• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

Don't want to pay a fair $ for tickets, it will affect you later.

av8er2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Posts
353
Total Time
8000
I would of liked to buy my new mortgage local in my town to help people just like me stay employeed. I would of done it even if it meant a few hundred dollars more at closing.

But because the public has no loyalty to the airlines and don't care about their own safety and happy emplyment of airline employees, I had to go with the lowest bidder elsewhere. If the public shops tickets like Walmart buys goods in China, without any respect for the US, then it forced me to buy my mortgage out of my town. Because of this a broker in my town missed out on a little extra in their paycheck.

I'll bet if a local broker gets on the internet and shops like crazy to get that $149 round trip ticket, they aren't thinking that it will come back to decrease their income someday, but it did this time.

I really wanted to buy from someone local but since I now have no job security and my paycheck is going downhill, there will be times in my town, locals will miss out on extra income also.

 

the_dimwit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Posts
50
Total Time
...
Back in the 1990's, the long distance telephone companies began undercutting each other's rates. The consumers eagerly switched carriers each time a lower rate was announced. Why the lack of customer loyalty?

The typical consumer is looking for a good deal on everything from gas to diapers. The airline ticket for XYZ Airline, like most other items, is bought when it is cheaper than ABC Airline's ticket. How is this any different from saving 35 cents on a gallon of milk?

Put another way, should I feel bad if I buy a used car from Carmax (a big used car retailer), even if it takes money away from Al's Used Cars on the corner of 1st and Main? In my humble opinion, I work hard for my money. Why should I be the subject of scorn if I want to stretch it as far as I can?

The airline industry's problem is similar to that of the long distance industry during the 1990's. Too much competition for the same market. MCI, Worldcom, Sprint, AT&T, and a host of others sought to capture the same folks. Sure, there were some industry laws that prevented total domination, but for the most part the effort was nationwide.

Compare that to the airlines, and you should see the similarities rather quickly. Continental, Delta, American, United, USWest, etc. fly to many of the same destinations and compete for the same customers. The laws of business dictate that the most competitive price will prevail. Sure, I would like a sandwich and a pillow, but if I save 100 dollars on the flight I'll buy my meal ahead of time and bring it aboard.

This type of occurance is not unheard of, by the way. History is, after all, the greatest teacher. The Industrial Revolution made a lot of people very wealthy, and created a lot of jobs. Suddenly, anyone who knew how to work with machinery was in high demand. Jobs were plentiful, but the skilled labor was short. Pay was, as a result, quite decent.

Fast-forward a few decades. Now, instead of labor shortages, there is a glut. People have become used to machinery, and thousands of people have been trained in vocational schools. After graduation, they enter the business world, only to find that jobs are beginning to become widespread, and pay is decreasing.

Was this a one-time event? No. Read on.

The modern computer started really taking shape during the late 1970's and early 1980's. Even then, very few people had even seen a computer, let alone worked with one. As the "intelligence" of the machines increased, their usefulness also skyrocketed. The late 1980's brought IBM-compatible computers and, of course, Microsoft and its Windows operating system. However, there was a problem: People did not know how to fix the computers when they broke.

Enter the age of the "Computer Guys." This segment of the workforce knew how to work with the devices in order to get them to perform. Suddenly, anyone who knew how to work with computers was in high demand.

As time progressed, the Internet came onto the scene. As in the early days of personal computing, anyone who knew how to design a web page, connect multiple computers to the Internet, or design a network to carry large amounts of user traffic could command huge salaries. Jobs were plentiful, and skilled labor was not.

Fast forward to late 2000. The myth of the "Dot-com" companies is busted. Suddenly, the theme song of the economy shifts from "Skyrockets in Flight" to "Free Fallin'." Jobs are eliminated, companies declare bankruptcy, and nobody wants a "Computer Guy" anymore.

Today, there is some rebound in the world of information technology, but nowhere near what we saw during the "crazy days."

Aviation is seeing the same shift. The so-called "Golden Age" has ended, and the large-scale fascination with aviation is no longer. Little boys no longer stare at a commercial airline pilot in awe. Now, they simply turn on their Ipods and sit in their assigned seat.

The "aviation schools" such as Riddle are turning out certificated pilots every year, but the overall demand for them is decreasing. No amount of striking or union threats will stop this trend, let alone reverse it. That is, unless there is a consolidation among commercial carriers.

If we are to learn anything from history, it would be that there is always something "new and improved" on the horizon. Aviation will probably see a major change in the near future, perhaps in the form of "space planes," which will require new skills and training. These "space pilots" will command higher salaries, better working conditions, and an overall improved quality of life.

Just an "outsider's" take on the state of aviation...

--Dim
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
We could save airlines as an industry if we moved them into the government sector.

The government could take in the airlines and operate them as a government entity. Rampies, gate agents, stews, lav boys, mechanics and pilots would become federal workers. In addition, they would be able to bid nationally under one list for jobs...just like they do at www.gov.

One uniform, one payroll, one set of rules and the pay would be set to the G-scale.

The feds would set the schedules and fares and what doesn't get paid for in user fees would be offset by taxes. They could fly planes empty to keep people busy.
 

pilotmiketx

Registerd User
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Posts
345
Total Time
oodles
FN FAL said:
We could save airlines as an industry if we moved them into the government sector.

The government could take in the airlines and operate them as a government entity. Rampies, gate agents, stews, lav boys, mechanics and pilots would become federal workers. In addition, they would be able to bid nationally under one list for jobs...just like they do at www.gov.

One uniform, one payroll, one set of rules and the pay would be set to the G-scale.

The feds would set the schedules and fares and what doesn't get paid for in user fees would be offset by taxes. They could fly planes empty to keep people busy.

Be careful what you wish for...the next time you get on an airliner, it could be as fun as going to the DMV or Post Office. Service with a scowl.
 

Icelandair

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Posts
313
Total Time
lots
The DMV. When someone applies for a government job they have to take an IQ test, and the ones who score the absolute lowest get assigned to the DMV
 

GravityHater

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
1,168
Total Time
3000
Supply and Demand - that explains it every time.

Too many airplanes and airlines, not enough passengers -- prices go down.

Too many pilots not enough jobs -- wages go down.

In some industries, IF one company can stand out by providing a specialized service, a value that people can recognize and appreciate THEN they might get away with charging more.

My thoughts are.... there are a TON of people out there who hate Walmart.
They are much happier in Dillards or whatever.

An airline will come along and offer roomier seating, screen pax for behavior and weight & dress, fuss over them a little bit, and they will be able to charge double. (Either that, or those consumers will get in on some form of shared bizjet travel.) As pilots, 90% of us will be flying the walmart types around; very few of us will be in the elite corp.

Jeez that was supposed to be informative, elucidating, but ended up very depressing, sorry. Must be the rapid ingestion of beer.
 

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Total Time
7,000+
Quadruple the price and if volume drops off to one fourth, the airlines will make money.
 

jackotron

Man, Myth
Joined
May 26, 2004
Posts
154
Total Time
Enough
Hey watch it!

My Mama works at the DMV. :laugh:

Jack


Icelandair said:
The DMV. When someone applies for a government job they have to take an IQ test, and the ones who score the absolute lowest get assigned to the DMV
 

GravityHater

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
1,168
Total Time
3000
FN FAL said:
Quadruple the price and if volume drops off to one fourth, the airlines will make money.

...the surviving airlines. And what will happen to the pilot pool? (owch!)

Still it might be a good long term thing. Darwin-esque, but healthier.
2005-2015 - the Black Years of American Aviation ???
 

cezzna

Remeber the analog
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Posts
291
Total Time
<AARP
I think the airlines are as vital to the US economy as public utilities are. They have price controls why shouldn't the airlines. The market isn't shaking out the weak players. The weak players have an advantage now by dumping pensions and contracts. I'm not for big government, but the free market is NOT working in the airline industry. It's just going to get weaker and weaker. I think in 10 yrs aviation will be a lower rung career and will not attract people like it used to. It will be like teaching is now. Teachers work their asses off and all people do is bitch about how they are overpaid. Not many brilliant people are attracted to the teaching industry anymore and the same will happen in aviaton.
 

JimG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Posts
205
Total Time
1600
FN FAL said:
We could save airlines as an industry if we moved them into the government sector.

The government could take in the airlines and operate them as a government entity. Rampies, gate agents, stews, lav boys, mechanics and pilots would become federal workers. In addition, they would be able to bid nationally under one list for jobs...just like they do at www.gov.

One uniform, one payroll, one set of rules and the pay would be set to the G-scale.

The feds would set the schedules and fares and what doesn't get paid for in user fees would be offset by taxes. They could fly planes empty to keep people busy.


Yeah....they could be just like that other great company called Amtrak, and have the same great safety record too.

What's interesting to me is, I've felt ticket prices go up, hardly ever fly on a plane that's not completely full....

And yet their red ink keeps getting worse as oil prices rise....(except SWA).

On days when I hate being in my industry and fighting it's perpetual state of overcapacity, I just remind myself....at least I'm not in the airline business....
 

hindsight2020

Yeah Buddy
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Posts
235
Total Time
23:41Z
the_dimwit said:
This type of occurance is not unheard of, by the way. History is, after all, the greatest teacher. The Industrial Revolution made a lot of people very wealthy, and created a lot of jobs. Suddenly, anyone who knew how to work with machinery was in high demand. Jobs were plentiful, but the skilled labor was short. Pay was, as a result, quite decent.

Fast-forward a few decades. Now, instead of labor shortages, there is a glut. People have become used to machinery, and thousands of people have been trained in vocational schools. After graduation, they enter the business world, only to find that jobs are beginning to become widespread, and pay is decreasing.

--Dim

*DING DING DING*Exactly. In other words, overpopulation sucks. And since there isn't an ethical way around this little problem of ours, we have to deal with it. It scares me when I see college campuses today. Where are all these people going to go? There is just not enough space; negative returns on investment IS the commonality among those with college education nowadays.

And what is suggested in the quote above is really the preface for what Thomas Friedman was trying to push for in his book "The World is Flat". Basically, what he defines to be the need to continually re-invent yourself so as to stay "ahead of the curve". That curve being the labor skill that's in demand and that is unique at the time. The computer geek in the late 80's-early 90's, the machinist in the beginning of the industrial revolution. Well, that's cute, but unrealistic; and outright condescending when you really grasp that his thesis is self-serving. In essence, HE is smart enough to understand this and capitalize on it, and he encourages you to grasp it too, but you could (or shall we say SHOULD) never be HIM and capitalize on it, otherwise he would disprove his own thesis. :D

Clearly there's just so many iterations of the new 'thing' that's going to put you on top. Embry-Riddle? Absolutely! They are capitalizing on an inelastic demand for the perception of yesterday. But you [as the customer] aren't. Is it going to change? Nope. So what's to be done?

One alternative is to find niche markets. This is not very far from Mr. Friedmans' assertion. The question is however, do I feel confident enough in my ability to capitalize over others? I may, or I may not, but I don't think that should be the litmus test that should determine whether or not your family gets to afford a healthy life; this is where Mr. Friedman tells you to buck up and I tell him to shove it up his A$$. In a boundary-less environment, the free market will basically tells all of you who cannot clinch a niche status to buck up, and offer no recourse. Too Republican for my taste, but that aside, it's plain irresponsible. Yes, nobody is afforded the right to make six figures, but we should all have the opportunity to afford a median level of income with a service professionally provided.

I think there should be a little bit of social policy. I won't argue with the perception that government is awkward and ineffective in their handling of economic policy, but in a perfect world (or a better government) we could be able to put in place social policy that would enable those of us [coincidentally, the majority of us ;)] who aren't going to continually switch to 'new widget programming' because it's in high-demand (for the next 36 months anyways) to establish, at the very least, a living wage base. And it is not just because it's economically prohibitive to constantly change like that, but because, God forbid, many of us actually take pride in becoming good at doing something, and find non-monetary, personal satisfaction in performing a task that contributes to society, in the 80 or so years we have to do something with ourselves before lights out. What a far fetched concept!

The aviation industry is shot, that is for sure, people's demand for the job is just too d$mn inelastic. That said, I personally would go for the
dis-incentivizing (sp?) of what I call the "Kobe factor". That is to suggest the erasure of top figures, the "dream"-but-elitist-conditioned expectations, for any particular profession. In essence, reduce the standard deviation of salaries in a given job title. Make management decisions that force-fit that new curve, chop at the top. A large scale analogy to this would be the implementation of the consumption tax as our tax code for instance. Back to the aviation case. If you don't like it, great, that reduces the pool of applicants. Concern yourself with raising the bottom of the pyramid, at the cost of lowering the apex. This is clearly not how pilot compensation currently works, so that says something. Those who are not appeased by such a framework will naturally gravitate to find Mr. Friedmans panaceaic 'IT' thing to make them capitalize, but not at the cost of those who choose to perform a job and expect to give themselves and their families a livable income.

Altruistic? Maybe, but NOT that altruistic when you consider that this train of thought IS NOT the thought process that rules our capitalism today, nor our aviation industry.

Just food for thought. Press on.
 

the_dimwit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Posts
50
Total Time
...
Interesting post...

hindsight2020 said:
*DING DING DING*Exactly. In other words, overpopulation sucks. And since there isn't an ethical way around this little problem of ours, we have to deal with it. It scares me when I see college campuses today. Where are all these people going to go? There is just not enough space; negative returns on investment IS the commonality among those with college education nowadays.

I will agree that there seems to be a lot of college students, but I always thought higher education was good for the masses.

hindsight2020 said:
And what is suggested in the quote above is really the preface for what Thomas Friedman was trying to push for in his book "The World is Flat". Basically, what he defines to be the need to continually re-invent yourself so as to stay "ahead of the curve". That curve being the labor skill that's in demand and that is unique at the time. The computer geek in the late 80's-early 90's, the machinist in the beginning of the industrial revolution. Well, that's cute, but unrealistic; and outright condescending when you really grasp that his thesis is self-serving. In essence, HE is smart enough to understand this and capitalize on it, and he encourages you to grasp it too, but you could (or shall we say SHOULD) never be HIM and capitalize on it, otherwise he would disprove his own thesis. :D

First, I'm not an elitist who thinks that anyone who doesn't try to stay ahead of the game is a loser. What I was basically saying is that revolutions come and go, and the employment base in said revolution follows. In other words, what's hot today will be old news next week. The assumption that you should only learn once and then expect minimal change in your career field is ludicrous at best.

For example, the automobile of 20 years ago is quite different from today. Consequently, a mechanic who turned wrenches 20 years ago will have had to learn some new techniques in order to do the same job now. He/she will have additional training as the years go by. If no additional education is received, he/she will fall behind and, as a result, get left behind.

hindsight2020 said:
Clearly there's just so many iterations of the new 'thing' that's going to put you on top. Embry-Riddle? Absolutely! They are capitalizing on an inelastic demand for the perception of yesterday. But you [as the customer] aren't. Is it going to change? Nope.

I think we're in agreement here.

hindsight2020 said:
One alternative is to find niche markets. This is not very far from Mr. Friedmans' assertion. The question is however, do I feel confident enough in my ability to capitalize over others? I may, or I may not, but I don't think that should be the litmus test that should determine whether or not your family gets to afford a healthy life; this is where Mr. Friedman tells you to buck up and I tell him to shove it up his A$$. In a boundary-less environment, the free market will basically tells all of you who cannot clinch a niche status to buck up, and offer no recourse. Too Republican for my taste, but that aside, it's plain irresponsible. Yes, nobody is afforded the right to make six figures, but we should all have the opportunity to afford a median level of income with a service professionally provided.

I have not read Friedman, so I cannot speak to his writing.

hindsight2020 said:
I think there should be a little bit of social policy. I won't argue with the perception that government is awkward and ineffective in their handling of economic policy, but in a perfect world (or a better government) we could be able to put in place social policy that would enable those of us [coincidentally, the majority of us ;)] who aren't going to continually switch to 'new widget programming' because it's in high-demand (for the next 36 months anyways) to establish, at the very least, a living wage base. And it is not just because it's economically prohibitive to constantly change like that, but because, God forbid, many of us actually take pride in becoming good at doing something, and find non-monetary, personal satisfaction in performing a task that contributes to society, in the 80 or so years we have to do something with ourselves before lights out. What a far fetched concept!

Social policy enacted by ANY government is risky. Anytime a large body decides what is best for the whole there is a chance that the overall purpose will become cloudy and failure is likely. Classic examples can be seen in otherwise good intentions of Socialism, Communism, and even Capitalism. The idea was to provide "equal footing" to every citizen in hopes that classism would be limited or eliminated.

The Great Depression was a horrible time for many Americans, and one of the best examples of social policymaking is found in the public works projects (Hoover Dam, among others). These projects eventually ended, but the need for financial assistance did not. Therefore, welfare payments were distributed, and people realized that the government would release citizens from any financial responsibility.

You gave the example of a programmer keeping up with the latest languages. Having worked in the IT industry for almost 10 years, I can attest to the fact that the programmers would be happier if the industry stuck with a language for a while. This was more of a reality before the advent of the Internet (and World Wide Web). Now, however, new languages are coming at a faster pace, and developers are having to keep up in order to stay competitive.

Similarly, aviation has changed. No longer are pilots walking out to DC3's. Instead, they are walking into computers that fly. As technology advances, so does the workforce. That's just the way it is.

I would like to think that it is still possible to be a plumber and have a living wage. The issue is, however, what the plumber considers an "acceptable lifestyle." Certainly, there has to be an improvement in quality of life from decade to decade. But, does that mean $10,000 credit card bills, two new cars, and a house with an interest-only loan?

If the "average man" lives at a level beyond his means, then he is going to be unhappy with life. He will complain that the Government should help him out, force his employer to pay more, and that everything else should be cheaper. He will sit back and become cynical, declaring that he does not need to improve himself. He went to college 30 years ago, and that should be enough.

hindsight2020 said:
The aviation industry is shot, that is for sure, people's demand for the job is just too d$mn inelastic. That said, I personally would go for the dis-incentivizing (sp?) of what I call the "Kobe factor". That is to suggest the erasure of top figures, the "dream"-but-elitist-conditioned expectations, for any particular profession. In essence, reduce the standard deviation of salaries in a given job title. Make management decisions that force-fit that new curve, chop at the top. A large scale analogy to this would be the implementation of the consumption tax as our tax code for instance. Back to the aviation case. If you don't like it, great, that reduces the pool of applicants. Concern yourself with raising the bottom of the pyramid, at the cost of lowering the apex. This is clearly not how pilot compensation currently works, so that says something. Those who are not appeased by such a framework will naturally gravitate to find Mr. Friedmans panaceaic 'IT' thing to make them capitalize, but not at the cost of those who choose to perform a job and expect to give themselves and their families a livable income.

Nice thought, but highly unrealistic. You want those who are at the top to redefine what wealth is? That's basically saying take from the rich and give to the poor. While I agree that major celebrities and sports figures make way too much money for what they do, does that give a large body (government, citizen-based organization, etc.) the right to decide what constitutes too much?

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be told that a penalty will be levied if I happen to do well in life.

Expecting the corporate machine to police itself and correct wage disparities is like saying the Federal Government is a wise spender of tax money. It simply won't happen. When the company janitor gets a degree, works 20 years in the "trenches," and finally gets a corner office on the executive floor. Should he be held liable for his achievement?

The Utopia we all seek is not possible. I personally believe that Man's sinful nature will prevent any semblence of true equality from ever taking hold on Earth. Even if wages are "in sync," what about racial and ethnic equality?

hindsight2020 said:
Altruistic? Maybe, but NOT that altruistic when you consider that this train of thought IS NOT the thought process that rules our capitalism today, nor our aviation industry.

You're right. Capatilism is not based upon the idea that everyone is worthy of wealth. If that were the case, there would be a lot less "independant wealth" and a lot more reliance on other sources for survival.

Again, good post! :)

--Dim
 

macfly

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Posts
129
Total Time
some
Excellent posts gents!

I wanted to chime in on the plumber salary; they make TONS of dough every year due to the supply and demand aspect of their job. Nobody, as a kid, dreams of becoming a plumber, not yet anyway. When the kids spot young pilots on welfare and a young plumber driving a brand new 350z, well times might change.

I see the future of air travel going to your closet 5k foot strip and hopping on a eclispe jet with 3 other strangers and buzzing off to your destination -better yet with 3 of your buddies.
 

the_dimwit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Posts
50
Total Time
...
macfly said:
Excellent posts gents!

I wanted to chime in on the plumber salary; they make TONS of dough every year due to the supply and demand aspect of their job. Nobody, as a kid, dreams of becoming a plumber, not yet anyway. When the kids spot young pilots on welfare and a young plumber driving a brand new 350z, well times might change.

I see the future of air travel going to your closet 5k foot strip and hopping on a eclispe jet with 3 other strangers and buzzing off to your destination -better yet with 3 of your buddies.

I second that on the plumber's wealth. I've had to use the same plumber 4 times in the past 3 years. At a couple hundred a pop, he's doing fairly well! Add to that the fact that we happily give him the money for stopping a leak, fixing a hot water heater line, etc. and you've got a good career.

Plumbers, electricians, heating and air guys, etc. will always be in demand. So, I guess if this computer "thing" gets old, I'll just learn how to "jiggle the handle" on the toilet.

:D

--Dim
 

Rez O. Lewshun

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
Total Time
X>X
the_dimwit said:
Interesting post...



I will agree that there seems to be a lot of college students, but I always thought higher education was good for the masses.

--Dim

I think higher education is good for the businesses, oops I mean universities that run them.....

Higher education has become a Pink Floyds Another Brick in the Wall meat processing plant.....

Univerisities today suck up the money and provide specalized information for a specific field. It doesn't necessarily provide a skill set for life....

Universities providing general business, social, global and economic perspectives? Hardley......

As more and more hourly labor jobs shift to immigrants, illegals and oversears workers, the paradigm shift begins...

The Corp Elite in this country do not see the difference between two hourly workers: a janitor and an airline pilot. (except Air Line Pilots are more difficult to deal with...) So, like the industrial revolution and technological revolution, the new revolution is coming. It maybe small business. Instead of working for the man, be the man.

Adapt or die...

Remeber, If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?
 

the_dimwit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Posts
50
Total Time
...
Rez O. Lewshun said:
I think higher education is good for the businesses, oops I mean universities that run them.....

Higher education has become a Pink Floyds Another Brick in the Wall meat processing plant.....

Univerisities today suck up the money and provide specalized information for a specific field. It doesn't necessarily provide a skill set for life....

Universities providing general business, social, global and economic perspectives? Hardley......

As more and more hourly labor jobs shift to immigrants, illegals and oversears workers, the paradigm shift begins...

The Corp Elite in this country do not see the difference between two hourly workers: a janitor and an airline pilot. (except Air Line Pilots are more difficult to deal with...) So, like the industrial revolution and technological revolution, the new revolution is coming. It maybe small business. Instead of working for the man, be the man.

Adapt or die...

Remeber, If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

Great, Rez. Now I'll have that song in my head today! :)

I agree with your post--to a point. Without turning this thread into a degree vs. no degree argument, higher education has value.

The point I was trying to make is that certain career fields require a degree. It is very hard to be a lawyer without going to law school. It has been done, but the chances are slim that I would pass the Bar. Doctors have to go to college in order to work. Similarly, a CPA has to have certain classes before hanging a shingle.

Higher education does not have to mean college, either. You mention institutions that teach according to specialty or career. I don't see this as a bad thing, as long as a certificate does not get equated to a college degree.

And, finally, owning your own business does not exempt you from having a boss. Instead of reporting to a manager, you answer directly to the customer. You no longer have a set workday--it's endless. Before having our daughter, my wife owned her own massage therapy practice. She worked long hours, 6 days a week at times. She was happy, but it showed that just doing it for yourself does not take away all of the work-related issues.

--Dim
 

Rez O. Lewshun

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
Total Time
X>X
the_dimwit said:
Great, Rez. Now I'll have that song in my head today! :)

I agree with your post--to a point. Without turning this thread into a degree vs. no degree argument, higher education has value.

The point I was trying to make is that certain career fields require a degree. It is very hard to be a lawyer without going to law school. It has been done, but the chances are slim that I would pass the Bar. Doctors have to go to college in order to work. Similarly, a CPA has to have certain classes before hanging a shingle.

Higher education does not have to mean college, either. You mention institutions that teach according to specialty or career. I don't see this as a bad thing, as long as a certificate does not get equated to a college degree.

And, finally, owning your own business does not exempt you from having a boss. Instead of reporting to a manager, you answer directly to the customer. You no longer have a set workday--it's endless. Before having our daughter, my wife owned her own massage therapy practice. She worked long hours, 6 days a week at times. She was happy, but it showed that just doing it for yourself does not take away all of the work-related issues.

--Dim

Agreed.... owning ones own business is tough, but it maybe the next revolution regardless... Since "all the jobs are going overseas or are low balled"

It seems the universities have gotten away from the true intent of higher education... Producing citizens with a better understanding of the world to take to us to the new level... damm that sounds like a motivational speaker...

We will always have a boss. If it isn't the cusotmer then it is righteousness....
 

macfly

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Posts
129
Total Time
some
Higher education is now easier than ever to obtain, is this good or bad? Well its bad in a sense that now we have too many chiefs and not enough indians. Non - popular tech jobs such as car mechs, plumbers, Hvac guys are in demand, while your middle manager with a BA in management is a dime a dozen. 30 years ago the opposite was in effect. Is this your paradigm shift you speak of?
 
Top