The Atlantic: "Can the Middle Class Be Saved?"

There is a guy I met at orientation where I adjunct who is teaching 12 classes at several colleges.

 

Wow Stitch, that is really hard to do just from a scheduling perspective let alone a work angle. And no matter how many classes you get, there are no benefits of any kind or even a real contract. Plus, you can be assigned classes and have them all be canceled shortly before school begins. That stings.

Many on the Chronicle of Higher Education forms argue you should not adjunct as it is exploitation. Of course if you don't adjunct while looking for a tenure-track job, you will not have any teaching experience......

 

http://bleedingyankeeblue.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-derek-jeters-our-captain.html

Great post about why the demise of Jeter was a media fabrication.

 

I caught the typo the instant I posted it, so you were pretty quick to catch it. Lord knows, I'm the king of the typo on here, but I thought I had that one before anybody laid eyes on it.

Anyway, building on the thought of stupid consumers, let me throw this out to chew on. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's a thought: This is the most pro-business an environment this country has had during a serious economic downtown. I mean, in the depression, people cheered the bank robbers.

But now you have high unemployment, stagnant wages and the solution to the economic crisis for a lot of people is a pro-business solution. Where in the past labor unions formed wars were fought over mines, etc., etc., now taxes must be cut further for the wealthy to "create jobs."

I'm not judging with that statement, although most of you know where I stand on the issue. I'm just saying that the tea party movement and the cultural conservative movement in general is very much a populist movement, but it's sort of turned populism on its ear a bit.

Thinking about what's been discussed on this thread, I have a theory as to why:

Although wages were stagnant and although substantive jobs were being shipped overseas and although the wealth gap has grown significantly, people THINK they are living well on what they are making because the artificial wealth they were given in the last 20-30 years.

You don't give a damn that your wages are flat or have declined when adjusted for inflation in the last 10-15 years. You were still able to buy the new 3,000 SF house with a pool and giant master bathroom and open kitchen for zero down and 4.5 percent interest. You have a boat you bought on credit and a pool. And you credit your company for paying you $50,000 a year and your wife's company for paying her $35k. So what if way too much of your income goes to paying debt and you haven't saved a dime.

To you you are doing better than your parents because you bought a nicer house and have more toys. But what you forget is mom and dad had to put 20 percent down for their house and banks weren't giving away credit cards.

So you go on thinking you have it good and you have your job with its stagnant wages and crappy retirement plan to thank for it. But really, the reason you have wealth to show is easy credit.

Now, if the easy credit wasn't there, then the worker would be pissed that his salary is not keeping up with inflation. He'd be pissed that he can't buy the nice home. He'd be mad as hell that at least mom and dad got a pension and an IRA, I just get a 401k that they don't match anymore.

If the economy took a serious tumble, there would be anger, but channeled in a different direction.

 

Know this well on two fronts, Magic (and Greenhorn). I taught news reporting and feature writing for six years at a small, private D-3 school 30 miles east of LA. Stopped in the spring of '08, not because I didn't like it (I loved it) or they didn't like me (I got great reviews every semester), but because gas at that time was $4.63 a gallon and I was driving 250 miles every Monday.

In essence, I was spending $700 a month for gas between my FT gig and this one and making $550 a month. Wasn't paying. So I tried getting a job at the local Cal State 10 minutes from my office. They were going through a hiring binge for adjunct.

Yet despite 17 years of journalism experience and six years of collegiate teaching experience, I couldn't get an interview. Why? No Masters.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Birdscribe -- Masters from the University of Wisconsin and all -- has been adjunct at the local CC for 16 years. She's been passed over for THREE full-time jobs because -- enter dirty little secret about many colleges/universities -- they refuse to hire from within. They'd rather go outside and keep their adjunct pool intact.

Journalism may be a snake-pit of trivial and ridiculous bullshit, but academia gives it a good run for it's money when it comes to hiring and promoting.

 

The stories I could tell you ...

 

Ugh, sorry to hear that Birdscribe about Mrs. B. There were never any full-time openings at the two colleges where I taught. Both were community colleges. And at each stop, the chairman/woman of my department had the same educational level as me (MA, not PhD). In other words, they were able to find full-time work with a MA by virtue of graduating in the 1980s or 90s and not the toxic times of today.