The handwriting on the wall

[Lafayette]

I keep repeating in this forum (so fixated on jobs, jobs, jobs) that the key to building jobs, jobs, jobs is the challenge of moving our workforce up-market. Which is necessary because un- and semi-skilled jobs cost companies far less in, say, Mexico or the Philippines.

For that to happen, however, we must have a Tertiary Education system that is far less costly. Only one out of every two American kids who graduate with a high-school degree go on to obtain a post-graduate degree. Whyzzat?

Because it is too damn expensive! See this info-graphic here.

Also, consider this poignant interview with the CEO of Carrier Systems (Greg Hayes) by newsman Jim Cramer, excerpt (from here):

First, Hayes was asked what's so good about Mexico. Quite a lot, it turns out. From the transcript (emphasis added):

JIM CRAMER: What's good about Mexico? What's good about going there? And obviously what's good about staying here?

GREG HAYES: So what's good about Mexico? We have a very talented workforce in Mexico. Wages are obviously significantly lower. About 80% lower on average. But absenteeism runs about 1%. Turnover runs about 2%. Very, very dedicated workforce.

JIM CRAMER: Versus America?

GREG HAYES: Much higher.

JIM CRAMER: Much higher.

GREG HAYES: Much higher. And I think that's just part of these-- the jobs, again, are not jobs on assembly line that people really find all that attractive over the long term. Now I've got some very long service employees who do a wonderful job for us. And we like the fact that they're dedicated to UTC, but I would tell you the key here, Jim, is not to be trained for the job today. Our focus is how do you train people for the jobs of tomorrow?

So Mexico has cheaper labor with a much more dedicated workforce, and these are the kinds of low-skilled jobs most people don't find that attractive. Elsewhere in the interview, he made clear that United Technologies intends to keep engineering jobs in the US, and that these higher-skilled jobs are not at risk of being moved overseas.

Need I say more, or are we all going to lament the fact that jobs, jobs, jobs are not going to happen at the level that they did in the past. We must push both our kids and those already in the workforce "up-market" for them to have a decent job for a decent family-life

The handwriting is on the wall. "Get a postsecondary degree, either vocational or college or university!" Which is the idea that Hillary had - borrowed from Bernie - to offer a post-secondary education subsidized by the government to all families earning less than $100K a year (whilst our average individual income is $54K per year).

Wow, what a Great Idea! And yes, we, the sheeple, just shot down that Great Idea with consummate stoopidity ...

 

[Hawkeye10]

It is not just the expense, it is that the university is now so broken that 4-6 years of time invested into their programs dont accomplish much. So little is asked of the customers (called students in a nifty Orwellian twist).

 

[Crovax]

Need I say more, or are we all going to lament the fact that jobs, jobs, jobs are not going to happen at the level that they did in the past. We must push both our kids and those already in the workforce "up-market" for them to have a decent job for a decent family-life

The handwriting is on the wall. "Get a postsecondary degree, either vocational or college or university!" Which is the idea that Hillary had - borrowed from Bernie - to offer a post-secondary education subsidized by the government to all families earning less than $100K a year (whilst our average individual income is $54K per year).

Wow, what a Great Idea! And yes, we, the sheeple, just shot down that Great Idea with consummate stoopidity ...

The only stupidity is thinking that the majority of Americans can get a college degree. The mean IQ for college graduates is 115, just 18% of the US has that type of intelligence. Those high skill jobs arent given out because of a piece of paper or the material learned but because of the intelligence it takes to attain it.

 

[Lafayette]

Those high skill jobs arent given out because of a piece of paper or the material learned but because of the intelligence it takes to attain it.

I used to hire people for headquarter-jobs. These were my instructions to my HR-chief in the selection procedure:
*First, post-secondary degree,
*Second, experience directly related to the job
*Third experience not related but the cross-over would not take long for an intelligent person (as indicated by the first criteria).

That selection criteria is now automated scanning of hundreds of CVs that result from a public job-announcement, and the above questions are key to any CV making it through.

I disagree strongly about IQ being the chief criteria for a degree. It helps get you in the seat, but is no guaranty whatsoever that you stay in that seat. There are many other requisite attributes. Intelligence is one, an honest personality is another and probably even most important. That is, the ability to express oneself clearly and work professionally, that is in my book, without "bump-it with a trumpet" ...

PS: IQ has very little to do with obtaining an advanced degree. Particularly at the lower end, where training is included in the Tertiary Education. (And this is the job-level that is most vulnerable.) Moreover, IQ (over time) is the least relevant criteria on-the-job, far less than good reasoning - which has very little to do with what you have learned in schooling but more so with what you have learned through experience and application to the job.

 

[Crovax]

I used to hire people for headquarter-jobs. These were my instructions to my HR-chief in the selection procedure:
*First, post-secondary degree,
*Second, experience directly related to the job
*Third experience not related but the cross-over would not take long for an intelligent person (as indicated by the first criteria).

That selection criteria is now automated scanning of hundreds of CVs that result from a public job-announcement, and the above questions are key to any CV making it through.

I disagree strongly about IQ being the chief criteria for a degree. It helps get you in the seat, but is no guaranty whatsoever that you stay in that seat. There are many other requisite attributes. Intelligence is one, an honest personality is another and probably even most important. That is, the ability to express oneself clearly and work professionally, that is in my book, without "bump-it with a trumpet" ...

PS: IQ has very little to do with obtaining an advanced degree. Particularly at the lower end, where training is included in the Tertiary Education. (And this is the job-level that is most vulnerable.) Moreover, IQ (over time) is the least relevant criteria on-the-job, far less than good reasoning - which has very little to do with what you have learned in schooling but more so with what you have learned through experience and application to the job.

This is obviously false otherwise the mean IQ for a degree wouldn't be substantially higher than the mean IQ for the population. There is simply no way to get a larger share of the population degrees without lessening what it takes to get a degree. Yes there is a small % who could get a degree but dont because of money but its not going to vastly transform the workforce.

Spending money trying to put everyone through college when only a quarter or so have the ability is a fools errand. We should be figuring out how to fix an economy where automation/technology has cut out a significant number of lower class jobs and even the offshoot jobs automation provides require higher intelligence.

 

[Lafayette]

This is obviously false otherwise the mean IQ for a degree wouldn't be substantially higher than the mean IQ for the population. There is simply no way to get a larger share of the population degrees without lessening what it takes to get a degree. Yes there is a small % who could get a degree but dont because of money but its not going to vastly transform the workforce.

Spending money trying to put everyone through college when only a quarter or so have the ability is a fools errand. We should be figuring out how to fix an economy where automation/technology has cut out a significant number of lower class jobs and even the offshoot jobs automation provides require higher intelligence.

You refuse to understand that education is a process (and not an end dependent upon IQ).

I cannot believe that an IQ requirement for entry-level jobs (requiring a 2-year training) is of any great consequence. I do believe that a "personality check" is far more important, because the job may require it. (Police-work, social services, etc.)

Besides, the measurements of IQ are highly inexact. From the American Psychology Association:

But intelligence testing has also been accused of unfairly stratifying test-takers by race, gender, class and culture; of minimizing the importance of creativity, character and practical know-how; and of propagating the idea that people are born with an unchangeable endowment of intellectual potential that determines their success in life.

Since the 1970s, intelligence researchers have been trying to preserve the usefulness of intelligence tests while addressing those concerns. They have done so in a number of ways, including updating the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale so they better reflect the abilities of test-takers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. They have developed new, more sophisticated ways of creating, administering and interpreting those tests. And they have produced new theories and tests that broaden the concept of intelligence beyond its traditional boundaries.

As a result, many of the biases identified by critics of intelligence testing have been reduced, and new tests are available that, unlike traditional intelligence tests, are based on modern theories of brain function, says Alan Kaufman, PhD, a clinical professor of psychology at the Yale School of Medicine.

For example, in the early 1980s, Kaufman and his wife, Nadeen Kaufman, EdD, a lecturer at the Yale School of Medicine, published the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), then one of the only alternatives to the WISC and the Stanford-Binet. Together with the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, first published in the late 1970s, and later tests, such as the Differential Ability Scales and the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS), the K-ABC helped expand the field of intelligence testing beyond the traditional tests.

Nonetheless, says Kaufman, there remains a major gap between the theories and tests that have been developed in the past 20 years and the way intelligence tests are actually used. Narrowing that gap remains a major challenge for intelligence researchers as the field approaches its 100th anniversary.

I think the jury is still out as regards the functional precision of IQ-testing - meaning to me this: To be employed with caution ... !

 

[ttwtt78640]

I keep repeating in this forum (so fixated on jobs, jobs, jobs) that the key to building jobs, jobs, jobs is the challenge of moving our workforce up-market. Which is necessary because un- and semi-skilled jobs cost companies far less in, say, Mexico or the Philippines.

For that to happen, however, we must have a Tertiary Education system that is far less costly. Only one out of every two American kids who graduate with a high-school degree go on to obtain a post-graduate degree. Whyzzat?

Because it is too damn expensive! See this info-graphic here.

Also, consider this poignant interview with the CEO of Carrier Systems (Greg Hayes) by newsman Jim Cramer, excerpt (from here):


Need I say more, or are we all going to lament the fact that jobs, jobs, jobs are not going to happen at the level that they did in the past. We must push both our kids and those already in the workforce "up-market" for them to have a decent job for a decent family-life

The handwriting is on the wall. "Get a postsecondary degree, either vocational or college or university!" Which is the idea that Hillary had - borrowed from Bernie - to offer a post-secondary education subsidized by the government to all families earning less than $100K a year (whilst our average individual income is $54K per year).

Wow, what a Great Idea! And yes, we, the sheeple, just shot down that Great Idea with consummate stoopidity ...

What % of US jobs require a degree? Is it over 50% - your claimed current % of degreed applicants? If not then what we will have is downward pressure on degree required job wages - more qualified applicants than open positions means that lower salary offers will be accepted.

Crickets....

 

[Mac77]

I keep repeating in this forum (so fixated on jobs, jobs, jobs) that the key to building jobs, jobs, jobs is the challenge of moving our workforce up-market. Which is necessary because un- and semi-skilled jobs cost companies far less in, say, Mexico or the Philippines.

For that to happen, however, we must have a Tertiary Education system that is far less costly. Only one out of every two American kids who graduate with a high-school degree go on to obtain a post-graduate degree. Whyzzat?

Because it is too damn expensive! See this info-graphic here.

Also, consider this poignant interview with the CEO of Carrier Systems (Greg Hayes) by newsman Jim Cramer, excerpt (from here):


Need I say more, or are we all going to lament the fact that jobs, jobs, jobs are not going to happen at the level that they did in the past. We must push both our kids and those already in the workforce "up-market" for them to have a decent job for a decent family-life

The handwriting is on the wall. "Get a postsecondary degree, either vocational or college or university!" Which is the idea that Hillary had - borrowed from Bernie - to offer a post-secondary education subsidized by the government to all families earning less than $100K a year (whilst our average individual income is $54K per year).

Wow, what a Great Idea! And yes, we, the sheeple, just shot down that Great Idea with consummate stoopidity ...

At least you are not giving us the robots-are-taking-over argument.

But if American workers are so BAD and mexican workers are so good how is throwing money at the already richest education system in the world going to change anything for us?

 

[ttwtt78640]

At least you are not giving us the robots-are-taking-over argument.

But if American workers are so BAD and mexican workers are so good how is throwing money at the already richest education system in the world going to change anything for us?

His argument is that since only 50% now have degrees then the rest of us (non-degreed folks) cannot get the "good" jobs. What he does not explain where these new "good" jobs are going to come from. We see folks with college degrees now waiting tables and taking other jobs that do not require degrees. Why is there a now such a huge problem with college graduates repaying their student loan debt? Could it be that a college degree "for all" is not the magic answer to joining the upper middle class?

 

[Mac77]

His argument is that since only 50% now have degrees then the rest of us (non-degreed folks) cannot get the "good" jobs. What he does not explain where these new "good" jobs are going to come from. We see folks with college degrees now waiting tables and taking other jobs that do not require degrees. Why is there a now such a huge problem with college graduates repaying their student loan debt? Could it be that a college degree "for all" is not the magic answer to joining the upper middle class?

His argument is that American workers are unmotivated slobs who are not equal to the mexicans in performance

If he is right about that its silly to think that throwing trillions of dollars at the problem will produce anything except better educated slobs

Of course he isnt right or only partially right.

They dont have a great welfare system in mexico

So poor mexicans dont get to lay around in the shade drinking tequila all day and strumming a guitar

If they dont work they starve

So they work there or come to America and thake jobs from Americans for lower wages

Meaning we need to reform our welfare system as well as imposong tariffs on imported products that should be made here

 

[DA60]

I used to hire people for headquarter-jobs. These were my instructions to my HR-chief in the selection procedure:
*First, post-secondary degree,
*Second, experience directly related to the job
*Third experience not related but the cross-over would not take long for an intelligent person (as indicated by the first criteria).

A post secondary degree is - unless it is specifically required for the position - is ridiculously overrated, imo.

I went to a VERY expensive university and learned almost nothing that has helped me at all through my life.

7 Reasons Employers Will Hire You

Other than doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, etc. that require a degree; having a degree for most jobs (even VERY well paying ones) is almost irrelevant as it is more about direct experience, your resume and how you present yourself in an interview than anything else.

Besides, many people that get degrees later realize it is in an area they really are not interested OR does not pay that well and is thusly time and money generally wasted.


Also, according to this link, no one in the world (as of 2000) gets more formal schooling than Americans and yet she has no where near the lowest unemployment rate.

Countries Compared by Education > Average years of schooling of adults. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

 

[Mac77]

His argument is that since only 50% now have degrees then the rest of us (non-degreed folks) cannot get the "good" jobs. What he does not explain where these new "good" jobs are going to come from. We see folks with college degrees now waiting tables and taking other jobs that do not require degrees.


Why is there a now such a huge problem with college graduates repaying their student loan debt? Could it be that a college degree "for all" is not the magic answer to joining the upper middle class?

I can offer two suggestions why

The colleges are over priced and not worth what the students are being charged

And the students do not always spend the money they borrowed on education necessities

They use some or most of the money on pizza, beer and spring break

And if they graduate they owe much more money than was necessary

Particulary if they have never held a job or worked a day in their lives

 

[joG]

I keep repeating in this forum (so fixated on jobs, jobs, jobs) that the key to building jobs, jobs, jobs is the challenge of moving our workforce up-market. Which is necessary because un- and semi-skilled jobs cost companies far less in, say, Mexico or the Philippines.

For that to happen, however, we must have a Tertiary Education system that is far less costly. Only one out of every two American kids who graduate with a high-school degree go on to obtain a post-graduate degree. Whyzzat?

Because it is too damn expensive! See this info-graphic here.

Also, consider this poignant interview with the CEO of Carrier Systems (Greg Hayes) by newsman Jim Cramer, excerpt (from here):


Need I say more, or are we all going to lament the fact that jobs, jobs, jobs are not going to happen at the level that they did in the past. We must push both our kids and those already in the workforce "up-market" for them to have a decent job for a decent family-life

The handwriting is on the wall. "Get a postsecondary degree, either vocational or college or university!" Which is the idea that Hillary had - borrowed from Bernie - to offer a post-secondary education subsidized by the government to all families earning less than $100K a year (whilst our average individual income is $54K per year).

Wow, what a Great Idea! And yes, we, the sheeple, just shot down that Great Idea with consummate stoopidity ...

The real problem is that we are dedicating more to consumption than we as households should and less to things like education. The preferences are bent in that direction. That is not the way a free society should work, if the people were well socialized and informed. Where they are not such and driven by the populist dream of the free lunch, then you produce inefficient qualities and levels of learning. Under those circumstances one must force people do, what one thinks they should do. But that is a weakness and carries a high cost to efficiency.

 

[joG]

It is not just the expense, it is that the university is now so broken that 4-6 years of time invested into their programs dont accomplish much. So little is asked of the customers (called students in a nifty Orwellian twist).

You are very right and generally true, if you exclude the Ivy League and other private institutions. After all, education is a mostly private good and what you pay for, you tend to value higher, than what is cheap. If you go socialist then it is down market. A guy got a Nobel Prize for Economics for formulating that mechanism.

 

[nota bene]

The "free lunch" is a populist dream?

 

[Lafayette]

The real problem is that we are dedicating more to consumption than we as households should and less to things like education. The preferences are bent in that direction. That is not the way a free society should work, if the people were well socialized and informed. Where they are not such and driven by the populist dream of the free lunch, then you produce inefficient qualities and levels of learning. Under those circumstances one must force people do, what one thinks they should do. But that is a weakness and carries a high cost to efficiency.

The fact that a post-secondary education works in Europe is simple, it cost next-to-nothing. Not more than an annual tuition of about $1000. Even less in some countries. (Of course, housing is the student's problem, but it is no great impediment either.)
The difference in cost is a significant impediment to enticing more of our youth to undertake a postsecondary educational program:


The fact that Europe underwent a devastating World-War that ended in 1946, then required another decade to rebuild, it is nonetheless amazing that today, 40% of adults in Europe have attained the same level of tertiary-education as in US. See here:


If there is sufficient "enticement" (that is if education becomes literally a "free lunch") then, like in Europe, people will realize that they cannot improve their lot in life with just a high-school diploma.

I would hope at least ...

 

[joG]

The fact that a post-secondary education works in Europe is simple, it cost next-to-nothing. Not more than an annual tuition of about $1000. Even less in some countries. (Of course, housing is the student's problem, but it is no great impediment either.)
The difference in cost is a significant impediment to enticing more of our youth to undertake a postsecondary educational program:
View attachment 67210830

The fact that Europe underwent a devastating World-War that ended in 1946, then required another decade to rebuild, it is nonetheless amazing that today, 40% of adults in Europe have attained the same level of tertiary-education as in US. See here:
View attachment 67210829

If there is sufficient "enticement" (that is if education becomes literally a "free lunch") then, like in Europe, people will realize that they cannot improve their lot in life with just a high-school diploma.

I would hope at least ...

That is not a nice thing to say about Europeans. You need to make lunch free to get them to eat? How nasty.

BTW it is interesting in graph 1 that loans and scholarships are bundled together, as though the implications were similar.

 

[Lafayette]

A post secondary degree is - unless it is specifically required for the position - is ridiculously overrated, imo.

Oh, really .... ?

 

[Lafayette]

At least you are not giving us the robots-are-taking-over argument.

But if American workers are so BAD and mexican workers are so good how is throwing money at the already richest education system in the world going to change anything for us?

Because of the kind of work. Whether Mexican, Philippine, Vietnamese or Chinese, they are performing "production line" work. These are precisely the kinds of work that are being lost.

Frankly, this comes as no surprise to me. I recall in central Massachusetts when the plastics-industry shuttered up and left. This happened in the 1980s. First the jobs went to the southern US, then to Mexico and finally to China.

Which is why we must prepare our youth for better paying jobs, but work that requires better skills as well.

That's not so difficult. First, let's get away from the idiocy that an MBA is the fast-path to a good job. It aint.

We are masters of the services industries, so that is where we should concentrate. What are these? Here they are, all in the SIC 7000 range.

 

[Lafayette]

This is obviously false otherwise the mean IQ for a degree wouldn't be substantially higher than the mean IQ for the population. There is simply no way to get a larger share of the population degrees without lessening what it takes to get a degree. Yes there is a small % who could get a degree but dont because of money but its not going to vastly transform the workforce.

Spending money trying to put everyone through college when only a quarter or so have the ability is a fools errand. We should be figuring out how to fix an economy where automation/technology has cut out a significant number of lower class jobs and even the offshoot jobs automation provides require higher intelligence.

You refuse the evidence.

Too bad ...

 

[Lafayette]

That is not a nice thing to say about Europeans. You need to make lunch free to get them to eat? How nasty.

BTW it is interesting in graph 1 that loans and scholarships are bundled together, as though the implications were similar.

The bundling is necessary to compare apples with apples, I imagine.

There is, of course, no bundling in Europe, since loans are simply not necessary; and the purpose of the info-graphic is to show total comparative educational costs ...

 

[Mac77]

Because of the kind of work. Whether Mexican, Philippine, Vietnamese or Chinese, they are performing "production line" work. These are precisely the kinds of work that are being lost.

Frankly, this comes as no surprise to me. I recall in central Massachusetts when the plastics-industry shuttered up and left. This happened in the 1980s. First the jobs went to the southern US, then to Mexico and finally to China.

Which is why we must prepare our youth for better paying jobs, but work that requires better skills as well.

That's not so difficult. First, let's get away from the idiocy that an MBA is the fast-path to a good job. It aint.

We are masters of the services industries, so that is where we should concentrate. What are these? Here they are, all in the SIC 7000 range.

Jobs left because of free trade with low wage, low regulation third world countries

If we had tariffs to equalize labor costs we cpuld still make things here and America would be a better place to live

 

[jdog]

At least you are not giving us the robots-are-taking-over argument.

But if American workers are so BAD and mexican workers are so good how is throwing money at the already richest education system in the world going to change anything for us?

If you do not understand that automation will eventually decimate the entire social structure you are walking through life with a bag on your head.

 

[ecofarm]

As college education becomes standard, prices will fall. Many community colleges have become 4 year institutions since my time as an undergrad. I'm not sure IQ is the main factor, having completed msc then phd credits. There are many factors, drive/passion being perhaps the most important. If there's something someone really wants to learn about, there's probably a way. After passion would probably be economics. Somewhere down the line, IQ is a factor.


I have 2 questions:

Have the anti-intellectuals arrived, with sneers at soft science and lauding of anecdotal evidence?

Why "handwriting" instead of just writing.

 

[austrianlib]

If you do not understand that automation will eventually decimate the entire social structure you are walking through life with a bag on your head.

Really like how automobiles displaced all the buggy drivers?