Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : World Outlook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (48019)	9/27/2025 2:35:11 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48871

The assertion that half of college graduates work in jobs not requiring a degree 10 years later has several flaws, particularly in how "underemployment" is defined and the oversimplified narrative it presents. This claim, frequently cited from reports by organizations like the Burning Glass Institute and Strada Education Foundation, faces key criticisms regarding methodology and interpretation. Defining "degree-level" jobs A major flaw lies in how researchers determine if a job requires a degree. Studies often classify jobs as "degree-level" based on the education levels of the majority of people currently in that role. This creates significant problems. Categorization ignores nuance: The same job title can encompass a wide range of skill and education levels. For example, the category "sales" might include both retail clerks and highly technical sales engineers, the latter of which almost certainly requires a degree. Arbitrary cutoffs: Using a simple 50% majority rule is problematic. A job where 49% of workers have a degree is classified as "non-degree," while one with 51% is "degree-level," creating an arbitrary distinction that doesn't reflect the work itself. "Degree reset" effect: Many employers have removed degree requirements for jobs in recent years, making it even harder to track with static job classifications. Underemployment is not always a permanent state While some graduates do remain underemployed for a decade, other research indicates that for many, it is a temporary phase in their career development. Growth into better roles: Economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have found that many graduates who take less-demanding jobs right after college eventually move into more rewarding positions. "First job scarring" is sticky, not universal: Studies suggest that taking a non-degree job immediately after graduation can limit future mobility, a phenomenon known as "first job scarring". However, this "stickiness" does not affect everyone and is influenced by factors like the broader economic climate. Other factors are overlooked The simple "underemployment" narrative misses other important aspects that influence career paths and job satisfaction. Majors matter: Not all degrees lead to the same employment outcomes. Quantitative fields like engineering and computer science tend to have lower rates of "underemployment" than liberal arts or some business majors. Skills matter more than degrees: Some graduates may choose a career path for reasons other than the prestige of a "degree-level" job. A graduate might take a lucrative, non-degree sales job to pay off debt or pursue a personal passion that aligns with their values. Transferable skills are ignored: The analysis assumes a degree's value is tied to the job title, ignoring the fact that many degrees teach valuable, transferable skills like communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving that are useful in a wide array of roles. Personal choice is a factor: The statistics may not account for personal choice. A graduate might take a job that is statistically "underemployed" because it offers better compensation, geographic location, or work-life balance. Employers also value degrees differently The demand for a degree can vary by company and even by the skills of the individual. Degrees as a filter: Some employers may post jobs that formally require a degree to expand their hiring pool, but then filter for the more skilled candidates. Employers pay more for degree holders: Many companies are willing to pay more for a college graduate, even for jobs that don't nominally require one, suggesting they perceive higher value in their skills. In summary, while statistics on underemployment raise important questions about the value of higher education, the narrative that "half of college graduates" are not using their degrees after 10 years is an oversimplification. It relies on a flawed classification system, ignores personal and economic factors, and overlooks the transferable skills and market preferences that a college degree can confer *** Imo, probably the biggest hurdle is the disruption caused by child-bearing by most women around age 30, almost 10 years after they graduate college.

To: Les H who wrote (48019)	9/28/2025 9:38:49 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48871

Unpublished Henry Ford study at center of vaccine safety debate Kristen Jordan Shamus Detroit Free Press September 25, 2025 Summary A "flawed" draft of a 2020 Henry Ford Health research study suggests vaccinated children suffer from chronic diseases at a higher rate than unvaccinated children. The research came up in a U.S. Senate subcommittee meeting in September. In an emailed statement, Henry Ford Health said: “There are many factors that determine whether a research paper should be submitted for consideration by scientific journals. In this case, an initial peer review of the draft revealed immediate and significant concerns due to serious data flaws, including: The unvaccinated patient sample was vastly different than the vaccinated sample, with more males, more white children, less prematurity and less respiratory distress at birth. The unvaccinated sample was very small in comparison to the vaccinated sample. The amount of time measuring occurrence of disease was much shorter for the unvaccinated children. One quarter were observed only through six months of age, and 75% were only observed up until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose chronic pediatric diseases. The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines, instead of a specific vaccine vs. no vaccines. No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between vaccines and the occurrence of disease. Vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration. "In the end, this report was not published because it did not even come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards we demand — not because of the results." freep.com Poor study design. Lack of controls. There's a bias comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated since the latter tend to be poorer and don't have a primary doctor who regularly hears their medical complaints and performs the diagnoses, There's going to be a lot more unreported illnesses and other medical conditions among the second group.