Majority of Millennials have nothing for retirement

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, that seems to be more of an issue with America and the UK undervaluing vocational schools and an oversupply of degree-holders. Many people shy away from well-paid blue-collar careers because it's seen as a blue-collar job, and lacking in social prestige.

However, there are people who are just bad at those jobs that demand good dexterity skills/talent. Another bigger problem might be the lack of interest in companies to train and develop new workers?

First part of your statement is, as far as I understand it, largely correct. The general narrative pushed as you get towards finishing your primary education is 'go to higher education, you HAVE to if you want to be successful in life and make a decent income'. The fact that blue-collar jobs often make pretty reasonable money without requiring that level of education is simply not considered.

For the second part of your statement: there will always be some people who are not physically fit for some blue collar jobs, and certainly I'm not saying *everybody* should go for a blue collar job. That would just create a similar problem to the current one. Certainly go for a college degree if you have the academic chops for it, motivation to find a job during or after your academic career, the savvy to plan ahead in case your degree doesn't pay off immediately, and the willingness to commit to several years of paying off debt.

As for the last part of that: yes, most companies no longer train employees in-house. There is some training for company-specific procedures and such, but in general they expect workers to have the requisite skills when hired. This is another barrier to people hoping to be hired. But on the other hand I don't think it's an unreasonable barrier; if you want to work somewhere and you know what they require for the job position, and you lack certain skills... well, go learn the skills. Companies are not obligated to hire people just because they need a job; at some point, the prospective employee has to meet them halfway. This is where education comes in, wherever you go. It may well be that you can get the skills you need for a white-collar job at a technical school such as... I don't know, database management or whatever.

[Crazedwraith]

Also the US and UK and all other paid education nations aren't good. If you can, leave. Get your education in a sane place and don't have any debt.

Are there countries that provided education free to non-citizens?

[ray245]

First part of your statement is, as far as I understand it, largely correct. The general narrative pushed as you get towards finishing your primary education is 'go to higher education, you HAVE to if you want to be successful in life and make a decent income'. The fact that blue-collar jobs often make pretty reasonable money without requiring that level of education is simply not considered.

Which makes me feel this is less of a problem about making money, but more about trying to gain the social prestige. There's more social prestige being a degree-holder at a fast food restaurant complaining about jobs than a blue-collared plumber.

For the second part of your statement: there will always be some people who are not physically fit for some blue collar jobs, and certainly I'm not saying *everybody* should go for a blue collar job. That would just create a similar problem to the current one. Certainly go for a college degree if you have the academic chops for it, motivation to find a job during or after your academic career, the savvy to plan ahead in case your degree doesn't pay off immediately, and the willingness to commit to several years of paying off debt.

It's not just that. I'm saying someone who is strong academically might not be someone who can easily pick up the skills to be a good technician or plumber. They might be good enough to get the certification or the bare minimum to pass a test, but those skills required constant practice and a bit of talent.

As for the last part of that: yes, most companies no longer train employees in-house. There is some training for company-specific procedures and such, but in general they expect workers to have the requisite skills when hired. This is another barrier to people hoping to be hired. But on the other hand I don't think it's an unreasonable barrier; if you want to work somewhere and you know what they require for the job position, and you lack certain skills... well, go learn the skills. Companies are not obligated to hire people just because they need a job; at some point, the prospective employee has to meet them halfway. This is where education comes in, wherever you go. It may well be that you can get the skills you need for a white-collar job at a technical school such as... I don't know, database management or whatever.

It's the bigger problem because it can create a mismatch between people's education and the jobs available. I think Germany avoided this problem by being better at matching people's education to the jobs available.

[Elheru Aran]

First part of your statement is, as far as I understand it, largely correct. The general narrative pushed as you get towards finishing your primary education is 'go to higher education, you HAVE to if you want to be successful in life and make a decent income'. The fact that blue-collar jobs often make pretty reasonable money without requiring that level of education is simply not considered.

Which makes me feel this is less of a problem about making money, but more about trying to gain the social prestige. There's more social prestige being a degree-holder at a fast food restaurant complaining about jobs than a blue-collared plumber.

Which is why people are either going to wise up and start acknowledging that blue collar jobs aren't 'low status' any more than being a broke white-collar employee is, or we're going to end up with most of our population in the poorhouse because they refuse to get their hands dirty. This is a big part of why we have migrant workers; citizens simply don't want to do that kind of extremely grueling short-term labor. Will it result in migrant workers coming in to unstop our toilets and serve our food? Or are we going to have to roll up our sleeves and get to work? Where will the breaking point be? (these questions are all rhetorical, I honestly don't have an answer because this is a genuine problem in our society)

For the second part of your statement: there will always be some people who are not physically fit for some blue collar jobs, and certainly I'm not saying *everybody* should go for a blue collar job. That would just create a similar problem to the current one. Certainly go for a college degree if you have the academic chops for it, motivation to find a job during or after your academic career, the savvy to plan ahead in case your degree doesn't pay off immediately, and the willingness to commit to several years of paying off debt.

It's not just that. I'm saying someone who is strong academically might not be someone who can easily pick up the skills to be a good technician or plumber. They might be good enough to get the certification or the bare minimum to pass a test, but those skills required constant practice and a bit of talent.

...if you're strong academically, why WOULDN'T you go to college? If it's a matter of affording it and your academics are good enough, there are scholarships and grants out there. If it's something else like maybe you don't want to leave your family or whatever, well then you'll just have to work out the situation somehow. Not all blue-collar jobs require physical strength. Not all white collar jobs are cushy sit at a desk for eight hours jobs. Technical schools offer a wide variety of certifications and degrees; it's not all just auto mechanic, massage therapist, hairdresser, computer tech type stuff.

As for the last part of that: yes, most companies no longer train employees in-house. There is some training for company-specific procedures and such, but in general they expect workers to have the requisite skills when hired. This is another barrier to people hoping to be hired. But on the other hand I don't think it's an unreasonable barrier; if you want to work somewhere and you know what they require for the job position, and you lack certain skills... well, go learn the skills. Companies are not obligated to hire people just because they need a job; at some point, the prospective employee has to meet them halfway. This is where education comes in, wherever you go. It may well be that you can get the skills you need for a white-collar job at a technical school such as... I don't know, database management or whatever.

It's the bigger problem because it can create a mismatch between people's education and the jobs available. I think Germany avoided this problem by being better at matching people's education to the jobs available.

This is an area where I feel the government could step in, in the US. How precisely I'm not sure. There is such a divide between private enterprise (which far too many higher education institutions fall into) and the government in this country. Perhaps if you started as far back as the 1940s or 1950s, you could see something more like the German system, as there was more government regulation back then. Now? I'm unsure how it could happen without major kick-back from whomever is being affected. Education reform is already suffering at the primary level thanks to the failure of various federal efforts.

[ray245]

Which is why people are either going to wise up and start acknowledging that blue collar jobs aren't 'low status' any more than being a broke white-collar employee is, or we're going to end up with most of our population in the poorhouse because they refuse to get their hands dirty. This is a big part of why we have migrant workers; citizens simply don't want to do that kind of extremely grueling short-term labor. Will it result in migrant workers coming in to unstop our toilets and serve our food? Or are we going to have to roll up our sleeves and get to work? Where will the breaking point be? (these questions are all rhetorical, I honestly don't have an answer because this is a genuine problem in our society)

The way society today ( especially well-developed countries) are taught to value things needs to change. It can't be a mere surface level talk by politicians either.

...if you're strong academically, why WOULDN'T you go to college? If it's a matter of affording it and your academics are good enough, there are scholarships and grants out there. If it's something else like maybe you don't want to leave your family or whatever, well then you'll just have to work out the situation somehow. Not all blue-collar jobs require physical strength. Not all white collar jobs are cushy sit at a desk for eight hours jobs. Technical schools offer a wide variety of certifications and degrees; it's not all just auto mechanic, massage therapist, hairdresser, computer tech type stuff.

How are you able to tell if someone is academically strong? Some of the most academically brilliant people I knew have been taught to see themselves as technicians and aim for blue-collar jobs because of their school results. If you stream students too early, you're not giving them a chance to develop their skillsets and talent.

This is an area where I feel the government could step in, in the US. How precisely I'm not sure. There is such a divide between private enterprise (which far too many higher education institutions fall into) and the government in this country. Perhaps if you started as far back as the 1940s or 1950s, you could see something more like the German system, as there was more government regulation back then. Now? I'm unsure how it could happen without major kick-back from whomever is being affected. Education reform is already suffering at the primary level thanks to the failure of various federal efforts.

I think the US as a whole has been badly misinvesting in education. Allowing students to choose what they want is fine, but it needs to be matched with companies providing additional training. At least militaries as whole understood this concept. You want to recruit people from different kinds of educational background, including well-educated college grads, but that does not mean you can afford to skim on providing additional training to develop their skills.

Many private companies, on the other hand, seem far too eager to pass the buck. When everyone is passing the buck of burden, you'll end up with both a skill shortage and greater unemployment.

[K. A. Pital]

Also the US and UK and all other paid education nations aren't good. If you can, leave. Get your education in a sane place and don't have any debt.

Are there countries that provided education free to non-citizens?

Yes. France, Germany, most Nordic countries offer free or low-fee education to either EU citizens or all international students - I think France, Norway and Iceland are particularly open. Although last I've heard, some territories are starting to charge international students some nominal fees like 1-2k per year, e.g. south of Germany. If Eastern Europe is what you like, Czech universities still are free.

Of course, this advice comes with a heavy heart as well, because moving to live in a different country for like 5-6 years tears down your connection to family, community and your motherland. "MOVE AROUND THE WORLD YOU MOBILE WORKFORCE" is also a capitalistic ploy that tears up families apart, destroys communities, leaves relatives in emotional shambles.

But I guess that's the world we're living in now, thanks to all the fuckers.

It's the bigger problem because it can create a mismatch between people's education and the jobs available. I think Germany avoided this problem by being better at matching people's education to the jobs available.

Stop idealizing Germany, ray. It has a very rigid educational system where decisions about your future have to be made like, almost right after primary school - and a job market that sucks up qualified people from impoverished Eastern and Southern European countries at no expense to the Germany budget. "Matching"? Lol. The only thing that justifies it is that the entire system is free of charge, tertiary level included.

[Zaune]

Of course, this advice comes with a heavy heart as well, because moving to live in a different country for like 5-6 years tears down your connection to family, community and your motherland. "MOVE AROUND THE WORLD YOU MOBILE WORKFORCE" is also a capitalistic ploy that tears up families apart, destroys communities, leaves relatives in emotional shambles.

Personally, I think it does more good than harm. The more time people spend outside the community and motherland the grew up in, the more opportunities they have to realise how much of what divides us by nation, ethnicity and location is arbitrary and trivial. And if the capitalists can collaborate on a global scale then so can the workers.

[ray245]

Stop idealizing Germany, ray. It has a very rigid educational system where decisions about your future have to be made like, almost right after primary school - and a job market that sucks up qualified people from impoverished Eastern and Southern European countries at no expense to the Germany budget. "Matching"? Lol. The only thing that justifies it is that the entire system is free of charge, tertiary level included.

Singapore has elements of that system and I was personally affected by such policies. I'm well aware of the negative of such a system, but it's much more preferable than the US education system.

[Broomstick]

Of course, this advice comes with a heavy heart as well, because moving to live in a different country for like 5-6 years tears down your connection to family, community and your motherland. "MOVE AROUND THE WORLD YOU MOBILE WORKFORCE" is also a capitalistic ploy that tears up families apart, destroys communities, leaves relatives in emotional shambles.

Oh, please - some families are downright toxic and severing ties to them is essential for a person to have any happiness in life, or to avoid exploitation. As for "motherland" - if my ancestors hadn't left their motherlands they would have been killed by either famine or war. Certainly, the ones that refused the leave the "motherland" of Russia were obliterated.

The problem, of course, is extremes: never letting anyone leave home ever, or forcing everyone to leave home.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I think Kap was alluding to the extremes.

[Elheru Aran]

I dunno, some families are closer knit than others. Mine would have minimal issue with one of us living halfway across the world and only visiting home occasionally; my wife's on the other hand would be freaking out about it and insisting that she travel home like every six months. Something like that.

Of course, when you have children in the mix, stuff gets more complicated...

[K. A. Pital]

Of course, this advice comes with a heavy heart as well, because moving to live in a different country for like 5-6 years tears down your connection to family, community and your motherland. "MOVE AROUND THE WORLD YOU MOBILE WORKFORCE" is also a capitalistic ploy that tears up families apart, destroys communities, leaves relatives in emotional shambles.

Personally, I think it does more good than harm. The more time people spend outside the community and motherland the grew up in, the more opportunities they have to realise how much of what divides us by nation, ethnicity and location is arbitrary and trivial. And if the capitalists can collaborate on a global scale then so can the workers.

I used to think more good than harm comes from it, too. I have changed my mind. In 3 decades of globalization, the world has gone from bad to worse - a world worker's movement did not come to exist in any meaningful form, unions inside nations are destroyed, social support is curtailed or dismantled, labour standards are degraded wherever companies can push this through.

A multitude of torn-away people roam the globe, searching for job opportunities. The moment they get them, they feel they belong to some sort of elite and start looking down on their former countrymen, espousing the most virulent and xenophobic forms of alien patriotism towards the newfound home. Of course, not all, but I've seen this all too often.

Singapore has elements of that system and I was personally affected by such policies. I'm well aware of the negative of such a system, but it's much more preferable than the US education system.

Singapore does not have free education. So not only are your choices locked from very early age, but also you've got to pay for it, usually with family money. Brutal. No need to compare the bad options. I'm more focused on the good ones, hence my comment that Germany's deficiencies are at least justified by the fact education is free of charge.

Oh, please - some families are downright toxic and severing ties to them is essential for a person to have any happiness in life, or to avoid exploitation.

It is also an outlier, Broomstick. You could sever ties to your family even before present days, as you've aptly mentioned yourself. But is not very much preferrable to have a big, loving and caring extended family?

As for "motherland" - if my ancestors hadn't left their motherlands they would have been killed by either famine or war. Certainly, the ones that refused the leave the "motherland" of Russia were obliterated.

Facing war, famine and obliteration is also an outlier situation, which I'm sure you'd agree with me is not normal, neither should such things serve as justification for continous migration pressures, tearing apart communities, settlements, nations and families for the sake of nebulous "workforce mobility" that usually just means new sources of cheap workers for the overlords, when laid out in plain speak.

The problem, of course, is extremes: never letting anyone leave home ever, or forcing everyone to leave home.

Exactly my point. I didn't argue against the ability to leave or travel as such. But being unable to find work near home forces every youth to leave town. Sometimes even leave the country. That shouldn't be normal, but it is and the ruling class propagates the image of "normality" of this.

But I can see, and smell, the bullshit.

I dunno, some families are closer knit than others. Mine would have minimal issue with one of us living halfway across the world and only visiting home occasionally; my wife's on the other hand would be freaking out about it and insisting that she travel home like every six months. Something like that.

Of course, when you have children in the mix, stuff gets more complicated...

Yes, children, but also parents, grandparents, etc. All the uncles and aunts. They're also people, and many of them value family and fellowship greatly. Sometimes people love each other so strongly that they are literally crying at night because they're apart.

This is why I said the emotional price of migration sometimes is downright horrible. It's the same thing as staying when the family is broken, dysfunctional, abusive instead of loving, caring and supportive, except worse, because you keep blaming yourself for the fact that you left them all...

And a thing called survivor's guilt can be even greater torment, if you know what I mean.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think Kap was alluding to the extremes.

When you called him that, I immediately pictured a communist version of Captain America.

Also the US and UK and all other paid education nations aren't good. If you can, leave. Get your education in a sane place and don't have any debt.

Are there countries that provided education free to non-citizens?

Yes. France, Germany, most Nordic countries offer free or low-fee education to either EU citizens or all international students - I think France, Norway and Iceland are particularly open. Although last I've heard, some territories are starting to charge international students some nominal fees like 1-2k per year, e.g. south of Germany. If Eastern Europe is what you like, Czech universities still are free.

Of course, this advice comes with a heavy heart as well, because moving to live in a different country for like 5-6 years tears down your connection to family, community and your motherland. "MOVE AROUND THE WORLD YOU MOBILE WORKFORCE" is also a capitalistic ploy that tears up families apart, destroys communities, leaves relatives in emotional shambles.

But I guess that's the world we're living in now, thanks to all the fuckers.

No, people shouldn't have to leave home to get a good education, but I can't say I like the implication that everyone should stay where they were born their whole life- that this is some sort of ideal. Frankly, it smacks of both nationalism and isolationism.

And this is just a personal anectdote, and won't apply to everyone, but... I moved to Canada when I was 12, having lived almost my whole life up to that point in the US. Now, I didn't have to leave my family behind, but I do not feel that my bond with the US was much diminished (except that I regret not being able to attend rallies and such during elections). On the contrary, despite being a dual US/Canadian citizen residing in Canada, I often feel more American than I do Canadian.

Obviously some separations are much more traumatic, so I'm not trying to suggest that my experience applies to everyone equally, but I don't feel less of an American because I am living in another country (despite some peoples' efforts to make me feel that I am less of one).

I feel to me like you're trying to apply a model from an era in which we didn't have things likes planes and the internet- where most people never had a practical option but to live out their lives in the province or village of their birth.

We live in a globalized world, but globalization isn't JUST about multi-national corporations and corporate exploitation. Its also about a world in which mass transportation and communication can create a world in which one's sense of identity, and one's options in the world, aren't necessarily limited by national borders.

But then, I'm an unapologetic advocate of more open borders, so there is some bias here.

[aerius]

No, people shouldn't have to leave home to get a good education, but I can't say I like the implication that everyone should stay where they were born their whole life- that this is some sort of ideal. Frankly, it smacks of both nationalism and isolationism.

The key concept here is choice. My parents, some of my co-workers, and maybe your family chose to relocate for better education/job/life opportunities, my parents could've stayed in their hometown and had a pretty decent life but they chose to see the world and ended up here in Canada.

For a lot of people, it's not a choice, and that is what K. A. Pital is less than happy with. For them, there are no educational or job opportunities if they stick around, they'll either end up on welfare or some shitty minimum wage job. If the want to go to college or become anything better than a burger flipper they need to relocate a substantial distance from home, often permanently. And it's quite likely that you'll need to repeat this several times in your lifetime. All your family, friends, and local connections, gone. Again. And again. It's not quite as bad as a military family where you can get forcibly moved around the country every couple years, but unless you're the adventurous sort it gets old pretty fast.

[K. A. Pital]

No, people shouldn't have to leave home to get a good education, but I can't say I like the implication that everyone should stay where they were born their whole life- that this is some sort of ideal. Frankly, it smacks of both nationalism and isolationism.

I did not imply everyone should stay where they are born or where they start their lives. What I said is that they should have a choice to stay or go, and they should not be punished by a hellish life because they stay.

Now, I didn't have to leave my family behind, but I do not feel that my bond with the US was much diminished (except that I regret not being able to attend rallies and such during elections). On the contrary, despite being a dual US/Canadian citizen residing in Canada, I often feel more American than I do Canadian.

So you see, you have not left your family (did they move with you or were originally in Canada?), and you have to deal with minor inconveniences. This indicates migrating is has not been problematic for you. Good for you. But I hope you don’t intend to force this on everyone else just because you have it easy.

I feel to me like you're trying to apply a model from an era in which we didn't have things likes planes and the internet- where most people never had a practical option but to live out their lives in the province or village of their birth.

No, I am just being realistic about consequences. Also not everyone has the funds to fly back home on a whim every weekend, when the flight costs $300 and upwards, and some people do not like to fly. The internet cannot adequately replace face to face contact (I could elaborate, if you’d like). It is like an advanced version of the telephone/telegraph, so I guess gotta be content with those video calls, heh.

We live in a globalized world, but globalization isn't JUST about multi-national corporations and corporate exploitation. Its also about a world in which mass transportation and communication can create a world in which one's sense of identity, and one's options in the world, aren't necessarily limited by national borders. But then, I'm an unapologetic advocate of more open borders, so there is some bias here.

You mentioned yourself that despite moving to Canada, you identify as an American. But what is the reason for your national identification, to be honest? Are you not a “citizen of the world”? Note that I myself do not oppose open-border policies, especially between adjacent states, as it helps to foster peace, reconnect relatives and restore good will between nations. But open borders are not forcing anyone to move, so they are not what I was talking about. A lack of local opportunities is.

To elaborate on this in relation to my original example: nations should be offering free or accessible education to their citizens, which is a good thing. The fact that you can get it elsewhere, if you emigrate, does not remove the need for people who remain to also have this opportunity. So the possibility of emigration does not mean the problem of expensive unaffordable education and the correspondent student debt is a non-issue, just because you can leave.