, and politics).
Which means you have a contract with the NSA. Congratulations, and remember that you don't know me.

^^ Funny stuff, and I commend you on waiting until after 12:00 noon before cracking open a fresh bottle of Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel. :-)

Thanks, HistoryMike! Here's how!

From GuestZero: The issue I have with that, is that it's highly artificial demand. It's fueled by lending.

More like student loans and government subsidies allow the demand to be satisfied. The demand for higher education has always existed, but the satisfaction of that demand didn't occur in a large part until the money became available.

From GuestZero: Bring back the concept of spending your own money...

You'll also value your own degree a lot more. The idea of saving up money for tuition and books and then spending it shows the self-control and determination of the individual. It also would rid society of a certain amount of bad debt.

From HistoryMike: Blaming the universities for loose lending policies is misguided; that blame goes to the lenders and to the federal government for providing loan subsidies.

I think there's enough blame to go around here. Universities encourage student loans, and perhaps they shouldn't. I'd like to believe that anyone who is smart enough to get into college would be smart enough to calculate the real cost of a student loan along with the risk of not completing the college degree, but perhaps I'm looking at this through rose colored glasses.

From HistoryMike: Did easy money contribute to the housing bubble? Of course, but it was the faith in perpetually rising home values and sheer greed (to use a term you throw around a lot) that led millions of homeowners to take on these risky loans.

While this isn't precisely BS, it doesn't smell like four roses either. Although there is no real way to discover the truth of the matter, I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of bad loans did not go to people who were evaluating rising home values. I kind of tend to think that many of these borrowers had one question on their mind: Do we get it or not?

The government was a major player as well, first mandating that low cost housing loans be made to individuals whose ability to repay the loan was a bit shaky, then deregulating the banking system. The rest is history.

From HistoryMike: What is the commodity in your scenario that is overvalued that the consumer holds and which will rapidly decrease in value, leaving the final holder with a commodity he can only sell at a tremendous loss in a market with few buyers?

Okay, I'll take a shot at this. GuestZero and 6th_Floor are free to correct me if I'm less than accurate.

Compare the cost of a college degree to the amount of money the student is able to earn while non-degreed. I, an ignorant laborer, must save up enough money to pay for college, discounting living expenses and stuff like that. I live at home, sponging off my parents. Or something. So.

I did the math before, but the cost of a four year degree is $33,476.00. The State of Ohio minimum wage is $7.85. Bringing up my calculator, I find that I'll be taking home $314.00 per week. Ah, but then there's tax. So okay, consulting an Internet site I find I'm reduced to $252.70 per week, which is $6.3175 per hour or $12,635.00 per year.

Pushing gamely right along, I find that at the current rate it will take me 5298.93 hours of labor to get my degree, which labor I plan to complete in 2.6494 years. If nothing else, I'm ambitious.

Okay, here's where the fun begins.

My own dear mother completed her degree in 1947. Mom came from a very poor family; they lost everything in the depression. What my mom did was work during the summer and use that money to pay for tuition and books the rest of the year, and that included minor living expenses. Very minor, because times were tight.

Trying to do that today would mean that I'd only have four 12 week periods to earn $33,476.00, and I'm not including books and misc. expenses. That works out to about $18 per hour (without taxes) which is more than twice minimum wage.

If the cost of higher education had kept pace with inflation, this wouldn't be true. I'd be able to earn my way through college by working three months per year at menial jobs, and I don't believe that's possible for the average student.

Dispensing with the reasons behind the high cost, if I get my degree by enduring this inflated cost I'll get hosed when the price plummets - which it likely will - because I'll have borrowed money to pay for the degree which now costs a great deal less than I paid for it. Even if I didn't borrow money, I'm still getting the hose because of the price drop.

Now, on the other side of the coin, I still get hosed but I don't care. Using the house example, if I bought a home during the peak of the housing bubble I paid too much for the home. The prices dropped, but I continue to make my payments and just ignore the whole business. Why? Because I live in the house. I'm going to live in the house for 30 or more years, so I don't really care if the price falls or not. I'll die here, and my inheritors can pick over the bones and hoist one in my honor.

In this case, I still get an education. I still have a degree, and I'll keep that degree until I have no further use for it. Ergo, yeah, I got hosed, but so what? It isn't like the bank failure during the great depression, when the money in your account just vanished, never to return.

AC said: Higher ed and advanced degrees were, and are still being, pushed on kids as a path to more money and better jobs... but that's not materializing, in part because lots of jobs were sent overseas, in part because employers would rather import foreigners for less on H1B visas [...] and in part because there's tons of old people/Baby Boomers who should have retired by now and can't because they did jack shit for retirement planning, or because their pensions and 401(k)s were blown away.

That's a good summary of why there's an education bubble. Education without capital or opportunity, is really just a waste, and that's myriadly multiplied when family wealth and debt are involved in paying for the education. HM and the rest of his Golden Class can't admit that since they benefit from that system directly.

AC said: I know kids with teaching degrees who can't find a job and work at Walmart "full-time" (34 hours a week), because, hey, the GZarthys and Lie-tossers and 6th_Bores are screaming "Taxed Enough Already!" and "COMMIE LIBRUL SOCIALIST NO-GOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS!" and "Evil-lution is a lie, the Earth is the center of the Universe, flat, and created 6000 years ago!"

Sorry, now you've gone back to figuratively over-reaching to your usual extent of literary joint dislocation.

The working man watches over 40% of his income get taken by 3-4 levels of government; in major cities it's 50%. That's ridiculous. Absurd.

The public schools are no good, from their performance metrics. Don't lay that one on me; argue with the test scores. Oh wait, you can't.

Finally, your evolution quip has no basis in any of my postings. You keep painting up the fiscal conservatives as being socially conservative, even knuckle-draggers, which is a huge mistake. Not that you'll ever notice, I guess.

AC said: The question becomes "why the hell are people paying $200+ a credit hour for something they could download for a buck fifty in bandwidth?"

Ohhhhh man, now you've thrown down. I've asked that question in various forms for years, largely in the biggest question about why, exactly, information technology didn't toss teachers, doctors and lawyers out of work like it did many other professions (mostly blue collared ones). And we already know the answer: Unions and/or political influence and/or money money money.

Thanks for weighing in with some rational discourse, Madjack. A few thoughts:

• Regarding the housing bubble: the important point is that people believed their home was worth the price they paid, and they assumed that the value would at least hold. Sure, some folks just wanted a simple house, but they were not the ones driving the bubble. It is the I-am-gonna-buy-and-flip-and-make-a killing thinking that drove prices through the roof in the hot markets that led to the worst losses. Bad loans to risky borrowers (aka "sub-prime") also contributed to problems, but the over-valuation of real estate was the fundamental issue that led to the bubble bursting.

• Regarding tuition and fees at the hypothetical college: you should also factor in items like the Pell Grant, which is based on financial need and can be as much as $5,500 per year (these also are not repaid) as well as other need-based scholarships. A budget-conscious student could also reduce costs by completing general coursework at a community college such as Owens, where tuition is about half the rate of state universities. Programs like Post Secondary Enrollment Options Program (PSEOP) can result in massive savings, as high school students can earn credits for which the state covers the cost; I know students with over 50 credits on their college transcripts before they even started their "official" college career.

• The scenario you painted demonstrates the weakness of the economy in general and the labor market in particular, not the looming prospect of a collapse of the American higher education system that GZ and 6th Floor are predicting. Now, if GZ and 6th Floor want to change their terminology and focus on the glut in certain college degrees, that is a different story, and one worth discussing further. However, the problem has more to do with students making informed decisions about degrees with greater earning potential than it does about college in general. There are shortages of Americans with many degrees (math, sciences, engineering, medicine, nursing, and many more) while there are millions of people earning degrees with much more limited employment opportunities. Want to get college graduates working and using their degrees? The surest way to accomplish this is to get the economy growing.

• I posted this graph before, but it bears worth repeating - statistically speaking, employment prospects for workers increase at each level of educational attainment:
  

• Does a degree mean a person is smart or talented? Not necessarily. It does show that a person knows how to follow through and accomplish goals, though. However, even setting aside the issue A/C, Linecrosser, GZ, and others have raised, consider this: a degree opens employment doors. Personally, I would rather be issued a key to a door than to constantly find locked doors when looking for a job.

• Finally: remember the effects of even modest inflation over time on debt. Inflation is the debtor's best friend, as a person borrows money at an earlier time and pays back debts with increasingly devalued currency. This is the principal reason banks hate inflation so much (and why they lobby the Fed to keep inflation low), as nothing slashes bank profits quicker than a hefty dose of inflation. Even when inflation is only 2-3 percent per year, in a few years those loan payments represent ever-lower percentages of the borrower's income, at least assuming the borrower's income has increased at all during that time (even income increases only half the increases in cost-of-living are still beneficial to borrowers).

Good stuff.

Kind of makes me glad that I got me degree back in the non-hosing days, and left with a debt of like 4 grand. I have missed every other bubble. Should have sold my "spare" house in 2003.

Also reminds me a lot of this old poem:

Waiting for the Barbarians
By C. P. Cavafy 1863–1933
Translated By Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

The barbarians are due here today.

Why isn’t anything going on in the senate?
Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What’s the point of senators making laws now?
Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.

Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate,
in state, wearing the crown?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader.
He’s even got a scroll to give him,
loaded with titles, with imposing names.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.

Why don’t our distinguished orators turn up as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.

Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion?
(How serious people’s faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home lost in thought?

Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
And some of our men just in from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.

Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
Those people were a kind of solution.

I’ve taken a ton of classes online and in the classroom and nothing beats the classroom. Also good luck dissecting your fetal pig or doing your organic chemistry lab on your kitchen table.

A/C and GuestZero:

I fully agree that smart people can educate themselves well. However, the issue for employers has to do with certification: how do I, as an employer, know that A/C and GZ are smart prospects, or that at least they have acquired sufficient knowledge to perform the work for which I am considering them?

Employers like college degrees because the applicant has a certification that attests to the person's ability to have at least demonstrated some mastery of the relevant material.

The two of you should consider CLEP exams if you believe that you have the knowledge base for college work. These are a hell of a lot cheaper than tuition, and they could speed up the degree-acquisition process.

GZ:

Do you really want to live in a world where your neighbor can read some books and Internet pages and call himself a heart surgeon, a structural engineer, or a defense attorney?

SensorG:

As a student, I prefered the face-to-face classroom, but increasingly students express a preference for online learning. I suspect that this is as much generational as anything else, though the two online classes I took in 2001 were both clunky and lacked interactivity.

Regarding online classes and lab work: some colleges and universities go with the virtual lab model as opposed to students buying lab supplies. However, I talked with an online biology instructor at BGSU the other day and in his classes the lab kit contains items like tests for a variety of water samples and collecting horticultural specimens.

GuestZero said: "family wealth and debt are involved in paying for the education. HM and the rest of his Golden Class can't admit that since they benefit from that system directly."

Uh, dude? Every major purchase involves some combination of wealth or debt to finance the dealio. Want to buy a car? Some salesmperson and a bunch of autoworkers "benefit from that system directly." Want to build a new house? Some banker, a real estate agent, and a builder "benefit from that system directly." Need a pacemaker? Some pharmaceutical company and a cardiovascular surgeon are going to "benefit from that system directly." Hungry? Man, those thieving SOBs at McDonald's are making a killing on your Big Mac and fries.

Don't like that people earn livings from the wealth and debt of others? Then either go live in a cave, or lead the proletariat to overthrow the capiatlist system, Vladimir.

Err... "salesperson."

You'd have a better understanding if you'd attended college.

I know of CLEP, and not all schools give a damn about it, and those that do may not grant much more than 3-4 credit hours.

Some schools offer credit by experience as well.

As for your question of "how do you as an employer know that AC and GZarthy have sufficient knowledge?"

Two words: Industry Certification.

And this is where you went off the deep end, GZarthy. ZOMG TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY, UNIONS UNIONS COMMUNISM VAST LLLLLLLLIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!

Liberal Pot, meet conservative Kettle
Conservative Kettle, meet liberal Pot.

Looking like instability knows no party.

Putting pot and liberal together must have been freudian. :)

A/C:

This page lists the CLEP exams recognized by BGSU. A person could reasonably expect to test out of 30 credits or so via CLEP, since most of these exams represent courses that are core requirements.

Anyway, if a person took, say, 10 exams at $100 each, this $1000 could save up to $10K in tuition and fees, and could also speed up the degree acquisition process considerably.

And yes: industry-specific certifications are great, and some industries have excellent formalized systems for this. MCITP and MCIS, as you are no doubt aware, are fairly well recognized in the IT industry, if not by all employers. Yet these are quite pricey, too, albeit less than a typical college degree. I can see where a skilled IT professional might rack up many thousands of dollars in certification fees. Add to this the fact that technological innovations will mean new certifications every few years, and a person who moves around on jobs a bit might need to keep shelling out fees.

Some employers, I am sure, contribute to professional development, so that probably is a consideration for IT folks in weighing job offers.

From Anonymous_Coward: The second point is that the higher ed system is facing a lot of questioning over exactly what good these degrees are and if someone actually needs to sit in a lecture hall for 4+ years, when there's the ability to self-study or take classes over the Internet... and that right there lends itself to more outsourcing and consolidation. Doesn't MIT have their materials all online now? The question becomes "why the hell are people paying $200+ a credit hour for something they could download for a buck fifty in bandwidth?"

One, availability. Some courses, actually many courses, are not available online.
Two, learning capability. Most people are not able to learn a subject by self-study, which is what an online course generally amounts to.
Three, quality of instruction. If nothing else, the vast majority of professors have no idea how to construct an effective online course, and are actively opposed to learning how to do it.

From HistoryMike: I can see where a skilled IT professional might rack up many thousands of dollars in certification fees. Add to this the fact that technological innovations will mean new certifications every few years, and a person who moves around on jobs a bit might need to keep shelling out fees.

The trouble with IT certification exams is that the exam is not comprehensive. In other words, anyone who can read and who is of average intelligence (or lower, I might argue) can learn to pass an IS certification test. Get that person on the job and they'll go right out and write you a loser every time.

A real comprehensive certification (or job interview for that matter) would involve handing the candidate a set of coding standards and program specs, then tell that person to write a functional application to spec that's compliant to coding standards. If there's any question about the results, let them defend their app. in a structured walk-through.

Many candidates won't even try this test. You'll get a few who will whine that since it compiled, it should run. Right? When you find someone that can code the application to specs or standards, you've got a keeper. If you find someone that can actually do both, count yourself lucky.

From researcher: You'd have a better understanding if you'd attended college.

It doesn't seem to have helped you very much.

Researcher said: You'd have a better understanding if you'd attended college.

I do, and I did.

Where did you learn to make use of dismissive one-liners that draw you into error? Not college, but the college drinking culture, I'd bet.

From HistoryMike: Regarding the housing bubble: the important point is that people believed their home was worth the price they paid...
Probably true, and you're quite right about the inflated price of houses. My point is that the bad loans were a major factor as well; certainly not exclusive by a long shot, but major.

From HistoryMike: Regarding tuition and fees at the hypothetical college: you should also factor in items like the Pell Grant,
Ah... too thin, I'm thinking. The Pell Grant started in 1965, and I'm excluding grants and scholarships from my comparison as most didn't exist back then. Also, higher prices should not be excused by financial supports not available to everyone, such as the Pell.

From HistoryMike: The scenario you painted demonstrates the weakness of the economy in general and the labor market in particular, not the looming prospect of a collapse of the American higher education system that GZ and 6th Floor are predicting.
I did the best I could with the material at hand. If you can do better, I'll be happy to lend you my paintbrush and stepladder. I'll even watch and cheer you on.

From HistoryMike: Does a degree mean a person is smart or talented? Not necessarily. ...a degree opens employment doors.
True. I once knew a plant manager with a bachelor's in Spanish. I've seen many other incongruities by way of degrees and careers. Many IT workers have a degree in English, which I think is very nice as it's the language most often used for communication in a U.S. workplace.

From HistoryMike: remember the effects of even modest inflation over time on debt.
That's true, but an even larger factor is the current APR. If I take out $100,000 loan over 30 years at 3%, I'm still paying back $151,776. The point at which this begins to look like a great deal is when the APR increases to 8% or higher. If the APR stays at 3% I'm not getting much of a deal.

HM asked: Do you really want to live in a world where your neighbor can read some books and Internet pages and call himself a heart surgeon, a structural engineer, or a defense attorney?

Uh, yes, obviously. Once again, your profession is called into question and you do nothing but over-reach in order to defend your paycheck. The POINT is that information technology hasn't made teaching any cheaper. In fact, it's done little but spiral upward over the average rate of inflation. Infotech was supposed to cut that back; instead, it was merely added to the mess due to unions and political influence and all that regressive crap.

You guys making buggy whips will have to give in to the automobile eventually. Forcing everyone to ride horses just isn't working; the bubble in student loans proves that. Information technology provides for automation that can greatly increase the efficiency of the same avenues of instruction. That means in this case, fewer teachers. The survivors should be happy, since they will do more.

Mike, looks like at your age it's a little difficult for you to see your next safe harbor from the billowing clouds of smoke from your own burned one. I guess you'll have to learn to fan the smoke away. I've had to do the same myself, but unlike you I don't whine about it. Really, a grown man like yourself, whining about industry change. That's the real outrage being committed here, since the cuts are gonna happen; cuts follow budgetary tightness, like night follows day.

The real threat now isn't your lost job, but the scheming of your class of person behind the scenes, to increase taxes to keep your overpaid selves rolling in caviar. We're wise to that, since we're taxed enough already. There's even a movement that goes by that name. Americans are waking up, and it's a different age for you now.

HM said: However, the issue for employers has to do with certification: how do I, as an employer, know that A/C and GZ are smart prospects, or that at least they have acquired sufficient knowledge to perform the work for which I am considering them?

Out here in the private sector, we make use of something called "experience", which is required to be pasted all over our "resumes", which link to the names and addresses of "employers" which can be checked for veracity.

Make a note of it.

HM said: Every major purchase involves some combination of wealth or debt to finance the dealio.

The singular difference being that education should be cheap. Information technology can deliver it to be so. That was always my point.

The rest of the stuff you pointed out should also be cheap, or cheaper. Tata Motors is making a car selling in India for $2500. Construction of housing can be automated or mass produced. And yet barriers are constantly placed in the US to stop those efficiencies from happening here. The only reason is to support industries who have taken over the government.

Well, corruption like that takes a toll, like the advent of the Greatest Depression in 2008. And it's finally visiting your class of person. Hence that whining thing I've said before.

Heads-up, GZ. You're arguing with yourself again.

Earlier in the thread you indicated that you 'boycotted higher education.'

Good God folks education rules in today's world. I was able to get good jobs with a high school education in the 50's. Today I could not do that.

I do question the debt our young people have for getting a degree. But many did not use any financial sense when they took out their many loans.

I have 6 grandchildren. 2 have parents quite able to pay tuition - no loans there. The other 4 have various degrees of loans for education. Only my grandson who is in his medical residency has a chance to pay his off before old age.

But education is going to win out every time now. So start saving when your children are young!

Just reading off the chart, now posted twice:

If having a doctoral (Ph.D) degree puts you in the top 2 of median weekly earnings (just behind professional degrees, like M.D., J.D., etc.), how can the argument be made that Ph.Ds are a hurting class of workers? Anywhere.

Sorry if you are below the median (hey, someone has to be). But, I state again, complaining about a good job with comfortable, indoor work in a shitty economy...or blasting others with "teach your own damn kids" comments when they point out said job is a good job in the scheme of things, reeks of attitude problems.

HM seems to have none of this. I hope you make it through HM.

GZ: best of luck to you. I am not sure what your point is here, as you veer from free market philosophies to spouting quasi-Marxist stuff about elite classes and how "education should be cheap." I would agree that education should be "affordable," and I outlined above a number of ways that a savvy consumer can keep college costs down, even in an era of high costs of attending college. But "cheap"? In my experience, "cheap" leads to either poor quality or the consumer having little appreciation for the commodity.

It really does make me scratch my head the way you vacillate between trying to extoll the virtues of the free market and suddenly switching gears when the argument goes sour by launching into some diatribe about scheming elites and how much people "should" pay for things and how the workers are downtrodden. I would recommend that you at least stay consistent with your philosophy, but I suspect you are just angry and not thinking clearly. I hope that you find peace.

The Tata motor comment was interesting. By extension, your argument implies that we should be driving low-quality automobiles and living in a country where the average worker makes $614 per year in a country where the GDP per capita is $837 per year.

Of course, if you just saying that you want to be able to drive a cheap Tata in America made by workers eking out a $614 per year salary, you sound very much like the "Golden Class" that you are making me chuckle over every time you throw that out there. By that logic, GuestZero should get to live a better life and drive a new low-cost car, while impoverished Indians toil away in a hot Pune factory making cars they will never be able to afford.

Be consistent, dude: if it is "evil" for your "American Golden Class" to "lord over" the working class in the US, it should be equally evil for GuestZero to drive a shiny Tata while Pune workers labor away for Da Man. Conversely, if you get to drive a tariff-free, unmodified Tata for $2,500, then just shut your cake hole with all that "Golden Class" bullshit.

As for your comment about taxpayers getting fleeced: don't worry, brother. The Ohio state government has been chopping those expenditures for decades, and in another decade I suspect that state will be contributing almost nothing to public universities. I expect also that the feds will continue to belt tighten, and while they probably will not eliminate all federal spending on higher education, I think in 10 years it will be significantly lower (perhaps 50 percent lower) than it is today.

But here is something to stick in your pipe and smoke to give yourself nightmares: if the glut in underemployed college grads continues, you know what? Employers will probably further accelerate credential creep, as they will have an even greater pool of highly qualified applicants from which to choose. This will raise further the demand for graduate degrees over the "simple" BA or BS degree.

Gotta run: the snow has stopped, and I need to fire up my Golden Class snowblower and dig out my elderly neighbors. The way this thread is going, I am sure that you will find evil in this activity, too, but a Scheming Crazy-Wealthy Elite like me has gotta do what he's gotta do. :-)

Also: please not that I made it all the way through this thread without making any inappropriate jokes regarding "Tata" and "Pune." Just saying.

Sohio said: Earlier in the thread you indicated that you 'boycotted higher education.'

So? I am boycotting higher education, and I did go to college. English tenses, how do they work?

HM said: In my experience, "cheap" leads to either poor quality or the consumer having little appreciation for the commodity.

No, in your experience you know you collect a fat paycheck from this system, hence that's why you can't understand things. But of course you understand it perfectly well; Upton Sinclair noticed what your class of people does and made a famous quote about it:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

Education is merely a media consumable. What have we noticed about consumable media? It's become really cheap, highly available, and has a vast range of quality. It serves the consumer, not the producer. But the Praetorian Class like you have stood in the way of education evolving to that end.

HM said: By extension, your argument implies that we should be driving low-quality automobiles and living in a country where the average worker makes $614 per year in a country where the GDP per capita is $837 per year.

No, my argument implies that globalism is only supplying already cheap consumer goods, when Americans are still being hit by large capital expenses. Again, another Praetorian Class stands in the way of bringing products to their markets.

Mass production of even capital assets is supposed to lower costs, hence bring products to the masses at low prices. That sort of thing is always reversed when some unionized dweebs are involved, like auto workers.

The global mean wage of around $2/hr is where wages must head for Americans. Keeping domestic wages high is only leading to more and more farcical socio-economic actions, which so far have produced the largest economic crash in Human history. And it's only going to get worse, since entrenched defenders like you still have too much mental market share out there in the general public. Look at what Jackie wrote, fer crissakes! The problem is huge, but she just gives in to it, which makes the problem even larger. (I'm sure that pleases you, Mike. More cheese for you and your class.)

"No wonder I have boycotted institutional education."

English tenses? How about semantics? That is what you're really dealing with here. You didn't say 'I AM,' you said 'I HAVE.' You used words that suggested you boycotted college up to and including your entire life. In the context of the conversation, that's what most people would have assumed based on your choice of words and your disposition to the subject matter, and you wanted it that way.

If you wished to be clear that you did not decide to 'boycott' higher education until later in your life--or until AFTER you had already finished college (which is like saying I shall boycott my employer just as soon as I retire)--you would have used different words.

^^ This stuff just keeps getting funnier.

Anyway: among the dozen or so jobs I have already applied for (again, hedging my bets in case I am among the Unlucky 100 at BGSU) is an intriguing corporate training gig. I have the experience and meet or exceed all of the requirements. My question, GuestZero, would be this: if I land this job (base salary $65K, which is awesome, but tons of travel, as this is a remote position where I would be in the air 40-50 times a year, and sitting in airports 8-10 hours a week will get old fast) would I still be a member of the "Golden Class"? I mean, I would be working in the corporate world and not for an institution that receives some government support, but what if this corporation gets tax breaks or windfall tax credits or something?

Also: I would be flying on airlines and using airports, so some government money of course makes this all possible, what with that evil, taxpayer-fleecing FAA and stuff. I suppose I could take Amtrak, but holy hell: that mode of transportation just sucks the living marrow from the overburdened taxpayer. And if I drove on the federal and state highways for the prospective new employer? Man, that shite is a snakepit of government largesse.

What do I have to do to lose this Evil Golden Class Moniker, anyway? It seems like now that GuestZero has pointed out the error of my ways, I cannot escape the evil.

HistoryMike,

In spite of your noble (and successful) efforts to present a reasoned and objective discussion on this topic, Guestzero is going to continue to try and make this discussion about YOU by putting words in your mouth, ignoring your factual assertions, and painting you as a member of his imagined 'Golden Class'...he will do this until you finally give up and stop dignifying his nonsense with a response, at which point he will claim victory, having obviously left you 'speechless.'

My message to you is: keep it going. Don't give him the satisfaction. He doesn't deserve it.

HM, not only would you be suckling government teat in order to continue your champagne wishes and caviar dreams; to add insult to injury, it sounds like you would be fleecing an unsuspecting private corporation too. It's a corporate training gig, you say? The corporation can just give the trainees a laptop and some books to read (preferably bound in a non-union printing shop, ya know, cheaper that way), and they'll get the same quality of training. THEY DON'T NEED YOU! Don't they realize that? I don't suppose you'll point this out to them, either, you Tata-driving elitist paycheck-protecting free-market-perverting Praetorian Pune, you!

From GuestZero: The singular difference being that education should be cheap. Information technology can deliver it to be so. That was always my point.

You know GZ, you might consider using a bold font one liner once in a while. I read pretty carefully, and that's not what I was getting most of the time. I agree with you, by the way, I just did not understand that's what you were driving at.

From GuestZero: The rest of the stuff you pointed out should also be cheap, or cheaper. Tata Motors is making a car selling in India for $2500.

Yeah. Have you seen that little coffin on wheels? Never mind taking it out on I-75 to liven up an otherwise dull morning, just drive on Alexis, Monroe, Secor or Dorr with it and I'll guarantee the premiums on your ObamaCare will get launched into the stratosphere once the government learns you've given up skydiving in favor of driving the Tata Peanut in heavy traffic. The thing has the tensile strength of a Japanese beer can.

It's fine for India, where the streets are so crowded no one can driver over 3 mph anyway. Over here some soccer mom in an SUV is certain to start a game of bumper cars when you obstruct her on the way to cheerleader practice.

Tata Motors was going to start producing the compressed air engine as well, which was showing some real potential. The last I heard there was some sort of civil unrest associated with the new factory they were building, so they gave the whole business up as a bad deal.

From Sohio: ...you Tata-driving elitist paycheck-protecting free-market-perverting Praetorian Pune, you!

I always thought HistoryMike drove a clapped out Honda.

I'm officially waiting for the clue bus.

HM, pull the other one. A job requiring constant travel is one of those things. Sure, it's fun in your 20s, but by your 30s it gets tiring, and in your 40s you're pretty much done with it. Certainly your wife and kids are.

I already predicted to a friend over the phone that you'd mention a high-travel job as one of your options. Hey, jump all over it. You go, girl. You know as well as I do that eating fast food in some lonely hotel room for half of your working life is not what men in their 40s want to do. But hey, maybe the wife's getting on your nerves and you need the time away. Be that exception that proves the rule, Mike.

Myself, I'm laughing at my continued vindication. I brought up this meta-topic back on this very website in 2002 or so. Transforming people into work travelers just destroys their home life. I termed it the "enemy of the American home". The problem remains the same, and since then I'm sure the problem was one of the causative agents for house flipping, which as you should recall has destroyed the American economy from the top to the bottom. Good going on betting on the wrong cards, Mike. History has already said you lost; you're just too delusional to recognize it, which is certainly ironic, being it's your alleged profession.

Again: Take the job and enjoy that lukewarm burger diet. After all, you're one of the winners in life, so win. It doesn't require any more blogging; just take the job and get the best revenge... if you're able.

GuestZero's "friend" may = Jimmy Stewart's friend.

GZarthy and his friend.

So AC, what you're saying is you want a taco flavored keeessss from me, right? Sicko. LOL!

HM said: Somewhat flattered, but mildy weirded out that you are chatting on the phone with your friends about me and my job prospects, GZ.

Why is it weird? I was talking to a person also posting here. So what should really be weirding you out is that this thread even exists. And yet you keep responding. Deuced odd, methinks.

Coming from you, this was indeed a compliment. Posting while drunk again? Trying to cope?

Now you need a better excuse.

I don't have time to drink these days as tenure is about 2 years away.

I'll give credit to GZ, though: $36K being considered a "fat paycheck" is comedy gold.

GZ & his friend?

GZ, It does bother you that HM keeps responding, doesn't it? Forces you to keep coming back with ever-less coherent rebuttals. Makes for some hilarious reading, though.

It is when you're GZarthy and have a jealousy issue from working as a greeter at Walmart and have to eat dog food because it's cheaper than real meat. He's just upset that "LLLLLLiberal socialist communists" take away his paycheck and make it impossible for Walmart to pay him less and work him harder so he can pull himself up by his bootstraps.

The data from the old Toledo Blade 2010 salary survey was surprisingly easy to cut and paste into Excel, so here's what comes out when you just "plug 'n' play".

I don't make any warranties that I didn't miss a group of people--I just sorted by "Assistant Professor", "Associate Professor", and "Professor" (the three general faculty ranks w/ tenure (or tenure track for assistants). Then, for a second data set, I removed certain groups (VAPs and adjuncts that either are not permanent faculty or likely tenure track; also removed Deans/Directors/etc. from Associate/Full Professor ranks that may get paid more for administration roles) from the set to look at the numbers again.

I did not look at those labeled "Instructors" or "Lecturers"...only professors. You can do that on your own.

Feel free to savage me about this, the data, what I missed. It's 3 year old data. It's the Internet. I don't give a shit. All I can do is take publicly available data and see what comes out. It still seems like a good job to me if you can get it. You are welcome to replicate and show me the error of my ways.

Lastly, finally--I don't give a fuck that these highly educated individuals make what they make (any of them), as long as the quality of education remains stable. It's the ungrateful attitude, in the midst of an ongoing economic malaise (7.9% unemployment) expressed here and elsewhere (and yes, historymike is way...way...way excluded from that category) that gets under my skin. And the administrative bloat has to be curtailed--fully agree.

-------------

Data set: BGSU Employees 2010

"All of the information is provided by BGSU and is from the 2010 calendar year."

-------------

Sort: Assistant Professor (any type)
N: 188
Range: $128,747.18 - $1,867.50
Mean: $45,541.80
Median: $50,892.41
SD: $27,075.74
68.2% of the faculty titled "Assistant Professor" make between $18,466 - $72,617.54

Sort: Assistant Professor (removing adjuncts and visiting assistant professors)

N: 129
Range: $128,747.18 - $8,400.00
Mean: $58,809.18
Median: $56,009.40
SD: $18,885.32
After removing VAPs and adjuncts, 68.2% of the faculty titled "Assistant Professor" make between $37,124.08 - $74,894.72

-------------

Sort: Associate Professor (any type)
N: 264
Range: $160,832.88 - $3,120.00
Mean: $77,015.50
Median: $73,343.12
SD: $24890.12
68.2% of the faculty titled "Associate Professor" make between $48,453 - $98,233.12

Sort: Associate Professor (removing deans, directors--i.e. those with "administrator" roles--and adjuncts).

N: 259
Range: $160,832.88 - $7,143.00
Mean: $78,230.60
Median: $73,749.74
SD: $23,460.14
After removing individuals labeled adjunct, dean, or director, 68.2% of the faculty titled "Associate Professor" make between $50,289.60 - $97,209.88

-------------

Sort: Professor (all full professors)

N: 180
Range: $370,673.07 - $4,935.00 (BGSU President makes $370,673.07...big outlier)
Mean: $106,876.47
Median: $101,506.96
SD: $37,105.95
68.2% of the faculty titled (full) "Professor" make between $64,401.01 - $138,612.91

-------------

Sort: Professor (removing chancellors, deans, directors, and other noted management)

N: 151
Range: $212,593.24 - $4,935
Mean: $102,623.03
Median: $99,961.42
SD: $30,637.20
After removing individuals labeled chancellor, dean, director or adjunct, 68.2% of the faculty titled (full) "Professor" make between $69,324.22 - $130,598.62

-------------

Still seems like a good job with decent money to me. It's not winning the lottery, but few jobs are. Also seems like the AAUP numbers attributed to BGSU (and discredited by a poster earlier) were pretty accurate, if not low in certain cases:

Professor: $94,085
Assoc. Professor: $70,875
Asst. Professor: $57,868
Instructor: $40,930
Lecturer: $47,529

------------

Ready for the beatings to begin ...

And can you can take your own salary or yearly wages, subtract 25% and that's your comparable wage?

The AAUP numbers weren't discredited. Context always matters. Unfortunately, context is completely lacking in this thread.

Good points, OH. No beating necessary. I do think, though, that you are confusing simple dissatisfaction with a person's job, and the propensity of some to voice those feelings, with an overall lack of gratitude. Historymike is a good example of this: just because a person--or group of people, in this case--voices some complaints about some things that they think are going wrong within their profession, does not mean they do not like their job or appreciate having a job.

The text of the petition that started this whole thread makes the point that BGSU plans to slash staff while adding students. I think that is a reasonable complaint. You could debate whether or not that will actually be detrimental to anyone, I suppose...but calling the people who are protesting that move 'ungrateful' is not really fair, in my opinion.

Adopting a "love it or leave it" position in any situation is not productive, and, frankly, not really in line with the American way.

The floor is open for more context any time you're ready....

Adopting a "love it or leave it" position in any situation is not productive, and, frankly, not really in line with the American way.

Also fair points, Sohio. Earlier in this thread, someone gave the old "teach your own kids" line, which set me off. Sets me off when the K-12 teachers do it and sets me off here.

People are welcome to voice dissatisfaction, and god knows there is dissatisfaction on any job. I'm focused on the "poor us" arguments (no raise in 3 years--join the crowd...increased medical insurance premiums--again, join the crowd, etc.). Everything about bloated administration, unreasonable teaching/research loads, general gripes...doesn't bother me.

What I consider ungrateful is sniping/griping/complaining/bitching/bawling over a level of compensation (salary & benefits) that seems OK. Not the lottery, but OK for Northwest Ohio.

What's the point? The AAUP serves its members. Are you a member? If data can be manipulated, what would they be manipulating? What could skew the numbers? Why would they allow it to be skewed?

Does that compensation seem OK considering many of these people are the absolute experts in their fields with terminal degrees? Does or should that play into the norm for Northwest OH?

Does that compensation seem OK considering many of these people are the absolute experts in their fields with terminal degrees?

Who ever said that being an absolute expert in something is deserving of more compensation? Even among "absolute experts", compensation varies widely (business vs. humanities PhDs, for example).

Does or should that play into the norm for Northwest OH?

So...how much should these folks be getting? Where should the median be?

If being an expert, or most qualified in your field, shouldn't factor into compensation, what could you possibly be using as a relevant comparison?

I also share the opinion that higher education salaries shouldn't necessarily be regionally compared.

Your assumption that someone who holds a PhD in his field is "most qualified" is highly amusing. There are theorists in every field who couldn't be worse "experts" in the practical areas of the field if they had simply entered as high school diplomats.

I didn't say education shouldn't be factored in. Far from it. However, you appear to be implying that these folks should be paid (much) more than current compensation because one holds a terminal degree in a field. And if that were the only criterion in life...education attainment...then dandy. But it's not...

Again, what is the satisfactory amount? I'm game to pay even more--just tell me what level you want the water, so to speak.

Do people without PhDs regularly become full professors? It's highly amusing that you don't see various disciplines WITHIN Higher Ed as fields in and of themselves. A theorist and a practitioner are doing different things.

My only assertion is that they shouldn't be compared to the average grocery bagger, ditch digger, Jeep assembly worker, or whatever it is you do. Instead, they should be compared to faculty at peer institutions.

Researcher said: I'll give credit to GZ, though: $36K being considered a "fat paycheck" is comedy gold.

Why? It's math. One person bringing in that much money for only 9 months of work, is doing very well. HM actually brings in $45K yearly for all year's work, which for one person is doing extremely well. Do I really have to keep pointing out the median household income of the area? It's all been said before.

BG is starting to notice that the economics of this sort of thing aren't working out. Other than the education bubble, that's actually maturation of industry. Efficiencies creep in and drive down wages. That's how we're able to make all that stuff we have, cheap. In other words, you can't keep rationally expecting to have cheap products and services and yet retain your high salary.

Researcher said: Now you need a better excuse.

No, now you need to push that academic hubris aside and admit you were wrong.

:: AC pulls out his W-2 and looks at it.

Well then, according to GZarthy, since I'm within the ballpark of that figure for a year, I'm doing extremely well.

I wasn't wrong. You haven't made a point in this thread and since you're an anonymous troll, simply stating you've attended college does not constitute proof.

Even better comedy! Never break character! Just don't wear the joke out.

$45K for 12 months is a "fat paycheck". LOL!

The hilarious part of this is that GZ - a supposed free market oriented fiscal conservative - is engaging the same sorts of class envy, class warfare, and bash-anyone-making-more-than-the-average that is supposed to be the domain of leftists and liberals.

As much as GZ hates to admit it, the labor market for academics is driven by free market forces. The reason my salary is relatively low [compared to other academics] is that the humanities have a glut in job-seekers. The numbers cited above by OHT and others reflect the influence of salaries in fields like medicine, law, mathematics, business, and the sciences, which pay salaries that are sometimes astronomical due to the fact that they are in such high demand, given their ability to find high-paying work in the private sector and the competition to land marquee academics.

And once again, GZ: you are throwing around the specific economic term "bubble" without answering the question I have posed at least four times in this thread: "What is the commodity in your scenario that is overvalued that the consumer holds and which will rapidly decrease in value, leaving the final holder with a commodity he can only sell at a tremendous loss in a market with few buyers?"

I was going to let this go when a few posts ago you backed down and mumbled something like "all along I was just referring to the high tuition costs," but now you are using the term "bubble" again. Since you insist on using the term "bubble," answer the question: "What is the commodity in your scenario that is overvalued that the consumer holds and which will rapidly decrease in value, leaving the final holder with a commodity he can only sell at a tremendous loss in a market with few buyers?"

Or are you just going to be honest and admit that you were wrong about using the term "bubble"? Probably not, but I am offering you a way out of your dilemma, and I promise not to tell anyone. :-)

Oh, and I missed these gems yesterday in my 16-hour day as a member of the Golden Class: "History...your alleged profession." Uh, dude? I have a BA, an MA, and a PhD in history, and I have taught the subject at the college level for eight years. What's with the "alleged" goofiness? Here is my BGSU bio page; of course, I could be a super-hacker and this is part of some grand conspiracy, but generally speaking Occam's razor is a useful tool to to wield.

And this one: "So what should really be weirding you out is that this thread even exists. And yet you keep responding. Deuced odd, methinks." Uh, dude? This is a forum for discussion, and the purpose of the site is for people to exchange ideas and, I dunno, keep coming back. I think the real problem for you is that you seem to believe everything you say is pure truth, and that no one should ever deign to critique the hallowed words of the Almighty GuestZero. What is "deuced odd" to you, in your egotistical state, is that people are simply not behaving the way you want them to act (i.e., bowing with revernce at the Altar of the Super Smart Anonymous Internet Poster).

There are many more lulz to be had here, but I must restrict myself to the funniest ones, as I have a slew of students to meet today and a mountain of papers to grade. I know: with all those ill-gotten millions that I, in my evil machinations, am accumulating, I should really be out looking to buy a Mercedes or something, but I guess deep down inside my cold, cold, tax-payer-fleecing heart I have an ounce of humanity.

While you still have it out, and are looking at line 1:

Imagine that number on line 2.

You might feel a little bit differently about taxes if you were personally carrying the weight of three or four non-productive Americans.

You might feel a little bit differently about taxes if you were personally carrying the weight of three or four non-productive Americans.

Fuck grandma and grandpa, they are so non-productive, carrying those green oxygen tanks around like they own the place!

I was specifically addressing line 2, but SensorG makes a great point.

*MOVING FROM LINE 2 to line 4 at the suggestion of SensorG: Social Security tax withheld. When you add this to the other tax shown on the line that I was specifically addressing, the burden for the productive class is even greater.

Good catch man. Thanks.

Not too shabby.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2013/03/23/BGSU-faculty-reach-tentative-deal-on-raises.html

Not at all.

The contract has yet to be released, but the Blade has cherry-picked the preliminary information. Left out of this initial release is the fact that summer pay is going to be cut over the next few years, and this will negatively affect the wages of non-tenured faculty who depend on summer teaching to pay the bills. In my case the summer cuts will amount to about $800 per class, even after the raises. This is $1600 for the two summer classes I normally teach, or about a 3 percent pay cut per year, which puts a big dent in any salary gains I make.

Now, before certain posters start up the class warfare silliness again, I know that I have a great job compared to most of the rest of the working folks in the area. I add this caveat because one might jump to the conclusion that the new contract (if approved) is all "get" and not "give." Folks at the top of the faculty food chain are the ones who will really see the financial benefits, but at least there is some increased job security as a result of the new contract (I am told the administration will have to show cause for dismissal instead of possessing arbitrary termination powers via contract non-renewal for non-tenured faculty that they currently have).

Of course, very few of the so-called BGSU-100 have actually received notices so far, and in my own case I am still twiddling my thumbs to see if I dodge the budget axe. The new contract will not mean much for the many dozens of people who will lose jobs, though I am told they will get the retroactive pay raise for 2011-12 and 2012-13 as a lovely parting gift for being a contestant on ... "The Job You Once Had."

I'm still kind of amazed they formed the faculty union with adjuncts. Was there a fear the vote to unionize would have failed without adjuncts?

Researcher: to my knowledge part-time adjuncts have not been part of the process (nor are they covered) under this agreement. The agreement covers full-time faculty (tenured and non-tenured) but I have seen no provisions for part-timers.

I still have not seen the actual contract yet, though. It is supposed to be made available this weekend.

I just re-read this entire thread. I had forgotten all about it. What a riot! We need bench clearers like this more often!

I spoke too soon, without knowing the facts about the union. I do hope things work out for you.

http://www.ourtownperrysburg.com/Education/2013/04/02/Owens-to-lay-off-dozens-due-to-budget-shortfalls.html

Of course no mention of cutting the pay of the existing staff. Why do that when it's easier to push out the lower-hanging fruit?

Can't we have a separate "SLASHING the administrative staff at Owens" thread?

http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2013/05/06/Lourdes-planning-layoffs-pay-cuts.html

Lourdes SLASHING staff?

Hopefully this means the education bubble in the area is popping. I just drove by Bancroft High the other day, and was gagging at all the new construction there. There aren't enough jobs to absorb all those students! All of it is just ripping off the loan-drenched student these days. Burn it all down. I want to see suicides and shooting sprees before this is truly over.

Yowza.

Burn it all down. I want to see suicides and shooting sprees before this is truly over.

© Hallmark Cards Inc. Kansas City, Missouri.

Also shop our online store for these Mothers Day favorites!

I hope you get cancer of the eyes you cold enigma

Onesy, Twosy, Mommy's boozy

Who Darrell's 'ho? You Darrell's 'ho!

Mom...when I was born, you broke the toilet

We're deliberately designing an economic catastrophe, OHT. People who seek bad ends, largely deserve it. Bring on the flames.

Absolutely. This subject is CERTAINLY worth people dying over.

Sohio, when an economy is crashed this hard, there's going to be violence no matter what you do to stop it. That's the point.

The problem with Liberals today and their borrow-nuttiness is that they're killing us already, just using economics. War tends to arise from economic causes. The bankers may look innocuous, but they've killed more people than anyone over the last century. Bankers fund the war machines. Banker policies cause social collapse that leads to war. Liberals offer up their bungholes to the bankers despite the Occupy posturing. It's too obvious to say it's a conspiracy. There should be another word or term for it. Cooperative destruction? Camouflaged coup? Feel free to add to the list, guy.

I want to see suicides and shooting sprees before this is truly over.

Key words: "I WANT".

You can backpedal and attribute your coming day of reckoning to the natural course of events in an economic downturn and wash your hands of it, but that was not what you said.

You said: "I WANT [people to die]."

Furthermore, your phrasing "before this is truly over" suggests that for it to 'end' [i.e. improve] prior to any deaths taking place would be an unsatisfactory outcome for you.

Just saying.