Re: Obama's Interesting Economist


"NoName" <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8t8ag31p3vpi07mq7a85gcvsev2is2161r@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:49:00 -0500, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t04ag3duvj7chr56o8j16c17oip3ng18of@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:41:41 -0500, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c3u9g31p0tf1qukub6kpa6arfj8qg4s0or@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 06:52:17 -0500, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/obamas_curious_economic_advise.html

I find it interesting that Obama's economic advisor has the following
positions, in that Obama has cast himself to the left side of the
party:

1) The rich/poor divide is still completely (or almost so) determined
by
educational level.
2) The solution to the increase in the R/P divide is increased
investment
in education
3) Globalization is reponsible for only a small fraction of today's
wage
disparity
4) 80% of today;'s wage disparity is tied to technology, not trade
policy
5) A Chinese currency revalution would not help US manufacturers -- it
just
means Mattel would buy Barbies from Vietnam instead of China.

In short, at the same time that Obama is "running left", his econmic
advisor
is from the same school as Milton Friedman, and appears largely
like-minded.

The observation that "all the candidates are the same" comes to
mind.........

JG



I can't go along with that. I expect it is true that uninherited
wealth correlates strongly with higher education, but the idea
that everybody can profit from higher education is assumed
but not demonstrated by the above line of argument. Therefore
I'd object to the obvious direction of the argument that it's OK
for the social order to allow the less educated to sink into
lower and lower economic echelons without bothering much
about the fact that's happening, justified by noting that they
didn't get a higher education that they couldn't have profited
much from anyway.

I don't see that argument being made.

If there is an argument by simply quoting the man, it's that *if* equal
access to education exists (and goverment has a role in making sure it
does), then (theoretically) the ability to move up and down the wage
scale
freely still exists.

From there, the "you can lead a horse to water" axiom comes into play.


It's not a question of that: it's a question of whether
everybody can profit from higher education. I would
think it was obvious, just looking around at people,
that not everyone can. We can't all be doctors and
engineers, but the other work has to be done too.
That doesn't mean that everybody but the doctors
and engineers have to live like serfs. If they do,
there's something wrong with the social establishment,
in my opinion.

I have a T-shirt that reads "Subvert the Dominant
Paradigm". Laissez-faire is not the only way to go.

Focusing on education is a long way from the laissez-faire argument, IMO.

Over the past few years, I've heard some rather irresponsible
econopolitical
rhetoric that argued that "the only jobs being created were McJobs." This
is
dangerous rhetoric because it can easily settle into the minds of students
as a reason not to work hard in school. This rhetoric has always been
easily
refuted by BLS statistics, but then the ones making the statement started
to
take the position that the BLS stats were not to be trusted.

This economist disavows that rhetoric, which (from my perspective) makes
Obama a more attractive candidate, since he appears willing to let adults
run the economy. (This harkens back to the 1992 election -- I was not a
Clinton supporter, but as soon as he appointed Lloyd Bentsen Sect. of the
Treasury, I knew that all would be well.)

Another area of irresponsible rhetoric, IMO, has been the "all the good
jobs
are moving overseas" line of thought. Although responsible politicians on
both sides of the aisle all pointed out that the number of "good" jobs
lost
has, as a percentage of jobs in the economy, really been rather small, you
still heard some rhetoric of this sort.

Again, this economist disavows that rhetoric, which (from my perspective)
makes Obama a more attractive candidate.

Now, there is no question that there is a "niche" in the economy where
wages
are clearly backsliding and standards of living dropping. The profile of
that niche is "high-school educated, employed in heavy manufacturing."
That
profile must clearly be addressed by educational policy.



JG

How are the skilled trades doing these days? This segment used to
provide quite well paying work. Kids had to go through apprenticeships
but once completed they were set.

Depends. If you're union, you're probably fine. If you're self employed,
you're probably fine. If you work for somebody, you've probably seen your
package stagnate as a result of illegals who are willing to learn on the job
on the cheap.

But, I don't have a lot of visibility into this matter. Somebody else may
have more.

Do trade schools provide comparable
training? I read numerous ads promising a couple years in this school
or that, or even one year and then job placement. I've read that many
of these schools take the money and deliver very little. And the kids
are left with a student loan to pay off. Anyone know more about this?
Electronics is pushed in particular, with computer skills.

If you're going the trade school route, the hot area is allied health. The
cardio technicians, radiology technicians, LVN's, RN's, dental techs, PT
techs .........with the aging of America, these have all turned into well
paying jobs that require trade or community college training, and since they
all require actually TOUCHING a patient, they are not at risk for movement
overseas. I have a number of friends who found their computer jobs drying up
who have gone into this area, and have replaced their income straight out of
school.

It would certainly be the area where I would steer a high school grad who is
not the sort for an academic college degree.

JG

Certainly a four year traditional college education is not for
everyone. But what are the good alternatives these days?





.

Relevant Pages

  • ebooks share lits 357
    ... Parent's Guide to Special Education: ... Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development: ... Development Geography Routledge Contemporary Human Geography Series ... Subjectivity in Political Economy: ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Again and Always... Its the Economy, Stupid
    ... Democrats so long as they remember, "It's the economy, stupid." ... Yes, there are some new jobs, but the number of new jobs has not kept up with the population growth. ... Is that the fault of government, or the fault of the choices the people made? ... When the government removes opportunities for people to afford an education, then it is the fault of the government. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: When even a Republican can see it....
    ... approach to education that led to such an attitude, ... because the nature of our economy is biased towards a lot of rather dull ... even if there are many boring jobs to be done. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Better TV?
    ... jobs to a machine, where the jobs involved swinging a very large ... Those are not jobs that require even an eighth grade education. ... teller, groundskeeper, and elementary school teacher. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Research Links Poor Kids Stress, Brain Impairment
    ... prison system, but hey, some of them got jobs as prison guards. ... economy "grows". ... Minorities realize that population growth translates ... I once read about an experimental program in one school ...
    (soc.retirement)