A number of my acquaintances (rural Montana) went through this after high school. It is noble and it is well-intentioned. When students stick with it it often opens new opportunities that wouldn't be available otherwise.
But it's not a silver bullet, and it requires a certain amount of diligence and self-awareness to be able to finish the program. It's not a party atmosphere like college or entry-level employment can be: how many 19-year-olds do you know who want to live in a dorm setting and show up on time? How many 22-year-olds want to go months without drinking?
That said, it's a clear and coherent step forward for people who might otherwise feel lost, and that's a very good thing.
Now, if only they had something for NEETs over job corps's age limit....
> Now, if only they had something for NEETs over job corps's age limit....
A bit ironic that the cut off is 24 and the rough age of full brain maturity is 25 (and loss of parental insurance is 26). So the young adults that had poor/no guidance or made poor decisions in youth don’t get this opportunity once they get their head on straight and realize they need to acquire some skills (pretty common character arc for young men, at least in my circles).
Not sure if this is what they meant, but I believe the financial aid system considers you to be a “dependent” if you’re under 24 period. Regardless of your tax filing status or anything else save for a few extreme circumstances.
This means, that until 24, any aid you get is calculated based on your parents’ income + your income. Even if you’ve been fully independent since 18. Combined with the laughable EFC calculations, this often means less aid available. Of course if you make a middle class income, you probably still won’t qualify for any useful aid after 24.
I married my best friend of several years so she could get financial aid. Her financial aid counselor told her about the lengthy emancipation legal process or marriage. She came over one night with a "I have a huge favor to ask of you" and about a week later we were married.
My spouse and I got married "early" in the court system for a similar reason, in order to qualify for in-state tuition. However, we then had a proper wedding in front of our family and community a few months later, so I'm not sure it would really matter to the policy makers. Definitely helped drive home for us, though: there are three different marriages in a marriage:
There is a legal contract, that is important to people you have never met and will never meet, and, if things are going right, is never at all relevant to your actual marriage in any way except for how it lets you navigate government policy.
There is a social contract, that is important to everyone who acknowledges you as a couple (and also people who have never business seeing you this way).
And there is your actual relationship, which may be enhanced or degraded by the previous two elements, but is somewhat oblique to both.
Technically, yes for about seven years. We were introduced by a mutual friend because we were both staying on campus over the Christmas holiday. We hooked up on Christmas Eve and dropped some acid and had a fun few days. We were both the oddly precocious types who graduated high school at 16/17. We were both sorta slutty. We just became best of friends for the next few years (we both went our own separate ways romantically, we would eventually even go out and hook up with each others roommates...) We went out and got tattoos together on her 18th birthday. It was a couple of years later that we got married (I like to pontificate that we got married by the justice of the peace in the Blade Runner building. It was justice of the peace and somewhere in an old downtown LA building, no frills). She had her mothers or grandmothers ring or such, mine was a Peace symbol ring from a gumball machine with the Peace symbol torn off.... It turned my finger green unless coated with clear nail polish. About six months later I left university and moved halfway across the country. It was always interesting to eventually tell girlfriends and such that "by the way, technically I'm married". Around seven years later I ran into another mutual friend who told me that she had been looking for me to sign papers and such and couldn't find me. We did meet up again a few years later and nothing came up, she finally settled down and got really married. I assume she got a rubber stamp divorce for abandonment or even non-consummation (almost, but we were both so "too drunk to fuck" on Extacy that we gave up and just went back to the party). She's still a fond memory of a bestest friend for years, we could like read each other's minds, almost too dangerous to be serious.
The right way to think of marriage for government purposes is a contract. If someone has entered in this contract, they get certain benefits. If the benefits are properly designed, they are valid only for the duration of the contract. As long as both people were abiding by the terms of the contract, it’s not fraud.
You are so right about that. Hooah! Sidenote: If you have gone to boot camp, then the college can waive all the fitness class requirements. First time go!
My california community college did, and I believe it's a requirement for UC and CSU as well. I don't think the private engineering school I transfered to did; because I don't recall anyone complaining about it.
But at least at community college there were many options. Table tennis once a week for one semester wasn't a huge burden.
There are a few others as well. As of the 2023-2024 cycle, there are 13 ways to be considered independent (any one of them suffices), according to the official list [1]. To summarize them here:
1. Born before Jan 1, 2000; 2. Married; 3. Will be attending grad school [2]; 4. Active-duty U.S. military; 5. U.S. military veteran; 6. Have dependent children; 7. Have live-in dependents other than children; 8. Both parents deceased and/or were a foster child or a ward of the court after age 13; 9. Current or former emancipated minor; 10. Legal guardian is someone other than parent or stepparent; 11,12,13. Homeless or at-risk-of-homelessness within the past year (three different routes of determination).
[2] Graduate students in the U.S. generally don't get the kind of need-based financial aid that undergrads do, though, so this one is often not very helpful.
In my early twenties, after dropping out of faculty but before I started working, I was often literally hungry while my parents were not really millionaires, more like quite well-off. I guess they thought keeping fridge constantly empty will make me go out and look for work (I did not until 26, just traveled, couchsurfed and partied around). Ironically, I often ate at my best friend's whose parents were on the edge of poverty, but supported him (and me) with all of little they had.
I wouldn’t share that with people. It just makes you sound like you were a privileged entitled bum that took advantage of your less privileged friends hospitality.
Because that’s essentially what you were. Hopefully no longer.
Perhaps. I see it differnetly. I am privileged now with my nice job, back in the day I was just a kid who was trying to become independent adult without proper guidance and support from parents.
What I wanted to say is that young adults, regardless of their parent's social and financial status, need guidance and support in order to become independent and productive members of society. I got an impression that some people think that kids whose parents are well-off or rich always get it from their parents, so they are not entitled to get it from other sources (like scholarship, discounted housing, public transit, food, cultural institutions tickets for students etc.). That is not the case.
The fact that you felt the freedom to part and fuck off until 26 speaks to a degree of privilege and freedom that your safety net of parental wealth provided you that you don’t even seem aware of.
It’s also how middle-class kids whose parents don’t support them in any way get financial aid.
I understand why the system is the way that it is — it covers probably 95% of cases correctly — but for those of us who were essentially on our own after 18, it’s terribly unjust.
FAFSA is 90% of job. Then apply for scholarships. Never take private loans. Work as much as you can to borrow low, but do what you need to do to get through. Choose a major that will make you money.
In my time, factors like age mattered as much as other factors that separated you from "the usual". Nowadays that may not be the case.
Linked article doesn't fully support the "myth" so much as an overstatement of the evidence; there is clear evidence that certain parts of the brain reach stop growing in volume around that age (earlier for women). There isn't great evidence linking that to anything behavioral though.
Individuals develop at different rates and also _start_ at different points: a child born a month early will always be a month behind, though this is far less significant at 10yo than 10mo, and that month gets lost over time in the natural variation of development.
Also, the idea that girls mature faster than boys is a much more a myth; girls mature _physically_ faster than boys but not psychologically.
> There isn't great evidence linking that to anything behavioral though.
Ish. There are behavioral patterns which run parallel to it, most obvious with young male aggression which plateaus in the late 20s before trending down.
The age 25 thing is basically a myth. Different brain processes do continue developing into adulthood, but many finish developing younger while others never finish developing.
> When we spoke, I told Steinberg his work had been referenced in this way. “Oh no,” he said, laughing. I then asked whether he had insights about where the figure 25 came from, and he said roughly the same thing as Cohen: There’s consensus among neuroscientists that brain development continues into the 20s, but there’s far from any consensus about any specific age that defines the boundary between adolescence and adulthood. “I honestly don’t know why people picked 25,” he said. “It’s a nice-sounding number? It’s divisible by five?”
> Kate Mills, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Oregon, was equally puzzled. “This is funny to me—I don’t know why 25,” Mills said. “We’re still not there with research to really say the brain is mature at 25, because we still don’t have a good indication of what maturity even looks like.”
No, my issue is that people are implicitly or more often explicitly saying that folks shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves or be responsible for their actions until they're 25. The progressive infantilization of people troubles me. That you have to spend a third of your life in this state is ridiculous. It is also self-fulfilling. People only stop acting like children when you stop treating them like children.
I agree with your general position. Not a fan of babying people either. Still, I know a lot of people (mostly young men with minimal parental guidance) who were total idiots up to about 25 that could’ve benefited from a program like this. I much prefer stuff like this (total-immersion skill-creation programs) to EBT and section 8. I don’t see what benefit there is to the state to have an age cutoff. Just take people who want to be self sufficient
Agreed with the general thrust here; I read something recently from a scientist in the field that the 25 number is completely made up. It doesn’t come from any objective metric.
That said the idea that you do most of your growing up before 25, but still do some of it 18-24 should not be controversial. I wouldn’t use that observation to deny education/apprenticeship benefits from anyone though.
Pithy quotes don't drive policy, science does. We can preach tough love as much as we want but it doesn't change the physical reality of adolescent brain morphometry.
We shouldn’t treat people like children into their 24’s, but we should generally be more forgiving—reduce punishments for victimless crimes, make it easier to get out of debt, better social safety net.
There isn’t some magic age where we suddenly stop screwing up all the time.
If anything, it's a correction and we'll get to where we need to be eventually. We went from kids being coal miners to crippling entire generations with debt that they can't get out of with lifespans that are shrinking.
Plenty of people manage to make it to much later in life without connecting those dots for themselves.
About the most one could say about 25 is that it's when people's paths start to radically diverge, even amongst the group of people that were previously lumped together as "high achievers." So perhaps the subset of that group who are relatively low-performing — and yet, somehow, high in self-awareness — will wake up and start making changes at 25.
> The progressive infantilization of people troubles me
Since you're making this political I'd like to point out that it is conservatives that have started a movement to repeal the 26th amendment and raise the voting age.
i believe you've misinterpreted the meaning of the word progressive here to refer to political progressives, rather than simply just "gradual/ongoing" which is what the use of it here suggests to me personally
That's a good point. In a general sense, I agree with you.
I made the comment in the context of:
If you need a program like this between 16-24 AND you are doing drugs, it's much more likely than not that disadvantages have been heaped upon your life.
Correct, and that difference is meaningless and applies to a large swath of the general population, which you are quickly and callously dismissing as less than you.
How so? If you tried drugs once years ago you meet this requirement for this program. If you are an addict taking drugs daily, you will probably fail the drug tests that I assume they use for this qualification and won't qualify. Of course there is a whole spectrum between thos, but saying half the population has taken drugs at least once is very much not the same thing as saying half the population is regularly using drug.
And the qualification is worse for people who are heavily dependent on drugs, and thus can't easily give it up while going through the program.
> which you are quickly and callously dismissing as less than you
When did I ever suggest they are less than me? I was simply pointing out that saying that half of teens have tried drugs does not imply that half of them would be ineligible for this program due to drug use. In fact the same cited article states 1 in 8 have used drugs in the last year, which is probably closer to an upper bound on who would be disqualified for Job Corps due to drug use.
To be clear, I am opposed to this requirement, because it is a barrier to people who need it most.
This is a term used in the field of education, the acronym stands for; Not in Education, Employment or Training but young people have started to use it as a term for bums/layabouts with no future.
Depends which country you've taken your definition of NEET from.
In the UK, the classification is applied to people aged 16-24 (thus excluding the retired) and sometimes phrased as "respondents who were out of work or looking for a job, looking after children or family members, on unpaid holiday or traveling, sick or disabled, doing voluntary work or engaged in another unspecified activity"
On the other hand in Japan the NEET classification covers ages 15 and 34; and people who are engaged in housework or who are actively seeking work aren't considered NEETs.
Unrecognized by who? Unpaid? You are investing in the most valuable thing that exists. Is somebody else supposed to pay you to raise your own children?
Wouldn't be a terrible idea given the long-term benefit to society at large of having young, healthy, educated adults. A relative shortage of them is a serious concern for a number of societies around the world.
"Society at large" is more hostile to young, healthy, educated adults than ever. The first step is to reduce the leeching of these people, so that they can have families as is the natural order.
There is increasingly an expectation that mothers will have a paying job. My wife is a stay-at-home mom and gets some strange reactions when sharing this (I just say it's way harder than my job).
Lot's of people (like more than half the population we interact with) assume that my wife has a job, even knowing that we have four kids. I'm not sure your advice about ignoring all of them is sound...
My ex-gf's sister went through this and lasted until a week before the end when she decided to get into a fist fight with another girl at the program. They immediately sent her back home and she lost everything she had gained. This ending up also eventually being the catalyst for losing her kids to the system.
I personally do not see why job training should have anything like an age requirement. If you're old enough to be on your own, and you need assistance, then assistance should be made available to you.
Because it's the focus for this program. It lets them tailor everything about it to a certain age group. You'd approach a 70 year old whose industry has collapsed very differently than a 19 year old from the streets with no employment history.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Just create another program that's tailored towards a diff lot.
The issue is that there are few programs for anyone past their mid twenties...people who are among the most sought-after in the entry level job market. If you're 20 and not a complete fuckwit, you're highly employable just about anywhere the economy is in decent shape.
The age requirements are because of the insipid, endemic "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit in US society.
Can't have any form of "welfare" like the entire rest of the developed world...that's "communism."
The loud part is that we'd be "rewarding the lazy" and the quiet part is "we think people who are out of their 20's and unemployed are failures and we don't give a damn about failures, that's capitalism and they're on their own." And then we wonder why property crime and drugs are a problem...
I think we're probably the only wealthy, developed country in the world where you can be in your 40's and if you're male, penniless and unemployed you are likely looking at living barely above poverty for the rest of your life. If you're a woman? Just get married, you can always divorce in a few years and walk away with half your partner's assets.
Male? You're fucked. 100%.
* no programs to help you re-train and college has become completely unaffordable
* not nearly enough time to build up any sort of retirement savings sufficient to not be eating beans for every meal
* not eligible for any assistance programs (only disabled, parents, and those over 65)
* completely undesirable to many employers, especially tech
* ineligible for public service jobs (fire/ems/police) and military (even non-combat roles. We'll put a morbidly obese 20 year old out there before we'll put a fit, loaded-with-life-experience 45 year old)
The real reason: all the companies that underpay their workers and treat them like shit need a steady supply of desperate but experienced workers. And that's how you have 55 year olds working at walmart...
Did you bother to search for a solution before typing this screed out? In Texas, there is the TX Workforce Commission, which is designed to operate and solve what you bleeted on about. I picked another state randomly from my head, Kansas, and it looks like they have a similiar workforce program for job seekers. They are not only for recently unemployed individuals. I used it to great effect to gain access to network and system admin training at a very low point in my mid-20's. I was the youngest person in my "cadre" by 10+ years.
If you are reading this, ignore the despair and misogynism above.
We definitely can use more programs, but there are tons of programs, government and private. Community college is cheap (or free with grants). You can do this.
> Just get married, you can always divorce in a few years and walk away with half your partner’s assets.
Even in a community property state (a small minority operate under this rule, while an even smaller number allow voluntarily designating particular property as community property), without a prenup, its half the marital property, which includes only what is acquired during marriage, and of that excludes property one party receives during marriage through inheritance and similar processes. And, of course, even if your description was accurate, a penniless woman isn’t just going to automatically be able to find and marry a man with assets or likely to acquire them in any significant quantity. (And, conversely, while it is likewise not automatic, men can and do "marry up" financially, its not something that is only possible for women, and where marital assets are a thing, are just as entitled to a division of them.)
> * no programs to help you re-train and college has become completely unaffordable
Job retraining programs, including public community colleges, do, in fact, exist.
> * not nearly enough time to build up any sort of retirement savings suficient to not be eating beans for every meal
This is actually one area where public sector employment is a good deal; the base pay at the low end often isn’t any worse than the private sector, upward mobility (at least in wages) in the low end is also not bad, and defined benefit pensions exists. Even in the 40s, getting in 20 years is doable, and a plan with a 2% per year of service benefit multiplier (which isn’t very high, if you are retiring in your 60s) gives you 40% of your base (usually something like average of highest 3) years pay as your annual pension benefit.
Public sector employers are often also. for jobs where age discrimination is common if illegal in the private sector, much less prone to it.
> * not eligible for any assistance programs (only disabled, parents, and those over 65)
In many jurisdictions, general assistance/general relief is a thing, though the cash benefit levels tend to be low (though they often come bundled with non-cash aid, including food aid, job training, etc.), and there may be time limits with cooling off periods for able-bodied adults (e.g., something like a limit of 9 months in any 12 month period.)
> * ineligible for public service jobs (fire/ems/police) and military (even non-combat roles. We’ll put a morbidly obese 20 year old out there before we’ll put a fit, loaded-with-life-experience 45 year old)
Very few civilian public service jobs have age limits; the military has enlistment age limits (though for the Navy and Coast Guard, you aren’t necessarily past it if you are in your 40s, since it is 41 and 42, respectively), fire/police/EMS very often do not (though this varies by service and jurisdiction), and instead only have required fitness qualifications.
Deciding ROI to society is what the government does.
Consider questions like: Why did we spend so much money trying on a Covid vaccine but not to cure gall bladder cancer? Why does eminent domain exist? Why do young men have to register for selective service?
> I personally do not see why job training should have anything like an age requirement. If you're old enough to be on your own, and you need assistance, then assistance should be made available to you.
Well, based on my reading, the age here starts at 16 and includes high school potentially. It seems eminently reasonable to me to have an age requirement for a program where there are minors. Otherwise, it seems ripe for abuse. But sure, another program for adults may be a good idea.
The site says some of the centers let you live off campus. And why do you say you have to go months without drinking? I understand there won't be college parties there, but I assume you're welcome to go to a bar in your free time if you want to? A lot of the centers are in or near cities.
Seems you're not allowed to be 'drunk' even if you're of legal age. From the handbook [1]:
"NOTE: Students who are aged 21 or older may drink
alcohol when off center and not under center supervision;
however, they cannot bring alcohol onto the center.
In addition, if students of any age return to the center
intoxicated, it is categorized as a Level II
“intoxication” infraction described below."
Where:
"we consider an individual intoxicated when they exhibit a state in which their capacity to act or reason normally has been inhibited by the ingestion of a substance with the intent to cause such a state [including alcohol]" [2]
I mean that seems fine. There's kids as young as 16 there and it's run by the federal government, I would not expect them to let you bring in alcohol or show up trashed.
They can do whatever they want on their own property.
If they want subsidized housing, they have to play by the rules.
It's not about banning "mind states". Once you have shared dorm-style housing you have to be more careful about the rules. If you have minors getting and/or being obviously drunk on your shared dorm-style housing and you do nothing, you're going to be in for a huge scandal as soon as one of those drunk minors does something harmful to someone else.
But let's think about this from a practical standpoint: If someone is quietly and safely getting drunk and then returning to their dorm unnoticed, nobody is going to know or care. This is a tool for them to exercise when people get out of line.
I think you misread that. GP is saying they could do whatever they want on their property, but they are not on their property. They are on government property
I think you're looking at this from a "How does it impact a responsible person's freedoms?" perspective.
But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective.
If you're serving low income populations, higher incidences of substance abuse come hand in hand.
And 1 person with a serious substance abuse problem in a group of 10 is still a big problem for everyone else.
Nobody's saying they can't avail themselves of vices... they just can't do it in a communal environment where people are trying to better themselves.
> But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective.
My point was: Why not ban the actual behavior that inconveniences or threatens others? Being too loud, causing property damage, etc.
(Though frankly, I don't feel very strongly about this. Presumably there's a reason for the rules -- I don't have much experience interacting with unemployed young adults.)
We explicitly ban bad behaviour in wider society and people still do it and still ruin many innocent people's lives as a result. Drunk driving, violence, disturbing the peace, stealing, coming home drunk and beating your family, etc.
These people need rigid structure and strict rules so they can get passed the hurdles that are easy for the rest of us but hard for them.
We need more of these kinds of programs, especially for convicts and othere societal degenerates. We either help them or let them rot far away from the rest of us, and I vote we at least try help them.
Agreed! It's about creating an environment exclusive of people practicing vices as one precondition for success.
If you're an alcoholic, it's going to be extremely difficult to stay on the wagon if there's a guy who offers you a drink every day... while you're trying to do something difficult, with all the intermittent failures and tough days that entails.
What's the worst way to combat poverty? Put all impoverished people together. What's the best way to combat poverty? Teach different behaviors and put some impoverished people in better environments, with non-impoverished people.
If someone is working to change their life, they deserve at least a neutral-to-positive environment in which to do that.
From experience with government operations, the answer is likely because they knew it would be a lengthy, drawn-out process to get rid of someone problematic.
Government program means apathetic mid-level management, lawsuits for civil rights violations, and all sorts of red tape.
In most scenarios I'd envision, the person being thrown out is incentivized to try everything they can to avoid getting tossed. Which includes lying and concealing behavior.
Or, they could just have a clearer rule that allowed them to remove people with unaddressed substance abuse problems. Much easier.
They did ban the actual behavior that inconveniences others:
> "we consider an individual intoxicated when they exhibit a state in which their capacity to act or reason normally has been inhibited by the ingestion of a substance with the intent to cause such a state [including alcohol]"
If you're acting and reasoning normally, that's evidence that you have the capacity to do so. So act normal and you won't attract discipline for being intoxicated and acting up.
The entire rule is about discipline. The Job Corp is designed to instill such discipline in people who need it. No one said you can't drink at all. They said you can't drink on our property. God forbid they look out for the safety of people!
I truly don't understand why people get their panties in a twist over rules and regulations. They exist for a reason. Drunks cause problems. Drunks grope people, drunks get in fights, drunks vomit all over the place, drunks make your organization look sloppy, drunks miss work, etc. There are plenty of reasons to ban drunks on YOUR campus. None of them have to be, what you call, "puritanical" in origin.
"Surprisingly harsh" to who? Are you also upset you can't bring a kegger to a construction site to get all liquored up before you hop in the backhoe? Are the puritans also responsible for OSHA safety regulations?
As a taxpayer and someone who’s interested in being part of civil society, I’m fine with it.
Freedom doesn’t mean being a nuisance or disruptive. Some of us like to live in NICE living conditions.
What’s wrong with not being drunk when they’re in a program designed to help them?
Do you think it’s bad when you can’t drink alcohol or be drunk in a public library? Or at work? Two person startup aside are you going to show up to work drunk or smoke a J at your desk in an open office? Gonna join zoom zoinked with red eyes? Come on bro.
I think you’re missing the boat here. The kids and young adults are in a specific job training program, not to get trashed but to learn. Furthermore, lots of programs (private and public) have substance free requirements. Anyways, requiring people to not come home trashed is by no means puritanical. They didn’t say you have to be completely sober and join a teetotaler society they just said “ don’t get visibly intoxicated.”
It is reasonable to have rules regarding on-premises behavior. I don't agree with them, but there is nothing unreasonable about it. They probably also don't allow weapons or fireworks or other kinds of otherwise legal contraband.
Yeah, national service without the violence is a nice option to have.
Some say that's what started the end of the Great Depression, but the government lacked the confidence to fully invest until they got a violent war for justification.
Not sure why this is such an unpopular opinion. There's no shortage of public work that needs to be done, there's no shortage of people[1] who want to do work, why not a national service that actually improves lives?
[1] Well, okay, at this precise moment, unemployment is at historic lows, but that hasn't always been the case, and won't always be the case.
The values system we have is very different compared to the 30s or 40s or even the 60s. The idea of a society where we all contribute and all benefit is dead and gone. The media has given up all pretense of caring and now preaches consumerism over god and country. Compromise is a sign of weakness. As is empathy for fellow citizens. In short, a big enough percentage of the people today don't want to improve the lives of their fellow americans, and they elect politicians to actively make this place worse.
Many of our "intractable" issues are policy issues and are completely fixable within 1 or 2 generations and honestly have always been fixable.
Every time I find some idealized piece about the 30s and 40s, and specially in USA, I wonder what kind of history was taught to the writer and by whom was taught, what was the agenda behind this history instruction?
I really hope we don't get back to any of that in 1, 2 or 100 generations
The concept of living in a society where people contribute to it for the benefit of the society instead of themselves is not a lamentable one. Regardless of whether or not nationalist propaganda is good or bad in your morality system, there's no civilization that lasts when the culture no longer believes in itself.
The idea of america is how this country can keep going. Yes the reality is that we often fall short. But defeatist naysayers who decry any attempt at making things better are worse than turncoats.
We've been trying "your" value system for a while now, doesn't seem to be working. Not working is a nice way of saying degenerate, but no one seems to like that word right now.
Living standards have never been higher in the history of mankind. Go read some history!
I’m not even sure what you’re advocating for, but blind anger at the world is senseless. You want to replace our current society with a new one? That could mean bloody, violent revolution.
What do you even want? What does the world owe you?
You are exactly the person i'm describing. the glee you feel from acting like this is the only time of the day you actually feel like your existence means anything, because you imagine it making someone else feel bad, which makes you feel good.
because it's quite clear that this is your default attitude towards things and its absolutely toxic. you don't recognize it, and that is the issue. I don't think that everyone or even most people are evil. You're reading into the things i'm saying because you want me to be a certain type of person, but i am not.
I think pretty much all public works projects are now viewed as "political," while military service is not. So we send the military in to do non-violent work. It's considered totally normal that a lot of domestic, civil projects are handled by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Unemployment is low because the economy is growing, and our population has been getting older on average.
We have many different ways of measuring unemployment, which count different things. For example, employment to population ratio of prima age (25-54) is at 80.8%, just shy of the all time high of 81.9%.
It is very different than China, and there's no information being hidden.
50% of under-21 college students engage in underage drinking. The number for of-age students is even higher. 44% use cannabis. We can safely say that those two groups overlap significantly, but barring people who consume either dramatically cuts back on your potential pool.
Per my experience, I can't attest to that of cannabis, but the percentage of students drinking alcohol underage is significantly higher than 50% in every college I have heard of or visited.
Absolutely not "all", a massive amount of management (non-commission and commissioned officer) time is spent policing the behavior of 18-22 year olds, frequently including dealing with their criminal behavior both in and outside of the military. In 2021, the latest year DoD has reported, 2.6% of active duty military were kicked out of the military for either failing to do their jobs or criminal behavior.^1 In 2020, it was nearly 3.1%.^2
This is the small fraction of people who were even willing to volunteer for the military, and then completed a significantly more strenuous recruiting process than nearly any private sector job. Having a sucky life in return for learning job skills isn't worth it to most Americans of any age!
Also note all branches are having trouble recruiting the last several years, to the tune of 25-30,000 recruits short this year. Again, most people do not want to do this!
In a less rigorous setting like one implied by jobcorps, this would be much more voluntary. The peer culture in the military, combined with isolation and authoritarianism really does keep people in line, even if they screw up all the time along the way. Source: 5 military family members.
If you think that all of the freshman that lived in the dorms went to every class, much less showed up on time for every class, I've got some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you...
Although most do, because of the supervision. The "party problem" doesn't really start until sophomore year. Unless you're in a frat or sorority. Those count as "dorms" for the requirement, and are notorious.
Are you talking about a specific school, because there is almost 0 supervision (I would call what dorm RAs do as more "emergency oversight") and freshman absolutely party the same as upperclassmen & women. Also, you should know that many colleges & universities apply far greater oversight to frats & sororities these days than genpop, and many are dry.
Yes, I was specifically talking about the university my children went to, because it's the only one I know anything about.
> because there is almost 0 supervision (I would call what dorm RAs do as more "emergency oversight") and freshman absolutely party the same as upperclassmen & women.
I know that there are schools where this is true. But I also know there is at least one school where this is certainly not true.
I have to add that every school I've been to, or known anyone from has had a sort-of freshman integration process for partying where the kids are driven to the houses and supplied with alcohol and encouraged to party and have sex. _Especially_ the women, it's actually incomparable. They are instantly picked over by the upperclassmen and delivered and encouraged to party every weekend of every semester. Sure they live in a dorm but everyone has a car and is very willing to give rides to others in exchange for not having to walk into a party alone.
I've never heard of a University where the freshman were magically diligent and contained, though I've never been to a private school (if that's the type of school you're talking about). I don't mean to imply anything, but is it possible that your child may have not explained all the intricacies of their experience, perhaps to save you the trouble of worrying and them the trouble of you worrying? I certainly did not tell my parents anywhere near what actually happened, and i still have never. As far as my mom knew, i was a model child in university and in the dorm.
I went to a university where 90% of eligible students choose to live on campus every year they're allowed (some juniors are not allowed because of space issues). The school also has no fraternities or sororities.
The vast, VAST majority of freshmen drink themselves stupid at least once per week, even in the dorms.
But if your kids convinced you otherwise, props to them. You have actors or lawyers to look forward to!
Same at my young son's university. They looked out for each other, if somebody didn't show they'd check in back in the dorm, see if everything was all right.
Probably different at a state school, where kids are marking time until the job market. This was a private school in a small town upstate. Kids had a sense of purpose.
The university my kids went to was very much like this, but it's a state school. It is, however, run very much like a private school in that it can make its own decisions and it is allowed to charge a lot more in tuition.
if everyone is expected to do it, then the character of the program changes.. I am guessing at that since many ordinary countries have mandatory government service. I doubt that everyone there is subjected to classical troops psychology training, which is not for everyone.
None of us wanted to live in a dorm setting or enjoyed showing up on time.
Most are in to get away from their native location or to get money for school/GI Bill, not because the idea of military is more appealing than being a civilian.
In the US? The most obvious way would be to get a crappy job, enter community college; in two years, get an associates and a better job, and go from there.
Not only is it not a silver bullet, but they're just flat out bullshitting these kids.
"Computer Technician Network+, average salary $68,90x - $108,xxx" LOL. Please show me the employer willing to hire an 18-24 year old graduate of this Job Corps program for $69k to $108k.
Some of the salary estimates are so hilariously off the mark.
My brother went through the job corp program in the mid aughts outside of Portland, Oregon.
It was a great experience for him. He struggled throughout school[0], so at the beginning of his high school "career" he dropped out in favor of job corps. As a double-whammy, he's autistic. The structure of expectations and responsibilities that each individual had to handle every day worked great for him.
Ultimately he didn't enter the career field he chose for job corps, but it did set him up for success later. Inevitably he ends up in leadership positions at places he works.
He also got his high school diploma through the program.
[0] Generally because he didn't fit in socially, and teachers treated him differently. He's very smart, but historically had a difficult time applying himself.
My middle sister sounds a lot like your brother and did the same! She was in the corps from ‘05 to ‘08. Got a HS diploma and she reflects back on her time very very fondly.
I bet they met each other at some point! That was when he was there. Springdale Job Corps, then?
He also looks back on it fondly, and fairly commonly throws out new experiences he got while he was there. Recently he revealed he used to volunteer at the Troutdale Library because there was a van that could take them from Springdale over there!
Ah yes, that program. I tried to get in, but my parents made too much, so I didn't qualify.
Did they share their significant income with me? Hah NO. Did they contribute to any college? $2000. Oh wait, that was from my grandpa's will.
My income was like $15000/yr, from working at a Subway. Real big wage earner. But nope, my worthless parents made bank so I didn't get any help to succeed.
Fuck the whole "well your parents are rich so you also must be".
Oh man, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form was pretty brutal too for getting federal aid for college. My parents intended to (and indeed did) help me with paying for college, and their income was very modest by FAFSA's own standards. But my parents had a decent chunk of money for their own (also modest) retirement, and FAFSA plugs that into the "expected family contribution" which significantly affects your eligibility for aid.
I guess I could kinda see some argument for that, like "because your parents have secured some financial stability for their own retirement, they should be able to contribute more towards college now," but it still seems kinda odd that a kid from a family with the same income but less saved for retirement would get more financial aid.
Its obvious why it is set up this way. That said, it can be hard to see other people who make the same wage, spend it all on fancy cars and a bigger house get more aid when you've been living modestly and saving resulting in less aid.
The problem is when the assets are derived from the income. In a situation with a stable income, saving money has an effect similar to the money getting counted twice.
If two very similar families start with the same assets, and then have the same income for fifteen years, they should get the same aid.
If there was some external windfall, by all means expect some of that to go to college payments. But if a family simply spent less, why should that increase expected payment?
Because such approach rewards irresponsible people who just blow away all their income on expensive vacations, new gadgets every year, third family car, etc. and penalizes people who diligently save for the retirement?
We're just not used to thinking about it that way because, in terms of taxes, assets always get special treatment because the ultra wealthy hold the majority of their wealth through assets instead of income. And so, we do as they wish.
It’s specifically odd here because it’s pretty reasonable to say that retirements savings (which initially came from income) shouldn’t factor into a family’s expected contribution to a child’s college education, for the same reason it would be odd to double tax income and then the assets that you buy with the income.
Retirement savings are in fact excluded from parents' assets for the purposes of FAFSA, at least if they are in some kind of account legally recognized as a retirement account (401k, 403b, IRA, traditional pension, annuity, etc.). Details of what is included and excluded from parental assets: https://studentaid.gov/2324/help/parent-investments
Because the thing being calculated is the expected family contribution. I wouldn’t expect investments for retirement to be used to contribute to a child’s education.
Happened to a friend of mine with the FAFSA. Her parents didn't want her to go to college, so provided no money and even refused to fill out the FAFSA. Fortunately she was able to work something out with the senior administration of one of the colleges she was admitted to.
I understand why they take parents income into account; it makes sense for the majority, but it's pretty impressive how badly your parents can legally screw over your life after you are legally an adult.
If it wasn't for my SO and their parents, I'd leave to a decent country.
This place blows. So many anti-rich person policies and laws that basically criminalize poverty. Then again, I need money to leave. And getting rid of citizenship costs $2500 IF you don't have any loans. If you have student loans, you're just fucked.
I've known several people who went through Job Corps, got back to our home town, and then went right back to being lumps on a log. One person I know made their "living" scamming government benefits after going through Job Corps, and never worked in the industry they were trained in. The saddest part is all of them would have made many times more income just working in the field they were trained in /and/ the jobs were available, but a large number of people simply don't want to "work" (ironically, since they sometimes invest more effort for less return to scam than doing a real job).
I don't know what to do about the sociopsychological issues that plague the lower class in this country, and it really rarely has anything to do with a skills gap (skills are easily obtainable for those who want to obtain them).
>but a large number of people simply don't want to "work" (ironically, since they sometimes invest more effort for less return to scam than doing a real job).
As you point out, it's also not about the effort. It's also not just the lower class that is effected. It's a problem at all socioeconomic levels. it's just much easier to hide it the more money you make.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to work. It's about not being healthy.
We do not optimize for health in this country. We optimize for profit making. It's not surprising we are massively unhealthy. What is perhaps surprising is that we're so stuck to the idea that profit making is the most important thing to optimize for, instead of individual health.
This resonates with the people I know. The person I'm thinking of that does the most scamming is also massively overweight, sedentary, and spends every waking moment they aren't scamming playing video games. I think they have some sort of serious mental health issues which are untreated, and likely they don't acknowledge or recognize these issues (it's never been a topic of discussion though, so I can't say for sure).
That's part of why I think this is psychosocial, it's absolutely an issue of mental health and physical health issues combining to create a significant proportion of society that is incapable of taking accountability and has no desire to do anything meaningful or beneficial in their life, they're just wasting away like lumps on a log, even when given opportunities.
> What is perhaps surprising is that we're so stuck to the idea that profit making is the most important thing to optimize for, instead of individual health.
What makes this surprising to you?
We've forsaken all pretense of moral fiber, we worship entertainment and self-fulfillment at the expense of everything else. And I say "we" in the "What does the general culture edify and promote"—obviously not everyone lives this way. But enough do that it's really unsurprising to me that we worship profits. After all, if I can get mine and live an easy life—why should I care that your life is hard? (I think the answer is that there has to be a higher calling than simply living for yourself, but in our individualistic society good luck pitching that to the masses.)
> a large number of people simply don't want to "work"
Nothing wrong with this. If I didn’t have to work for money and health insurance, I wouldn’t. Have simply never had any desired to “work” in my entire life.
I don't think it should be necessary for a person to "work", however every human being should find some productive and meaningful activity that helps their family and community, whether that's "work" or something else. Humans are a social species and we are not designed to wallow in our own selfishness devoid of any responsibilities or meaning. Humans derive pleasure from doing things that benefit others and seeing the results of that effort, whether that qualifies as "work" or not.
It is not required to have a capitalistic mindset to understand the inherent value of "work" apart from the reality of scarcity.
Why should they? For what reason? If they do nothing productive and meaningful, don't hurt anyone, and don't desire to change, what is the reason they should change?
"They should change because they will likely feel pleasure from it" does not seem like a sufficient reason, there are lots of things people will likely feel pleasure from that I wouldn't say they "should" do.
I don't think work has inherent value apart from the reality of scarcity that can't be fulfilled by things other than work.
I don’t want to try to convince you otherwise so lets talk about reality. Due to the reality of scarcity, those who do no work and expect that they will be cared for do in fact harm others.
Scamming government benefits and failing to contribute to society when you are entirely able is not just selfish, it directly damages society and harms those with legitimate needs as well.
> Why should they? For what reason? If they do nothing productive and meaningful, don't hurt anyone, and don't desire to change, what is the reason they should change?
As long as scarcity is real, the idea that you are owed an existence without work is beyond selfish and entitled, it is directly harmful. They /are/ hurting others.
Scarcity exists but it isn’t real. It’s created by people to convince each other that we need to keep working.
There are enough empty houses and apartments to house everyone, but there’s a bunch of people in a tent around the corner from my apartment. Food waste is astounding but people still go hungry.
The fact you believe this tells me you have a loose association with reality. There’s really nothing more to discuss. Food doesn’t appear on tables via magic, somebody gets their hands dirty.
Commies aren’t known for their sensibilities, so I remain unsurprised.
Yes, it's my cowardice that makes me unable to entertain your delusions, not my close grasp on reality. Whatever it takes for you to get through the day, buddy.
You’re painting humans with a pretty broad brush and it’s the kind of thing religions were designed for. Force people into thinking the One True Way that they have to do something to find meaning, when meaning really comes from within.
Why would anybody listen to someone else on this? (the irony is not lost on me here). We get one life and it’s up to everyone to decide for themselves the “right” way to spend it.
Physical and mental work is good for the mind and the spirit. Without the two, a person starts to decay. I think a ton of people who never did a days physical work in their life would benefit greatly if they were put to work, so they could know at least what it is. It's like the gym. Our gut reaction is to avoid it, but it makes you feel great physically and mentally, clears away some fog.
People aren't different when it comes to these things. Eating healthy is beneficial for every single individual. Physical exercise is beneficial for every single individual. The same goes for the mental and spiritual side of things: exercise is beneficial and nobody is an exception.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't rest our body and our soul.
Is it physical exercise that’s beneficial for everyone or a physical day’s work?
I do not believe that a physical day’s work is needed for everyone and that most people who believe it’s necessary for themselves believe it because they don’t know and can’t imagine anything else.
The idea that people need to work is just boring and unimaginative to me.
> I do not believe that a physical day’s work is needed for everyone and that most people who believe it’s necessary for themselves believe it because they don’t know and can’t imagine anything else.
If somebody has never had a physical day's work in their life, they are incompletely developed. "Unimaginative" you say, when there are thousands upon thousands of things you can do within the category physical work.
I'm from a place where there are a huge percentage of the population who have never done a day's work. From childhood to school to universities to office jobs. These people might be successful in measurements of wealth and income, but they also become stunted in many aspects of life. Just as somebody who never learns to write or read.
The wages are too low. Without assistance, they'd probably commit suicide, so you're logic is based on a false binary. A job that doesn't earn a base level of dignity is not necessarily worth living for, so people give up. It's very simple.
I don't know what you're on about. Job Corps teaches job skills that are very well paid, one of the people I know was trained as a welder, another as a machinist, and one in IT. Someone with a CCNA starts at around $60k/yr in my home town and can make more in bigger metros, and if they continue learning can be easily earning $100k/yr+. Welders make $30+/hr, more in large metros, which is also roughly $60k/yr. Machinists make around $22/hr starting out and can easily make $30+/hr with experience or in larger metro areas.
You can go "the wages are too low" all you want, but coming from a dead-end shit town, with minimal life prospects and dropping out of high school to having a GED and training with certifications in a field that pays above the median single-earner income nationally is a pretty good deal. I think Job Corps is a good program, I also think a lot of people who go into Job Corps are doing it as a last-ditch effort but don't actually have any desire to take responsibility for themselves or actually work.
Every single job that Job Corps trains for pays a fair wage in most markets. While it'll likely never make you rich, it is certainly well into the "base level of dignity" territory. Clearly the people I know aren't tempted to commit suicide, they're still investing as much time as they can when they're not wasting their life away playing World of Warcraft to scam government benefits, so.
And where in Job Corps does it train you for lower-end service work in large, expensive cities? Most of the people going to Job Corps are not from large, expensive cities, and none of their centers are in large, expensive cities. The work they're training for is skilled blue collar work, all of which pays relatively decently and is not "low-end service work".
My grandfather was an academic who studied 'socially alienated adolescents' and was the original director of this program when it was developed back in the 60's. This is one of his original lectures on the social dynamics that drove the program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPwV8miW46I&ab_channel=Natio...
I used to teach algebra to students going through JobCorps. It was a second chance for young men and women who didn't get their diploma the first time around. I truly believed in the mission of preparing a new generation with education, life skills, and vocational training to let them become productive and enthusiastic members of our society.
The site in San Jose Job Corps was run with some of the most awesome humans. I worked for John Muir Charter School, who worked in cooperation with the California Conservation Corps — the hardy souls who go out to take care of our forests and trails. It was hard work, but awesome stuff.
It's refreshing to see that the website has a bunch of tiny CSS stylesheets in the source rather than a bundled mess that is frontend these days. There are also a bunch of JS scripts at the bottom. It's been so long since I've seen modern sites have those. (Seems like they used Drupal as per the generator name.)
IIRC, it was started as part of the large antipoverty efforts that began in the '60s. It was specifically meant to help reduce the rate of unemployment in young people.
It was basically the modern (at the time) version of a similar program used to help recover from the great depression.
Politically, it meshes well with the ideals of both the right and the left[1], which I think is why it remains largely considered a good thing regardless of your political bent.
[1] Americans tend to forget, especially lately, that the right and the left agree on far more things than they disagree on.
Exactly. It was meant to get young men and women through a high school diploma or GED, to get them vocational training, and to give them life skills needed to be independent.
It was an alternative to pure-play unemployment or welfare.
Doesn't surprise me. Not sure what stereotypical Republican you have in your mind, but I'd assume it's the kids that hate government assistance like food stamps.
They hate government programs that promote lifelong government assistance and discourage work for those they think shouldn't need it.
This government program is literally the opposite long term goal: it encourages work, and hopes to reduce government assistance after this one-time program is finished.
It seems to be for most Republicans (cf. Reagan, `starve the beast`), and while I think Republican policy proposals tend to be malicious and ideological, I also value beneficial program objectives being efficiently met for the tax dollars I pay.
"Starve the Beast" wasn't about efficiency. It was about reducing revenue without even bothering to think through to deal with that on the spending end. It was the governmental equivalent of a parent quitting their job because "we spend too much." Heck, that was the exact metaphor Reagan used in the debates (except he made it about a kid's allowance). It made very little sense on the surface, and that was because the motivation was focused almost entirely on reducing the tax rates for the wealthy.
They offered a bunch of insane justifications, including the famous "voodoo" "trickle-down economics" idea that if you cut taxes for the wealthy enough, they'd use the money to boost the economy, thereby raising tax revenue, so everybody would win. Absolute bullshit, but it's been seriously spoken of for decades like it's an actual thing with some sort of economic or mathematical backing.
"Starve the beast" really means to reduce income while not reducing spending. The goal is to pile up so much debt that future generations will have no other choice than to reduce government. Evidence is that every republican president since Reagan has implemented big tax cuts while at the same increasing spending (mostly defense) and deficits. They never bothered to reduce spending or increasing government efficiency in any meaningful way.
Efficiency is not the top priority of government-provided services. The top priority is (or should be) to provide universally and fairly, without any form of discrimination against the population that make use of such services. Efficiency is a nice-to-have, while universality and fairness are hard requirements.
Efficiency should be a target with a tight constraint of service provision as you've described. It's the dual optimization problem of providing the most service for a given goal; rather, we should agree to a level of service being absolutely required (as you've laid out) then push improvement to decrease unnecessary expenditure (IMO).
You can try and further an ideological religion all you like, but I am family friends with a job corp director in a deep red state, they get everything they ask for from their state legislature.
In the US it's really important to separate rhetoric from what politicians really do. Unfortunately not many people do this and media mostly is about "he said/she said" without looking at substance.
Despite some success, job corps have a violent history and poor track record and rampant corruption. Look it up, it's not hard to find. They don't have a very good reputation in the job employment market either. Locally, the factories teach employees welding as does the community college trade program, the latter is not free but very attainable for all ages. There are much better and more efficient ways to train youth than free tax dollars out of somebody elses pocket.
I never stated that job corps was the most efficient way to train youth. In fact, I never stated that I thought it was a worthy program at all. (I don't know enough about job corps to have an opinion worth sharing)
The parent comment strongly rejected the idea that republican presidents were unlikely to support job corps, and I responded by sharing an article about our most recent republican president's attempts to kill the program. It's not that controversial
Sometimes people write stuff like "ideological religion" about people who notice every single Repub voting against every infrastructure bill. Sometimes it turns out those same people disbelieve in vaccines and climate change, love the new X, and so on. It seems much more appropriate as a confession instead of an accusation.
Next time you can save a lot of words by just writing “no, u”.
I’m not sure you know anything about me, but I sure appreciate the ad hominem accusation of being antivax and a climate change denier. Classy stuff there.
So you do understand your use of "ideological religion" was ad hominem towards that person, and hypocritical besides, since you are a climate liar ignoring the facts of climate change due to your ideological religion.
If anything I’m sure Republicans would rather we require welfare recipients to undertake a boot camp program to force them into the labor force. This seems right up the alley.
I hear you, but it's probably a good thing. I've noticed that the more targeted a program is, the better it tends to be. I've seen many programs get ruined for everybody by trying to do too much.
They tried to - announced it publicly but were met with broad bipartisan opposition so they said they were going to privatize the program instead, which was also met with bipartisan opposition, so I think they just gave up in the end and left it alone.
The website reads fine, there's even three FAQs to answer your questions at the bottom of the page you referenced.
Job Corps is a training program for 16-24 year olds as an alternative or supplement to high school or college. Your first touch to this would typically be your high school guidance counselor. Your second touch might be your community college counselor. Your other pathway might be through your parole officer.
It's free. It's listed multiple times on the website.
They learn welding, manufacturing, automative tech, construction, hospitality, healthcare, and the best one is probably forestry. It's listed multiple places on the website.
How long is typically 1 to 3 year stints.
Job Corps centers are located in almost every major city in almost every state. It's a government program since the 1960's. There's an entire program finder on the website.
>Job Corps centers are located in almost every major city in almost every state.
This seems pretty far off the mark. Using their program finder, I find (for instance) that the only one in Colorado is in Colbran. As a Colorado native, I expected that the one in Colorado would at least be in a town I had heard of.
They are in some kind of surprising places. There's not really one in the Seattle metro area, for instance. But there are 2 a piece in Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
I wonder if the weird locations are entirely down to real estate, or if there's a local demographic question or even a correlation between remoteness of location and success rate.
And in the context of "put the Job Corps Center where the affiliated jobs are", it makes perfect sense. The "Seattle area" center is similarly placed in a lumber town, more than hour's drive (without traffic) from the Seattle.
All I'm saying is that the assertion that there's one in every major city is pretty wide of the mark.
Thanks for the information. It sounds like an interesting program. The FAQ you mention does do a good job of answering these questions. I wish that was more front and center instead of at the very bottom of the footer.
My comment was more about the fact that the "What Is Job Corps" page is very much a marketing page, and I think it leans too heavily in that direction. I bounced off it pretty hard because it's quite busy and clearly trying to sell me something. That's a red flag for me when I'm looking at education programs.
I had to do a triple take to make sure this was actually a federal program and not a scam.
I attended this program about 10 years ago. To answer your questions, It is a school, they pay the student a stipend and lots of other benefits. the courses are mostly "blue collar" related job training. So thing like Welding, Brick Laying, Computer Repair. You will find most of their courses are targeting job sectors that are in need of people. they also house you for the entire time and is a rather good program to get into.
So once you join you are housed in a dorm on campus. Once you start to leave they will help you find a job, a home and give you starting money. You will not leave the campus until all of this is done. Once you are out on your own, You can rejoin Job Corps if you are still under aged and do a different program and get all the same benefits
I don't know if they have explicit partnerships, but it's certainly a program that case workers in the foster care system are aware of. My foster daughter's case worker explored it with her as one of a range of options after high school. (She ended up just getting a regular job instead.)
I'd be really curious to know how it works out for former foster youth who try it. On the one hand I can imagine the structure and support to be really valuable to kids who have been in the foster care system. On the other hand foster youth often benefit most from systems that can give them lots of second chances and can work with them to meet their individual needs, and I don't know if that's something Job Corps can offer.
You may be interested in ASMBLY Makerspace in Austin, which has a scholarship program to help foster kids / teens get skills that can help them transition into adulthood and get great jobs: https://asmbly.org/new-maker-scholarship-program/
You can scratch by, get your certs, and stand by a machine for ten hours a day, six days a week. Or you can really apply yourself and focus on attaining SOME engineering-level skills and end up indespensible (usually given a part and asked to make it by coming up with a program, as opposed to working from print or existing process). You can be a glorified monkey or you can make yourself into an engineer. Up to you.
Indeed! Have you look at what's needed to be good at car repair lately?
Most blue collar work has always been technical and required a fairly high level of education. The educational path has historically been different (apprenticeships, trade schools, etc), but no less rigorous.
Yep. On top of that you better be fast and generally mistake-free or you will be broke. Oh yeah, don't rock the boat either. You have to accept the level of personal safety (gear/practices) that everyone else has accepted--or you are out the door.
The program is not only entirely free, it can actually pay the students (this was 2011; YMMV):
Job Corps Living Allowance and Transition Payment
The living allowance (i.e., pay) is based on stay duration (e.g., up to 56 days is $25/pay period or two weeks, 57-112 days is $30/pay period, 113-182 is $40/pay period and 183+ days at $50/pay period).
A transition payment occurs when the student successfully completes a High School Diploma/GED and/or a career and technical certificate. Students receive $250 for HSD/GED, $750 for CTE or $1,200 for completing both.
Weird that they'd go through all the trouble to block the web site to visitors outside of the USA. It's not like it contains NSA secrets or the USA's Canada-invasion plan.
I'm a US citizen and taxpayer in a non-US country who has no intention of using this program or interfacing with it in any way but still would like to read the FAQ and see what my tax money is being used for.
Confidence in Americans institutions. is at an all-time low.
The America of today is like a literal different country compared to the America of 1960's and before.
Its becoming a very low quality of life place for the average America teetering towards 3rd world levels of inequality with minimal social safety nets.
If you call Britain first world country, they're way worse than America.
What you said is equivalent to "they are more effective at making themselves useless". I can't disagree with you, but I think Americans deserve a useful and competent government.
Everyone is an unrecognized genius or temporarily at ends millionaire. So it's easy to be dismissive of anything and it makes certain personalities feel smart and better about themselves.
But there are far more bureaucrats in private enterprise than in government, so shouldn't you (you all, not just systemvoltage) despise private enterprise far more than government?
But it's not a silver bullet, and it requires a certain amount of diligence and self-awareness to be able to finish the program. It's not a party atmosphere like college or entry-level employment can be: how many 19-year-olds do you know who want to live in a dorm setting and show up on time? How many 22-year-olds want to go months without drinking?
That said, it's a clear and coherent step forward for people who might otherwise feel lost, and that's a very good thing.
Now, if only they had something for NEETs over job corps's age limit....