Those kids are basically being told that Christopher Columbus was bestest of friends with the Native Americans, when in reality he viewed them as slaves to be conquered. You might have a point about the puritans (since old C.C. was about 150-200 years earlier than that), but the fact remains that we tell kindergarten children about Thanksgiving, but we don't tell them about the trail of tears. We also tell them about The Alamo, but we don't tell them about the mexican war.
I'm not the ignorant one here, and there is plenty to be indignant about, if you're paying attention.
No it can't, not if you cite properly and link to the static version.
Good point. I forgot about that feature where Wikipedia keeps a history of all changes.
But is there any reason you'd want to? Having a long, nasty-looking URL on your works cited page doesn't really lend itself to a "professional appearance."
Better to use the internet to narrow down your in-print sources, and then cite the in-print version.
I am often amused by the image of one of my professors digging around in the library archives for some obscure medical journal that I referenced in a paper, instead of just finding the.pdf version online like I did.
Saying you can't force kids to say "one nation under god" != Saying you can't learn about the history of the idiots who want to force you to say "one nation under god."
Haven't you gone to an elementary school Thanksgiving play lately? Oh wait - we can't talk about US Christian history in schools anymore.
If you think that an elementary school Thanksgiving play has anything to do with "history," then it's probably a good thing that they've stopped, since adults shouldn't be getting their lessons from fairy tales that are designed to indoctrinate the weak minds of children.
Seriously dude. Thanksgiving plays are all about how the Pilgrims were nice, innocent, could-never-do-wrong people who were just trying to get away from that bad ol' king in England, and how the Native Americans were all nice to them, and taught them how to farm, and they all gathered around a big table to share everything they had with each other.
What a load of bullshit. Yeah, the puritans were escaping religious fascism, but they were religious fascists themselves. The reality is that those pilgrims burned "witches" at the stake, in gross violation of human rights and even the tenets of their own religion, and committed genocide upon the Natives.
So you can take your "elementary school Thanksgiving play" and shove it straight up your ass, you ignorant hick. Have fun on Mars.
Wikipedia is an excellent springboard for research. While citing Wikipedia itself is a major no-no for a few reasons (A, the content of the website can change, rendering your quotation non-existent, and B, you'll be laughed out of the room by your professor/review board/whatever), you can read Wikipedia's references, verify that they say what Wikipedia says they said, and then cite that source in your paper. Voila!
Wikipedia might not be a credible source, but it cites credible sources. Use Wikipedia to find credible sources, and then cite those.
I think of myself as white, even though I have olive skin and black hair. However, Obama seems more "like me" than McCain does. McCain is the whitest. He's whiter than white. Most white people are probably more closely related to Obama than McCain in terms of hereditary diversity.
And before you come charging in to save the day with your valiant cries of "woe, but if the sun has no value because it can't be bought or sold, then Linux must also have an indiscernible value because it can't be bought or sold!", I have to break your bubble by letting you know that since Linux has comparable alternatives which do command a price, we can estimate that the value of Linux is equivalent to the value of these other products. In other words, while there might not be a market for Linux, per se, there is a market for operating systems, and we can use that market to make inferences about how "valuable" companies might consider Linux to be.
The sub does not have comparable alternatives which are bought and sold. There is absolutely no precedent for giving the sun a valuation -- nor is there any need to do so.
Giving Linux a valuation, on the other hand, might have a purpose. It'd be useful to know, for example, how much money someone could save by choosing, say, Linux over Windows for their company's IT solution
If I were doing the books for a company's tech department, I'd figure that the value of Linux was something like the cost of licensing Windows, minus the cost of hiring a team of Linux admins to maintain the software. I imagine that you would end up with figures showing that you saved the company $X million dollars, especially if Linux can keep a comparable uptime and you can show that there'd be a minimum of retraining costs associated with using something like OpenOffice instead of MS Office.
And then, if the Linux solution crashes and burns, you have a whole team of sysadmins to blame it on! It's win/win, I tell ya.
I agree with you 100%. If you were doing a pro forma for the bridge, you'd have to consider the annual maintenance fees as one of the bridge's expenses, as well as considering the toll fees (or the money saved by the local economy, depending on your objectives) as the annual income. If the annual income is more than the annual expenses, then the present value of the bridge is equivalent to the net income in each subsequent year, each discounted by your annual MARR (and possibly including profits on the disposition).
However even my pedantically simple "initial cost" analysis was more complex than theirs. They were just flat-out wrong, man! That ain't a free bridge!
If that bridge is free then I'll sign on the dotted line for it right now and immediately impose a $1/car toll.
Again, I re-iterate that you are an idiot who rationalizes your own instinctual desire to reproduce. I just said that we could reduce world population levels to such a dramatic extent (say by 80%) that we could bring the cost of renting or owning a home to something close to $0/month. Your response is that "the rich are holding too much," and that if we nationalized we could bring it down to $800/month?
For starters, $800/month might seem acceptable now, but if the overpopulation problem isn't curbed, even $100,000/unit housing won't save us in the long run. Additionally, $800/month is not "more better" than $0/month. You must consider the opportunity cost of overpopulating the planet -- everyone must pay more for space. If the planet weren't packed so full of humans, nobody would value space anymore, and then we could be even richer than we are today.
On top of all of this, your analysis of what caused the housing bubble is flawed. It's the drooling middle class that did it, shuffling like zombies into highly leveraged loans without considering the alternatives, based simply on the fact that "well, house prices have risen in the past, so leveraging must be the way!"
Back in 2005, "The Economist" predicted that house prices would fall. They even recommended that the average American rent a home instead of buying one in the current economy, because it would be cheaper to wait for prices to fall to their normal levels instead of getting in now.
They made that prediction by comparing housing prices to rent prices and seeing that rent prices were much cheaper. Now, "rich" people generally have some level of intelligence... especially the new money ones. So, if any of them saw the housing bubble coming in the same way that "The Economist" did (or even perhaps through reading "The Economist"), if they really were the rich greedy assholes that you say they are (okay, I guess they are, oh well), they would sell their extra homes during the bubble, in order to enjoy gross levels of profits over middle-class Joe Sixpack, who got into a $600,000 mortgage to buy a home that's only worth $200,000 now. And now the rich guy can go to the bank and buy up the foreclosed home at a lower price, so in the end he basically just robbed Joe Sixpack of his life savings!
But rest assured, the problem is most certainly not that rich people are driving up the cost of land by hoarding it. The problem is that people have been irrationally overvaluing "owning" their home for about a decade now, and they were all pushed on by each other, both causing and being motivated by rising prices all at once.
Get a clue dude. The Brooklyn Bridge was "bought" for the wages of the workers who built it and the cost of their raw materials. It produces tangible return to the community by increasing their available paths of commute, reducing their transportation costs in fuel and time. In fact, it could even be "sold" to a private holder, who would value it for the return that could be produced by charging a toll on the bridge.
You're right that value can be attributed to things that produce value. What you have failed to realize is that someone realized this long, long before you did, and now when accountants, appraisers, economists, and the like estimate the value of something, such as real estate, one of the factors they always consider is the value that the property (or whatever else) is capable of producing. That means that the "future value" of many things is already incorporated into the price.
In my opinion, Linux has value (even though you can't sell it) because it's a free alternative to a more costly option (Windows). In other words, Linux has less opportunity cost because if you choose it, you can do something else with all of your software licensing fees. Like hire competent and experienced Linux technicians, for example...
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
Nonsense. Since Linux is a free alternative to a much spendier product (Windows), it's "value" is the money saved when you choose it over something that would have cost you. In other words, Linux has tangible value because it has less opportunity cost than Windows, even though you can't buy it and you can't sell it.
Also, I don't think you used post hoc ergo propter hoc correctly. That means "after this, therefore because of this," or in other words, it is the error in discriminating between correlation and causation. "A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B." I didn't see that pattern of logic referenced anywhere in your paragraph.
Maybe if we all just stopped using nonsensical jargon, like pedantic little latin phrases that make us sound "well-educated," and just said what we meant, we wouldn't have to waste our time typing and interpreting all that long-winded bullshit.
Both people arguing that the bridge is "free" are idiots. There is no "hidden value." The cost of the bridge was, simply put, the labor of the workers who built it and the cost of their raw materials. That's the price tag. The value it produces is it's return to local economy in the amount of gas the average commuter saves as a result of the bridge being in place.
That's a pretty arbitrary yardstick of how "better" things are. Higher wages and lower real estate prices, at the current level of technology, would bring the next generation true prosperity. Imagine if there were so few people that landholding was no longer a viable profession, because there was so much free space and so many empty houses and apartments that they were practically given away? Then they would be less forced to work constantly just to provide a place to live, and find more time for idle experimentation and fun. Which we all know leads to new technologies. And less competition for resources would mean less conflict over them, and therefore a better chance that we don't drive ourselves to extinction.
Will tens of billions of people get along? Wouldn't it be more fun with less? And wouldn't we like to do something else with our time besides just growing food to feed more mouths in some endless race to... ?
But that's an interesting point there you have about hydroponics. Maybe people aren't investing heavily into the food production sector because they don't see it as profitable... there are tons of people out there who have nothing to trade or do in exchange for food and that drives food prices down despite high demand. Businesses figure the price of the end product into their buy / don't buy decisions, especially say, venture capital firms...
Populations grow exponentially. Saying there isn't a population problem and continuing to encourage everyone to breed is like saying that rocks fall up.
Everybody has something to say about the problem but nobody focuses on fixing it. Fighting the overpopulation problem by building higher flood barriers is bound to end in a cataclysmic disaster. Better to try to address the root of the problem, and let things happen now for fear of a larger crash later. Stability is always preferable to volatility.
At least the people at VHEMT have a solution that makes sense.
You probably make more, considering I'm an undergraduate student of Economics funded partially by a tuition-refund merit-based scholarship, partially by government subsidy, and partially by technical work for the university that I go to school at (video recording, editing, and production).
Half of the current mean wage for most of the jobs I'm looking at would still be $40,000/year (think Human Resources Manager or Purchasing Manager), which is way more than enough to live comfortably and still have money to invest towards early retirement (yes, I'm aware that nobody starts at the mean wage, but it is a good barometer of potential achievement and likely only requires 5-10 years of relevant experience).
People here truly are xenophobic. Look to history... observe how "yellow terror" hysteria caused our government to further reduce the rather arbitrary immigration quota restrictions on immigration from China in the early 1900's.
The ONLY justification for that is that Americans like to force companies to overpay for labor, and then keep foreigners out, because they enjoy being overpaid for their services. Nevermind that the price floor on labor is creating a black market for labor (which is less efficient and encourages abuse of workers), sinking our economy by encouraging businesses to do business elsewhere, and damaging our status as a world superpower by ensuring that businesses and laborers pay income taxes into systems and governments other than our own.
Democracy fails because the voters tend to elect the politician who promises them the biggest slice of the government's treasury. Except in this case, it's failing because we elect the politicians who promise us the biggest slice of corpoerate America's treasury.
By the way, according to the 2007 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean wage for CEO's was about $150,000/year. The mean wage for human resource managers was about $100,000/year. The mean wage for public relations officers was about $100,000/year The mean wage for purchasing managers (I would love to be a purchasing manager) was $90,000/year. The mean wage for financial managers was about $80,000/year.
Even if all of those wages were cut in half by the time I hit the job market in 5 years, I'd still be doing quite, quite well.
Hm, what are wages like in YOUR sector?
Face it, being a manager is a position that requires people skills and if you hire some cookie-cutter foreign guy with a poor grasp of english to head up your company, he's going to have issues communicating with everyone in your organization effectively and charismatically. However, if he's just a code monkey, you can stuff him in some boiler room, tell him to write this-or-that in Java, and it works out just fine.
And this is all besides the bubble in the technical field. Nobody is out there studying Economics right now. It's unpopular, intimidating, and to many people, boring. But with everybody fucking and making new unskilled laborers like misguided horny bunnies, going into a field that tasks you with managing laborers is the logical choice.
Once wages for unskilled jobs really hit rock-bottom, my job will be easy!
Slashdot Mirror
Those kids are basically being told that Christopher Columbus was bestest of friends with the Native Americans, when in reality he viewed them as slaves to be conquered. You might have a point about the puritans (since old C.C. was about 150-200 years earlier than that), but the fact remains that we tell kindergarten children about Thanksgiving, but we don't tell them about the trail of tears. We also tell them about The Alamo, but we don't tell them about the mexican war.
I'm not the ignorant one here, and there is plenty to be indignant about, if you're paying attention.
No it can't, not if you cite properly and link to the static version.
Good point. I forgot about that feature where Wikipedia keeps a history of all changes.
But is there any reason you'd want to? Having a long, nasty-looking URL on your works cited page doesn't really lend itself to a "professional appearance."
Better to use the internet to narrow down your in-print sources, and then cite the in-print version.
I am often amused by the image of one of my professors digging around in the library archives for some obscure medical journal that I referenced in a paper, instead of just finding the .pdf version online like I did.
Yeah, but they're not. He's just being a dumbass.
Saying you can't force kids to say "one nation under god" != Saying you can't learn about the history of the idiots who want to force you to say "one nation under god."
Fucking hypocritical fascist religionauts.
Haven't you gone to an elementary school Thanksgiving play lately? Oh wait - we can't talk about US Christian history in schools anymore.
If you think that an elementary school Thanksgiving play has anything to do with "history," then it's probably a good thing that they've stopped, since adults shouldn't be getting their lessons from fairy tales that are designed to indoctrinate the weak minds of children.
Seriously dude. Thanksgiving plays are all about how the Pilgrims were nice, innocent, could-never-do-wrong people who were just trying to get away from that bad ol' king in England, and how the Native Americans were all nice to them, and taught them how to farm, and they all gathered around a big table to share everything they had with each other.
What a load of bullshit. Yeah, the puritans were escaping religious fascism, but they were religious fascists themselves. The reality is that those pilgrims burned "witches" at the stake, in gross violation of human rights and even the tenets of their own religion, and committed genocide upon the Natives.
So you can take your "elementary school Thanksgiving play" and shove it straight up your ass, you ignorant hick. Have fun on Mars.
Wikipedia is an excellent springboard for research. While citing Wikipedia itself is a major no-no for a few reasons (A, the content of the website can change, rendering your quotation non-existent, and B, you'll be laughed out of the room by your professor/review board/whatever), you can read Wikipedia's references, verify that they say what Wikipedia says they said, and then cite that source in your paper. Voila!
Wikipedia might not be a credible source, but it cites credible sources. Use Wikipedia to find credible sources, and then cite those.
I think of myself as white, even though I have olive skin and black hair. However, Obama seems more "like me" than McCain does. McCain is the whitest. He's whiter than white. Most white people are probably more closely related to Obama than McCain in terms of hereditary diversity.
Shorthand for MMOG or MMORPG ... you know, like World of Warcraft. "MMO" is shorter and covers all large multiplayer games.
You can still make useful inferences from this data, though, if you consider the average office worker's bedtime and alarm time.
But you're right -- the study should be defined in terms of the "total hours of wakefulness" that generated the most creativity.
But wait -- some people have more tiring jobs than others, so they will fatigue during the day faster, further confounding the results!
Blast. It's like Science is hard, or something.
And before you come charging in to save the day with your valiant cries of "woe, but if the sun has no value because it can't be bought or sold, then Linux must also have an indiscernible value because it can't be bought or sold!", I have to break your bubble by letting you know that since Linux has comparable alternatives which do command a price, we can estimate that the value of Linux is equivalent to the value of these other products. In other words, while there might not be a market for Linux, per se, there is a market for operating systems, and we can use that market to make inferences about how "valuable" companies might consider Linux to be.
The sub does not have comparable alternatives which are bought and sold. There is absolutely no precedent for giving the sun a valuation -- nor is there any need to do so.
Giving Linux a valuation, on the other hand, might have a purpose. It'd be useful to know, for example, how much money someone could save by choosing, say, Linux over Windows for their company's IT solution
What's the point of that question? The sun is not bought or sold; it therefore has no value for our purposes.
Yes, it's very important. But without buyers or sellers, putting a price tag on it is meaningless. It's priceless.
The bridge is not priceless. I can tell you what the fair market value of that bridge ought to be.
And do you know why? Because there's a market for bridges. There ain't no market for the sun.
If I were doing the books for a company's tech department, I'd figure that the value of Linux was something like the cost of licensing Windows, minus the cost of hiring a team of Linux admins to maintain the software. I imagine that you would end up with figures showing that you saved the company $X million dollars, especially if Linux can keep a comparable uptime and you can show that there'd be a minimum of retraining costs associated with using something like OpenOffice instead of MS Office.
And then, if the Linux solution crashes and burns, you have a whole team of sysadmins to blame it on! It's win/win, I tell ya.
I agree with you 100%. If you were doing a pro forma for the bridge, you'd have to consider the annual maintenance fees as one of the bridge's expenses, as well as considering the toll fees (or the money saved by the local economy, depending on your objectives) as the annual income. If the annual income is more than the annual expenses, then the present value of the bridge is equivalent to the net income in each subsequent year, each discounted by your annual MARR (and possibly including profits on the disposition).
However even my pedantically simple "initial cost" analysis was more complex than theirs. They were just flat-out wrong, man! That ain't a free bridge!
If that bridge is free then I'll sign on the dotted line for it right now and immediately impose a $1/car toll.
Again, I re-iterate that you are an idiot who rationalizes your own instinctual desire to reproduce. I just said that we could reduce world population levels to such a dramatic extent (say by 80%) that we could bring the cost of renting or owning a home to something close to $0/month. Your response is that "the rich are holding too much," and that if we nationalized we could bring it down to $800/month?
For starters, $800/month might seem acceptable now, but if the overpopulation problem isn't curbed, even $100,000/unit housing won't save us in the long run. Additionally, $800/month is not "more better" than $0/month. You must consider the opportunity cost of overpopulating the planet -- everyone must pay more for space. If the planet weren't packed so full of humans, nobody would value space anymore, and then we could be even richer than we are today.
On top of all of this, your analysis of what caused the housing bubble is flawed. It's the drooling middle class that did it, shuffling like zombies into highly leveraged loans without considering the alternatives, based simply on the fact that "well, house prices have risen in the past, so leveraging must be the way!"
Back in 2005, "The Economist" predicted that house prices would fall. They even recommended that the average American rent a home instead of buying one in the current economy, because it would be cheaper to wait for prices to fall to their normal levels instead of getting in now.
They made that prediction by comparing housing prices to rent prices and seeing that rent prices were much cheaper. Now, "rich" people generally have some level of intelligence ... especially the new money ones. So, if any of them saw the housing bubble coming in the same way that "The Economist" did (or even perhaps through reading "The Economist"), if they really were the rich greedy assholes that you say they are (okay, I guess they are, oh well), they would sell their extra homes during the bubble, in order to enjoy gross levels of profits over middle-class Joe Sixpack, who got into a $600,000 mortgage to buy a home that's only worth $200,000 now. And now the rich guy can go to the bank and buy up the foreclosed home at a lower price, so in the end he basically just robbed Joe Sixpack of his life savings!
But rest assured, the problem is most certainly not that rich people are driving up the cost of land by hoarding it. The problem is that people have been irrationally overvaluing "owning" their home for about a decade now, and they were all pushed on by each other, both causing and being motivated by rising prices all at once.
Get a clue dude. The Brooklyn Bridge was "bought" for the wages of the workers who built it and the cost of their raw materials. It produces tangible return to the community by increasing their available paths of commute, reducing their transportation costs in fuel and time. In fact, it could even be "sold" to a private holder, who would value it for the return that could be produced by charging a toll on the bridge.
You're right that value can be attributed to things that produce value. What you have failed to realize is that someone realized this long, long before you did, and now when accountants, appraisers, economists, and the like estimate the value of something, such as real estate, one of the factors they always consider is the value that the property (or whatever else) is capable of producing. That means that the "future value" of many things is already incorporated into the price.
In my opinion, Linux has value (even though you can't sell it) because it's a free alternative to a more costly option (Windows). In other words, Linux has less opportunity cost because if you choose it, you can do something else with all of your software licensing fees. Like hire competent and experienced Linux technicians, for example ...
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
Nonsense. Since Linux is a free alternative to a much spendier product (Windows), it's "value" is the money saved when you choose it over something that would have cost you. In other words, Linux has tangible value because it has less opportunity cost than Windows, even though you can't buy it and you can't sell it.
Also, I don't think you used post hoc ergo propter hoc correctly. That means "after this, therefore because of this," or in other words, it is the error in discriminating between correlation and causation. "A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B." I didn't see that pattern of logic referenced anywhere in your paragraph.
Maybe if we all just stopped using nonsensical jargon, like pedantic little latin phrases that make us sound "well-educated," and just said what we meant, we wouldn't have to waste our time typing and interpreting all that long-winded bullshit.
Both people arguing that the bridge is "free" are idiots. There is no "hidden value." The cost of the bridge was, simply put, the labor of the workers who built it and the cost of their raw materials. That's the price tag. The value it produces is it's return to local economy in the amount of gas the average commuter saves as a result of the bridge being in place.
If Native Americans hated westerners so much, why did they use guns to fight!? Oh wait, that makes no sense.
You're rationalizing irrationally.
That's a pretty arbitrary yardstick of how "better" things are. Higher wages and lower real estate prices, at the current level of technology, would bring the next generation true prosperity. Imagine if there were so few people that landholding was no longer a viable profession, because there was so much free space and so many empty houses and apartments that they were practically given away? Then they would be less forced to work constantly just to provide a place to live, and find more time for idle experimentation and fun. Which we all know leads to new technologies. And less competition for resources would mean less conflict over them, and therefore a better chance that we don't drive ourselves to extinction.
Will tens of billions of people get along? Wouldn't it be more fun with less? And wouldn't we like to do something else with our time besides just growing food to feed more mouths in some endless race to ... ?
But that's an interesting point there you have about hydroponics. Maybe people aren't investing heavily into the food production sector because they don't see it as profitable ... there are tons of people out there who have nothing to trade or do in exchange for food and that drives food prices down despite high demand. Businesses figure the price of the end product into their buy / don't buy decisions, especially say, venture capital firms ...
Populations grow exponentially. Saying there isn't a population problem and continuing to encourage everyone to breed is like saying that rocks fall up.
Everybody has something to say about the problem but nobody focuses on fixing it. Fighting the overpopulation problem by building higher flood barriers is bound to end in a cataclysmic disaster. Better to try to address the root of the problem, and let things happen now for fear of a larger crash later. Stability is always preferable to volatility.
At least the people at VHEMT have a solution that makes sense.
Left 4 Dead, Valve's latest creation, is being marketed as a survival horror co-op FPS. With zombies. Does that count? It looks good, but we'll see.
What if Google decides that GMail no longer fits their business model?
That will be the day that a flying pig successfully chases an asbestos cat through hell.
You probably make more, considering I'm an undergraduate student of Economics funded partially by a tuition-refund merit-based scholarship, partially by government subsidy, and partially by technical work for the university that I go to school at (video recording, editing, and production).
Half of the current mean wage for most of the jobs I'm looking at would still be $40,000/year (think Human Resources Manager or Purchasing Manager), which is way more than enough to live comfortably and still have money to invest towards early retirement (yes, I'm aware that nobody starts at the mean wage, but it is a good barometer of potential achievement and likely only requires 5-10 years of relevant experience).
People here truly are xenophobic. Look to history ... observe how "yellow terror" hysteria caused our government to further reduce the rather arbitrary immigration quota restrictions on immigration from China in the early 1900's.
The ONLY justification for that is that Americans like to force companies to overpay for labor, and then keep foreigners out, because they enjoy being overpaid for their services. Nevermind that the price floor on labor is creating a black market for labor (which is less efficient and encourages abuse of workers), sinking our economy by encouraging businesses to do business elsewhere, and damaging our status as a world superpower by ensuring that businesses and laborers pay income taxes into systems and governments other than our own.
Democracy fails because the voters tend to elect the politician who promises them the biggest slice of the government's treasury. Except in this case, it's failing because we elect the politicians who promise us the biggest slice of corpoerate America's treasury.
By the way, according to the 2007 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean wage for CEO's was about $150,000/year. The mean wage for human resource managers was about $100,000/year. The mean wage for public relations officers was about $100,000/year The mean wage for purchasing managers (I would love to be a purchasing manager) was $90,000/year. The mean wage for financial managers was about $80,000/year.
Even if all of those wages were cut in half by the time I hit the job market in 5 years, I'd still be doing quite, quite well.
Hm, what are wages like in YOUR sector?
Face it, being a manager is a position that requires people skills and if you hire some cookie-cutter foreign guy with a poor grasp of english to head up your company, he's going to have issues communicating with everyone in your organization effectively and charismatically. However, if he's just a code monkey, you can stuff him in some boiler room, tell him to write this-or-that in Java, and it works out just fine.
And this is all besides the bubble in the technical field. Nobody is out there studying Economics right now. It's unpopular, intimidating, and to many people, boring. But with everybody fucking and making new unskilled laborers like misguided horny bunnies, going into a field that tasks you with managing laborers is the logical choice.
Once wages for unskilled jobs really hit rock-bottom, my job will be easy!