ricardoplouis

Our workforce is more educated now than at any point in history. This means we'll have more and more people competing for jobs they are overqualified for. From a job seeker perspective, it will only get harder as the traditional credentials have lost their value.

I've also been on the hiring perspective and I can tell you there is no shortage of candidates, nor do companies have a hard time finding employees. The problem is that they either:

A: Want top talent without paying the premium B: Want top talent for a role that doesn't require it

If you ask any hiring manager, they'll always prefer the senior talent over the junior one, even if the role doesn't require it. But once they see the rates that senior talent commands, they might adjust their expectations.

I don't think there is any dream solution given that the problem is more cultural than anything. If anything, the market will loosen up in favor of the hiring managers in the long run, but continue to squeeze workers given our current trajectory.

Chasing profits didn't cause slavery to end, it was the abolitionists who were standing up for human rights. Historically massive social change doesn't come from the top down like you are describing. It would be akin to saying LBJ was a civil rights hero for his legislation. Sure, he signed it, but the civil rights movement of 60s is why it was possible in the first place. Hardly can one deserve credit for playing a forced hand.

The luxury and call to arms fails to reach all ears considering out government routinely does the same thing to teenagers in the states, but because they are poor and black, it's largely considered acceptable in our culture.

It's worth asking what made issues surrounding climate change so unpopular in the first place. Advocates and activists are working against decades of misinformation from oil execs. Even something as straightforward as replace coal with renewables is deeply unpopular in large parts of the country because there's the stigma of job loss associated with it. While it's easy to take aim at climate advocates, why not take aim at the ones who actively profit off the destruction of the planet?

I've personally seen the race problem in multiple large scale socialist orgs, but feel free to ignore the criticism.

There is truth to the matter, but it's also because class conscious groups fail to recognize that they perpetuate the same racism, sexism, etc... that the elites do.

Coincidentally, ignoring race as an issue is the one issue many people on both sides of the political spectrum can get down with even though economic equality does not guarantee racial equality.

Given the stark racial inequality we have today due to compounding wealth from centuries of colonialism and slavery, it seems diversity is the bare minimum we could do to address such a burden, and it's a shame that is even considered controversial. Is there an "unoffensive" solution to address this history or should we all just get along and pretend it didn't happen?

Worth noting both Adam Smith and Marx agreed that landlords were parasites.

Slight anecdote on test scores. In H.S. a friend and I both scored the same on a college admissions exam. A few months later after studying my score went up a couple points while his jumped dramatically to the highest percentile. I asked him how he managed to make such a jump and he told me he took prep classes specifically designed to help him score higher. I looked it up and the prep classes cost was hundreds of dollars per course.

I bring this up to say that I see many arguments here that diversity means lower test scores. But test scores are a mechanism that can be gamed with wealth. It's nice to think you scored what you did because of how smart you are, but if it's possible for someone to become dramatically "smarter" in a short period of time, then I think it speaks to the invalidity of the system.

You make a weak case for representative democracies while ignoring the police killing part. Where does that fit in?