Underemployed with MBA's

[mark_mnc1]

There is definitely such a thing as underemployment.  It's a very scary time for people currently in law school.  Traditionally, firms extend offers to second-year law students.  This means that they were hiring in 2008 like they'd been hiring in 2006 and 2007...for 2009.  I know that a number of top firms paid people they've already hired to not work and delay their start date by a year.  While it worked out pretty well for those folks, you can imagine what that's done to recruiting of people still in law school.  There are a lot of desperate folks out there who took on a bunch of debt and now don't see good employment prospects at the end of the tunnel.  This year's graduating class is particularly bad off.  I have a feeling you're going to see a lot of class of '10 JDs working alongside BA/BS graduates, etc.

What you're describing is expectations unfulfilled, which is not underemployment.  Simply having the credentials does not designate your status as underemployed.  

To accurately appraise yourself as underemployed, you need to be able to show past performance, current performance, and have reasonable expectations for future performance.  This would chart as a "U" shaped dip in an otherwise ascending angle.  

But you can't appraise a whole group with no prior personal experience as an increasingly underemployed sector.  You can show examples of the individual who gets hired in his graduate field as (more than likely) achieving the relative average hiring wage.  You could show a decline in hiring overall.  That indicates saturation, and a flattening of exponential sector growth, which is completely different in definition and effect.  If anything, it shows poor planning by the individual to participate in an increasingly saturated market, it is a glut.  And I think we're all quite aware of what happens to a commonly held commodity in a glut - the market may continue to absorb the static consumption figure, but at a more desirable price.  This will eventually back-fill through the supply line until an equilibrium is reached.  

None of that strikes me as underemployment.  Only when the market is shrinking and displacing those with current placement, prior involvement and experience, making them take a step down out of necessity, can it be defined as underemployment -  because their actual level of employment has been determined, their employer has agreed to a wage and actually paid it for a considerable amount of time.  

I think you're full of shit.  The vast majority of people in law school (and business school) didn't go there straight out of undergrad, so as a group they almost always have professional work experience.  A lot of them made very good money before going back to school, too.  Just because someone plans their education decisions poorly doesn't mean they can't be underemployed.

Your opinions of entitlement are amusing.  Career advancement is not automatic, and labeling a person who was not awarded that advancement as underemployed is laughable.  It takes time for positions to be created and/or vacated, and the hiatus between graduation and entry is probably more expected than immediate placement.  Being ignorant of that fact is downright stupid, and calling the period underemployed is fucking moronic - especially when underemployed is arguably defined as previously stated.  

The word "underemployed" used incorrectly by those who have no actual experience in the positions they've acquired degrees to assume is translated as "no connections whining pussy" by those of us who are familiar with the real world, Junior.  We know what underemployment really is, and what it isn't.  In general discussion, its a considerable setback because most people (who aren't inexperienced pussies) know that underemployment requires a situational change from a higher position.  The word has gravity.  Its like exaggerating serious illness when used improperly.  You don't get to use panic words in expected situations, so you might want to stop using it frivolously - because the temporary period between college and advanced employment is neither unexpected nor cause for panic - especially when there is little doubt that everything is actually pretty fucking rosy, and the foreseeable future contains (in all likelihood) positive advancements in rapid succession.  That is the context it will heard by people who are a little more entrenched in the professional world, and it carries a tone I would not wish to convey.  But then, I am not prone to histrionics and value my masculinity.  

Who ever said anything or implied anything about entitlements or “career advancement being automatic.”

I have no doubt connections help but nearly everyone I know with a professional well-paying job got that job due to their credentials not “connections.”

In what world are you leaving in when “everything is pretty fucking rosy?"  I know plenty of people in blue collar and white collar jobs in nearly every industry out there that are (yes I will use the term because it is real)- underemployed and unemployed.

I can’t say for others but I went to a non-traditional 4 year commuter school where a good percentage of the students worked full time jobs and went part or 3/4 time while in school, like myself.   I should be making more at the current company I work for but won’t get into why I’m not that another topic (for example I was involved in a good deal of the training my manager went through for her position she isn’t qualified for).  I know my education, skill set, and experience shows that I should have a higher-paying job because I’ve done those kind of jobs before.

My college degree probably was ill-chosen but my experience proves that I can do the job I'm looking for.  I’ve gone in for plenty of interviews where the employers want the skills, experience, and the college degree because it does show a certain level of intelligence, persistence to stick through at least 4 years of school, and skills.

I’ll be the first person to acknowledge that I, nor anyone else, has a “right” or any degree of entitlement to a job plus I’ve kept my options open to a wider degree of jobs than probably most job seekers.  

[freeAgent]

Your definition is simply wrong:

un·der·em·ployed
   /ˌʌndərɛmˈplɔɪd/ Show Spelled[uhn-der-em-ploid] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
employed at a job that does not fully use one's skills or abilities.
2.
employed only part-time when one is available for full-time work.
3.
not utilized fully.

or...

In economics, the term underemployment has three different distinct meanings and applications. All meanings involve a situation in which a person is working, unlike unemployment, where a person who is searching for work cannot find a job. All meanings involve underutilization of labor that critics say[weasel words] is missed by most official (governmental agency) definitions and measurements of unemployment.

Underemployment can mean:

   1. The employment of workers with high skill levels in low-wage jobs that do not require such abilities, for example a trained medical doctor who works as a taxi driver.
   2. "Involuntary part-time" workers—workers who could (and would like to) be working for a full work-week but can only find part-time work. By extension, the term is also used in regional planning to describe regions where economic activity rates are unusually low, due to a lack of job opportunities, training opportunities, or due to a lack of services such as childcare and public transportation.
   3. "Overstaffing" or "hidden unemployment", the practice in which businesses or entire economies employ workers who are not fully occupied---for example, workers currently not being used to produce goods or services due to legal or social restrictions or because the work is highly seasonal.

Or pick a definition from here.  There's no "entitlement" or "right" necessary to have the term underemployed applied to a person, just as you don't have to have a "right" or "entitlement" to work to be considering unemployed.

[New Richard]

Market saturation is not really the problem for many folks looking to find work in their particular field of study. Businesses like to promote the idea that an industry is healthy and growing, when it is actually not. It's like when you walk into some small business and strike up a convo and say, "How's business?" The dude behind the counter will always respond with, "It's good." ...when in reality, he's never actually turned a profit.

Back in 2000, when I decided to study design, after dropping out of art school, I was told by the design school that 98% of their graduates went on to find a "job" in design. I graduated at the top of my class, but was never able to find a design job that fully utilized my study of design. I thought to myself, "what are the chances of me being part of the 2% that didn't find a proper job, while at the same time, graduating at the top of my class?".

I was swindled ..is all. Fortunately, I only spent nine months in this program, instead of a typical 4 years at a regular college or university. Some people would say that my problem was that I went to some school that was not "recognized", however I don't believe the shit, anymore --- I'm sure that a ton of 4 year design students that studied at a "recognized" institution never went on to find a proper job....so what would be the excuse for them?

"Market Saturation" does not accurately describe what is really the deceptive practices that educational institutions will employ in order to part somebody from their monies.

"Business" is more accurately defined as "The art of employing deception as a means of procuring monies." This definition is more accurate, because 99% of industries and companies cannot sell their bullshit products/services, unless they employ deceptive practices.


 

[ForumTroll]

"Business" is more accurately defined as "The art of employing deception as a means of procuring monies." This definition is more accurate, because 99% of industries and companies cannot sell their bullshit products/services, unless they employ deceptive practices.

I agree.

[blackie]

"Business" is more accurately defined as "The art of employing deception as a means of procuring monies." This definition is more accurate, because 99% of industries and companies cannot sell their bullshit products/services, unless they employ deceptive practices.

I agree.

That is why engineers hate marketing people.

[ForumTroll]

"Business" is more accurately defined as "The art of employing deception as a means of procuring monies." This definition is more accurate, because 99% of industries and companies cannot sell their bullshit products/services, unless they employ deceptive practices.

I agree.

That is why engineers hate marketing people.

Especially if they say your product does something that it really doesn't.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Once the government collapses the only people who'll be in demand will be carpenters, electricians, and gunsmiths.

bitch...
don't you have a fucking flush-toilet in your crib?
do you take a hot shower?
how bout that heat?
how dare you overlook the professional plumber...
you get ONE pass.

Can't forget Jewish Doctors.

[blackie]

"Business" is more accurately defined as "The art of employing deception as a means of procuring monies." This definition is more accurate, because 99% of industries and companies cannot sell their bullshit products/services, unless they employ deceptive practices.

I agree.

That is why engineers hate marketing people.

Especially if they say your product does something that it really doesn't.

They always do that shit.

And then you have to try to make it do what marketeer said it can do, before a lawsuit is filed.

[davann]

I have no doubt connections help but nearly everyone I know with a professional well-paying job got that job due to their credentials not “connections.”
 

Lol. Anyone who is somebody that matters got that way by connections. Fact of business. Brasky is correct in what under employment is and the college boys that wrote those defs for the dictionaries are wrong as usual.

Credentials can get your foot in the door but without connections you are doomed to life in the lobby.

[Riddler]

You are so fricken annoying, man. I hope you at least have an excuse....like maybe....you are always drunk off your ass, when you post on here....or maybe, you smoke crack.

this from some asshole that takes pictures of himself with his cock tucked up between his legs, so he looks like a girl , or a cigarette in his pubic hair, and POSTS IT ALL OVER THE WORLD WIDE WEB?????
fucking priceless

[freeAgent]

I have no doubt connections help but nearly everyone I know with a professional well-paying job got that job due to their credentials not “connections.”
 

Lol. Anyone who is somebody that matters got that way by connections. Fact of business. Brasky is correct in what under employment is and the college boys that wrote those defs for the dictionaries are wrong as usual.

Credentials can get your foot in the door but without connections you are doomed to life in the lobby.

I wouldn't generalize that much, but it is true to some degree.  Connections and nepotism can get certain people far.  However, there are still a lot of self-made people out there.

[New Richard]

You are so fricken annoying, man. I hope you at least have an excuse....like maybe....you are always drunk off your ass, when you post on here....or maybe, you smoke crack.

this from some asshole that takes pictures of himself with his cock tucked up between his legs, so he looks like a girl , or a cigarette in his pubic hair, and POSTS IT ALL OVER THE WORLD WIDE WEB?????
fucking priceless

Homozzi,

we have already been through this. I already told you that I have NEVER taken a pic of myself with my cock tucked between my legs. This is a myth that was started by Diogenes and Brasky.

Since you are on the slow side, perhaps I will have to remind you of this a few more times, before you stop talkin' shit, like a damn fool.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

You are so fricken annoying, man. I hope you at least have an excuse....like maybe....you are always drunk off your ass, when you post on here....or maybe, you smoke crack.

this from some asshole that takes pictures of himself with his cock tucked up between his legs, so he looks like a girl , or a cigarette in his pubic hair, and POSTS IT ALL OVER THE WORLD WIDE WEB?????
fucking priceless

Homozzi,

we have already been through this. I already told you that I have NEVER taken a pic of myself with my cock tucked between my legs. This is a myth that was started by Diogenes and Brasky.

Since you are on the slow side, perhaps I will have to remind you of this a few more times, before you stop talkin' shit, like a damn fool.

You forgot to mention me Richard.

[NotYourSlave]

Who decides if you're underemployed or not?  You?

[freeAgent]

You are so fricken annoying, man. I hope you at least have an excuse....like maybe....you are always drunk off your ass, when you post on here....or maybe, you smoke crack.

this from some asshole that takes pictures of himself with his cock tucked up between his legs, so he looks like a girl , or a cigarette in his pubic hair, and POSTS IT ALL OVER THE WORLD WIDE WEB?????
fucking priceless

Homozzi,

we have already been through this. I already told you that I have NEVER taken a pic of myself with my cock tucked between my legs. This is a myth that was started by Diogenes and Brasky.

Since you are on the slow side, perhaps I will have to remind you of this a few more times, before you stop talkin' shit, like a damn fool.

Is it just so small we can't see it through your pubic hair in your avatar photo?


...sorry, I had to do it