If you are able to donate $100 or more for our Annual Fund Drive, your donation will be matched by another generous CounterPuncher! These are tough times. Regardless of the political rhetoric bantered about the airwaves, the recession hasn’t ended for most of us. We know that money is tight for many of you. But we also know that tens of thousands of daily readers of CounterPunch depend on us to slice through the smokescreen and tell it like is. Please, donate if you can!
“In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a first-class education,” President Obama famously declared in his 2010 State of the Union Address, just as millions of high schoolers across the nation were embarking on the annual ritual of picking their preferred colleges and preparing the grand tour of the prospects, with parents in tow, gazing ashen faced at the prospective fees.
The image is of the toiling students springing from lecture room to well-paying jobs demanding advanced skills in all the arts that can make America great again – outthinking, outknowing the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, South Koreans and Germans in the cutting edge, cut-throat high tech economies of tomorrow.
Start with the raw material in this epic knowledge battle. As a dose of cold water over all this high-minded talk it’s worth looking at Josipa Roksa and Richard Arum’s recently published “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.” The two profs followed more than 2,300 undergraduates at 29 universities, selected to represent the range of America’s 2000-plus four-year college institutions. As resumed by Steven Kent in Daily Finance:
Among the authors’ findings: 32 per cent of the students whom they followed in an average semester did not take any courses that assigned more than 40 pages of reading per week. Half did not take any courses in which more than 20 pages of writing were assigned throughout the entire term. Furthermore, 35 per cent of the students sampled spent five hours or less a week studying alone.
Typical students spent about 16 per cent of their time on academic pursuits, and were “academically engaged,” write the authors, less than 30 hours a week. After two years in college, 45 per cent of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36 per cent showed little change. And the students who did show improvement only logged very modest gains. Students spent 50 per cent less time studying compared with students a few decades ago.
Students who majored in traditional liberal arts fields like philosophy, history and English showed ‘significantly higher gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills over time than students in other fields of study.’” But of course these are the courses and instructors being ruthlessly pruned back.
One of the study’s authors , Richard Arum, says college governing boards, shoveling out colossal sums to their presidents, athletic coaches and senior administrative staff, demand that the focus be “student retention,” also known as trying very hard not to kick anyone out for not doing any measurable work. As Arun put it to Money College, “Students are much more likely to drop out of school when they are not socially engaged, and colleges and universities increasingly view students as consumers and clients. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that all students want to be exposed to a rigorous academic program.”
Rick Santorum briefly struck out at ingrained snobbery about going to college: “President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.” Amid howls from Republican governors, this was a piece of derision it didn’t take him long to retract. Actually, it turns out only about 30 per cent of Americans over the age of 25 have bachelor’s degrees. Jack Metzgar, emeritus professor of humanities at Roosevelt University in Chicago, had a very useful piece in Working Class Perspectives, the blog of the Center for Working Class Studies Site, with this and other useful facts and reflections.
The US government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that in 2010 only 20 per cent of jobs required a bachelor’s degree, whereas 26 per cent of jobs did not even require a high school diploma, and another 43 per cent required only a high school diploma or equivalent.
Please note that the latter 69 per cent were therefore free of the one debt in America that’s even more certain than taxes – a students loan. At least, if you’re provably broke the IRS will countenance an “offer in compromise.” In fact they recently made the process slightly easier. No such luck with student loans. The banks are in your pocket till the last dime of loan plus interest has been extorted.
Now for the next dose of cold water. The BLS reckons that by 2020 the overwhelming majority of jobs will still require only a high school diploma or less and that nearly 3/4ths of “job openings due to growth and replacement needs” over the next 10 years will pay a median wage of less than $35,000 a year, with nearly 30 per cent paying a median of about $20,000 a year (in 2010 dollars
As Metzgar correctly remarks, “Put these two sets of numbers together, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Americans are over educated for the jobs that we have and are going to have. It’s hard to imagine why anybody would call us ‘a knowledge economy.’” In other words millions of Americans are over-educated, servicing endless debt to the banks and boosting the bottom lines of Red Bull and the breweries.
The snobbery, as Metzgar points out, stems from the fact that America’s endless, mostly arid debates about education are conducted by the roughly one third who are college-educated and have okay jobs and a decent income.
The “knowledge economy” in the U.S., now needs more than 6 million people with master’s or doctoral degrees now, with another 1.3 million needed by 2020. But this will still be less than 5 per cent of the overall economy.
Even if we expand the definition to include jobs requiring any education beyond high school, the “knowledge economy” – now and a decade from now -will still represent less than one-third of all available jobs.
This is a lot of jobs, about 44 million now, and if you work and live in this one-third, especially in its upper reaches, more education can seem like the answer to everything.
Indeed, according to the BLS, having a bachelor’s degree should yield a person nearly $30,000 a year more in wages than a high school graduate. But most of the American economy is not like this.
The BLS’s three largest occupational categories by themselves accounted for more than one-third of the workforce in 2010 (49 million jobs), and they will make an outsized contribution to the new jobs projected for 2020.They are: Office and administrative support occupations (median wage of $30,710);- Sales and related occupations ($24,370); Food preparation and serving occupations($18,770). Other occupations projected to provide the largest number of new jobs in the next decade include child care workers ($19,300), personal care aides ($19,640), home health aides ($20,560), janitors and cleaners ($22,210), teacher assistants ($23,220), non-construction laborers ($23,460), security guards ($23,920), and construction laborers ($29,280).
As Metzgar writes, “As an individual, get a bachelor’s Degree or you are doomed to work hard for a wage that will not provide a decent standard of living for a family. You may not get such a wage even with a bachelor’s degree, but without it your chances are slim and getting slimmer.” Here’s his kicker: But as a society, “the best anti-poverty program around” cannot possibly be “a first-class education” when more than 2/3rds of our jobs require nothing like that…we need to stop fostering illusions that good educations can ever substitute for the organized collective action – in politics, in the workplace, and in the streets – that will be required to reverse the increasingly miserable future.”
So what is the best anti-poverty program? Higher wages for the jobs that are out there, currently yielding impossibly low annual incomes. The current American minimum wage ranges between $7.25 and $8.67 per hour. From time to time senior executives of Wal-Mart call for a rise in the minimum wage since, in the words of one former CEO, Lee Scott, “our customers simply don’t have the money to buy basic necessities between pay checks.” The minimum wage in Ontario, Canada, is currently well over $10 per hour, while in France it now stands at nearly $13. Australia recently raised its minimum wage to over $16 per hour, and nonetheless has an unemployment rate of just 5 percent.
Any Republican candidate seriously pledging to raise the minimum wage to $12 would gallop into the White House, unless – a solid chance — he wasn’t shot dead by the Commentariat, or maybe by a Delta team acting on Obama’s determination relayed to him by the bankers, that this constituted a terrorist assault on America. As Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative – who favors a big hike in the minimum wage, recently wrote:
“The minimum wage represents one of those political issues whose vast appeal to ordinary voters is matched by little if any interest among establishment political elites. As an example, in 1996, following years of unsuccessful attempts to attract the support of California politicians, disgruntled union activists led by State Sen. Hilda Solis, now serving as President Obama’s secretary of labor, scraped together the funds to place a huge 35 percent minimum wage increase on the state ballot. Once Republican pollsters began testing the issue, they discovered voter support was so immensely broad and deep that the ballot initiative could not possibly be defeated, and they advised their business clients to avoid any attempt to do so, thus allowing the measure to pass in a landslide against almost no organized opposition. Afterward, the free-market naysayers who had predicted economic disaster were proven entirely wrong, and instead the state economy boomed.”
A tumbril (n.) a dung cart used for carrying manure, now associated with the transport of prisoners to the guillotine during the French Revolution.
From: Michael Dawson Portland, OR
“In Harm’s Way: This one was apparently used by our friend Staff Sgt. Robert Bales in a 2009 Pentagon-published discourse on how to distinguish ‘good guys’ from ‘bad guys’: ‘We discriminated between the bad guys and the noncombatants, and then afterward we ended up helping the people that three or four hours before were trying to kill us. I think that’s the real difference between being an American as opposed to being a bad guy, someone who puts his family in harm’s way like that.’
“In harm’s way. It dehumanizes and dehistoricizes all enemies. It flatters the speaker as somebody who chooses to stop Evil, presumably also suggesting the notion that, once one gains that status, one has the right to go shoot up a village. J’accuse.”
Incidentally, on the Bales killings, Lawrence McGuire sends me an interesting story from The Australian to the effect that “Residents of an Afghan village near where an American sergeant, Robert Bales, killed 16 civilians are convinced that the slayings were in retaliation for a roadside bomb attack on US forces in the same area. The villagers allege the men of Mokhoyan were lined up against a wall by US troops after the bombing on March 7 or 8 and told they would pay a price for the attack.”
Our Latest Newsletter
How toxic is the fog of benevolence in Foundation Journalism? Here’s how CounterPuncher Harry Browne stakes out the issue:
“With the idea that journalism is, in effect, a charity case having moved into the mainstream, a small but significant group of journalists and researchers have been examining how journalism has been, and might be in future, funded by charitable foundations. Oddly enough, concerns about bias and control, so prominent in consideration of state and commercial funding of journalism, have been somewhat lacking in the discussion of foundation funding.
“Carol Guensberg’s 2008 article “Nonprofit News,” in the American Journalism Review, set a tone of cautious hope, only slightly tempered by critical concerns. The most oft-expressed worry has been that foundations will be forced to cut back on funding journalism because of their own financial worries in the wake of the global financial crisis.
“McChesney and Nichols, left-liberal critics of American mainstream media structure and bias, deal briefly with the issue in their study-cum-polemic on journalism’s woes and possible solutions to them, The Death and Life of American Journalism. “Leaving aside the issue of whether we want foundations to have this much power,” they write, “how realistic is the foundation-funding model for the next generation of journalists?” The authors – whose major concern is to encourage state support for journalism – really do leave that issue of power aside, concentrating instead on the cash caveat, i.e., how little money foundations have made available for nonprofit journalism: in 2008 it was “less than one-tenth of the annual newsroom budget of … the New York Times.” Having suggested that philanthropy is not equal to the scale of the problem in journalism – “we would feel a lot better if the $20 million paid to nonprofits by foundations in 2008 had a few more digits attached to it” – they proceed nonetheless to praise the philanthropists – “we welcome foundations that want to write checks” – and to proclaim that “there is much to celebrate in the willingness” of such foundations to support journalism.”
JoAnn Wypijewski reports on how one man and some kids built a fortress against foreclosers in Stony Ridge, Ohio. Here’s how she sets the scene:
“History luxuriates in the victories or near-victories or explosive mass stands of the oppressed. It does not make so much of, or ignores completely, the vain acts, the small, miserable defeats, the early clashes of a few of those not-so-entirely-pleasant or noble people that ended inconclusively, or, actually, badly but not so badly as to make headlines. So, here is a house in Stony Ridge, Ohio, just outside Toledo — where the great, crushed strike of 1934 prefigured in all but the outcome the sit-downs that birthed the United Auto Workers, the eight-hour day and the right to organize in an earlier Depression — a raggedy band of anarchists plans to hole up, lock down, make a stand against the national disgrace of foreclosure.
“They do not have an emblematic hero in Keith Jennings: rather, they have a guy resembling those early labor radicals who called a wildcat without a plan to win, the early fighters for civil rights who refused to go to the back of the bus or give up a seat to a white man, but who weren’t thought upstanding enough to be elevated to legend’s pedestal: the unremembered legions whose life stories did not check all the appropriate boxes to qualify them as heroes.”
Rachel Ortiz went from Judaism to Born Again Christian to an atheist in a rock ’n roll church. She looks at the validity of faith through non-believer’s eyes. Her lead:
“As a child, I was raised in a reformed Jewish household. My mother is a second-generation American and was raised in an extremely Orthodox Jewish home. When it came time to raise children of her own, she decided against the rigid structure she had been made to suffer through: no pork products, strictly observing the Sabbath every Saturday – which meant no television, telephones, or light switches – and wearing long sleeves and skirts through agonizingly hot Phoenix summers. I, on the other hand, had bacon for breakfast, played video games with my friends on the weekends, and wore shorts and tank tops on sweltering 115-degree days. On Sundays and Wednesdays, I did go to Schul and Hebrew lessons, so as to fulfill my mother’s guilty need to raise a good Jewish child. However, at the age of 10, we moved to Texas, the land of the Bible Belt, and my world changed.
“In Texas, Judaism was a whole different beast. I was the only Jewish kid in school. Temples charged ridiculous fees for Hebrew lessons and even to simply attend services. As a result, we stopped going to Temple, stopped learning to read the Torah, and I started hanging around with a group of Southern Baptists. I imagine the day I told my mother that I had been saved was very nearly the worst day of her life….”
And lastly, hurry, hurry, hurry to buy your Dogs Against Romney buttons, as featured top right on our home page. Owner’s love and pride compel me to reveal that the whiskered visage on the button is Jasper, prominent resident of the Cockburn home. Current best guess at the 75 lb Jasper’s genetic background is some sort of an Irish wolfhound/collie mix. I once sent off some of his saliva for a DNA test, and when Jasper espied “possible Boston terrier” in his quarterings he sulked for weeks, though I have to say that business manager Becky Grant’s dog is a Boston terrier with somewhat kindred black and white markings, though of course fighting at a much lighter weight.
Alexander Cockburn can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org