Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Little_Noodles t1_j4x8poo wrote

Reply to comment by PPQue6 in In first act as governor, Josh Shapiro opens Pa. jobs to people without college degrees by OhmyMary

Yeah, in an ideal world, young people would get the kind of broad education and life experience that comes with a college education (or similar life experience) before diving into the workforce.

But we’re far from that world, and making people take on crippling debt just to acquire fairly basic jobs that don’t actually require a degree to do is something straight up bullshit.

60

ReturnOfCE t1_j4xc9wv wrote

> Yeah, in an ideal world, young people would get the kind of broad education and life experience that comes with a college education (or similar life experience) before diving into the workforce. > >

I'd argue in an ideal world, we'd let young people get the education/experience necessary to exceed in the workplace by letting them dive into the workforce and giving them a chance to grow.

15

Little_Noodles t1_j4xd3z4 wrote

Eh, I know I worked all throughout high school and it didn’t do shit for me other than provide spending money. And that’s been true of a lot of my work experience since then.

But college was actually a pretty meaningful period of personal and intellectual growth for me. In a world where I could have skipped right into the workforce, I’d be a wealthier person, but I don’t think I’d be a better person, and I definitely wouldn’t be able to think through things or find information I want as well as I can now.

The goal of life experience for young people is not just about succeeding in the workplace, which is a place I’ve found to be not particularly conducive to personal growth or developing skills that aren’t directly and immediately marketable to your specific workplace.

My brother skipped college/trade school and went right into the workforce, and he’s still more or less the same dipshit he was in high school. Not a lot of growth there of any sort. He doesn’t have my debt, but I wouldn’t trade places with him.

32

[deleted] t1_j4xg16h wrote

[deleted]

−8

Little_Noodles t1_j4xi1xo wrote

Fine.

See and Stevic, Celinda R., and Rose Marie Ward. “Initiating Personal Growth: The Role of Recognition and Life Satisfaction on the Development of College Students.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 89, no. 3, 2008, pp. 523–34 and Bok, Derek. “Character: Can Colleges Help Students Acquire Higher Standards of Ethical Behavior and Personal Responsibility?” in Higher Expectations: Can Colleges Teach Students What They Need to Know in the 21st Century?, 58–79. Princeton University Press, 2020.

My personal, anecdotal experience absolutely matches traditional expectations and more rigorous studies about college and similar institutions (like say, national service programs - see Frumkin, Peter, and JoAnn Jastrzab. “Personal Growth.” in Serving Country and Community: Who Benefits from National Service?, Harvard University Press, 2010, pp. 104–32.) in providing more meaningful spaces for intellectual curiosity and growth, as well as personal growth, and providing tools for learning independently as an adult, than does moving directly into the workforce. That’s one of the stated missions of higher ed. No workplace I know of makes that a mission in anything other than the most vague lip service.

In an ideal world, we’d make room for that experience for everyone that wants it, and would benefit from it, and not make that experience cripple them financially for the rest of their lives.

But we should also make it possible for people to skip it if that’s what they want, or if that’s not an environment in which they’d grow as people, and if they can do the job without it, especially since we don’t live in an ideal world.

15

Jiveturkwy158 t1_j4xi1po wrote

Just validates different strokes for different folks. Some grow better in different environments. Plenty of people don’t grow in school and only in the workforce as well.

5

TacoNomad t1_j4xxe46 wrote

This is probably going to help out the state far more than the employees. Many of these positions pay significantly less than their non govt counterparts. Allowing people without degrees will help fill open positions.

7

worstatit t1_j4y0qab wrote

State jobs are known for security and benefits, not high pay. Health insurance, vacation, sick time, holidays, etc. all have value.

19

TacoNomad t1_j4y3t7y wrote

Sure. But for people with degrees, they don't compete with the civilian sector. Those jobs have vacation, sick time, holidays, health insurance and all those benefits too. Plus higher pay.

6

OccasionallyImmortal t1_j516bl2 wrote

Private companies offer these benefits, but nowhere near the level of State jobs. The primary benefit the State offers over the private sector is job security. Permanent layoffs are common in private sector work, but almost unheard of in State jobs.

Retirement benefits are night and day. Private sector jobs have 401k's that are limited by the amount you saved and the wisdom of your investments. The State offers pensions: limited only by your pay rate + time served, and they pay until you die.

Health insurance benefits have substantially lower deductibles, co-pays, and employee contributions. A friend of mine works for the state and hates his job, but cannot afford to leave because his wife has chronic health issues that would cost him an extra $20K per year on typical health insurance. He'd be lucky to get that big of a raise in the private sector.

Vacation, sick, and holidays vary considerably.

1

TacoNomad t1_j51qfex wrote

Well plenty of companies offer job security, but the state has people convinced otherwise, so they're doing a good job marketing that. I just left a company that had a pension and a 401k and stock options. 401ks are not negative compared to pensions and anyone who thinks so just doesn't understand 401k. It's a lack of financial awareness, not a deficiency.

I have excellent health care, better than my moms who is a state worker. I pay $0 per month for it.

Depending on what industry your friend is in, they're probably selling themselves short.

You're speaking like every employer is Walmart. It's not. The state pays substantially less and in many industries, the 'benefits' don't outweigh the pay difference.

2

OccasionallyImmortal t1_j51ra6a wrote

>You're speaking like every employer is Walmart.

The comparisons are mostly in IT since it's the field that I work in. I've worked as a contractor in State facilities and they do make a LOT less money ~15-20% less. Layoffs are a way of life in my industry. Survival instincts include seeing the signs of a layoff before they start and getting out. This is something that people who work in government jobs never seem to do and it's common to find people who worked there for decades. In IT, 7 years is a long-timer.

1

Lethander2 t1_j52e7ms wrote

The pensions did take a hit in 2019, it changed over from a full pension system to a hybrid pension/401A system for any new hires after January 2019.

2

Little_Noodles t1_j4xy52k wrote

Yeah, I think that’s absolutely true, especially in the short term.

I think it would benefit many young people to have a college experience that doesn’t come with crippling debt, and would also benefit the nation’s general body politic. I don’t love the idea that the best use of a young person’s time is just to be trained to work and then assigned to an employer as quickly as possible.

But in the short term, the state will definitely benefit from filling open positions with capable staff and putting people that might otherwise struggle with meaningful employment into good jobs. It’s a good idea, and I’m all for it.

4