[dudul]

"the people who provide the most important values, farmers, nurses, teachers, garbage collectors, construction workers… they all struggle." Haha this is hilarious.

From the US Dept of Agriculture: "In 2004, the most recent year for which comparable data exist, the average farm household had an annual net income of $81,480, while the average U.S. household netted $60,528."

Nurses have an unemployment rate of 2%.

Construction workers? Do you know how loaded plumbers, electricians, etc actually are?

Garbage collectors, anyone with 2 arms can do that, it's called supply and demand.

Teachers, I would argue that today teachers don't provide much value. And their median income is still above $50,000, not sure you can really say that they struggle.

There are good prospects. Don't waste your time getting a f*cking degree in women studies or american history. Instead learn a trade, it will take a couple years and almost no tuition. Learn how to do things people are ready to pay for.

[quadrangle]

Average is useless for talking about farm households. As far as I know, a small portion of farm households have enormous farms and make quite significant income and most farmers are not that. We need median figures to talk about this.

The idea that teachers don't provide much value is a complex one to tease apart. Teachers are often lousy because the shit teachers take for modest income turns a lot of people off of the trade. A great teacher provides tremendous value.

The fact is, you are scapegoating this irrelevant target of "history majors" etc. We could wipe all of those people out of the picture and most of the situation wouldn't change. Sure, those folks exist, sure the economics of that stuff is pathetic. But they are a side-issue. This is not the primary stuff that's going on here.

The thing is: you're RIGHT in many respects. It's nonsense to expect great careers from certain fields of study. Learning a trade is indeed the smart thing to do. But saying that our problems boil down to that issue is simply wrong.

We have a society built on suburban sprawl, private automobiles, run by corporate oligopolies, and we're facing peak oil and climate change at the same time as we have extreme political corruption and financial absurdities.

Yes, people shouldn't rack up credit card debt. That's fundamentally stupid. But we also have a system that actively pushes everyone into this. The victim-blaming here is not acceptable. Just because someone is a sucker doesn't mean they deserve to be suckered. The whole system of debt relations that we have built up as a society is ruining us, and the blame belongs with the usurers who exploited the system and profited off the rest of us.

For the record, I have zero debt of any sort. I'm not saying this because I'm complaining about it personally.

[dudul]

I don't disagree that a lot is fucked up today, and I agree with the article when it mentions that the boomers are responsible. The boomers are worse than the millennials.

The thing is, college is the typical excuse today to explain failure and debt, and the article mentions it a lot. If the post was focusing on housing prices or un-refrained globalization I would be totally on board, but no, we have the typical millennial complaining that her mom and dad didn't tell her what to study to get a good job.

[quadrangle]

Ok, perfectly fair critique of the article. And I agree with your other points here. I guess it was about whether we talk about the article or about the real problems.

Regarding the article, the "I got a degree, why am I not wealthy?" nonsense is indeed the wrong thing to complain about if someone wants to talk about what's wrong with the system. College, especially the humanities, is a multilevel marketing scheme. And as with other such things, I still don't like victim-blaming. Someone getting into a pyramid scheme hoping to make it big is a nincompoop, but the real evil is the people pushing the scheme from the top more than than the suckers who cycle through the bottom rungs to keep the pyramid going.