Class of 2013 grads poised to flood job market: Will dreams get dashed, or are fortunes rising?

Penn Live ^ | 05/03/2013 | John Luciew

[SeekAndFind]

There’s no two ways about it. The Great Recession and the anemic recovery have been especially brutal on younger workers. The blue skies and sunny smiles of May graduations often turn to soured realities of menial jobs unrelated to college majors and mounting student loan debts.

But is the labor market log jam that locked out so many recent college grads from launching careers finally starting to break?

Consider some recent good news for a change:

The Bethlehem-based National Association of Colleges and Employers found that the average starting salary for new college graduates earning bachelor’s degrees increased a healthy 5.3 percent over last year. This, according to the group’s April salary survey.

Read More: Top salaries by major.

Billed as the first look at starting salaries for the Class of 2013, the survey found that the average starting salary for these college graduates stands at $44,928, up from the 2012 average salary of $42,666.

“The sizable gains in several disciplines—particularly in health sciences and business—have helped to drive up the average starting salary for the Class of 2013,” explains Marilyn Mackes, NACE executive director.

Not all college degrees are created equally when it comes to the salary survey.

With a whopping increase of 9.4 percent, health sciences garnered the highest increase among the disciplines. This jump brings the average starting salary for these graduates to $49,713. Business also saw a solid gain—7.1 percent—bumping the average salary for these grads to $54,234, the association reported.

Likewise, education and computer science saw ample increases. The average starting salary for education majors climbed 5.1 percent to $40,480, while the average salary for computer science majors jumped to $59,977, 4.3 percent higher than last year.

Engineering: 4.0 percent, to $62,535; communications: 3.8 percent, to $43,145; and math and sciences: 3.1 percent, to $42,724 -- all seeing increases that exceeded 3 percent.

At the other end of the salary spectrum, graduates with degrees in humanities and social sciences lagged badly, with just a gain of just 1.9 percent, to $37,058.

All this talk of salary increases presupposes a grad’s ability to land a job within his or her major in the first place.

On this front, especially, the news for the Class of 2013 remains grim.

In a corresponding hiring outlook survey, the association said employers reported hiring plans that were mostly flat when it came to offering jobs to the Class of 2013.

Overall, employers taking part in the spring survey said they would hire 2.1 percent more new college grads from the Class of 2013, than they hired from the Class of 2012. That’s down from the 13 percent increase that employers had projected in the fall of 2012.

And perhaps most troubling, a full one-third of respondents reported plans to hire fewer new grads than they did a year ago.

“The new projection is consistent with recent job reports that show job growth is less than anticipated,” says NACE's Mackes.

And there’s the rub: Any news of salary spikes for the Class of 2013 grads is soured by the continued scarcity of actual jobs.

Thus, the Depression-like unemployment and under-employment situation among our nation’s younger workers and recent college grads looks to linger still.

Despite the pomp and circumstance and optimism and euphoria of graduation, many May grads might not make it off their launching pads for some time to come. That’s the shame of it, but it’s what the numbers say.

[ex-snook]

"Pell Grants and Student Loans...who cares how much tuition is if someone else is paying for it, or if I don't have to worry about paying for it until years later?

Well maybe there are other factors too. Some grads seem to have quite a load. [I had GI bill pay for mine when it was $500 year, private school. ] Today everyone wants to go to college, employers want it, it's a seller's market. Thanks.

[erod]

Dreams will get crushed.

I got of college in 2008 and wasn't able to find my first real job for 3 years because I had to take a crappy job to build up my experience in marketing to get the job I wanted. No experience = no job and unless these grads have connections or a field that is in demand they will face a similar situation. The only thing that has changed since 2008 has been the horrendous math that the government uses to calculate the jobless rate. I feel sorry for the conservative kids who did not vote for an administration that doesn't care about a prosperous job market in America.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: He cannot do that — Congress is in charge of laws, not the President.

Again I am assuming that a Romney victory would carry the Senate and House together.

It is better than just maintaining the lower house.

And my argument still is this — THERE *IS* (emphasis) a difference between a President Romney and a President Obama.

The former ( although imperfect ) would be better.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: They’re both statists, and socialists, who have no concept of the proper limits of authority for the position of President. — How are they different?

I just outlined the difference above.

Better a lesser statist than the one that we have.

If you want to find the perfect man, you’re never going to vote in any election.

[OneWingedShark]

Had Romney won, his victory would have carried the headwinds for Congressional control as well.

Would that be a good thing?
Consider the recent push on gun-banning... do you think the republicans would have put up as much resistance (pitiful though it was) if Romney had been in office?
Romney would, at best, maintain status quo -- at worst there would be "party unity" on implementing his socialist dreams.

And the Obamacare repeal bill would have passed both houses and gone to a President Romney.

I don't believe that, not one bit. But let's suppose you're right... would such a congress write up an new healthcare, a Romneycare if you will, to replace it like was mentioned up-thread?

[OneWingedShark]

Again I am assuming that a Romney victory would carry the Senate and House together.

There's not much to support that assumption -- traditionally the opposite party as the president is likely to make gains in the Congress, IIRC.

It is better than just maintaining the lower house.
And my argument still is this — THERE *IS* (emphasis) a difference between a President Romney and a President Obama.

The difference is that one's a hard-line socialist and the other's a fabian socialist. I grant that much, but I still say they're socialists.

The former ( although imperfect ) would be better.

I honestly have my doubts about that -- a republican congress would likely show less resistance to statism even than they do under Obama, which means that we would be more 'normalized'... Obama at least has some polarizing effects.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: They’re both statists, and socialists, who have no concept of the proper limits of authority for the position of President. — How are they different?
>>
>I just outlined the difference above.

Ah, differences without any distinction.

> Better a lesser statist than the one that we have.
> If you want to find the perfect man, you’re never going to vote in any election.

Honestly, who said anything about 'perfect'?
Is a refusal to vote for a Statist (or Socialist) a flat-out rejection of anyone who's not perfect?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Ah, differences without any distinction.

The willingness to cut taxes IS a distinction.

RE: Is a refusal to vote for a Statist (or Socialist) a flat-out rejection of anyone who’s not perfect?

Again, there are DEGREES of desire for statism. I argue that Romney is less ( MUCH LESS ) of a statist than Obama and would have been better (relatively) than what we have now.

We were not given palatable choices in 2012, however, to simply let Obama romp when there was a lesser evil alternative was the wrong thing to do.

THAT is the distinction.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Would that be a good thing?

I believe that Todd Akin and Richard Murdock being in the Senate would be much better than the alternatives if that’s what you’re asking.

Allen west being in Congress would have been better than his opponent winning.

RE: Consider the recent push on gun-banning... do you think the republicans would have put up as much resistance (pitiful though it was) if Romney had been in office?

With Todd Akin, Richard Murdock and Allen West in there? YES.

RE: Romney would, at best, maintain status quo — at worst there would be “party unity” on implementing his socialist dreams.

Again, I never said Romney was the best of the bunch that wanted to be President in 2012.

We are comparing Romney with OBAMA and THAT makes the huge difference.

I have personally never bought the argument that Romney would be just as bad or worse than Obama. All my gut instincts tell me he would be better (even if it isn’t saying much ).

If a train is on the way towards the cliff at 100 MPH (Obama), I’d rather it ran at 75 MPH ( Romney ) so that it will give me more time to prepare.

[RHS Jr]

Jump off at 100 MPH ASAP, dust yourself off and head for the hills because it just keeps going faster.

[SeekAndFind]

It is still possible to slow it down.

[SeekAndFind]

Or even reverse course.

However, it won’t happen if we do nothing and just let the Obama’s of this world romp.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: Ah, differences without any distinction.
>
> The willingness to cut taxes IS a distinction.

I view it as rationalization, and a willingness to buy into moral relativism.

>> RE: Is a refusal to vote for a Statist (or Socialist) a flat-out rejection of anyone who’s not perfect?
>
>Again, there are DEGREES of desire for statism. I argue that Romney is less ( MUCH LESS ) of a statist than Obama and would have been better (relatively) than what we have now.

And I’m saying “bollocks!” — Let’s change things around a bit and look at a single issue: abortion. Obama is _very_ pro abortion, Romney is absolutely willing to make exceptions for incest, rape (killing the innocent), and “the health of the mother” (code-words for “at will” & status quo). — Voting for Obama or Romney therefore does nothing to end the American Holocaust.

>> We were not given palatable choices in 2012, however, to simply let Obama romp when there was a lesser evil alternative was the wrong thing to do.
>
> THAT is the distinction.

No it is not. We were given the opportunity to choose between evil and good-compromised-with-evil (which *ALWAYS* works to evil’s favor).
What I’ve taken from people with your stance is that “the lesser of two evils” is *always* acceptable and there is no room for the absolute stance of someone saying “I will not vote for [socialists/statists/abortionists/something-I-find-utterly-repugnant/whatever].”

Is that what it means to be a Republican? That it’s ‘ok’ to give up a mile so long as you don’t give up a mile and an inch?
Is there any point where you would say “the line must be drawn here!”?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I view it as rationalization, and a willingness to buy into moral relativism.

Willingness to cut taxes and unwillingness IS a difference. It isn’t moral relativism.

RE: Obama is _very_ pro abortion, Romney is absolutely willing to make exceptions for incest, rape (killing the innocent), and “the health of the mother” (code-words for “at will” & status quo). — Voting for Obama or Romney therefore does nothing to end the American Holocaust.

I’m with you regarding abortion. I am not even willing to kill the baby even when the mother is raped. I’d rather we help the child get adopted.

But yet, what is LESS WORSE? To save some babies or not to save any baby at all?

Rape and Incest are small numbers compared to the vast number of abortions out there.

So, your choice — Leave all babies to be killed or some babies to be killed. Given this hard choice, I select the later reluctantly.

RE: No it is not. We were given the opportunity to choose between evil and good-compromised-with-evil (which *ALWAYS* works to evil’s favor).

Oh yes it is. Cutting corporate taxes to 25% and eliminating the death tax is NOT compromise.

It is a HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Better than leaving it at 35% ( the highest in the world ) and leaving the death tax existent.

RE: Is that what it means to be a Republican? That it’s ‘ok’ to give up a mile so long as you don’t give up a mile and an inch?

Again, you are not given the best choice. You are given the choice between two evils. In which case, i have no choice but to select the lesser one.

It has nothing to do with being Republican, it is simply a way of stopping, reversing or slowing down the greater evil.

[OneWingedShark]

> If a train is on the way towards the cliff at 100 MPH (Obama), I’d rather it ran at 75 MPH ( Romney ) so that it will give me more time to prepare.

And what I’m saying is that to my POV the difference isn’t a mere 35 MPH, it’s 2 MPH when you’re talking about bullet-trains [~185 MPH] over a 50 Mile stretch — so little difference compared to everything that for practical end-user usage there’s little point in distinguishing it.

>> RE: Consider the recent push on gun-banning... do you think the republicans would have put up as much resistance (pitiful though it was) if Romney had been in office?
>
> With Todd Akin, Richard Murdock and Allen West in there? YES.

You’re “assuming things not in evidence” to use the legal phrase, the scenario was only whether an Obama/Romney election-win would have altered things — I said nothing about Akin/Murdock/West winning as well. (Granted I do think that they’d be against the gun-control if they had, West especially, but that’s not what we’re talking about.)

> We are comparing Romney with OBAMA and THAT makes the huge difference.

Not really, it’s like comparing Mao and Stalin mass murderers [30M & >20M, respectively] when the question isn’t about their mass-murderer but whether it’s desirable to have a Tyrant at the head of government at all.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: And what I’m saying is that to my POV the difference isn’t a mere 35 MPH, it’s 2 MPH when you’re talking about bullet-trains [~185 MPH] over a 50 Mile stretch — so little difference compared to everything that for practical end-user usage there’s little point in distinguishing it.

Again, a corporate tax cut from 35% to 25% is HUGE, so is the elimination of a death tax. So is the willingness to sign a repeal of Obamacare.

From my POV it isn’t a small difference. It is a REVERSAL of the train’s direction.

RE: You’re “assuming things not in evidence” to use the legal phrase, the scenario was only whether an Obama/Romney election-win would have altered things — I said nothing about Akin/Murdock/West winning as well. (Granted I do think that they’d be against the gun-control if they had, West especially, but that’s not what we’re talking about.)

I believe it is a valid assumption. The tide of country went with the President and his party. A Romney victory would have carried the republican party with him. It has been like this in most cases. There is seldom a case where the president wins and his party loses. Most people vote along party lines.

RE: Not really, it’s like comparing Mao and Stalin mass murderers

Now you’re really stretching it.

One wants to cut taxes, the other one wants to raise them. No comparison whatsoever.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: Obama is _very_ pro abortion, Romney is absolutely willing to make exceptions for incest, rape (killing the innocent), and “the health of the mother” (code-words for “at will” & status quo). — Voting for Obama or Romney therefore does nothing to end the American Holocaust.
>
> I’m with you regarding abortion. I am not even willing to kill the baby even when the mother is raped. I’d rather we help the child get adopted.

We are in agreement there.

> But yet, what is LESS WORSE? To save some babies or not to save any baby at all?

Let me flip that around: which is worse to allow it to continue, or to make a token gesture that has no impact and then pat ourselves on the back as if we had done something?

This is not exactly a hollow hypothetical, the Gnosell trial is a perfect example of how the Partial Birth Abortion ban is impotent — what he did wasn’t exactly “an isolated incident,” but (though it’s not reported) more mainstream than anyone with a conscience would be comfortable admitting.

> Oh yes it is. Cutting corporate taxes to 25% and eliminating the death tax is NOT compromise.
> It is a HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Again, the President has no such authority. That is altering law and properly under the Congress, not the Executive.

> Again, you are not given the best choice. You are given the choice between two evils. In which case, i have no choice but to select the lesser one.

That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

> It has nothing to do with being Republican, it is simply a way of stopping, reversing or slowing down the greater evil.

No, it is not. It is the process of making the normal into extremes and the extremes into normal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Ask yourself this: if you were presented with the Obama/Romney choice over and over again (different people, but the same premises), the only difference being how bad they were [really bad vs. pretty bad] do you not resign to embracing a policy of “the best that can happen is to stay the same”? — If that is the case, then at what point will you ever “reverse the evil” — the answer is you will not, not ever.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: Not really, it’s like comparing Mao and Stalin mass murderers
>
> Now you’re really stretching it.

Of course — because you will not hear when it is plainly stated I have to use hyperbola. Notice that you did not really refute the comparison, only said that I’m “stretching it” (which I admit), this means that there *is* something there to be stretched: that is, the comparison is not utterly invalid.

> Again, a corporate tax cut from 35% to 25% is HUGE, so is the elimination of a death tax.

Looking back at the Abortion issue, you were perfectly willing to endorse Romney, even though he is against your view on abortion [which you said carries on even into rape]... and why? because of a willingness to cut the tax rate. So then, how much is a human life worth to you in terms of tax-rate percentage points?

My point is that you are validating my observation: there is [apparently] nothing where you would say “this is unacceptable” and you would always vote for “the lesser of two evils.” — In such a system there is never any need to field anyone good, and indeed you can set whatever policy you want so long as the two presented have very similar stances.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Let me flip that around: which is worse to allow it to continue, or to make a token gesture that has no impact and then pat ourselves on the back as if we had done something?

Well, in this case, you would not have voted for Ronald reagan then. What did he do for the pro-life movement that prevented abortions from happening under his term?

It is better for someone to at least SPEAK OUT against the practice than not. Even a small light is better than total darkness.

If as you say, Gosnell’s case is not an isolated incident, then it has been happening since Roe vs Wade even under Reagan.

Are we then to argue that we’d rather not have a Reagan as President and allow the likes of Mondale or Carter to be President simply because he could not do anything about abortion?

rE: Again, the President has no such authority. That is altering law and properly under the Congress, not the Executive.

But HE HAS THE BULLY PULPIT. And I argue that a bully pulpit FOR tax cuts is better than the tired old Obama rhetoric we’ve been hearing. And again, i argue that if Romney had won, the two houses would have gone GOP.

RE: That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. —

OK, I’ll bite. In a Romney vs Obama scenario, what is the third choice? And ask yourself what would have happened if enough people voted this way?

I argue that it is EXACTLY what we have now.

RE: Ask yourself this: if you were presented with the Obama/Romney choice over and over again (different people, but the same premises), the only difference being how bad they were [really bad vs. pretty bad] do you not resign to embracing a policy of “the best that can happen is to stay the same”? — If that is the case, then at what point will you ever “reverse the evil” — the answer is you will not, not ever.

Again, I’d vote for the Romney — IF — He keeps his promise to cut corporate taxes to 25%, eliminate the death tax and sign Obamacare repeal.

And yes, I believe he would have done that.

In a primary, I would have chosen someone else, and I did. However, it did not end up the way I wanted.

Therefore, I only have a Romney and Obama to choose.

Guess what I choose the lesser evil. Why? because to do nothing simply ensures the greater evil wins.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. —
>
> OK, I’ll bite. In a Romney vs Obama scenario, what is the third choice? And ask yourself what would have happened if enough people voted this way?

(1) Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, ran Libertarian and got 1% of the popular vote.
(2) Vergil Goode, Constitution party.
(3) Tom Hoefling, America’s Party.

There’s three choices right there.
I’ll only go w/ the top one, Johnson, but the others were in the running too. Johnson is slightly less firm on the abortion issue than I’d like, saying it should be a state-level decision, but that’s a respectable position to take when you consider that before Roe v Wade that’s exactly the position the states were in (and most had anti-abortion laws which Roe v. Wade dissolved). He left NM with a budget surplus, which is pretty impressive when you know how the State works... and did such a good job he was reelected even though, at the time, the State was solidly Democrat. ~ As President I would expect him to end the War on Drugs (which, along with the War on Terror has has VERY obviously deleterious effect on the 4th and 5th amendments and arguably the 6th). I would also expect him to seriously reign in federal spending, possibly even dissolving federal agencies; he would oppose tax increases and encourage congress to lower the rate [perhaps endorsing a uniform flat-rate].

Have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ils8Ost3Dt8&feature=BFa

In short, there is absolutely nothing I can think of that a Romney presidency would have over a Johnson presidency... and a good deal more that Johnson had over Romney.

> Guess what I choose the lesser evil. Why? because to do nothing simply ensures the greater evil wins.

I never said “do nothing.”