It is just that it is hard to prove yourself. I would think that the biggest problem is that you simply arent as well known by your boss. You have less chances to make an impression, or get on your boss's good side. Your boss might barely even remember your name. Or you might be thought of as a consultant instead of as an employee.
Telecommuting seams good if all you need is a pay check. But if you want to build a career I find it hard to believe that telecommuting is the way to go.
And, in the sense of elite meaning, "the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons," the Elite also know how to spell "ridiculous."
And here we come to the lowest form of all life: People who troll online message boards looking for spelling errors.
Scratching my ass would be a better use of my time than worrying about my spelling on Slashdot. --
I don't have access to the stats off the top of my head, but a good 60% of the original 90% with masters at my school have masters in special education, another 10% have masters in linguistics education, another 10% have psychology degrees, and the last 20% have assorted masters
I'm also not saying that this is the norm... I work at a charter school after all,
You are right, you are not working at a school that is normal in any way. Any school where 9 out of 10 teachers have a masters degree is very unusual. A school where 40% of the teachers have masters degrees is unusually high. You also say that 60% of those masters degrees are in special education. That means that over 50% of the teachers in your school have masters degrees in Special Ed. Is this a school for special ed. students?
This school obviously has teachers that are orders of magnitude more qualified than your average teacher. FallLine (the poster who you originally replied to) was talking about about problems that affect your average teacher, the ones that 95% of students are taught by. The reason I responded to you in the first place is because your reply was implying that his assertions were wrong based on your experiences. But I doubt you can honestly believe that your school is anywhere near average.
Now I feel under educated since only 10% of the entire school staff lack a masters degree in something...
You should never feel under educated just because of the degrees that your co-workers hold. I tried to go to college twice (physics degree). The first time I was offered a job by an old employer to take my old boss's sys admin position. After finding that I didnt want to do IT for the rest of my life, I resigned and went back to college. I did part time clerical work for an engineering company that turned into part time programming work while I was going to school. Within a short time the son of the owner started his own software company and asked me to come in as the president (not all that impressive, only 5 employees total).
I am still a year and a half from a bachelors degree that I will probably never get. But I am still far better "educated" than 90% of the college graduates that I have ever met. That comes from having a desire to learn. If you have a true desire to learn, I assure you that you are probably better educated than a vast majority of your co-workers. I know three teachers with masters degrees or higher (1 education, 2 psychology), and only one of them claims that the degree helped them with anything but getting a higher salary.
90% of the teachers (and by teachers I'm including special education, language, and others that aren't just say... a '3rd grade teacher' or a '6th grade math teacher') where I work have a masters degree. I don't know about you, but I would tend to think that implies a certain amount of intelligence and skill in their chosen field.
Wow, I don't know about you, but I dont think a Masters in Education implies anything about a teacher's intelligence or competence.
My fiance is a teacher, and knows alot of other people who went to school in Education. One of her friends got kicked out of student teaching because she could not learn 2nd grade phonics well enough to teach it. She also struggled with her math competency test, failing it the first time (hardest questions are honestly similar to "42 is 60% of what number?") So what did she do? She didnt get her teacher's certificate but instead got her Bachelors and then went on to get her Masters in Education. She ended up getting her teacher's certificate through her first job.
I was dating my fiance throughout her college experience, and the average intelligence of education majors is honestly just as low as the statistics show. It is full of people who could barely make it into college, or dropped out of another program because it was too hard. My boss's wife is an SLP, and her experience with the teachers at the schools she works for gives her very little respect for the profession.
And this general level of competency will stay that way as long as teachers are treated poorly. It is kind of a catch 22. Public perception of teachers is low because on average they are not very intelligent or even very good at their job. This public perception then helps keep pay for teachers down. But intelligent young people who could turn around this perception are turned away from teaching because of the pay and general lack of respect.
And BTW, I am talking about standard teachers here. Special education teachers, SLPs, etc. are generally very bright. But the good ones tend to have Psychology degrees, not education degrees. In fact there have been studies that show teachers with degrees other than education tend to perform better.
Medical problems are not the only reason that age can be a factor in hiring.
If I am hiring someone to do IT work at $13/hr, I am going to be very suspicious of a 40 year old applicant. First thing on my mind is "why is this guy not making $40/hr by now?" There could be a good reason, but most likely a 40 year old who wants a $13/hr job is not very competent. A 23 year old on the other hand may just be trying to get started in the workplace.
I am not saying it is right, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for a HR person to not think about that when making a decision.
Knowing how to use bittorrent, is enough to make you 1337 now?
Generally when people mention those who consider themselves "1337" they are talking about kids who dont know much more than how to use bittorrent for example. Anyone who actually deserves to be considered "elite" would probably not be rediculous enough to even use the phrase 1337.
Actual Elite people use the word 1337 to make fun of script kiddies.
Excellent points... funny how when I raise the same points in a global warming discussion (not that it isn't occurring, just that scientists are human and have biases)... I get modded down...
Heheh, yeah I gave myself a 50/50 shot of just getting modded down to the point that no one would read my post. I was going to mention global warming in my post, but decided that I lowered my chances to probably about 10%. Since I wanted at least a few people to read my post, I decided to leave it out.
I agree that uneducated people tend to blindly trust the press and public opinion just as much as "educated" people. But educated people are usually the ones who criticise others for giving blind trust to beliefs that they only have because of the public's perception. It is that hyprocitical behavior that I was pointing out, because many educated people will then give that same blind faith to scientists.
People keep pointing out global warming on this thread, and it is a good example of this phenomenon. Anyone who has watched "An Inconvenient Truth" will criticise the average American for not paying attention to the problem because they have been brainwashed into apathy. But those same people watching the movie are not much more likely to check the facts in that movie than the average uneducated American that they are criticising.
--
Scientists Incorrectly Though To Be Perfect
on
The Trouble with Physics
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A big problem amongst educated people is to think that scientists are not prone to the same illogical behavior as average people. We think that they are immune to "following the flock" or otherwise being influenced by their peers.
While scientists are in general better than average people at being objective, they still tend to have their own biases. Spending you life working on a particular theory makes it hard to give it up even when the evidence disproves it. Even an objective scientist is going to have problems throwing away their life's work.
Wait, you are saying that poor people spend their money suboptimally? I would say they actually spend their money better because they have less to spend. They dont waste money on the luxuries of life and instead spend it on food. The poor produce much less "waste" than rich people because they need to use every resource they have.
Renting may be more inefficient for a single person's net worth, but it is far more efficient for our society. You can put up enough housing for 8 2-bedroom apartments on a single half acre plot of land instead of just 1 house. It is better for our society to have a large enough group of low income earners so that our 300 million people do not use up too much resources. It might not be as nice of a life for that poor person, but that is necessary to make upward mobility a sufficient motivation. And I have seen people rise up from poverty to the middle class; no one can say it is impossible (it just takes ALOT of hard work, as it should).
And your little story about your friend doesnt change a thing. He had alot of bad luck, combined with a few bad choices. But some 10 year old child getting hit by a car and dying has ALOT worse luck than your friend. Should we get rid of cars just because it killed an innocent kid? That makes as much sense as getting rid of income disparity just because it screwed over your friend.
You use all of these examples based on $5.15/hr, but no one should ever be making that little money unless they are in highschool. 99% of adults making $5.15/hr have only themselves to blame. I started working when I was 15 at a KFC in a small farm town and I was paid $5.40 right away. If I was willing to work in the kitchen I would have been making closer to $7/hr. I had plenty of friends who started working construction jobs in the summer and right after highschool who were making around $13/hr on average in 1998.
The reason that no one can live on $5.15/hr is because no one is expected to live on that little. Pay like that is for high school students and part time workers. I have never job hunted for more than 2 days in my life because finding a $6-$7/hr job is as easy as driving down mainstreet of your local town (and my current better job was offered to me). If you are hard working and not a total moron, you will move up in your workplace (even if it is only an assistant manager job at a fast food restaurant).
Because they're smart enough to see that although people aren't unemployed in droves yet, the quality of the jobs they have is steadily falling, and the pay they're getting is steadily falling (inflation-adjusted). What's happening, long-term, is a greater and greater separation between the rich and the poor, and the middle class is drying up and disappearing.
A greater separation between the rich and poor (or even rich and middle class) does not mean the poor and middle class are any worse off. You claim that the middle class pay is steadily falling (inflation-adjusted), but that simply isnt true.
From 1973-1998 the inflation adjusted pay for the middle class rose by 11.0%. The pay for the poor raised by 3.9%. That means the poor and middle class have more spare money now than they did 30 years ago. Sure the richest 5% of Americans had their wealth go up 81.7%, but that just means they have more money. It does not mean that the middle class has less money.
After the recession early this decade there was a drop in median household income. But it is going up again (up 1.1% from 2004-2005 after adjusted for inflation). There were great gains in the 90s, and whenever pay goes up that fast it is of course going to level out. But that isnt because of outsourcing, it is just because the boom in our economy in the 90s gave rise to household income too quickly. Its basically the same thing as the current housing bubble that has just started to bust.
The simple fact is that Real Median Household Income has risen by 31% in the last 40 years (adjusted for inflation). The average american family has a bigger house, more food (maybe a bad thing with obesity being a problem), more cars, etc.
If there is any problem with outsourcing, it is the fact that we are using outsourcing to improve our economy while exploiting the third world.
In 2001 there was a stock market crash if you didn't notice- investment is usually a bad idea when the economy goes south.
There was no stock market crash in 2001. There was simply a "leveling out" of a bubble. There had been enormous gains in 1999-2000, the NASDAQ went from about 2000 to 5000. By the end of 2002 it was back to about 1500, where it was in 1998. From there it has just been growing again.
Almost everyone lost money in 2001, but usually not more than they put into their investments in the first place. The only ones getting screwed were the ones who decided to go crazy spending when they landed a $200k job during the Dot-Com bubble and then got brought down to reality when they realized they werent really worth that salary. And the ones who decided to not start investing until after everyone else's funds were already doubling. Investing when the market is doubling every year is generally a bad idea unless you think you are lucky enough to cash in before the bubble bursts.
Try withdrawing that 401k because you need to have an MRI done on a sick child, and see how much of that they actually let you keep.
Numbers on paper mean NOTHING. Cash in hand means EVERYTHING. Until you cash out, you don't really know what you've earned and what you haven't.
I do not have a 401k, so I have no idea how much of a skim they take on a withdrawal. But I do have money in mutual funds and IRAs, and I know it is VERY easy to get my money out of them. They have grown steadily at 8% per year with a significant dip in 2001/2002. But the money I lost in those 2 years was less than the money I made in the 3 years prior. And since 2002 the money has been doing very good again.
And I can take the money out with great ease. My fees are generally tacked on at the end of each year and whenever I actually invest the money. I can then take it out whenever I want.
If you were making alot of money at any time in your life but didnt save at least 25% of it, it is your own fault that you are broke now. A 401k should not be your only form of saving for the future.
If the goal is to "Break Americans out of the middle class and put them into poverty" then we missed by a wide margin. Our "poor" people have cell phones, cable TV, cars, etc. Not many countries can say that. What you've missed is the opportunity for our poor people to buy more with their limited income because free trade lowered prices.
Things mean nothing. Family means everything. If you can't afford to feed your children, what good does a cell phone or cable TV do for you?
That means that less than 1% of all american children experience hunger at any time during a given year. Looks like things are looking pretty good as far as basic necessities go. No wonder they have all that money left over for cars and televisions.
And sorry, but comparing a V4 hybrid to a V6 non-hybrid is not relevant when you are trying to show that hybrids "are pretty damn slow" (your original post). If you want to make a more general statement that "V4s are pretty damn slow" then by all means you should compare V4s to V6s and V8s and any other configuration you like. But a hybrid V4 should outperform a standard V4 with comparable MPG, and a hybrid V6 should outperform a standard V6 with comparable MPG.
The reason why I find no problem comparing V6 cars with a I4 hybrid is because they are basically in the same price range. Unless you are a millionaire, you probably have a particular price range when shopping for a car. If you have a price range of around $25k, then you are probably going to be going with a V6 sedan or a I4 hybrid. That makes comparing the two cars very relevant. If you have the money to buy a Hybrid anyway, you are probably choosing it over a V6 and not another I4.
But I'm not aware of Toyota ever publishing specific acceleration test results for any of their Camrys (and a search of their website didn't turn up any). So I don't know where those numbers came from. I can only assume that the 7.7 s for Camry Hybrid and the 8.6 seconds for the Camry 4-cylinder SE (both cited in Car and Driver's reviews) came from the same source.
I have never actually seen a manufacturer publish 0-60 times, but I do see alot of magazines saying "[manufacturer] claiming a 0-60 acceleration time of [x] seconds." Such as here : http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/ToyotaCamry/ind ex.htm With 192 horsepower on tap from the combination gasoline motor and electric motor, acceleration was more than adequate for daily driving with Toyota claiming a 0-60 acceleration time of 8.9 seconds.
Even if the I4 Camry is slower than the I4 Hybrid, how is that a fair comparision? The Hybrid has the help of an electric motor. If anything the V6 Camry is a much better comparison than the I4 Camry. The hybrid gets help from the electric motor, the V6 gets help from 2 more cylinders. And as I have shown earlier, those 2 cylinders do alot more for cheaper, while only hurting gas mileage by 2 mpg (which is fairly irrelevant for cars at already high mpg levels).
As for the Camry hybrid's comparison to its brethren, remember that the hybrid has an EPA rating of 40/38.
I stated in my comment that I was using estimations based on the new '08 EPA ratings. The EPA claims that standard cars have a 12%/8% (city/highway) reduction in mileage. They also claim that hybrid cars get 20%-30%/10%-20% less mileage. That is why hybrids with ratings like 55mpg are actually only getting 45mpg in real world conditions. I adjusted all of the mileage numbers by 12%/8% and 25%/15% respectively. I dont think I did any mistakes with the math, but I guess its possible if you have an example.
I found only one website supporting the 9+ second number for acceleration; most of the sites I looked at quoted 7.7 seconds.
Most sites that dont actually test the cars themselves will use the car manufacturer's numbers. And as we see with mileage claims, car manufacturers rarely tell the truth. It isnt that they are lying, it is just that they make sure they do any testing under the best possible circumstances that never come up in every day driving. If Toyota claims a 7.7 second 0-60 time, I would bet 90% of the sites out there will use that 7.7s time. That doesnt make it correct.
And don't compare it to the V6; my point was that you should compare apples to apples instead of to oranges.
I am comparing apples to apples. The Camry LE V6 has the same options/size/body as the Camry Hybrid. I am comparing which car is more economical on a car payment and gas cost basis. In that case they are comparable. I showed that even though the V6 Camry has much better performance, it is still cheaper even when accounting for the extra gas.
You can compare dissimilar things as long as you find a way to isolate a common aspect. The standard apples to oranges comment is just a generalisation. Every possible comparison you can ever make is going to be with two dissimilar things. I can compare washing dishes to playing basketball if I want, and it can still be comparing "apples to apples" if I pick a reasonable comparision. If I were to choose which is more fun, that would be a bad choice. If I chose to compare the rate of calorie burn for a 150 lb person doing each activity for 30 minutes, that would be a good choice.
I could compare a Camry Hybrid to a Ford Mustang if I was comparing cost effectiveness. In that case the Hybrid would win hands down in that regard. But that is only one aspect of the comparison. Anyone who only cared about money would never buy that Mustang. But if they put greater emphasis towards having fun driving (as I do), then you would choose a car with better performance.
Hell, you can even compare apples to oranges if you want and get good results. Both are fruit, both are healthier than McDonalds, etc.
It's a car magazine's website, for god's sake! They carry advertisements for all kinds of cars!
I didnt base my comment soley on the fact that they have advertisements on their site. That is why I commented on how they made unfair comparisons just to come up with the results they seam to have wanted in the first place.
Other than some of the new performance hybrids like the Lexus
I was well aware of the Honda Accord and Lexus 450h, as I mentioned in my above comment. The Honda Accord hybrid and Lexus hybrid are going in the right direction by giving good performance alongside good mileage. They arent great mileage cars (staying around 30mpg), but they give sports car performance with compact car mileage.
Until recently it would have been hard to find a comparison between a hybrid and non-hybrid that are sufficiently similar in other respects (similar size, same body style, and similar equpment from the same manufacturer).
That isnt true at all. The Honda Civic Hybrid has been selling since 2004. The Honda Civic Hybrid and Honda LX AT Sedan are very comparable as far as their standard options, size, and body style. The difference only comes in performance, mileage, and price.
The Honda LX gets 31.5mpg vs 40mpg of the Hybrid version (all numbers roughly adjusted based on new '08 EPA tests and 50/50 city/highway). The Honda LX has a 9s 0-60 while they Hybrid has a 10s (all numbers from autos.com). The Honda LX is $16,960 and the Hybrid is $22,150. After 6.5% tax that is a $5527 difference. With a 5 year loan at 8.5% interest that is a $6725 difference.
If driving 12k miles/yr and gas prices at $2.60/gallon it would take 32 years for the Hybrid to be the economic choice (26 years if you dont have a car loan).
Now we can compare the standard Honda Accord with its hybrid version. Oops, that doesn't support your statement
Actually, it does support my statement. I clearly said in my earlier post that there are some performance hybrids on the market. As far as I know there are only 2, the Accord and Lexus. Good for them, but most people are actually criticizing them for making Hybrids that dont get 40mpg. I personally think they are going in the right direction.
Maybe the hybrid Camry, whose designers put more emphasis on fuel economy than the Accord's, will. Nope.
Instead of just taking a website's word for it, who may have Toyota advertisements on it (they do; 2 of them), lets look at the data. The Camry Hybrid is basically the same as the Camry LE AT (only difference I can see is the Hybrid has leather seats optional). The Camry LE AT gets 26mpg vs the Hybrid's 31mpg. The Camry Hybrid does beat out the LE AT, but not by nearly 1 second like the website claims. A 7.7s 0-60 is probably exagerrated, autos.com gives the Hybrid a 0-60 of 9.5s. That is basically the same as the Camry LE AT. And dont get started with the Camry LE V6, which is still cheaper than the Hybrid (but with over 260hp).
The Camry LE AT costs $20775 vs the Hybrid at $26200. After tax it is a $5777 difference, even more than the Civic (but with slightly better performance). Even if you could buy it without a car loan, it would take 30 years for the Hybrid to win out.
If you compare it to the LE V6 it is even worse. The LE V6 gets 24mpg, has an over 2s better 0-60 time, and costs $23340. After tax that is a $3046. Now you have a MUCH better car, and after a 5 year car loan it would take 12.5 years before the Hybrid is more economical. Did I mention how much more fun the V6 is to drive as well? Funny how a site with Toyota advertisments would have a bias (by comparing the Hybrid's performance with the cheapest and slowest Camry version). I am glad I dont make my purchase decisions based on advertisments.
As I said before, buying a non-performance hybrid is basically just like donating to a charity. I would rather donate a few thousand dollars to save the rainforest and drive a car that doesnt crawl across the road.
A Toyota Prius has a 0-60 time of about 10.5s, while a Honda Civic has a 0-60 time of about 8.5s (autos.com)
That stat is for manual transmission Civic. The Automatic is 10.1 sec (Consumer Reports as my source, for 2007 Civics). Granted, that doesn't invalidate your point, just clarifying the data.
Yes, that was for the manual Civic. Manuals dont make that much difference in 0-60, and in some cars the 0-60 is faster for automatic than manual. But using an automatic Civic I guess it could be closer to 10.5s (Prius) vs 9.5 (Civic). Consumer reports might be different for the Civic, but then it will probably be slower for the Prius also.
And since the Civic is about $8k less than the Prius it would take about 30 years for the Prius to be cost effective.
The Prius is much more spacious (especially for passengers in the back) than the Civic. There is also features like vehicle stability control, keyless entry, etc that aren't available for the Civic. It's not an Apples to Oranges comparison. Comparing the Civic vs Civic Hybrid may be a better comparison.
That is true, it is not apples to apples. But most of the features you mentioned are addons, and with all those bells and whistles the Prius would be closer to $12k more expensive. Using the Honda Civic Hybrid the cost different is only about $7k, but the fuel efficiency isnt quite as good. So the 30 years estimate still holds up.
You're paying extra for a car with good MPG that doesn't suck to drive.
Uh, have you ever driven a Hybrid? Other than some of the new performance hybrids like the Lexus, they are pretty damn slow. I am generally afraid to pass in a Prius. They lose most of their acceleration at around 40 mph, and after that its pretty slow going.
A Toyota Prius has a 0-60 time of about 10.5s, while a Honda Civic has a 0-60 time of about 8.5s (autos.com). And since the Civic is about $8k less than the Prius it would take about 30 years for the Prius to be cost effective. The ONLY reason to get a Hybrid like a Prius is for the efficiency. And it only really helps the environment, not your gas bill. Getting a Prius is no different than just donating about $6k to some "Save the Rainforest" charity.
If you live 50 miles from work and/or dont enjoy driving anyway, then I guess its an okay tradeoff to get a Hybrid. I for one decided to live 6 miles from work and own a Mustang GT instead. My boss's wife owns a Prius and drives like a grandma, but lives 40 miles from work. That makes me much more than twice as environmentally friendly than her.
Can you imagine if we had to buy our televisions from Comcast and it only worked on their cable network!??? Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous the whole thing is?
Actually, I would LOVE that idea. I would get a free TV (or at least at an EXTREME discount) out of the deal. I might get slightly worse service from Comcast than from a competitor, but I would be saving $200. And if I do my research correctly, I can get the best service and still save my $200.
Even if I have to deal with some incompetent service techs or something, it is still probably worth $200. I have to work 2 days to get $200 (after taxes), which is about 16 hours. I dont think I have ever spent 16 hours on the phone with a comcast technician. Maybe twice a year I spend an hour on the phone, and most of that is on speakerphone watching TV while on hold.
Saving $200 on a TV for a few hours of hassle each year sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I guess we should be lucky that cell phone companies work this way.
While I think the trend in schooling that finally led up to the "No Child Left Behind Act" started before the 80s, even if it did that doesnt make the GP post innaccurate. If you have only been working for a few years, then you must have been in early gradeschool in the 80s. I only started kindergarden in 1985, and I have been working in the computer industry for 6 years.
He was talking about dissecting frogs and Ohm's law, which means he was probably talking about highschool in the 80s. That means that almost everyone he is referring to has been working for over 10 years (some even 20 years). That is plenty of time for the US marketplace and research industry to feel the pain.
While I agree that there are problems with our current school system's history cirriculum, it is still better than nothing. At least it gives a foundation on which to build a student's individual study. The simple act of putting importance on the study of history is better than not teaching anything.
Just so you know, I was posing a hypothetical situation that many new graduates find themselves in...I made damn sure I didn't end up in that situation.
I didnt assume you were talking about yourself. I was merely responding to your hypothetical situation.
I was just pointing out that if the original poster was making $47,500 and had accrued a sizable amount of debt, no amount of smart budgeting would change the living paycheck-to-paycheck situation he was complaining about.
And all I was pointing out is that this hypothetical person is still rich by almost any rational standard. He is just spending his money unwisely. Just because he made those decisions in the past doesnt mean that they arent responsible for his situation. It is no different than if he had racked up $100k in gambling debts while at college. He just chose a lifestyle that includes paying college debt instead of buying a house and fancy car.
There is no option for someone straight from high school to claim independence, yet a number of they are. I know I got significantly less from my parents than you got, and I wasn't elligible for any need based grants.
That is a bad situation, and I initially had the same problem. My parents wouldnt help with college right away, mostly because I did bad in high school. So I worked part time (although close to 40 hr/wk) while going to community college. Almost no one outside of poverty cannot afford community college, becuase it is almost free with the Hope Tax credit. By the time I got to a University, they were willing to help pay a little. Most of that $20k was actually an estimation of the money I saved by living at home until I was 20.
By the time you are 22 I think you are considered independent. If you work a few years and finish your first 2 years at community college, you can still graduate at about 24 but have much less debt. If you can make $20k/yr for 4 years while doing part time college, you could save probably about $10k. Now you have $10k less debt, and can now get needs based grants. If you cannot make $20k a year, then maybe you arent willing to do hard work. I have plenty of friends who got construction/factory jobs right out of high school that paid around $30k/yr. I did roofing during summers and it was horrible, but it paid $15/hr under the table.
Even if your parents wont help and you cannot get grants, that is only a $16k difference. That is less than $40k in loans total, alot less than $100k.
I agree that bad parenting is a problem, but it doesnt make your situation hopeless. --
Slashdot Mirror
It is just that it is hard to prove yourself. I would think that the biggest problem is that you simply arent as well known by your boss. You have less chances to make an impression, or get on your boss's good side. Your boss might barely even remember your name. Or you might be thought of as a consultant instead of as an employee.
Telecommuting seams good if all you need is a pay check. But if you want to build a career I find it hard to believe that telecommuting is the way to go.
--
And, in the sense of elite meaning, "the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons," the Elite also know how to spell "ridiculous."
And here we come to the lowest form of all life: People who troll online message boards looking for spelling errors.
Scratching my ass would be a better use of my time than worrying about my spelling on Slashdot.
--
I don't have access to the stats off the top of my head, but a good 60% of the original 90% with masters at my school have masters in special education, another 10% have masters in linguistics education, another 10% have psychology degrees, and the last 20% have assorted masters
I'm also not saying that this is the norm... I work at a charter school after all,
You are right, you are not working at a school that is normal in any way. Any school where 9 out of 10 teachers have a masters degree is very unusual. A school where 40% of the teachers have masters degrees is unusually high. You also say that 60% of those masters degrees are in special education. That means that over 50% of the teachers in your school have masters degrees in Special Ed. Is this a school for special ed. students?
This school obviously has teachers that are orders of magnitude more qualified than your average teacher. FallLine (the poster who you originally replied to) was talking about about problems that affect your average teacher, the ones that 95% of students are taught by. The reason I responded to you in the first place is because your reply was implying that his assertions were wrong based on your experiences. But I doubt you can honestly believe that your school is anywhere near average.
Now I feel under educated since only 10% of the entire school staff lack a masters degree in something...
You should never feel under educated just because of the degrees that your co-workers hold. I tried to go to college twice (physics degree). The first time I was offered a job by an old employer to take my old boss's sys admin position. After finding that I didnt want to do IT for the rest of my life, I resigned and went back to college. I did part time clerical work for an engineering company that turned into part time programming work while I was going to school. Within a short time the son of the owner started his own software company and asked me to come in as the president (not all that impressive, only 5 employees total).
I am still a year and a half from a bachelors degree that I will probably never get. But I am still far better "educated" than 90% of the college graduates that I have ever met. That comes from having a desire to learn. If you have a true desire to learn, I assure you that you are probably better educated than a vast majority of your co-workers. I know three teachers with masters degrees or higher (1 education, 2 psychology), and only one of them claims that the degree helped them with anything but getting a higher salary.
--
90% of the teachers (and by teachers I'm including special education, language, and others that aren't just say... a '3rd grade teacher' or a '6th grade math teacher') where I work have a masters degree. I don't know about you, but I would tend to think that implies a certain amount of intelligence and skill in their chosen field.
Wow, I don't know about you, but I dont think a Masters in Education implies anything about a teacher's intelligence or competence.
My fiance is a teacher, and knows alot of other people who went to school in Education. One of her friends got kicked out of student teaching because she could not learn 2nd grade phonics well enough to teach it. She also struggled with her math competency test, failing it the first time (hardest questions are honestly similar to "42 is 60% of what number?") So what did she do? She didnt get her teacher's certificate but instead got her Bachelors and then went on to get her Masters in Education. She ended up getting her teacher's certificate through her first job.
I was dating my fiance throughout her college experience, and the average intelligence of education majors is honestly just as low as the statistics show. It is full of people who could barely make it into college, or dropped out of another program because it was too hard. My boss's wife is an SLP, and her experience with the teachers at the schools she works for gives her very little respect for the profession.
And this general level of competency will stay that way as long as teachers are treated poorly. It is kind of a catch 22. Public perception of teachers is low because on average they are not very intelligent or even very good at their job. This public perception then helps keep pay for teachers down. But intelligent young people who could turn around this perception are turned away from teaching because of the pay and general lack of respect.
And BTW, I am talking about standard teachers here. Special education teachers, SLPs, etc. are generally very bright. But the good ones tend to have Psychology degrees, not education degrees. In fact there have been studies that show teachers with degrees other than education tend to perform better.
--
Medical problems are not the only reason that age can be a factor in hiring.
If I am hiring someone to do IT work at $13/hr, I am going to be very suspicious of a 40 year old applicant. First thing on my mind is "why is this guy not making $40/hr by now?" There could be a good reason, but most likely a 40 year old who wants a $13/hr job is not very competent. A 23 year old on the other hand may just be trying to get started in the workplace.
I am not saying it is right, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for a HR person to not think about that when making a decision.
--
Knowing how to use bittorrent, is enough to make you 1337 now?
Generally when people mention those who consider themselves "1337" they are talking about kids who dont know much more than how to use bittorrent for example. Anyone who actually deserves to be considered "elite" would probably not be rediculous enough to even use the phrase 1337.
Actual Elite people use the word 1337 to make fun of script kiddies.
--
Excellent points... funny how when I raise the same points in a global warming discussion (not that it isn't occurring, just that scientists are human and have biases) ... I get modded down...
Heheh, yeah I gave myself a 50/50 shot of just getting modded down to the point that no one would read my post. I was going to mention global warming in my post, but decided that I lowered my chances to probably about 10%. Since I wanted at least a few people to read my post, I decided to leave it out.
I agree that uneducated people tend to blindly trust the press and public opinion just as much as "educated" people. But educated people are usually the ones who criticise others for giving blind trust to beliefs that they only have because of the public's perception. It is that hyprocitical behavior that I was pointing out, because many educated people will then give that same blind faith to scientists.
People keep pointing out global warming on this thread, and it is a good example of this phenomenon. Anyone who has watched "An Inconvenient Truth" will criticise the average American for not paying attention to the problem because they have been brainwashed into apathy. But those same people watching the movie are not much more likely to check the facts in that movie than the average uneducated American that they are criticising.
--
A big problem amongst educated people is to think that scientists are not prone to the same illogical behavior as average people. We think that they are immune to "following the flock" or otherwise being influenced by their peers.
While scientists are in general better than average people at being objective, they still tend to have their own biases. Spending you life working on a particular theory makes it hard to give it up even when the evidence disproves it. Even an objective scientist is going to have problems throwing away their life's work.
--
Wait, you are saying that poor people spend their money suboptimally? I would say they actually spend their money better because they have less to spend. They dont waste money on the luxuries of life and instead spend it on food. The poor produce much less "waste" than rich people because they need to use every resource they have.
Renting may be more inefficient for a single person's net worth, but it is far more efficient for our society. You can put up enough housing for 8 2-bedroom apartments on a single half acre plot of land instead of just 1 house. It is better for our society to have a large enough group of low income earners so that our 300 million people do not use up too much resources. It might not be as nice of a life for that poor person, but that is necessary to make upward mobility a sufficient motivation. And I have seen people rise up from poverty to the middle class; no one can say it is impossible (it just takes ALOT of hard work, as it should).
And your little story about your friend doesnt change a thing. He had alot of bad luck, combined with a few bad choices. But some 10 year old child getting hit by a car and dying has ALOT worse luck than your friend. Should we get rid of cars just because it killed an innocent kid? That makes as much sense as getting rid of income disparity just because it screwed over your friend.
You use all of these examples based on $5.15/hr, but no one should ever be making that little money unless they are in highschool. 99% of adults making $5.15/hr have only themselves to blame. I started working when I was 15 at a KFC in a small farm town and I was paid $5.40 right away. If I was willing to work in the kitchen I would have been making closer to $7/hr. I had plenty of friends who started working construction jobs in the summer and right after highschool who were making around $13/hr on average in 1998.
The reason that no one can live on $5.15/hr is because no one is expected to live on that little. Pay like that is for high school students and part time workers. I have never job hunted for more than 2 days in my life because finding a $6-$7/hr job is as easy as driving down mainstreet of your local town (and my current better job was offered to me). If you are hard working and not a total moron, you will move up in your workplace (even if it is only an assistant manager job at a fast food restaurant).
Because they're smart enough to see that although people aren't unemployed in droves yet, the quality of the jobs they have is steadily falling, and the pay they're getting is steadily falling (inflation-adjusted). What's happening, long-term, is a greater and greater separation between the rich and the poor, and the middle class is drying up and disappearing.
A greater separation between the rich and poor (or even rich and middle class) does not mean the poor and middle class are any worse off. You claim that the middle class pay is steadily falling (inflation-adjusted), but that simply isnt true.
From 1973-1998 the inflation adjusted pay for the middle class rose by 11.0%. The pay for the poor raised by 3.9%. That means the poor and middle class have more spare money now than they did 30 years ago. Sure the richest 5% of Americans had their wealth go up 81.7%, but that just means they have more money. It does not mean that the middle class has less money.
After the recession early this decade there was a drop in median household income. But it is going up again (up 1.1% from 2004-2005 after adjusted for inflation). There were great gains in the 90s, and whenever pay goes up that fast it is of course going to level out. But that isnt because of outsourcing, it is just because the boom in our economy in the 90s gave rise to household income too quickly. Its basically the same thing as the current housing bubble that has just started to bust.
The simple fact is that Real Median Household Income has risen by 31% in the last 40 years (adjusted for inflation). The average american family has a bigger house, more food (maybe a bad thing with obesity being a problem), more cars, etc.
If there is any problem with outsourcing, it is the fact that we are using outsourcing to improve our economy while exploiting the third world.
--
In 2001 there was a stock market crash if you didn't notice- investment is usually a bad idea when the economy goes south.
There was no stock market crash in 2001. There was simply a "leveling out" of a bubble. There had been enormous gains in 1999-2000, the NASDAQ went from about 2000 to 5000. By the end of 2002 it was back to about 1500, where it was in 1998. From there it has just been growing again.
Almost everyone lost money in 2001, but usually not more than they put into their investments in the first place. The only ones getting screwed were the ones who decided to go crazy spending when they landed a $200k job during the Dot-Com bubble and then got brought down to reality when they realized they werent really worth that salary. And the ones who decided to not start investing until after everyone else's funds were already doubling. Investing when the market is doubling every year is generally a bad idea unless you think you are lucky enough to cash in before the bubble bursts.
--
Try withdrawing that 401k because you need to have an MRI done on a sick child, and see how much of that they actually let you keep.
Numbers on paper mean NOTHING. Cash in hand means EVERYTHING. Until you cash out, you don't really know what you've earned and what you haven't.
I do not have a 401k, so I have no idea how much of a skim they take on a withdrawal. But I do have money in mutual funds and IRAs, and I know it is VERY easy to get my money out of them. They have grown steadily at 8% per year with a significant dip in 2001/2002. But the money I lost in those 2 years was less than the money I made in the 3 years prior. And since 2002 the money has been doing very good again.
And I can take the money out with great ease. My fees are generally tacked on at the end of each year and whenever I actually invest the money. I can then take it out whenever I want.
If you were making alot of money at any time in your life but didnt save at least 25% of it, it is your own fault that you are broke now. A 401k should not be your only form of saving for the future.
--
If the goal is to "Break Americans out of the middle class and put them into poverty" then we missed by a wide margin. Our "poor" people have cell phones, cable TV, cars, etc. Not many countries can say that. What you've missed is the opportunity for our poor people to buy more with their limited income because free trade lowered prices.
Things mean nothing. Family means everything. If you can't afford to feed your children, what good does a cell phone or cable TV do for you?
The reason our "poor" people have cell phones, cable TV, and cars is becuase they already have enough money to feed themselves. Only 13% of poor families, and 2.6% of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. That is a pretty small percent.
That means that less than 1% of all american children experience hunger at any time during a given year. Looks like things are looking pretty good as far as basic necessities go. No wonder they have all that money left over for cars and televisions.
--
And sorry, but comparing a V4 hybrid to a V6 non-hybrid is not relevant when you are trying to show that hybrids "are pretty damn slow" (your original post). If you want to make a more general statement that "V4s are pretty damn slow" then by all means you should compare V4s to V6s and V8s and any other configuration you like. But a hybrid V4 should outperform a standard V4 with comparable MPG, and a hybrid V6 should outperform a standard V6 with comparable MPG.
d ex.htm
The reason why I find no problem comparing V6 cars with a I4 hybrid is because they are basically in the same price range. Unless you are a millionaire, you probably have a particular price range when shopping for a car. If you have a price range of around $25k, then you are probably going to be going with a V6 sedan or a I4 hybrid. That makes comparing the two cars very relevant. If you have the money to buy a Hybrid anyway, you are probably choosing it over a V6 and not another I4.
But I'm not aware of Toyota ever publishing specific acceleration test results for any of their Camrys (and a search of their website didn't turn up any). So I don't know where those numbers came from. I can only assume that the 7.7 s for Camry Hybrid and the 8.6 seconds for the Camry 4-cylinder SE (both cited in Car and Driver's reviews) came from the same source.
I have never actually seen a manufacturer publish 0-60 times, but I do see alot of magazines saying "[manufacturer] claiming a 0-60 acceleration time of [x] seconds." Such as here : http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/ToyotaCamry/in
With 192 horsepower on tap from the combination gasoline motor and electric motor, acceleration was more than adequate for daily driving with Toyota claiming a 0-60 acceleration time of 8.9 seconds.
Even if the I4 Camry is slower than the I4 Hybrid, how is that a fair comparision? The Hybrid has the help of an electric motor. If anything the V6 Camry is a much better comparison than the I4 Camry. The hybrid gets help from the electric motor, the V6 gets help from 2 more cylinders. And as I have shown earlier, those 2 cylinders do alot more for cheaper, while only hurting gas mileage by 2 mpg (which is fairly irrelevant for cars at already high mpg levels).
--
As for the Camry hybrid's comparison to its brethren, remember that the hybrid has an EPA rating of 40/38.
I stated in my comment that I was using estimations based on the new '08 EPA ratings. The EPA claims that standard cars have a 12%/8% (city/highway) reduction in mileage. They also claim that hybrid cars get 20%-30%/10%-20% less mileage. That is why hybrids with ratings like 55mpg are actually only getting 45mpg in real world conditions. I adjusted all of the mileage numbers by 12%/8% and 25%/15% respectively. I dont think I did any mistakes with the math, but I guess its possible if you have an example.
I found only one website supporting the 9+ second number for acceleration; most of the sites I looked at quoted 7.7 seconds.
Most sites that dont actually test the cars themselves will use the car manufacturer's numbers. And as we see with mileage claims, car manufacturers rarely tell the truth. It isnt that they are lying, it is just that they make sure they do any testing under the best possible circumstances that never come up in every day driving. If Toyota claims a 7.7 second 0-60 time, I would bet 90% of the sites out there will use that 7.7s time. That doesnt make it correct.
And don't compare it to the V6; my point was that you should compare apples to apples instead of to oranges.
I am comparing apples to apples. The Camry LE V6 has the same options/size/body as the Camry Hybrid. I am comparing which car is more economical on a car payment and gas cost basis. In that case they are comparable. I showed that even though the V6 Camry has much better performance, it is still cheaper even when accounting for the extra gas.
You can compare dissimilar things as long as you find a way to isolate a common aspect. The standard apples to oranges comment is just a generalisation. Every possible comparison you can ever make is going to be with two dissimilar things. I can compare washing dishes to playing basketball if I want, and it can still be comparing "apples to apples" if I pick a reasonable comparision. If I were to choose which is more fun, that would be a bad choice. If I chose to compare the rate of calorie burn for a 150 lb person doing each activity for 30 minutes, that would be a good choice.
I could compare a Camry Hybrid to a Ford Mustang if I was comparing cost effectiveness. In that case the Hybrid would win hands down in that regard. But that is only one aspect of the comparison. Anyone who only cared about money would never buy that Mustang. But if they put greater emphasis towards having fun driving (as I do), then you would choose a car with better performance.
Hell, you can even compare apples to oranges if you want and get good results. Both are fruit, both are healthier than McDonalds, etc.
It's a car magazine's website, for god's sake! They carry advertisements for all kinds of cars!
I didnt base my comment soley on the fact that they have advertisements on their site. That is why I commented on how they made unfair comparisons just to come up with the results they seam to have wanted in the first place.
--
Other than some of the new performance hybrids like the Lexus
I was well aware of the Honda Accord and Lexus 450h, as I mentioned in my above comment. The Honda Accord hybrid and Lexus hybrid are going in the right direction by giving good performance alongside good mileage. They arent great mileage cars (staying around 30mpg), but they give sports car performance with compact car mileage.
Until recently it would have been hard to find a comparison between a hybrid and non-hybrid that are sufficiently similar in other respects (similar size, same body style, and similar equpment from the same manufacturer).
That isnt true at all. The Honda Civic Hybrid has been selling since 2004. The Honda Civic Hybrid and Honda LX AT Sedan are very comparable as far as their standard options, size, and body style. The difference only comes in performance, mileage, and price.
The Honda LX gets 31.5mpg vs 40mpg of the Hybrid version (all numbers roughly adjusted based on new '08 EPA tests and 50/50 city/highway). The Honda LX has a 9s 0-60 while they Hybrid has a 10s (all numbers from autos.com). The Honda LX is $16,960 and the Hybrid is $22,150. After 6.5% tax that is a $5527 difference. With a 5 year loan at 8.5% interest that is a $6725 difference.
If driving 12k miles/yr and gas prices at $2.60/gallon it would take 32 years for the Hybrid to be the economic choice (26 years if you dont have a car loan).
Now we can compare the standard Honda Accord with its hybrid version. Oops, that doesn't support your statement
Actually, it does support my statement. I clearly said in my earlier post that there are some performance hybrids on the market. As far as I know there are only 2, the Accord and Lexus. Good for them, but most people are actually criticizing them for making Hybrids that dont get 40mpg. I personally think they are going in the right direction.
Maybe the hybrid Camry, whose designers put more emphasis on fuel economy than the Accord's, will. Nope.
Instead of just taking a website's word for it, who may have Toyota advertisements on it (they do; 2 of them), lets look at the data. The Camry Hybrid is basically the same as the Camry LE AT (only difference I can see is the Hybrid has leather seats optional). The Camry LE AT gets 26mpg vs the Hybrid's 31mpg. The Camry Hybrid does beat out the LE AT, but not by nearly 1 second like the website claims. A 7.7s 0-60 is probably exagerrated, autos.com gives the Hybrid a 0-60 of 9.5s. That is basically the same as the Camry LE AT. And dont get started with the Camry LE V6, which is still cheaper than the Hybrid (but with over 260hp).
The Camry LE AT costs $20775 vs the Hybrid at $26200. After tax it is a $5777 difference, even more than the Civic (but with slightly better performance). Even if you could buy it without a car loan, it would take 30 years for the Hybrid to win out.
If you compare it to the LE V6 it is even worse. The LE V6 gets 24mpg, has an over 2s better 0-60 time, and costs $23340. After tax that is a $3046. Now you have a MUCH better car, and after a 5 year car loan it would take 12.5 years before the Hybrid is more economical. Did I mention how much more fun the V6 is to drive as well? Funny how a site with Toyota advertisments would have a bias (by comparing the Hybrid's performance with the cheapest and slowest Camry version). I am glad I dont make my purchase decisions based on advertisments.
As I said before, buying a non-performance hybrid is basically just like donating to a charity. I would rather donate a few thousand dollars to save the rainforest and drive a car that doesnt crawl across the road.
--
A Toyota Prius has a 0-60 time of about 10.5s, while a Honda Civic has a 0-60 time of about 8.5s (autos.com)
That stat is for manual transmission Civic. The Automatic is 10.1 sec (Consumer Reports as my source, for 2007 Civics). Granted, that doesn't invalidate your point, just clarifying the data.
Yes, that was for the manual Civic. Manuals dont make that much difference in 0-60, and in some cars the 0-60 is faster for automatic than manual. But using an automatic Civic I guess it could be closer to 10.5s (Prius) vs 9.5 (Civic). Consumer reports might be different for the Civic, but then it will probably be slower for the Prius also.
And since the Civic is about $8k less than the Prius it would take about 30 years for the Prius to be cost effective.
The Prius is much more spacious (especially for passengers in the back) than the Civic. There is also features like vehicle stability control, keyless entry, etc that aren't available for the Civic. It's not an Apples to Oranges comparison. Comparing the Civic vs Civic Hybrid may be a better comparison.
That is true, it is not apples to apples. But most of the features you mentioned are addons, and with all those bells and whistles the Prius would be closer to $12k more expensive. Using the Honda Civic Hybrid the cost different is only about $7k, but the fuel efficiency isnt quite as good. So the 30 years estimate still holds up.
--
You're paying extra for a car with good MPG that doesn't suck to drive.
Uh, have you ever driven a Hybrid? Other than some of the new performance hybrids like the Lexus, they are pretty damn slow. I am generally afraid to pass in a Prius. They lose most of their acceleration at around 40 mph, and after that its pretty slow going.
A Toyota Prius has a 0-60 time of about 10.5s, while a Honda Civic has a 0-60 time of about 8.5s (autos.com). And since the Civic is about $8k less than the Prius it would take about 30 years for the Prius to be cost effective. The ONLY reason to get a Hybrid like a Prius is for the efficiency. And it only really helps the environment, not your gas bill. Getting a Prius is no different than just donating about $6k to some "Save the Rainforest" charity.
If you live 50 miles from work and/or dont enjoy driving anyway, then I guess its an okay tradeoff to get a Hybrid. I for one decided to live 6 miles from work and own a Mustang GT instead. My boss's wife owns a Prius and drives like a grandma, but lives 40 miles from work. That makes me much more than twice as environmentally friendly than her.
--
Can you imagine if we had to buy our televisions from Comcast and it only worked on their cable network!??? Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous the whole thing is?
Actually, I would LOVE that idea. I would get a free TV (or at least at an EXTREME discount) out of the deal. I might get slightly worse service from Comcast than from a competitor, but I would be saving $200. And if I do my research correctly, I can get the best service and still save my $200.
Even if I have to deal with some incompetent service techs or something, it is still probably worth $200. I have to work 2 days to get $200 (after taxes), which is about 16 hours. I dont think I have ever spent 16 hours on the phone with a comcast technician. Maybe twice a year I spend an hour on the phone, and most of that is on speakerphone watching TV while on hold.
Saving $200 on a TV for a few hours of hassle each year sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I guess we should be lucky that cell phone companies work this way.
--
While I think the trend in schooling that finally led up to the "No Child Left Behind Act" started before the 80s, even if it did that doesnt make the GP post innaccurate. If you have only been working for a few years, then you must have been in early gradeschool in the 80s. I only started kindergarden in 1985, and I have been working in the computer industry for 6 years.
He was talking about dissecting frogs and Ohm's law, which means he was probably talking about highschool in the 80s. That means that almost everyone he is referring to has been working for over 10 years (some even 20 years). That is plenty of time for the US marketplace and research industry to feel the pain.
--
While I agree that there are problems with our current school system's history cirriculum, it is still better than nothing. At least it gives a foundation on which to build a student's individual study. The simple act of putting importance on the study of history is better than not teaching anything.
Just so you know, I was posing a hypothetical situation that many new graduates find themselves in...I made damn sure I didn't end up in that situation.
I didnt assume you were talking about yourself. I was merely responding to your hypothetical situation.
I was just pointing out that if the original poster was making $47,500 and had accrued a sizable amount of debt, no amount of smart budgeting would change the living paycheck-to-paycheck situation he was complaining about.
And all I was pointing out is that this hypothetical person is still rich by almost any rational standard. He is just spending his money unwisely. Just because he made those decisions in the past doesnt mean that they arent responsible for his situation. It is no different than if he had racked up $100k in gambling debts while at college. He just chose a lifestyle that includes paying college debt instead of buying a house and fancy car.
--
There is no option for someone straight from high school to claim independence, yet a number of they are. I know I got significantly less from my parents than you got, and I wasn't elligible for any need based grants.
That is a bad situation, and I initially had the same problem. My parents wouldnt help with college right away, mostly because I did bad in high school. So I worked part time (although close to 40 hr/wk) while going to community college. Almost no one outside of poverty cannot afford community college, becuase it is almost free with the Hope Tax credit. By the time I got to a University, they were willing to help pay a little. Most of that $20k was actually an estimation of the money I saved by living at home until I was 20.
By the time you are 22 I think you are considered independent. If you work a few years and finish your first 2 years at community college, you can still graduate at about 24 but have much less debt. If you can make $20k/yr for 4 years while doing part time college, you could save probably about $10k. Now you have $10k less debt, and can now get needs based grants. If you cannot make $20k a year, then maybe you arent willing to do hard work. I have plenty of friends who got construction/factory jobs right out of high school that paid around $30k/yr. I did roofing during summers and it was horrible, but it paid $15/hr under the table.
Even if your parents wont help and you cannot get grants, that is only a $16k difference. That is less than $40k in loans total, alot less than $100k.
I agree that bad parenting is a problem, but it doesnt make your situation hopeless.
--