Red Mosquito

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Rob wrote:

Mickey wrote:I also would want to push back against the tendency to read under/unemployment as a hurdle that can be overcome by "skills." And specifically, I'd want to ask--which skills? It's pretty clear, for example, that the massive push for "learning to code" over the last decade (especially in urban charter schools, just as a note!) will have the net effect not of making more people employable but making more coding jobs flexible/precarious--gig work, in other words. Nor is it particularly easy to predict which skills will be in high demand--remember when law school was a golden ticket to the middle class?--and I wouldn't undersell the personal freedom of being debt-free right now. This doesn't mean that individuals can't improve their station by bumping out their resume a bit, especially if they have free time on their hands, but there's a thin line between offering that advice and naturalizing underemployment as a skills deficiency rather than a created problem wherein the common-sense solution further serves the needs of capital.

Great points.

Hatfield wrote:
I'm wondering if more states will consider legalizing marijuana for the tax revenue. That would be a good business to get into on the ground floor.

Given the need for revenue + jobs, it would be ridiculous for states not to consider this.

I've seen job postings for weed companies in Illinois but they seem to be really low level stuff. I think community colleges and such offer coursework on weed agriculture now though. It would be truly hilarious if I got in the weed game.

Because you're white?

verb_to_trust wrote:

Mickey wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Rob wrote:

Mickey wrote:I also would want to push back against the tendency to read under/unemployment as a hurdle that can be overcome by "skills." And specifically, I'd want to ask--which skills? It's pretty clear, for example, that the massive push for "learning to code" over the last decade (especially in urban charter schools, just as a note!) will have the net effect not of making more people employable but making more coding jobs flexible/precarious--gig work, in other words. Nor is it particularly easy to predict which skills will be in high demand--remember when law school was a golden ticket to the middle class?--and I wouldn't undersell the personal freedom of being debt-free right now. This doesn't mean that individuals can't improve their station by bumping out their resume a bit, especially if they have free time on their hands, but there's a thin line between offering that advice and naturalizing underemployment as a skills deficiency rather than a created problem wherein the common-sense solution further serves the needs of capital.

Great points.

Hatfield wrote:
I'm wondering if more states will consider legalizing marijuana for the tax revenue. That would be a good business to get into on the ground floor.

Given the need for revenue + jobs, it would be ridiculous for states not to consider this.

I've seen job postings for weed companies in Illinois but they seem to be really low level stuff. I think community colleges and such offer coursework on weed agriculture now though. It would be truly hilarious if I got in the weed game.

Because you're white?

I have a long posting history of deriding the wonderplant

tragabigzanda wrote:For those without a degree, we are most likely facing Louise jobs, I think the best approach is probably a two-year trade degree; he could be making high five figures as an electrician or commercial plumber pretty quickly, it would be relatively protected from further economic fluctuations.

For those without a degree, who are most likely stuck in low wage jobs, I think the best approach is probably the two-year trade degree; he could be making hi5 figures as an electrician or commercial plumber pretty quickly, and would be relatively protected from further economic fluctuations.

But my point here is not to try to figure out if future of the economy, nor to “college,” your way into a better quality of life. More simply, it’s about taking the attitude of making an investment in your professional future rather than sitting home and waiting for something like UBI to come through. And there are decades of empirical data that show direct correlation’s of higher education with higher earning, and I don’t expect that even a brutal depression will completely upend that reality (not do I oppose the idea it will have an impact).

Strat wrote:I dont really believe that getting a general higher education degree will really set you apart from anyone else moving forward. Businesses are going to be reluctant to hire any time soon, and if they do, they already have a pool of potential employees that they previously laid off. Additionally, who knows what the economy is even going to look like in the immediate years to follow. Unless Universities drastically drop their tution, i see it just as a potential additional hole that one might have to dig themselves out. The older i get, the more and more im leaning towards the belief that specific trade schools are the most important education one can get. Be a mechanic, or a plumber, electrician....I don't know.

/random rambles

McParadigm wrote:80% effectiveness seems pretty good all things considered.

What it’s saying is that neither Spain nor France were able to reveal a sizable percentage of people who had antibodies. France, for example, has had figures roughly equivalent to (slightly worse than) America. It’s not reassuring to look at current death figures and also suspect that 95% of the population has yet to get the virus.

verb_to_trust wrote:

McParadigm wrote:80% effectiveness seems pretty good all things considered.

What it’s saying is that neither Spain nor France were able to reveal a sizable percentage of people who had antibodies. France, for example, has had figures roughly equivalent to (slightly worse than) America. It’s not reassuring to look at current death figures and also suspect that 95% of the population has yet to get the virus.

All the antibody info has been trash so far. Nobody knows shit yet.

McParadigm wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

McParadigm wrote:80% effectiveness seems pretty good all things considered.

What it’s saying is that neither Spain nor France were able to reveal a sizable percentage of people who had antibodies. France, for example, has had figures roughly equivalent to (slightly worse than) America. It’s not reassuring to look at current death figures and also suspect that 95% of the population has yet to get the virus.

All the antibody info has been trash so far. Nobody knows shit yet.

Congratulations on identifying the purpose of studies.

verb_to_trust wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

McParadigm wrote:80% effectiveness seems pretty good all things considered.

What it’s saying is that neither Spain nor France were able to reveal a sizable percentage of people who had antibodies. France, for example, has had figures roughly equivalent to (slightly worse than) America. It’s not reassuring to look at current death figures and also suspect that 95% of the population has yet to get the virus.

All the antibody info has been trash so far. Nobody knows shit yet.

Congratulations on identifying the purpose of studies.

I'm just tired of seeing all this stuff get pumped out there with the added quip of how terrible the information is when the galaxy brain experts have proven over and over again they don't know shit about this thing.

verb_to_trust wrote:CDC: don't wear masks

CDC: wear masks

Fauci: chill, the risk is low

Fauci: you're all probably going to die

They are just making shit up as they go.

McParadigm wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:CDC: don't wear masks

CDC: wear masks

Fauci: chill, the risk is low

Fauci: you're all probably going to die

They are just making shit up as they go.

All of these things could be true, and it still wouldn’t change recorded statistical data.