Thursday, March 31, 2016
"Tax Bracketology" by Adam Zyglis
Kissinger forever
I really can't say much on this story, since it might be considered overtly anti-American & then who wants to deal with its "consequences". But, this is still a great opinion piece on one of the most powerful men in the world. Reading this piece reminded me of a piece Canadian Business magazine did back in August 2013 in which it showed that Henry Kissinger is the only man in the world who is a member in all of the 3 most powerful & elitist organizations in the world (World Economic Forum, Bilderberg Group, & Trilateral Commission).
Henry Kissinger is also the one who said that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." In my personal experience, whoever loves power so much, he/she will certainly abuse it & will hurt a lot of people in the process. This piece made me think that the way this man thinks, he has done & will still do anything to achieve what he wants more, which is, power. We try to teach our children that "with great power comes great responsibility," but, as this piece suggests, Kissinger's hunger for power almost makes him a sociopath.
As the piece below states how Kissinger supported prolonging the Vietnam war & the secret Cambodian war, in which hundreds of thousands people died. His powerful actions in the hallowed halls of government irreversibly changed the lives of millions around the world, from Latin America to North America to Asia. He apparently loved to attack other countries to show American military prowess. He loved more violence, government secrecy, militarism & ruling with the classic dictatorial "divide & conquer."
The piece ends with an excellent, & rather unfortunate, line that the world's humanity still has dark days ahead, since, his methods are still being employed by the American government & he is still deeply involved with the foreign policies of US governments.
But, hey, he will not be tried, for his actions, in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or any other court of justice in this world. Per my last quote picture of Criminal Minds here, the society is definitely not taking the place of thousands of victims & on their behalf demanding any atonement for Kissinger's push for military actions against innocent people around the world. At least dictators like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Joseph Stalin, Robert Mugabe, & several others from Latin America, Africa, or Asia killed innocent people of their own country. Henry Kissinger's actions made the life hell for thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Panama & who knows wherever else. So who is the bigger dictator here? Where is the justice coming from the largest self-anointed "just" & "fair" country of the world?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1950, Henry Kissinger - who would go on to serve as an inordinately powerful US National Security Adviser and Secretary of State - wrote that "life is suffering, birth involves death".
As historian Greg Grandin documents in his just-released book "Kissinger's Shadow: The Long Reach of America's Most Controversial Statesman", the man's "existentialism laid the foundation for how he would defend his later policies". In Kissinger's view, Grandin explains, life's inherently tragic nature means that "there isn't much any one individual can do to make things worse than they already are".
Of course, the victims of Kissinger-sanctioned military escapades and other forms of inflicted suffering might beg to differ. Among the countless casualties are the dead and maimed of the Vietnam War - a disaster Kissinger fought to prolong despite recognising that it was unwinnable - and the secret US war that was launched on neutral Cambodia in 1969.
'Power for power's sake'
A pet project of Kissinger and then-President Richard Nixon, the bombing of that country killed more than 100,000 civilians in four years, according to Ben Kiernan, the director of Yale University's Cambodian Genocide Program.
To this day, the cluster bombs with which the US saturated sections of southeast Asia continue to wreak deadly havoc.
And from Chile to Panama to Iraq to Angola to East Timor, there's no dearth of evidence linking increased earthly suffering to Kissingerian policy & tradition, which still exert a preponderant influence over the US political establishment. (Complaints could even be filed by impoverished victims of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Kissinger unofficially helped negotiate years after leaving office.)
As Grandin notes, Kissinger had an "outsized role… in creating the world we live in today, which accepts endless war as a matter of course".
Embracing the pursuit of "power for power's sake", Kissinger advocated for war in order to "show that action is possible", Grandin writes, and to thus maintain American power - the purpose of which "is to create American purpose". With such an approach to existence, it's perhaps no wonder the former statesman found the whole phenomenon to be rather dismal.
Campaign against history
Grandin details Kissinger's contributions to the "rehabilitation of the national security state" in the US around a "restored imperial presidency", which, he contends, was based on "ever more spectacular displays of violence, more intense secrecy, and an increasing use of war and militarism to leverage domestic dissent and polarisation for political advantage".
A key aspect of Kissinger's own dominant role in contemporary history is his philosophy of history itself, which Grandin summarises as follows: "For Kissinger, the past was nothing but 'a series of meaningless incidents'". According to this mindset, under no circumstances must history be seen as a collection of causal relationships capable of guiding current policy choices.
The concept of blowback, for example, is conveniently disappeared - such that Kissinger, for one, is excused from having to acknowledge the reality that US military aggression against Cambodia in fact helped propel the Khmer Rouge to power. Instead, further US military aggression was deemed to be the proper antidote to the new state of affairs.
Two and two
The forcible severing of cause from effect has also come in handy in places like Afghanistan, a country whose history is often reduced to one date: September 11, 2001. But go a bit further back in time, as Grandin does, and you'll find that the conversion of the country into a base for transnational jihad was in no small part an effect of policies put into place by - who else? - Kissinger.
These included facilitating destabilising behaviour vis-a-vis Afghanistan by the shah of Iran, Pakistani intelligence, and Saudi Arabia, and encouraging the flow of weapons to radical Islamists.
Naturally, none of this history prompted an internal questioning of US qualifications to spearhead the post-9/11 war on terror. Now, nearly 14 years and trillions of dollars later, it might be a good time to start putting two and two together - particularly given the expansion of the war to encompass the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an entity the US helped create in the first place.
Dark days
In an interview last year with radio host Todd Zwillich, Kissinger defended his infamous bombing of Cambodia on the following grounds: "The current administration is doing it in Pakistan, Somalia". The "it" apparently refers to Barack Obama's covert drone strikes on countries with which the US is not at war.
But as Grandin points out, this retroactive justification fails to account for the fact that "what [Kissinger] did nearly half a century ago created the conditions for today’s endless wars". In Cambodia and elsewhere, he "institutionalised a self-fulfilling logic of intervention", whereby US "action led to reaction [and] reaction demanded more action".
Of course, if power depends on the constant proof that "action is possible", this seems like a pretty logical - if sociopathic - arrangement.
As for Kissinger's shadow, it doesn't appear to be budging anytime soon - portending many a dark day ahead for humanity.
Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.
Henry Kissinger is also the one who said that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." In my personal experience, whoever loves power so much, he/she will certainly abuse it & will hurt a lot of people in the process. This piece made me think that the way this man thinks, he has done & will still do anything to achieve what he wants more, which is, power. We try to teach our children that "with great power comes great responsibility," but, as this piece suggests, Kissinger's hunger for power almost makes him a sociopath.
As the piece below states how Kissinger supported prolonging the Vietnam war & the secret Cambodian war, in which hundreds of thousands people died. His powerful actions in the hallowed halls of government irreversibly changed the lives of millions around the world, from Latin America to North America to Asia. He apparently loved to attack other countries to show American military prowess. He loved more violence, government secrecy, militarism & ruling with the classic dictatorial "divide & conquer."
The piece ends with an excellent, & rather unfortunate, line that the world's humanity still has dark days ahead, since, his methods are still being employed by the American government & he is still deeply involved with the foreign policies of US governments.
But, hey, he will not be tried, for his actions, in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or any other court of justice in this world. Per my last quote picture of Criminal Minds here, the society is definitely not taking the place of thousands of victims & on their behalf demanding any atonement for Kissinger's push for military actions against innocent people around the world. At least dictators like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Joseph Stalin, Robert Mugabe, & several others from Latin America, Africa, or Asia killed innocent people of their own country. Henry Kissinger's actions made the life hell for thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Panama & who knows wherever else. So who is the bigger dictator here? Where is the justice coming from the largest self-anointed "just" & "fair" country of the world?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1950, Henry Kissinger - who would go on to serve as an inordinately powerful US National Security Adviser and Secretary of State - wrote that "life is suffering, birth involves death".
As historian Greg Grandin documents in his just-released book "Kissinger's Shadow: The Long Reach of America's Most Controversial Statesman", the man's "existentialism laid the foundation for how he would defend his later policies". In Kissinger's view, Grandin explains, life's inherently tragic nature means that "there isn't much any one individual can do to make things worse than they already are".
Of course, the victims of Kissinger-sanctioned military escapades and other forms of inflicted suffering might beg to differ. Among the countless casualties are the dead and maimed of the Vietnam War - a disaster Kissinger fought to prolong despite recognising that it was unwinnable - and the secret US war that was launched on neutral Cambodia in 1969.
'Power for power's sake'
A pet project of Kissinger and then-President Richard Nixon, the bombing of that country killed more than 100,000 civilians in four years, according to Ben Kiernan, the director of Yale University's Cambodian Genocide Program.
To this day, the cluster bombs with which the US saturated sections of southeast Asia continue to wreak deadly havoc.
And from Chile to Panama to Iraq to Angola to East Timor, there's no dearth of evidence linking increased earthly suffering to Kissingerian policy & tradition, which still exert a preponderant influence over the US political establishment. (Complaints could even be filed by impoverished victims of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Kissinger unofficially helped negotiate years after leaving office.)
As Grandin notes, Kissinger had an "outsized role… in creating the world we live in today, which accepts endless war as a matter of course".
Embracing the pursuit of "power for power's sake", Kissinger advocated for war in order to "show that action is possible", Grandin writes, and to thus maintain American power - the purpose of which "is to create American purpose". With such an approach to existence, it's perhaps no wonder the former statesman found the whole phenomenon to be rather dismal.
Campaign against history
Grandin details Kissinger's contributions to the "rehabilitation of the national security state" in the US around a "restored imperial presidency", which, he contends, was based on "ever more spectacular displays of violence, more intense secrecy, and an increasing use of war and militarism to leverage domestic dissent and polarisation for political advantage".
A key aspect of Kissinger's own dominant role in contemporary history is his philosophy of history itself, which Grandin summarises as follows: "For Kissinger, the past was nothing but 'a series of meaningless incidents'". According to this mindset, under no circumstances must history be seen as a collection of causal relationships capable of guiding current policy choices.
The concept of blowback, for example, is conveniently disappeared - such that Kissinger, for one, is excused from having to acknowledge the reality that US military aggression against Cambodia in fact helped propel the Khmer Rouge to power. Instead, further US military aggression was deemed to be the proper antidote to the new state of affairs.
Two and two
The forcible severing of cause from effect has also come in handy in places like Afghanistan, a country whose history is often reduced to one date: September 11, 2001. But go a bit further back in time, as Grandin does, and you'll find that the conversion of the country into a base for transnational jihad was in no small part an effect of policies put into place by - who else? - Kissinger.
These included facilitating destabilising behaviour vis-a-vis Afghanistan by the shah of Iran, Pakistani intelligence, and Saudi Arabia, and encouraging the flow of weapons to radical Islamists.
Naturally, none of this history prompted an internal questioning of US qualifications to spearhead the post-9/11 war on terror. Now, nearly 14 years and trillions of dollars later, it might be a good time to start putting two and two together - particularly given the expansion of the war to encompass the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an entity the US helped create in the first place.
Dark days
In an interview last year with radio host Todd Zwillich, Kissinger defended his infamous bombing of Cambodia on the following grounds: "The current administration is doing it in Pakistan, Somalia". The "it" apparently refers to Barack Obama's covert drone strikes on countries with which the US is not at war.
But as Grandin points out, this retroactive justification fails to account for the fact that "what [Kissinger] did nearly half a century ago created the conditions for today’s endless wars". In Cambodia and elsewhere, he "institutionalised a self-fulfilling logic of intervention", whereby US "action led to reaction [and] reaction demanded more action".
Of course, if power depends on the constant proof that "action is possible", this seems like a pretty logical - if sociopathic - arrangement.
As for Kissinger's shadow, it doesn't appear to be budging anytime soon - portending many a dark day ahead for humanity.
Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.
What's the point of college?
This whole piece from New Yorker is a fantastic one. It's quite a long one, so I will keep my blog post on it rather short.
What I like to say here is that I've been saying what this article is saying for, at least, a year or so. Education nowadays doesn't have the same respect or weight as it used to carry about 5 decades ago. For instance, I met an 18-year-old about 6 months ago who said to me that he is learning to be a salesperson, right after graduating from high school, & have no intention to go to post-secondary school, because business education is learned best out in the field than in a class. So, in essence, he will save thousands upon thousands of dollars in education & will ultimately come out ahead because he will have hands-on work experience coupled with a valuable network. (I couldn't reply since my own experiences are not so great).
Everyone, from Canada to Chile to Egypt to South Africa to Spain to Russia to Australia to Saudi Arabia, loves to talk about how education is essential for everyone, regardless to gender, skin colour, language, religion etc. And, in an ideal & utopian world, it definitely will be ... but, we are not living in an ideal & utopian world. Education has become a business in itself. It has become so expensive to even get a 4-year bachelor's degree that families & students take out thousands of student loans to earn that degree.
But after graduation a serious question needs to be asked is that degree, for which I just paid thousands of dollars (or whatever other currency), worth anything? Personally, my 2 degrees, a Bachelor's in Accounting & an MBA, for which I paid about 100,000 Canadian dollars (excluding my time & effort) in total, & 2 certificates (Six Sigma & Project Management) have earned me a job as a cashier in a local superstore. So, for me, my education was definitely not worth it. I would have been better off by not getting an education & spent my time working in retail, for instance. That decade in education would've saved me some hard cold cash & I would've been a supervisor, or even a manager, of a store by now. The article does point out this fact that how highly educated graduates, even STEM graduates (science, tech, engineering, & mathematics), are working in measly jobs, perhaps, due to technological advancements.
So, education is important but we need to look at its worth. The article states examples of colleges & universities, & a lot of statistics & studies, in trying to answer the primary question of the worth of education. Eventually, it asks what is the purpose of colleges & universities, since their graduates, which are constantly increasing in number, are not really earning that much, & their wages are actually falling. This seems counterintuitive since education is supposed to increase your worth, & not decrease it in the labour market.
A theory the article puts forward is that degrees & certificates perhaps try to signal to potential employers the competency of the candidate. Potential employers are thus merely using the degrees as a filter in the hiring process. Perhaps, that is why, "branding" of a university comes into play. Since, everyone around you is getting a degree, if you want to stand out from the crowd, you need to "buy" a degree from a so-called "prestigious" school. Then, it becomes an arms race, & it is only helping educational institutes & financial services companies (i.e. banks) in making huge profits.
Unfortunately, the article stops short of giving a definite reason why this is happening that education is not paying off for many, nowadays. One reason it gives, with which I do agree, is that this blind corporate race of cost-cutting is increasing more tech solutions implementation with fewer graduates being hired to train for future management positions.
One other reason I would give for education not paying off in modern times is the absence of meritocracy. We all like to think that education improves the personal financial bottom line, but we forget, that it will happen only when the labour market is merit based, which it is not. We all have heard of that accursed word, "networking," which merely implies that your education & qualifications matter less if you know the right people in the right places. Nowadays, employers get so many resumes / CVs / bio-datas, which are all essentially similar, too, that instead of sifting through all of them to find that perfect candidate, employers simply ask the people around them to recommend them a candidate.
This disease of "networking" is very common in developing countries because, due to their large population, & in their push for more education, everyone has a similar educational base. But networking is relatively new in Western countries because up until a few years ago, your education still played a major part what job & earning potential you ended up with in your life. It was somewhat of a meritocracy. But not anymore. Networking disrupts a level playing field, since, your education & qualifications are useless in the face of "how many influential people are your / family's friends".
Anyway, my blog post has become a long one & I would prefer it that you read the article, which is still quite informative & thought-provoking. We all like to think that education is essential to succeed in life but we forget that the world is an unfair place, & in the near future, your education will matter less & your connections will matter more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is one thing most Americans have been able to agree on over the years, it is that getting an education, particularly a college education, is a key to human betterment & prosperity. ... Already, the cost of higher education has become a big issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign. ...
Promoters of higher education have long emphasized its role in meeting civic needs. The Puritans who established Harvard were concerned about a shortage of clergy; during the Progressive Era, John Dewey insisted that a proper education would make people better citizens, with enlarged moral imaginations. Recently, as wage stagnation & rising inequality have emerged as serious problems, the economic arguments for higher education have come to the fore. “Earning a post-secondary degree or credential is no longer just a pathway to opportunity for a talented few,” the White House Web site states. “Rather, it is a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy.” Commentators & academic economists have claimed that college doesn’t merely help individuals get higher-paying jobs; it raises wages throughout the economy & helps ameliorate rising inequality. In an influential 2008 book, “The Race Between Education and Technology,” the Harvard economists Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz argued that technological progress has dramatically increased the demand for skilled workers, & that, in recent decades, the American educational system has failed to meet the challenge by supplying enough graduates who can carry out the tasks that a high-tech economy requires. “Not so long ago, the American economy grew rapidly and wages grew in tandem, with education playing a large, positive role in both,” they wrote in a subsequent paper. “The challenge now is to revitalize education-based mobility.”
The “message from the media, from the business community, and even from many parts of the government has been that a college degree is more important than ever in order to have a good career,” Peter Cappelli, a professor of management at Wharton, notes in his informative & refreshingly skeptical new book, “Will College Pay Off?” (PublicAffairs). “As a result, families feel even more pressure to send their kids to college. This is at a time when more families find those costs to be a serious burden.” During recent decades, tuition & other charges have risen sharply—many colleges charge more than 50,000 dollars a year in tuition & fees. Even if you factor in the expansion of financial aid, Cappelli reports, “students in the United States pay about four times more than their peers in countries elsewhere.”
Despite the increasing costs — & the claims about a shortage of college graduates — the number of people attending & graduating from four-year educational institutions keeps going up. In the 2000-01 academic year, American colleges awarded almost 1.3 million bachelor’s degrees. A decade later, the figure had jumped nearly 40%, to more than 1.7 million. About 70% of all high-school graduates now go on to college, & half of all Americans between the ages of 25 & 34 have a college degree. That’s a big change. In 1980, only 1 in 6 Americans 25 & older were college graduates. 50 years ago, it was fewer than 1 in 10. To cater to all the new students, colleges keep expanding & adding courses, many of them vocationally inclined. At Kansas State, undergraduates can major in Bakery Science & Management or Wildlife & Outdoor Enterprise Management. They can minor in Unmanned Aircraft Systems or Pet Food Science. Oklahoma State offers a degree in Fire Protection & Safety Engineering & Technology. At Utica College, you can major in Economic Crime Detection.
In the fast-growing for-profit college sector, which now accounts for more than 10% of all students, vocational degrees are the norm. DeVry University — which last year taught more than 60,000 students, at more than 75 campuses — offers majors in everything from multimedia design & development to health-care administration. On its Web site, DeVry boasts, “In 2013, 90% of DeVry University associate and bachelor’s degree grads actively seeking employment had careers in their field within six months of graduation.” That sounds impressive — until you notice that the figure includes those graduates who had jobs in their field before graduation. (Many DeVry students are working adults who attend college part-time to further their careers.) Nor is the phrase “in their field” clearly defined. “Would you be okay rolling the dice on a degree in communications based on information like that?” Cappelli writes. He notes that research by the nonprofit National Association of Colleges & Employers found that, in the same year, just 6.5% of graduates with communications degrees were offered jobs in the field. It may be unfair to single out DeVry, which is one of the more reputable for-profit education providers. But the example illustrates Cappelli’s larger point: many of the claims that are made about higher education don’t stand up to scrutiny.
“It is certainly true that college has been life changing for most people and a tremendous financial investment for many of them,” Cappelli writes. “It is also true that for some people, it has been financially crippling. . . .The world of college education is different now than it was a generation ago, when many of the people driving policy decisions on education went to college, and the theoretical ideas about why college should pay off do not comport well with the reality.”
No idea has had more influence on education policy than the notion that colleges teach their students specific, marketable skills, which they can use to get a good job. Economists refer to this as the “human capital” theory of education, & for the past 20 or 30 years it has gone largely unchallenged. If you’ve completed a two-year associate’s degree, you’ve got more “human capital” than a high-school graduate. And if you’ve completed a four-year bachelor’s degree you’ve got more “human capital” than someone who attended a community college. Once you enter the labor market, the theory says, you will be rewarded with a better job, brighter career prospects, & higher wages.
There’s no doubt that college graduates earn more money, on average, than people who don’t have a degree. And for many years the so-called “college wage premium” grew. In 1970, according to a recent study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, people with a bachelor’s degree earned about 60,000 dollars a year, on average, & people with a high-school diploma earned about 45,000 dollars. 35 years later, in 2005, the average earnings of college graduates had risen to more than 70,000 dollars, while high-school graduates had seen their earnings fall slightly. (All these figures are inflation-adjusted.) The fact that the college wage premium went up at a time when the supply of graduates was expanding significantly seemed to confirm the Goldin-Katz theory that technological change was creating an ever-increasing demand for workers with a lot of human capital.
During the past decade or so, however, a number of things have happened that don’t easily mesh with that theory. If college graduates remain in short supply, their wages should still be rising. But they aren’t. In 2001, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, workers with undergraduate degrees (but not graduate degrees) earned, on average, $30.05 an hour; last year, they earned $29.55 an hour. Other sources show even more dramatic falls. “Between 2001 and 2013, the average wage of workers with a bachelor’s degree declined 10.3 percent, and the average wage of those with an associate’s degree declined 11.1 percent,” the New York Fed reported in its study. Wages have been falling most steeply of all among newly minted college graduates. And jobless rates have been rising. In 2007, 5.5% of college graduates under the age of 25 were out of work. Today, the figure is close to 9%. If getting a bachelor’s degree is meant to guarantee entry to an arena in which jobs are plentiful & wages rise steadily, the education system has been failing for some time.
And, while college graduates are still doing a lot better than nongraduates, some studies show that the earnings gap has stopped growing. The figures need careful parsing. If you lump college graduates in with people with advanced degrees, the picture looks brighter. But almost all the recent gains have gone to folks with graduate degrees. “The four-year-degree premium has remained flat over the past decade,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland reported. And one of the main reasons it went up in the first place wasn’t that college graduates were enjoying significantly higher wages. It was that the earnings of nongraduates were falling.
Many students & their families extend themselves to pay for a college education out of fear of falling into the low-wage economy. That’s perfectly understandable. But how sound an investment is it? One way to figure this out is to treat a college degree like a stock or a bond & compare the cost of obtaining one with the accumulated returns that it generates over the years. (In this case, the returns come in the form of wages over & above those earned by people who don’t hold degrees.) When the research firm PayScale did this a few years ago, it found that the average inflation-adjusted return on a college education is about 7%, which is a bit lower than the historical rate of return on the stock market. Cappelli cites this study along with one from the Hamilton Project, a Washington-based research group that came up with a much higher figure — about 15% — but by assuming, for example, that all college students graduate in 4 years. (In fact, the four-year graduation rate for full-time, first-degree students is less than 40%, & the six-year graduation rate is less than 60%.)
These types of studies, & there are lots of them, usually find that the financial benefits of getting a college degree are much larger than the financial costs. But Cappelli points out that for parents & students the average figures may not mean much, because they disguise enormous differences in outcomes from school to school. He cites a survey, carried out by PayScale for Businessweek in 2012, that showed that students who attend M.I.T., Caltech, & Harvey Mudd College enjoy an annual return of more than 10% on their “investment.” But the survey also found almost 200 colleges where students, on average, never fully recouped the costs of their education. “The big news about the payoff from college should be the incredible variation in it across colleges,” Cappelli writes. “Looking at the actual return on the costs of attending college, careful analyses suggest that the payoff from many college programs—as much as 1 in 4—is actually negative. Incredibly, the schools seem to add nothing to the market value of the students.”
So what purpose does college really serve for students & employers? Before the human-capital theory became so popular, there was another view of higher education—as, in part, a filter, or screening device, that sorted individuals according to their aptitudes & conveyed this information to businesses & other hiring institutions. By completing a four-year degree, students could signal to potential employers that they had a certain level of cognitive competence & could carry out assigned tasks & work in a group setting. But a college education didn’t necessarily imbue students with specific work skills that employers needed, or make them more productive.
Kenneth Arrow, one of the giants of twentieth-century economics, came up with this account, & if you take it seriously you can’t assume that it’s always a good thing to persuade more people to go to college. If almost everybody has a college degree, getting one doesn’t differentiate you from the pack. To get the job you want, you might have to go to a fancy (& expensive) college, or get a higher degree. Education turns into an arms race, which primarily benefits the arms manufacturers—in this case, colleges & universities.
The screening model isn’t very fashionable these days, partly because it seems perverse to suggest that education doesn’t boost productivity. But there’s quite a bit of evidence that seems to support Arrow’s theory. In recent years, more jobs have come to demand a college degree as an entry requirement, even though the demands of the jobs haven’t changed much. Some nursing positions are on the list, along with jobs for executive secretaries, salespeople, & distribution managers. According to one study, just 20% of executive assistants & insurance-claims clerks have college degrees but more than 45% of the job openings in the field require one. “This suggests that employers may be relying on a B.A. as a broad recruitment filter that may or may not correspond to specific capabilities needed to do the job,” the study concluded.
It is well established that students who go to elite colleges tend to earn more than graduates of less selective institutions. But is this because Harvard & Princeton do a better job of teaching valuable skills than other places, or because employers believe that they get more talented students to begin with? An exercise carried out by Lauren Rivera, of the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern, strongly suggests that it’s the latter. Rivera interviewed more than a hundred recruiters from investment banks, law firms, & management consulting firms, & she found that they recruited almost exclusively from the very top-ranked schools, & simply ignored most other applicants. The recruiters didn’t pay much attention to things like grades & majors. “It was not the content of education that elite employers valued but rather its prestige,” Rivera concluded.
If higher education serves primarily as a sorting mechanism, that might help explain another disturbing development: the tendency of many college graduates to take jobs that don’t require college degrees. Practically everyone seems to know a well-educated young person who is working in a bar or a mundane clerical job, because he or she can’t find anything better. Doubtless, the Great Recession & its aftermath are partly to blame. But something deeper, & more lasting, also seems to be happening.
In the Goldin-Katz view of things, technological progress generates an ever-increasing need for highly educated, highly skilled workers. But, beginning in about 2000, for reasons that are still not fully understood, the pace of job creation in high-paying, highly skilled fields slowed significantly. To demonstrate this, 3 Canadian economists, Paul Beaudry, David A. Green, & Benjamin M. Sand, divided the US workforce into a hundred occupations, ranked by their average wages, & looked at how employment has changed in each category. Since 2000, the economists showed, the demand for highly educated workers declined, while job growth in low-paying occupations increased strongly. “High-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skilled workers,” they concluded, thus “pushing low-skilled workers even further down the occupational ladder.”
Increasingly, the competition for jobs is taking place in areas of the labor market where college graduates didn’t previously tend to compete. As Beaudry, Green, & Sand put it, “having a B.A. is less about obtaining access to high paying managerial and technology jobs and more about beating out less educated workers for the Barista or clerical job.” Even many graduates in science, technology, engineering, & mathematics—the so-called STEM subjects, which receive so much official encouragement—are having a tough time getting the jobs they’d like. Cappelli reports that only about a fifth of recent graduates with STEM degrees got jobs that made use of that training. “The evidence for recent grads suggests clearly that there is no overall shortage of STEM grads,” he writes.
Why is this happening? The short answer is that nobody knows for sure. One theory is that corporate cost-cutting, having thinned the ranks of workers on the factory floor & in routine office jobs, is now targeting supervisors, managers, & other highly educated people. Another theory is that technological progress, after favoring highly educated workers for a long time, is now turning on them. With rapid advances in processing power, data analysis, voice recognition, & other forms of artificial intelligence, computers can perform tasks that were previously carried out by college graduates, such as analyzing trends, translating foreign-language documents, & filing tax returns. In “The Second Machine Age” (Norton), the M.I.T. professors Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee sketch a future where computers will start replacing doctors, lawyers, & many other highly educated professionals. “As digital labor becomes more pervasive, capable, and powerful,” they write, “companies will be increasingly unwilling to pay people wages that they’ll accept, and that will allow them to maintain the standard of living to which they’ve been accustomed.”
Cappelli stresses the change in corporate hiring patterns. In the old days, Fortune 500 companies such as General Motors, Citigroup, & I.B.M. took on large numbers of college graduates & trained them for a lifetime at the company. But corporations now invest less in education & training, &, instead of promoting someone, or finding someone in the company to fill a specialized role, they tend to hire from outside. Grooming the next generation of leadership is much less of a concern. “What employers want from college graduates now is the same thing they want from applicants who have been out of school for years, and that is job skills and the ability to contribute now,” Cappelli writes. “That change is fundamental, and it is the reason that getting a good job out of college is now such a challenge.”
Obtaining a vocational degree or certificate is one strategy that many students employ to make themselves attractive to employers, &, on the face of it, this seems sensible. If you’d like to be a radiology technician, shouldn’t you get a B.A. in radiology? If you want to run a bakery, why not apply to Kansas State & sign up for that major in Bakery Science? But narrowly focussed degrees are risky. “If you graduate in a year when gambling is up and the casinos like your casino management degree, you probably have hit it big,” Cappelli writes. “If they aren’t hiring when you graduate, you may be even worse off getting a first job with that degree anywhere else precisely because it was so tuned to that group of employers.” During the dot-com era, enrollment in computer-science & information-technology programs rose sharply. After the bursting of the stock-market bubble, many of these graduates couldn’t find work. “Employers who say that we need more engineers or IT grads are not promising to hire them when they graduate in four years,” Cappelli notes. “Pushing kids into a field like health care because someone believes there is a need there now will not guarantee that they all get jobs &, if they do, that those jobs will be as good as workers in that field have now.”
So what’s the solution? Some people believe that online learning will provide a viable low-cost alternative to a live-in college education. ... Another approach is to direct more students & resources to two-year community colleges & other educational institutions that cost less than four-year colleges. President Obama recently called for all qualified high-school students to be guaranteed a place in community college, & for tuition fees to be eliminated. Such policies would reverse recent history. In a new book, “Learning by Doing: The Real Connection between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth” (Yale), James Bessen, a technology entrepreneur who also teaches at Boston University School of Law, points out that “the policy trend over the last decade has been to starve community colleges in order to feed four-year colleges, especially private research universities.” Some of the discrepancies are glaring. Richard Vedder, who teaches economics at Ohio University, calculated that in 2010 Princeton, which had an endowment of close to fifteen billion dollars, received state & federal benefits equivalent to roughly 50,000 dollars per student, whereas the nearby College of New Jersey got benefits of just 2,000 dollars per student. There are sound reasons for rewarding excellence & sponsoring institutions that do important scientific research. But is a twenty-five-to-one difference in government support really justified?
Perhaps the strongest argument for caring about higher education is that it can increase social mobility, regardless of whether the human-capital theory or the signalling theory is correct. A recent study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco showed that children who are born into households in the poorest fifth of the income distribution are 6 times as likely to reach the top fifth if they graduate from college. Providing access to college for more kids from deprived backgrounds helps nurture talents that might otherwise go to waste, & it’s the right thing to do. (Of course, if college attendance were practically universal, having a degree would send a weaker signal to employers.) But increasing the number of graduates seems unlikely to reverse the over-all decline of high-paying jobs, & it won’t resolve the income-inequality problem, either. As the economist Lawrence Summers & two colleagues showed in a recent simulation, even if we magically summoned up college degrees for a tenth of all the working-age American men who don’t have them—by historical standards, a big boost in college-graduation rates—we’d scarcely change the existing concentration of income at the very top of the earnings distribution, where C.E.O.s & hedge-fund managers live.
Being more realistic about the role that college degrees play would help families & politicians make better choices. It could also help us appreciate the actual merits of a traditional broad-based education, often called a liberal-arts education, rather than trying to reduce everything to an economic cost-benefit analysis. “To be clear, the idea is not that there will be a big financial payoff to a liberal arts degree,” Cappelli writes. “It is that there is no guarantee of a payoff from very practical, work-based degrees either, yet that is all those degrees promise. For liberal arts, the claim is different and seems more accurate, that it will enrich your life and provide lessons that extend beyond any individual job. There are centuries of experience providing support for that notion.”
What I like to say here is that I've been saying what this article is saying for, at least, a year or so. Education nowadays doesn't have the same respect or weight as it used to carry about 5 decades ago. For instance, I met an 18-year-old about 6 months ago who said to me that he is learning to be a salesperson, right after graduating from high school, & have no intention to go to post-secondary school, because business education is learned best out in the field than in a class. So, in essence, he will save thousands upon thousands of dollars in education & will ultimately come out ahead because he will have hands-on work experience coupled with a valuable network. (I couldn't reply since my own experiences are not so great).
Everyone, from Canada to Chile to Egypt to South Africa to Spain to Russia to Australia to Saudi Arabia, loves to talk about how education is essential for everyone, regardless to gender, skin colour, language, religion etc. And, in an ideal & utopian world, it definitely will be ... but, we are not living in an ideal & utopian world. Education has become a business in itself. It has become so expensive to even get a 4-year bachelor's degree that families & students take out thousands of student loans to earn that degree.
But after graduation a serious question needs to be asked is that degree, for which I just paid thousands of dollars (or whatever other currency), worth anything? Personally, my 2 degrees, a Bachelor's in Accounting & an MBA, for which I paid about 100,000 Canadian dollars (excluding my time & effort) in total, & 2 certificates (Six Sigma & Project Management) have earned me a job as a cashier in a local superstore. So, for me, my education was definitely not worth it. I would have been better off by not getting an education & spent my time working in retail, for instance. That decade in education would've saved me some hard cold cash & I would've been a supervisor, or even a manager, of a store by now. The article does point out this fact that how highly educated graduates, even STEM graduates (science, tech, engineering, & mathematics), are working in measly jobs, perhaps, due to technological advancements.
So, education is important but we need to look at its worth. The article states examples of colleges & universities, & a lot of statistics & studies, in trying to answer the primary question of the worth of education. Eventually, it asks what is the purpose of colleges & universities, since their graduates, which are constantly increasing in number, are not really earning that much, & their wages are actually falling. This seems counterintuitive since education is supposed to increase your worth, & not decrease it in the labour market.
A theory the article puts forward is that degrees & certificates perhaps try to signal to potential employers the competency of the candidate. Potential employers are thus merely using the degrees as a filter in the hiring process. Perhaps, that is why, "branding" of a university comes into play. Since, everyone around you is getting a degree, if you want to stand out from the crowd, you need to "buy" a degree from a so-called "prestigious" school. Then, it becomes an arms race, & it is only helping educational institutes & financial services companies (i.e. banks) in making huge profits.
Unfortunately, the article stops short of giving a definite reason why this is happening that education is not paying off for many, nowadays. One reason it gives, with which I do agree, is that this blind corporate race of cost-cutting is increasing more tech solutions implementation with fewer graduates being hired to train for future management positions.
One other reason I would give for education not paying off in modern times is the absence of meritocracy. We all like to think that education improves the personal financial bottom line, but we forget, that it will happen only when the labour market is merit based, which it is not. We all have heard of that accursed word, "networking," which merely implies that your education & qualifications matter less if you know the right people in the right places. Nowadays, employers get so many resumes / CVs / bio-datas, which are all essentially similar, too, that instead of sifting through all of them to find that perfect candidate, employers simply ask the people around them to recommend them a candidate.
This disease of "networking" is very common in developing countries because, due to their large population, & in their push for more education, everyone has a similar educational base. But networking is relatively new in Western countries because up until a few years ago, your education still played a major part what job & earning potential you ended up with in your life. It was somewhat of a meritocracy. But not anymore. Networking disrupts a level playing field, since, your education & qualifications are useless in the face of "how many influential people are your / family's friends".
Anyway, my blog post has become a long one & I would prefer it that you read the article, which is still quite informative & thought-provoking. We all like to think that education is essential to succeed in life but we forget that the world is an unfair place, & in the near future, your education will matter less & your connections will matter more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is one thing most Americans have been able to agree on over the years, it is that getting an education, particularly a college education, is a key to human betterment & prosperity. ... Already, the cost of higher education has become a big issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign. ...
Promoters of higher education have long emphasized its role in meeting civic needs. The Puritans who established Harvard were concerned about a shortage of clergy; during the Progressive Era, John Dewey insisted that a proper education would make people better citizens, with enlarged moral imaginations. Recently, as wage stagnation & rising inequality have emerged as serious problems, the economic arguments for higher education have come to the fore. “Earning a post-secondary degree or credential is no longer just a pathway to opportunity for a talented few,” the White House Web site states. “Rather, it is a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy.” Commentators & academic economists have claimed that college doesn’t merely help individuals get higher-paying jobs; it raises wages throughout the economy & helps ameliorate rising inequality. In an influential 2008 book, “The Race Between Education and Technology,” the Harvard economists Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz argued that technological progress has dramatically increased the demand for skilled workers, & that, in recent decades, the American educational system has failed to meet the challenge by supplying enough graduates who can carry out the tasks that a high-tech economy requires. “Not so long ago, the American economy grew rapidly and wages grew in tandem, with education playing a large, positive role in both,” they wrote in a subsequent paper. “The challenge now is to revitalize education-based mobility.”
The “message from the media, from the business community, and even from many parts of the government has been that a college degree is more important than ever in order to have a good career,” Peter Cappelli, a professor of management at Wharton, notes in his informative & refreshingly skeptical new book, “Will College Pay Off?” (PublicAffairs). “As a result, families feel even more pressure to send their kids to college. This is at a time when more families find those costs to be a serious burden.” During recent decades, tuition & other charges have risen sharply—many colleges charge more than 50,000 dollars a year in tuition & fees. Even if you factor in the expansion of financial aid, Cappelli reports, “students in the United States pay about four times more than their peers in countries elsewhere.”
Despite the increasing costs — & the claims about a shortage of college graduates — the number of people attending & graduating from four-year educational institutions keeps going up. In the 2000-01 academic year, American colleges awarded almost 1.3 million bachelor’s degrees. A decade later, the figure had jumped nearly 40%, to more than 1.7 million. About 70% of all high-school graduates now go on to college, & half of all Americans between the ages of 25 & 34 have a college degree. That’s a big change. In 1980, only 1 in 6 Americans 25 & older were college graduates. 50 years ago, it was fewer than 1 in 10. To cater to all the new students, colleges keep expanding & adding courses, many of them vocationally inclined. At Kansas State, undergraduates can major in Bakery Science & Management or Wildlife & Outdoor Enterprise Management. They can minor in Unmanned Aircraft Systems or Pet Food Science. Oklahoma State offers a degree in Fire Protection & Safety Engineering & Technology. At Utica College, you can major in Economic Crime Detection.
In the fast-growing for-profit college sector, which now accounts for more than 10% of all students, vocational degrees are the norm. DeVry University — which last year taught more than 60,000 students, at more than 75 campuses — offers majors in everything from multimedia design & development to health-care administration. On its Web site, DeVry boasts, “In 2013, 90% of DeVry University associate and bachelor’s degree grads actively seeking employment had careers in their field within six months of graduation.” That sounds impressive — until you notice that the figure includes those graduates who had jobs in their field before graduation. (Many DeVry students are working adults who attend college part-time to further their careers.) Nor is the phrase “in their field” clearly defined. “Would you be okay rolling the dice on a degree in communications based on information like that?” Cappelli writes. He notes that research by the nonprofit National Association of Colleges & Employers found that, in the same year, just 6.5% of graduates with communications degrees were offered jobs in the field. It may be unfair to single out DeVry, which is one of the more reputable for-profit education providers. But the example illustrates Cappelli’s larger point: many of the claims that are made about higher education don’t stand up to scrutiny.
“It is certainly true that college has been life changing for most people and a tremendous financial investment for many of them,” Cappelli writes. “It is also true that for some people, it has been financially crippling. . . .The world of college education is different now than it was a generation ago, when many of the people driving policy decisions on education went to college, and the theoretical ideas about why college should pay off do not comport well with the reality.”
No idea has had more influence on education policy than the notion that colleges teach their students specific, marketable skills, which they can use to get a good job. Economists refer to this as the “human capital” theory of education, & for the past 20 or 30 years it has gone largely unchallenged. If you’ve completed a two-year associate’s degree, you’ve got more “human capital” than a high-school graduate. And if you’ve completed a four-year bachelor’s degree you’ve got more “human capital” than someone who attended a community college. Once you enter the labor market, the theory says, you will be rewarded with a better job, brighter career prospects, & higher wages.
There’s no doubt that college graduates earn more money, on average, than people who don’t have a degree. And for many years the so-called “college wage premium” grew. In 1970, according to a recent study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, people with a bachelor’s degree earned about 60,000 dollars a year, on average, & people with a high-school diploma earned about 45,000 dollars. 35 years later, in 2005, the average earnings of college graduates had risen to more than 70,000 dollars, while high-school graduates had seen their earnings fall slightly. (All these figures are inflation-adjusted.) The fact that the college wage premium went up at a time when the supply of graduates was expanding significantly seemed to confirm the Goldin-Katz theory that technological change was creating an ever-increasing demand for workers with a lot of human capital.
During the past decade or so, however, a number of things have happened that don’t easily mesh with that theory. If college graduates remain in short supply, their wages should still be rising. But they aren’t. In 2001, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, workers with undergraduate degrees (but not graduate degrees) earned, on average, $30.05 an hour; last year, they earned $29.55 an hour. Other sources show even more dramatic falls. “Between 2001 and 2013, the average wage of workers with a bachelor’s degree declined 10.3 percent, and the average wage of those with an associate’s degree declined 11.1 percent,” the New York Fed reported in its study. Wages have been falling most steeply of all among newly minted college graduates. And jobless rates have been rising. In 2007, 5.5% of college graduates under the age of 25 were out of work. Today, the figure is close to 9%. If getting a bachelor’s degree is meant to guarantee entry to an arena in which jobs are plentiful & wages rise steadily, the education system has been failing for some time.
And, while college graduates are still doing a lot better than nongraduates, some studies show that the earnings gap has stopped growing. The figures need careful parsing. If you lump college graduates in with people with advanced degrees, the picture looks brighter. But almost all the recent gains have gone to folks with graduate degrees. “The four-year-degree premium has remained flat over the past decade,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland reported. And one of the main reasons it went up in the first place wasn’t that college graduates were enjoying significantly higher wages. It was that the earnings of nongraduates were falling.
Many students & their families extend themselves to pay for a college education out of fear of falling into the low-wage economy. That’s perfectly understandable. But how sound an investment is it? One way to figure this out is to treat a college degree like a stock or a bond & compare the cost of obtaining one with the accumulated returns that it generates over the years. (In this case, the returns come in the form of wages over & above those earned by people who don’t hold degrees.) When the research firm PayScale did this a few years ago, it found that the average inflation-adjusted return on a college education is about 7%, which is a bit lower than the historical rate of return on the stock market. Cappelli cites this study along with one from the Hamilton Project, a Washington-based research group that came up with a much higher figure — about 15% — but by assuming, for example, that all college students graduate in 4 years. (In fact, the four-year graduation rate for full-time, first-degree students is less than 40%, & the six-year graduation rate is less than 60%.)
These types of studies, & there are lots of them, usually find that the financial benefits of getting a college degree are much larger than the financial costs. But Cappelli points out that for parents & students the average figures may not mean much, because they disguise enormous differences in outcomes from school to school. He cites a survey, carried out by PayScale for Businessweek in 2012, that showed that students who attend M.I.T., Caltech, & Harvey Mudd College enjoy an annual return of more than 10% on their “investment.” But the survey also found almost 200 colleges where students, on average, never fully recouped the costs of their education. “The big news about the payoff from college should be the incredible variation in it across colleges,” Cappelli writes. “Looking at the actual return on the costs of attending college, careful analyses suggest that the payoff from many college programs—as much as 1 in 4—is actually negative. Incredibly, the schools seem to add nothing to the market value of the students.”
So what purpose does college really serve for students & employers? Before the human-capital theory became so popular, there was another view of higher education—as, in part, a filter, or screening device, that sorted individuals according to their aptitudes & conveyed this information to businesses & other hiring institutions. By completing a four-year degree, students could signal to potential employers that they had a certain level of cognitive competence & could carry out assigned tasks & work in a group setting. But a college education didn’t necessarily imbue students with specific work skills that employers needed, or make them more productive.
Kenneth Arrow, one of the giants of twentieth-century economics, came up with this account, & if you take it seriously you can’t assume that it’s always a good thing to persuade more people to go to college. If almost everybody has a college degree, getting one doesn’t differentiate you from the pack. To get the job you want, you might have to go to a fancy (& expensive) college, or get a higher degree. Education turns into an arms race, which primarily benefits the arms manufacturers—in this case, colleges & universities.
The screening model isn’t very fashionable these days, partly because it seems perverse to suggest that education doesn’t boost productivity. But there’s quite a bit of evidence that seems to support Arrow’s theory. In recent years, more jobs have come to demand a college degree as an entry requirement, even though the demands of the jobs haven’t changed much. Some nursing positions are on the list, along with jobs for executive secretaries, salespeople, & distribution managers. According to one study, just 20% of executive assistants & insurance-claims clerks have college degrees but more than 45% of the job openings in the field require one. “This suggests that employers may be relying on a B.A. as a broad recruitment filter that may or may not correspond to specific capabilities needed to do the job,” the study concluded.
It is well established that students who go to elite colleges tend to earn more than graduates of less selective institutions. But is this because Harvard & Princeton do a better job of teaching valuable skills than other places, or because employers believe that they get more talented students to begin with? An exercise carried out by Lauren Rivera, of the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern, strongly suggests that it’s the latter. Rivera interviewed more than a hundred recruiters from investment banks, law firms, & management consulting firms, & she found that they recruited almost exclusively from the very top-ranked schools, & simply ignored most other applicants. The recruiters didn’t pay much attention to things like grades & majors. “It was not the content of education that elite employers valued but rather its prestige,” Rivera concluded.
If higher education serves primarily as a sorting mechanism, that might help explain another disturbing development: the tendency of many college graduates to take jobs that don’t require college degrees. Practically everyone seems to know a well-educated young person who is working in a bar or a mundane clerical job, because he or she can’t find anything better. Doubtless, the Great Recession & its aftermath are partly to blame. But something deeper, & more lasting, also seems to be happening.
In the Goldin-Katz view of things, technological progress generates an ever-increasing need for highly educated, highly skilled workers. But, beginning in about 2000, for reasons that are still not fully understood, the pace of job creation in high-paying, highly skilled fields slowed significantly. To demonstrate this, 3 Canadian economists, Paul Beaudry, David A. Green, & Benjamin M. Sand, divided the US workforce into a hundred occupations, ranked by their average wages, & looked at how employment has changed in each category. Since 2000, the economists showed, the demand for highly educated workers declined, while job growth in low-paying occupations increased strongly. “High-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skilled workers,” they concluded, thus “pushing low-skilled workers even further down the occupational ladder.”
Increasingly, the competition for jobs is taking place in areas of the labor market where college graduates didn’t previously tend to compete. As Beaudry, Green, & Sand put it, “having a B.A. is less about obtaining access to high paying managerial and technology jobs and more about beating out less educated workers for the Barista or clerical job.” Even many graduates in science, technology, engineering, & mathematics—the so-called STEM subjects, which receive so much official encouragement—are having a tough time getting the jobs they’d like. Cappelli reports that only about a fifth of recent graduates with STEM degrees got jobs that made use of that training. “The evidence for recent grads suggests clearly that there is no overall shortage of STEM grads,” he writes.
Why is this happening? The short answer is that nobody knows for sure. One theory is that corporate cost-cutting, having thinned the ranks of workers on the factory floor & in routine office jobs, is now targeting supervisors, managers, & other highly educated people. Another theory is that technological progress, after favoring highly educated workers for a long time, is now turning on them. With rapid advances in processing power, data analysis, voice recognition, & other forms of artificial intelligence, computers can perform tasks that were previously carried out by college graduates, such as analyzing trends, translating foreign-language documents, & filing tax returns. In “The Second Machine Age” (Norton), the M.I.T. professors Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee sketch a future where computers will start replacing doctors, lawyers, & many other highly educated professionals. “As digital labor becomes more pervasive, capable, and powerful,” they write, “companies will be increasingly unwilling to pay people wages that they’ll accept, and that will allow them to maintain the standard of living to which they’ve been accustomed.”
Cappelli stresses the change in corporate hiring patterns. In the old days, Fortune 500 companies such as General Motors, Citigroup, & I.B.M. took on large numbers of college graduates & trained them for a lifetime at the company. But corporations now invest less in education & training, &, instead of promoting someone, or finding someone in the company to fill a specialized role, they tend to hire from outside. Grooming the next generation of leadership is much less of a concern. “What employers want from college graduates now is the same thing they want from applicants who have been out of school for years, and that is job skills and the ability to contribute now,” Cappelli writes. “That change is fundamental, and it is the reason that getting a good job out of college is now such a challenge.”
Obtaining a vocational degree or certificate is one strategy that many students employ to make themselves attractive to employers, &, on the face of it, this seems sensible. If you’d like to be a radiology technician, shouldn’t you get a B.A. in radiology? If you want to run a bakery, why not apply to Kansas State & sign up for that major in Bakery Science? But narrowly focussed degrees are risky. “If you graduate in a year when gambling is up and the casinos like your casino management degree, you probably have hit it big,” Cappelli writes. “If they aren’t hiring when you graduate, you may be even worse off getting a first job with that degree anywhere else precisely because it was so tuned to that group of employers.” During the dot-com era, enrollment in computer-science & information-technology programs rose sharply. After the bursting of the stock-market bubble, many of these graduates couldn’t find work. “Employers who say that we need more engineers or IT grads are not promising to hire them when they graduate in four years,” Cappelli notes. “Pushing kids into a field like health care because someone believes there is a need there now will not guarantee that they all get jobs &, if they do, that those jobs will be as good as workers in that field have now.”
So what’s the solution? Some people believe that online learning will provide a viable low-cost alternative to a live-in college education. ... Another approach is to direct more students & resources to two-year community colleges & other educational institutions that cost less than four-year colleges. President Obama recently called for all qualified high-school students to be guaranteed a place in community college, & for tuition fees to be eliminated. Such policies would reverse recent history. In a new book, “Learning by Doing: The Real Connection between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth” (Yale), James Bessen, a technology entrepreneur who also teaches at Boston University School of Law, points out that “the policy trend over the last decade has been to starve community colleges in order to feed four-year colleges, especially private research universities.” Some of the discrepancies are glaring. Richard Vedder, who teaches economics at Ohio University, calculated that in 2010 Princeton, which had an endowment of close to fifteen billion dollars, received state & federal benefits equivalent to roughly 50,000 dollars per student, whereas the nearby College of New Jersey got benefits of just 2,000 dollars per student. There are sound reasons for rewarding excellence & sponsoring institutions that do important scientific research. But is a twenty-five-to-one difference in government support really justified?
Perhaps the strongest argument for caring about higher education is that it can increase social mobility, regardless of whether the human-capital theory or the signalling theory is correct. A recent study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco showed that children who are born into households in the poorest fifth of the income distribution are 6 times as likely to reach the top fifth if they graduate from college. Providing access to college for more kids from deprived backgrounds helps nurture talents that might otherwise go to waste, & it’s the right thing to do. (Of course, if college attendance were practically universal, having a degree would send a weaker signal to employers.) But increasing the number of graduates seems unlikely to reverse the over-all decline of high-paying jobs, & it won’t resolve the income-inequality problem, either. As the economist Lawrence Summers & two colleagues showed in a recent simulation, even if we magically summoned up college degrees for a tenth of all the working-age American men who don’t have them—by historical standards, a big boost in college-graduation rates—we’d scarcely change the existing concentration of income at the very top of the earnings distribution, where C.E.O.s & hedge-fund managers live.
Being more realistic about the role that college degrees play would help families & politicians make better choices. It could also help us appreciate the actual merits of a traditional broad-based education, often called a liberal-arts education, rather than trying to reduce everything to an economic cost-benefit analysis. “To be clear, the idea is not that there will be a big financial payoff to a liberal arts degree,” Cappelli writes. “It is that there is no guarantee of a payoff from very practical, work-based degrees either, yet that is all those degrees promise. For liberal arts, the claim is different and seems more accurate, that it will enrich your life and provide lessons that extend beyond any individual job. There are centuries of experience providing support for that notion.”
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Criminal Minds, S1E17 quote
now, what if the party which injures (murderer) is a government official / diplomat / a government administration / any powerful figure (police force) & the murder itself happens to take place in a foreign place where thousands unnecessarily died [Japan, China, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yemen, Colombia, India, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine (Crimea), Rwanda, Bosnia, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, Congo, Sudan, Canada, US etc.]. Where's the atonement for all those unnecessary deaths?
Baltimore Residents & Workers voice outrage over plans to privatize public housing
I liked this piece from The Real News Network about the rising homelessness, & decreasing numbers of affordable public housing, in US. Here, they are discussing homelessness in one of the American cities, Baltimore, Maryland.
As Mr. Singer explains in the piece that American government has been privatizing public housing since 1974 & now, under the Obama administration, "60,000 public housing units around the country are being sold to private developers, most of them for-profit developers, & we the taxpayers are subsidizing their profits." All this is happening when "homelessness is at the highest peak it's been since the Great Depression of the '30s." Is this democracy when the public taxes are subsidizing the rich, & those same poor public are becoming homeless?
Some 40,000 people are homeless in Baltimore. That's just 1 American city & it's not even considered a large American city by any measure. Homelessness has increased multiple folds in large American cities; New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta etc. & this is all happened within the last decade.
Poverty among Baltimore kids are almost 35%; that's almost 1 poor child in 3 children. Poverty is constantly increasing in US. The young generation is moving down south to have some sense of accumulation of wealth through cheaper real estate & taxes. But, the taxes are going up, & wages are going down, overall, & those taxes are not helping the poor public, but the rich keeps getting richer through tax cuts, subsidized public assets being turned private assets, & hence, the inequality keeps increasing.
Where's the democracy in the largest self-anointed "democratic" country in the world where poor can't even get a decent place to call it a home, & keeps becoming poor everyday, while the rich elites become rich at the expense of the poor public?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: In part one of this story, we looked at Baltimore's plans to sell about 40% of its public housing stock to private developers & why some residents, workers, & advocates oppose these plans. But due to declining federal contributions to public housing, many cities face a shortfall in funding. The Department of Housing & Urban Development, HUD, puts the shortfall at $27 billion USD.
Baltimore says it can raise $300 million USD of the $800 million USD it needs by selling some of its properties to private developers.
To understand how America's public housing crisis got so bad in the first place, we spoke to Jeff Singer. He's an instructor at the University of Maryland & a longtime Baltimore public housing advocate.
NOOR: So there's a public housing crisis around the country. How did it get to that point? And start under Bill Clinton to give people a little background in how things got so bad.
JEFF SINGER, CITY ADVOCATES IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE HOMELESS: Well, we can go back even a little farther to 1974, when Richard Nixon created the first privatization of public housing, what we call the Section 8 certificates. And the more money that went to Section 8 certificates, the less money that went to public housing. Section 8 was a way to give private landlords money to house people who were poor. So from 74 until now, we've seen a decline in the amount of federal funds directed toward public housing & an increase in--a small increase in the amount that's directed toward profits.
The program we're talking about here tonight is the efflorescence of that. It's actually privatizing the housing that we built for ourselves & making sure that people can make profits from it. And they don't mix well together. Affordable housing & profits are antithetical.
NOOR: And so what happened starting under the Clinton administration?
SINGER: What happened out of the Clinton administration was a couple of programs & policy changes that are very important. One policy change was that it is now illegal to build additional public housing with federal funds. Can you imagine that? In 1949, Congress declared that it is the goal of the US to make sure that every resident here has safe, decent, affordable housing. But under Bill Clinton, that language was stricken from the law & the number of public housing units was capped by law. So that was one very important issue. Another was that he continued the defunding of public housing. There was a law that required that whenever a public housing unit was demolished, a new unit had to be created. He eliminated that as well. So this has accelerated the demise of public housing.
NOOR: RAD program is happening under the Obama administration, a Democratic administration.
SINGER: Yes. Well, as Huey Long said, they may be Democratic waiters or they may be Republican waiters, but they're serving food from the same Wall Street kitchen. This RAD program was created actually in 2003 by the Bush administration, but they couldn't get it implemented. So now the Obama administration is implementing it with a vengeance, & 60,000 public housing units around the country are being sold to private developers, most of them for-profit developers, & we the taxpayers are subsidizing their profits. At the same time, homelessness is at the highest peak it's been since the Great Depression of the '30s, & the secretary of the federal Department of Housing & Urban Development himself says we're in the worst rental housing crisis in our history.
NOOR: How bad is it here in Baltimore?
SINGER: Well, we don't know how many people experience homelessness every night in Baltimore, but we counted over 4,000 people two years ago per night. Over the course of a year, that's probably 40,000 people. So we know it's pretty bad. There are encampments all around the city, the shelters are full every night, & people have nowhere to go.
NOOR: And there's a lot of people in risk of losing their housing as well.
SINGER: Well, they are. And one of the aspects of this new RAD program is that it's going to use federal tax credits to create profits for these developers in public housing. But that means that those federal tax credits will no longer be available to build new affordable housing. ...
NOOR: Baltimore is a pilot city for the RAD program. Why will it be important for people to be engaged here? What kind of impact will what happens here have on the rest of the country, especially when it comes to tenants & the union workers that are being affected by this being mobilized & getting their voices out?
SINGER: I think we have an opportunity here to do something very important, & that is to combine the forces & the interests of the tenants with the forces & interests of the workers. It is outrageous that the federal government has approved a plan that's going to fire 200 workers, workers who had decent wages, job protections, & benefits. The middle class that--the president is talking about growing the middle class; well, now we're destroying part of the middle class. So by combining the interests of the tenants & the workers & the advocates & the neighborhood folks, we can create a really important force, & that force is devoted toward affordable & fair development policies.
NOOR: And so part of the drive for this you can kind of say comes from the perception that public housing is failing. And so why is it important to talk about the mismanagement & the underfunding of public housing to contextualize that?
SINGER: ... The federal budget for the Department of Housing & Urban Development was the equivalent of $90 billion in 1980, & it is now $42 billion. It's less than half of what it was. So they have purposefully for 40 years underfunded public housing, both the capital costs ... & the operating costs. Now the City of Baltimore gets only about 75% of what they need to run public housing, & they get a hundredth of what they need to maintain it.
NOOR: What else is important for people to know about the future of public housing in America, in Baltimore today?
SINGER: Well, public housing is the sector of housing that keeps housing permanently affordable for the very large number of folks whose income is low. And we have a poverty rate in the US of about 15%. In the City of Baltimore, it's over 20%. Among children in Baltimore it's 35%. None of those folks can afford housing through the market. Public housing is the best way to keep them safe and secure.
In other civilized countries, public housing is a very large part of their housing sector. In most European countries, it's 20% of all the housing. In the city of Vienna it's 60% of all the housing is public housing, meaning it's owned by all the people & it's available to people who need it. In the US, it's 1% of our housing, & that's diminishing.
As Mr. Singer explains in the piece that American government has been privatizing public housing since 1974 & now, under the Obama administration, "60,000 public housing units around the country are being sold to private developers, most of them for-profit developers, & we the taxpayers are subsidizing their profits." All this is happening when "homelessness is at the highest peak it's been since the Great Depression of the '30s." Is this democracy when the public taxes are subsidizing the rich, & those same poor public are becoming homeless?
Some 40,000 people are homeless in Baltimore. That's just 1 American city & it's not even considered a large American city by any measure. Homelessness has increased multiple folds in large American cities; New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta etc. & this is all happened within the last decade.
Poverty among Baltimore kids are almost 35%; that's almost 1 poor child in 3 children. Poverty is constantly increasing in US. The young generation is moving down south to have some sense of accumulation of wealth through cheaper real estate & taxes. But, the taxes are going up, & wages are going down, overall, & those taxes are not helping the poor public, but the rich keeps getting richer through tax cuts, subsidized public assets being turned private assets, & hence, the inequality keeps increasing.
Where's the democracy in the largest self-anointed "democratic" country in the world where poor can't even get a decent place to call it a home, & keeps becoming poor everyday, while the rich elites become rich at the expense of the poor public?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: In part one of this story, we looked at Baltimore's plans to sell about 40% of its public housing stock to private developers & why some residents, workers, & advocates oppose these plans. But due to declining federal contributions to public housing, many cities face a shortfall in funding. The Department of Housing & Urban Development, HUD, puts the shortfall at $27 billion USD.
Baltimore says it can raise $300 million USD of the $800 million USD it needs by selling some of its properties to private developers.
To understand how America's public housing crisis got so bad in the first place, we spoke to Jeff Singer. He's an instructor at the University of Maryland & a longtime Baltimore public housing advocate.
NOOR: So there's a public housing crisis around the country. How did it get to that point? And start under Bill Clinton to give people a little background in how things got so bad.
JEFF SINGER, CITY ADVOCATES IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE HOMELESS: Well, we can go back even a little farther to 1974, when Richard Nixon created the first privatization of public housing, what we call the Section 8 certificates. And the more money that went to Section 8 certificates, the less money that went to public housing. Section 8 was a way to give private landlords money to house people who were poor. So from 74 until now, we've seen a decline in the amount of federal funds directed toward public housing & an increase in--a small increase in the amount that's directed toward profits.
The program we're talking about here tonight is the efflorescence of that. It's actually privatizing the housing that we built for ourselves & making sure that people can make profits from it. And they don't mix well together. Affordable housing & profits are antithetical.
NOOR: And so what happened starting under the Clinton administration?
SINGER: What happened out of the Clinton administration was a couple of programs & policy changes that are very important. One policy change was that it is now illegal to build additional public housing with federal funds. Can you imagine that? In 1949, Congress declared that it is the goal of the US to make sure that every resident here has safe, decent, affordable housing. But under Bill Clinton, that language was stricken from the law & the number of public housing units was capped by law. So that was one very important issue. Another was that he continued the defunding of public housing. There was a law that required that whenever a public housing unit was demolished, a new unit had to be created. He eliminated that as well. So this has accelerated the demise of public housing.
NOOR: RAD program is happening under the Obama administration, a Democratic administration.
SINGER: Yes. Well, as Huey Long said, they may be Democratic waiters or they may be Republican waiters, but they're serving food from the same Wall Street kitchen. This RAD program was created actually in 2003 by the Bush administration, but they couldn't get it implemented. So now the Obama administration is implementing it with a vengeance, & 60,000 public housing units around the country are being sold to private developers, most of them for-profit developers, & we the taxpayers are subsidizing their profits. At the same time, homelessness is at the highest peak it's been since the Great Depression of the '30s, & the secretary of the federal Department of Housing & Urban Development himself says we're in the worst rental housing crisis in our history.
NOOR: How bad is it here in Baltimore?
SINGER: Well, we don't know how many people experience homelessness every night in Baltimore, but we counted over 4,000 people two years ago per night. Over the course of a year, that's probably 40,000 people. So we know it's pretty bad. There are encampments all around the city, the shelters are full every night, & people have nowhere to go.
NOOR: And there's a lot of people in risk of losing their housing as well.
SINGER: Well, they are. And one of the aspects of this new RAD program is that it's going to use federal tax credits to create profits for these developers in public housing. But that means that those federal tax credits will no longer be available to build new affordable housing. ...
NOOR: Baltimore is a pilot city for the RAD program. Why will it be important for people to be engaged here? What kind of impact will what happens here have on the rest of the country, especially when it comes to tenants & the union workers that are being affected by this being mobilized & getting their voices out?
SINGER: I think we have an opportunity here to do something very important, & that is to combine the forces & the interests of the tenants with the forces & interests of the workers. It is outrageous that the federal government has approved a plan that's going to fire 200 workers, workers who had decent wages, job protections, & benefits. The middle class that--the president is talking about growing the middle class; well, now we're destroying part of the middle class. So by combining the interests of the tenants & the workers & the advocates & the neighborhood folks, we can create a really important force, & that force is devoted toward affordable & fair development policies.
NOOR: And so part of the drive for this you can kind of say comes from the perception that public housing is failing. And so why is it important to talk about the mismanagement & the underfunding of public housing to contextualize that?
SINGER: ... The federal budget for the Department of Housing & Urban Development was the equivalent of $90 billion in 1980, & it is now $42 billion. It's less than half of what it was. So they have purposefully for 40 years underfunded public housing, both the capital costs ... & the operating costs. Now the City of Baltimore gets only about 75% of what they need to run public housing, & they get a hundredth of what they need to maintain it.
NOOR: What else is important for people to know about the future of public housing in America, in Baltimore today?
SINGER: Well, public housing is the sector of housing that keeps housing permanently affordable for the very large number of folks whose income is low. And we have a poverty rate in the US of about 15%. In the City of Baltimore, it's over 20%. Among children in Baltimore it's 35%. None of those folks can afford housing through the market. Public housing is the best way to keep them safe and secure.
In other civilized countries, public housing is a very large part of their housing sector. In most European countries, it's 20% of all the housing. In the city of Vienna it's 60% of all the housing is public housing, meaning it's owned by all the people & it's available to people who need it. In the US, it's 1% of our housing, & that's diminishing.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Margaret Atwood on Free Will, Safety & Modern Romance
I liked this Chatelaine interview with Margaret Atwood, Canada's most celebrated author & novelist, because of a few comments she says about prison-industrial complex, political infatuation with terrorism when more people die of cancers & car accidents in the West, & modern-day change in people's behaviours towards family & work commitments. I, however, am more interested in the first 2 points than the third.
1. As she says about prison-industrial complex that "now that we have for-profit prisons, they have to be kept supplied. It’s actually an incentive to create more criminals." As I've blogged earlier that we can clearly see in US prisons that are being transferred from government care to private companies' care, who do everything in their power to lower their costs & increase their profit margins. This is also shown in the Netflix's series, "Orange is the new black," where female prisoners in Litchfield minimum security woman prison are being fed unhealthy slop, experienced full-time correctional officers are being replaced by inexperienced part-time guards, & prisoner rehabilitation is not even a word in new company's operation manual.
On top of that, the justice system is being skewed towards lowering the bar for crimes to the point where more criminals are somehow actually good for the society. Since when creating more criminals & destroying the lives of people, instead of trying to "address the underlying issues that drove them to commit crimes" is the new norm?
2. Some 3,000 people died on 9/11 some 16 years ago, & it become a rallying cry for American politicians, & every other politician around the world, to "fight terrorism". Majority of the public also blindly supports whatever the politicians come out chanting for the day. Although, that incident & several terrorist attacks after that one, around the world, are reprehensible, one has to wonder why the public & government don't try to tackle vehicle accidents, gun deaths, & numerous other fatal diseases with as much intensity & commitment as much as they do with "terrorism". Terrorism has never killed so many people as much as thousands upon thousands die every year, unlike a terrorist attack, due to non-terrorism causes.
Main reason is that in the guise of terrorism, military funding can be increased, & the government can easily put in place strict draconian controlling measures for the public. As we all know (or should know) that fear is the best way to control the public. All other non-terrorism activities don't help in increasing military funding, & hence, no new "toys" for the army to play with & the government can't control its public since it can't generate that life-ending fear with the promise of that miraculous cancer cure.
3. For the 3rd point, I am not going to blog too much but I really liked what she said about the sad state of modern human's isolation; "the ultimate vision of our desire & increasing ability to control everything in our lives is that there are no other people in our lives. People do what they do — & some of it is really bizarre, & always has been." Isn't this what "YOLO" is all about that hence I am only going to live once, why should I listen to someone else & instead follow my own head & heart. Well, we can very well see where that is leading us?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Heart Goes Last", Margaret Atwood’s latest book & her first stand-alone novel since 2000’s Booker Prize–winning "The Blind Assassin", follows suit. Set in an only slightly alternative contemporary America, it tells the story of Stan & Charmaine, a married couple left homeless after an economic collapse. Enticed by the offer of good jobs & a nice home, they sign up to participate in the Positron Project in a corporate-run town called Consilience. The catch? Residents spend every other month in their civilian Pleasantville paradise, & the rest of their time as inmates in a massive & mysterious work prison.
As she did with "The Handmaid’s Tale" & the "MaddAddam Trilogy", Atwood pushes current, real-life dilemmas to their logical & darkest conclusions. In the case of "The Heart Goes Last", she takes on income inequality, the privatization of the justice system & government surveillance. As Atwood explains, “No one is ever really writing about the future, because we can’t know the future. My speculative fiction is a commentary on the past and the present.” Here, she reflects on free will, feeling safe & super-realistic sex dolls.
...
Chatelaine: Let’s get to your writing & "The Heart Goes Last". It takes place in the fallout of an economic recession much like the one that began in late 2007, which was around the time you were writing "Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth". Has the issue of economic collapse been long on your mind?
Margaret Atwood [MA]: Actually, when I was writing Payback, the economic collapse hadn’t happened yet, but the book came out in 2008, just as we were really feeling its effects, so everyone thought I had a crystal ball — which I kind of did. I had been looking at ads on the subway, as is my habit, for all those credit relief & payday loan companies, & I could see something was happening.
But for "The Heart Goes Last", I had been thinking more about prisons, in part because of protests over the shutting down of prison farms. [In 2009, the Conservative government announced it would be closing its operating farms at six prisons across Canada. The program was one of the country’s most successful prisoner rehabilitation projects.] We haven’t really decided what prisons are for. Are they to punish people, to rehabilitate them, to give them a fresh start? Are they to protect the public? In some cases, the answer to the last question is yes — you don’t want Hannibal Lecter running around eating people. But in many cases, there is a knee-jerk reaction to imprison people, without looking at other options to address the underlying issues that drove them to commit crimes.
One of my models was Australia’s history as a penal colony. With only men at first, it was quite unruly, so the idea was to settle men down by sending them women. But there simply weren’t enough women in prison to meet the demand, so they lowered the bar, criminalized more behaviours & sentenced women more harshly to supply the demand. Today, now that we have for-profit prisons, they have to be kept supplied. It’s actually an incentive to create more criminals.
Chatelaine: The shadow that hangs over the book is the choice between freedom & security. Stan & Charmaine have been in terrible circumstances, pursued by gangs of rapists & murderers. They opt to give up their freedom to have some sense of safety & stability. Consilience would have an appeal.
MA: The good side for Stan & Charmaine is they’ve finally got a nice house.
Chatelaine: And the bad side is that they spend half their lives in prison. That’s the compromise.
MA: It’s a serious compromise & one that’s so old in how it’s played out over time. It’s one of the most primal questions: “What do I have to do to keep my family safe?” If we didn’t have those feelings, the human race wouldn’t be here. But the real question should be: “What is safety?”
Chatelaine: Because those fears tend to get exploited?
MA: Yes. Way more people are going to die from car accidents than terrorist attacks [but we’re more afraid of terrorism]. If you really don’t want people to die, reduce the speed limit or install blood-alcohol monitors that would prevent drunk people from driving.
...
Chatelaine: In the novel, Stan & Charmaine also grapple with commitment & freedom in the context of their marriage.
MA: It’s not just a political question. It’s a fundamental question for all of us — how much free will we actually have & how much we actually want. The answers are going to be individual. Some people don’t want that much choice. They want other people to make choices for them. Other people want infinite choice.
Chatelaine: Speaking of infinite choice & intimacy, I want to ask you about sex in the book. Without revealing too much, there is a subplot involving the manufacturing of elaborately realistic sex dolls, which people have designed to look like anyone or anything they desire —
MA: Which are in process right now. In Japan, they’re making them so realistic that they have goosebumps on their skin & human body temperature!
Chatelaine: What’s the appeal?
MA: I think that people are afraid of rejection. But I read an article about people who buy these expensive sex dolls, & they say that they like them because there’s no hassle. No one’s bothering them, no one’s nudging them, no one’s laughing at them or asking them to take out the garbage.
Chatelaine: That seems like a sad statement about modern romance.
MA: It’s a sad statement about human isolation. The ultimate vision of our desire & increasing ability to control everything in our lives is that there are no other people in our lives. People do what they do — & some of it is really bizarre, & always has been.
I love the quote that I put at the beginning of the book from the journalist Adam Frucci. He wrote a story for the website Gizmodo in 2009 called “I Had Sex with Furniture,” about all about these weird new sex toys that are being developed. And he says in the story, “I did the deed with an inanimate object so you don’t have to.” In a consumer society, where it all comes down to whether or not you can pay for something, it all becomes acceptable. So the question is: How do you measure normal?
1. As she says about prison-industrial complex that "now that we have for-profit prisons, they have to be kept supplied. It’s actually an incentive to create more criminals." As I've blogged earlier that we can clearly see in US prisons that are being transferred from government care to private companies' care, who do everything in their power to lower their costs & increase their profit margins. This is also shown in the Netflix's series, "Orange is the new black," where female prisoners in Litchfield minimum security woman prison are being fed unhealthy slop, experienced full-time correctional officers are being replaced by inexperienced part-time guards, & prisoner rehabilitation is not even a word in new company's operation manual.
On top of that, the justice system is being skewed towards lowering the bar for crimes to the point where more criminals are somehow actually good for the society. Since when creating more criminals & destroying the lives of people, instead of trying to "address the underlying issues that drove them to commit crimes" is the new norm?
2. Some 3,000 people died on 9/11 some 16 years ago, & it become a rallying cry for American politicians, & every other politician around the world, to "fight terrorism". Majority of the public also blindly supports whatever the politicians come out chanting for the day. Although, that incident & several terrorist attacks after that one, around the world, are reprehensible, one has to wonder why the public & government don't try to tackle vehicle accidents, gun deaths, & numerous other fatal diseases with as much intensity & commitment as much as they do with "terrorism". Terrorism has never killed so many people as much as thousands upon thousands die every year, unlike a terrorist attack, due to non-terrorism causes.
Main reason is that in the guise of terrorism, military funding can be increased, & the government can easily put in place strict draconian controlling measures for the public. As we all know (or should know) that fear is the best way to control the public. All other non-terrorism activities don't help in increasing military funding, & hence, no new "toys" for the army to play with & the government can't control its public since it can't generate that life-ending fear with the promise of that miraculous cancer cure.
3. For the 3rd point, I am not going to blog too much but I really liked what she said about the sad state of modern human's isolation; "the ultimate vision of our desire & increasing ability to control everything in our lives is that there are no other people in our lives. People do what they do — & some of it is really bizarre, & always has been." Isn't this what "YOLO" is all about that hence I am only going to live once, why should I listen to someone else & instead follow my own head & heart. Well, we can very well see where that is leading us?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Heart Goes Last", Margaret Atwood’s latest book & her first stand-alone novel since 2000’s Booker Prize–winning "The Blind Assassin", follows suit. Set in an only slightly alternative contemporary America, it tells the story of Stan & Charmaine, a married couple left homeless after an economic collapse. Enticed by the offer of good jobs & a nice home, they sign up to participate in the Positron Project in a corporate-run town called Consilience. The catch? Residents spend every other month in their civilian Pleasantville paradise, & the rest of their time as inmates in a massive & mysterious work prison.
As she did with "The Handmaid’s Tale" & the "MaddAddam Trilogy", Atwood pushes current, real-life dilemmas to their logical & darkest conclusions. In the case of "The Heart Goes Last", she takes on income inequality, the privatization of the justice system & government surveillance. As Atwood explains, “No one is ever really writing about the future, because we can’t know the future. My speculative fiction is a commentary on the past and the present.” Here, she reflects on free will, feeling safe & super-realistic sex dolls.
...
Chatelaine: Let’s get to your writing & "The Heart Goes Last". It takes place in the fallout of an economic recession much like the one that began in late 2007, which was around the time you were writing "Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth". Has the issue of economic collapse been long on your mind?
Margaret Atwood [MA]: Actually, when I was writing Payback, the economic collapse hadn’t happened yet, but the book came out in 2008, just as we were really feeling its effects, so everyone thought I had a crystal ball — which I kind of did. I had been looking at ads on the subway, as is my habit, for all those credit relief & payday loan companies, & I could see something was happening.
But for "The Heart Goes Last", I had been thinking more about prisons, in part because of protests over the shutting down of prison farms. [In 2009, the Conservative government announced it would be closing its operating farms at six prisons across Canada. The program was one of the country’s most successful prisoner rehabilitation projects.] We haven’t really decided what prisons are for. Are they to punish people, to rehabilitate them, to give them a fresh start? Are they to protect the public? In some cases, the answer to the last question is yes — you don’t want Hannibal Lecter running around eating people. But in many cases, there is a knee-jerk reaction to imprison people, without looking at other options to address the underlying issues that drove them to commit crimes.
One of my models was Australia’s history as a penal colony. With only men at first, it was quite unruly, so the idea was to settle men down by sending them women. But there simply weren’t enough women in prison to meet the demand, so they lowered the bar, criminalized more behaviours & sentenced women more harshly to supply the demand. Today, now that we have for-profit prisons, they have to be kept supplied. It’s actually an incentive to create more criminals.
Chatelaine: The shadow that hangs over the book is the choice between freedom & security. Stan & Charmaine have been in terrible circumstances, pursued by gangs of rapists & murderers. They opt to give up their freedom to have some sense of safety & stability. Consilience would have an appeal.
MA: The good side for Stan & Charmaine is they’ve finally got a nice house.
Chatelaine: And the bad side is that they spend half their lives in prison. That’s the compromise.
MA: It’s a serious compromise & one that’s so old in how it’s played out over time. It’s one of the most primal questions: “What do I have to do to keep my family safe?” If we didn’t have those feelings, the human race wouldn’t be here. But the real question should be: “What is safety?”
Chatelaine: Because those fears tend to get exploited?
MA: Yes. Way more people are going to die from car accidents than terrorist attacks [but we’re more afraid of terrorism]. If you really don’t want people to die, reduce the speed limit or install blood-alcohol monitors that would prevent drunk people from driving.
...
Chatelaine: In the novel, Stan & Charmaine also grapple with commitment & freedom in the context of their marriage.
MA: It’s not just a political question. It’s a fundamental question for all of us — how much free will we actually have & how much we actually want. The answers are going to be individual. Some people don’t want that much choice. They want other people to make choices for them. Other people want infinite choice.
Chatelaine: Speaking of infinite choice & intimacy, I want to ask you about sex in the book. Without revealing too much, there is a subplot involving the manufacturing of elaborately realistic sex dolls, which people have designed to look like anyone or anything they desire —
MA: Which are in process right now. In Japan, they’re making them so realistic that they have goosebumps on their skin & human body temperature!
Chatelaine: What’s the appeal?
MA: I think that people are afraid of rejection. But I read an article about people who buy these expensive sex dolls, & they say that they like them because there’s no hassle. No one’s bothering them, no one’s nudging them, no one’s laughing at them or asking them to take out the garbage.
Chatelaine: That seems like a sad statement about modern romance.
MA: It’s a sad statement about human isolation. The ultimate vision of our desire & increasing ability to control everything in our lives is that there are no other people in our lives. People do what they do — & some of it is really bizarre, & always has been.
I love the quote that I put at the beginning of the book from the journalist Adam Frucci. He wrote a story for the website Gizmodo in 2009 called “I Had Sex with Furniture,” about all about these weird new sex toys that are being developed. And he says in the story, “I did the deed with an inanimate object so you don’t have to.” In a consumer society, where it all comes down to whether or not you can pay for something, it all becomes acceptable. So the question is: How do you measure normal?
"The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" quote
This line from the movie, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty", says a lot. We don't need to do a lot of things in life just to draw attention to ourselves; be it taking a dangerous selfie or spending hundreds on branded clothes, cosmetics, new & flashy cars, & even a damn big house, because ...
Monday, March 28, 2016
Ivy League Study: The General Public Has Virtually No Influence on Policy
This news bite isn't so surprising or at least should not be surprising, if you don't live under a rock & actually think a little bit how the world actually works in real life.
As I have blogged several times in the past & as this news bite confirms it that democracy doesn't exist anywhere in the world, except, maybe, in very small countries with quite a bit of homogenous population in terms of race, ethnicity, & religious beliefs.
So, as this study concludes that public policy is heavily, or rather, completely, influenced by wealthy elites & the special interest / lobbying groups. The common man, or a woman, doesn't have any power in influencing public policies, even the ones directly & adversely affecting him / her.
Now, I know that correlation doesn't imply causation but you do have to wonder how come most, if not all, policies coming out of the government end up favouring the wealthy much more than the poor public. Be it the taxation debate or jobs discussion, or the minimum wage or homelessness, or any number of social & public problems, the rich & wealthy always win out, while the poor left holding the empty bag.
Democracy in the world, especially in the West, only exists superficially. The mass public thinks that since they are voting, their voice matters. Nope it doesn't. Take Canada, for instance. Majority of public is against Syrian refugees making Canada their new home or Canada supplying $15 billions of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. But did the government listen to the public to actually not welcome Syrian refugees, especially when government is cutting funding to help reduce urban homelessness or rising unemployment through financial injections in the economy. Please keep in mind here that we are not discussing the morality of these issues. That's a whole different discussion in itself.
We can also take US public opinion when George Bush's approval ratings before winning his second term was the lowest of any American president before him but he still won a second term. Or how a majority of German public is against Merkel's insistence on keep welcoming more & more refugees & migrants? Once again, not discussing morality of such issues as refugee crisis. Or Japan where a majority of public was against Abe's decision to turn the country towards more militarism than pacifism. Or is it really democratic of all those dozens of nations involved in TTP (TransPacific Trade Partnership) without any input, whatsoever, from the general public, who will be taking the brunt of all the adverse effects of this trade partnership, while the rich elites make a fine buck out of this trade partnership?
Remember, democracy is not about voting in general elections, but actually about having an actual influence in how the country is run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTON WORONCZUK, TRNN PRODUCER: A new study titled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, & Average Citizens (PDF) says what we've all long felt to be true: the rich & powerful have much greater influence than the rest of us. Political scientist Martin Gilens of Princeton University & Benjamin Page of Northwestern looked at about 1,800 survey questions of public opinion between 1981 & 2002, & they concluded "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
So, Benjamin, tell us how you came to this conclusion. Tell us about the data that you looked at. And give us some concrete statistics to show that democracy gap between the public & the economic elites.
BENJAMIN PAGE, FULCHER PROF. OF DECISION MAKING, NORTHWESTERN UNIV.: Well, Marty Gilens & his people worked for about 10 years to do this. It's a very difficult study. ... . It involved gathering a lot of information about public opinion, about what affluent people think, & about what interest groups stand for. And we then looked at how public policy came out on these 1,800 cases. And it turns out, if you wanted to predict it, the average citizen simply appeared to have no influence whatsoever, no measurable influence, but organized groups had quite a bit, & affluent citizens even more.
WORONCZUK: So you looked at about two decades' worth of surveys of public opinion. Do you see a change in influence of economic elites over that time? Or is it relatively constant? And also, do you see a change in the kinds of elites that have influence over policy?
PAGE: Well, there appears to be some change over time. As economic inequality has increased & there's more money among the most wealthy people, they seem to use more of it for politics & have more influence. And, of course, the study data ended some time ago. This was before the Supreme Court decisions that increased the power of money still far further.
WORONCZUK: And so what kind of issues do we see the wealthy having a greater influence over? What kind of policy choices do they seek that differs from that of the desires of the public?
PAGE: Well, there are certain kinds of issues on which wealthy Americans tend to disagree quite a bit with the average. One of the biggest is Social Security, where the average American really likes the program, wants to increase it, & wealthy Americans tend to want to cut it to reduce budget deficits. Then there are a lot of policies that have to do with jobs & incomes where you get the same kind of situation--the wealthy people, of course, don't particularly get anything from those, & I think they may underappreciate their importance to average people. There are also disagreements about economic regulation. The average American's much more keen on regulating big corporations, for example. And there are difference about tax policy. The average American would like to close loopholes & have high-income people pay a substantially larger share, whereas upper income people are less enthusiastic about that.
WORONCZUK: Do you see any policy desires of the public or the economic elite that tend to converge?
PAGE: Yes. There are many of them, and particularly in this study. ... in many cases, the average person agrees & they get what they want, but apparently it's only because the affluent want it.
What we suspect but don't really have evidence for is that much wealthier people may be exerting most of that political influence. And they tend to have much more different policy preferences from the average person.
WORONCZUK: Okay. So judging this democracy gap that exists between the public & the economic elite, let's say that Obama called you tomorrow & put you on economic reform task force. What recommendations would you make to him?
PAGE: ... what I would suggest is that we really work hard to reduce the role of money in politics. The Supreme Court's made it a little harder, but there's still things you can do--full disclosure of all kinds of political donations, for example; limiting lobbying; & probably public financing of campaigns. Most people don't want to give a bunch of tax money to politicians, but the alternative is to have them rely on private money, & public funding would probably help quite a bit reduce that reliance.
As I have blogged several times in the past & as this news bite confirms it that democracy doesn't exist anywhere in the world, except, maybe, in very small countries with quite a bit of homogenous population in terms of race, ethnicity, & religious beliefs.
So, as this study concludes that public policy is heavily, or rather, completely, influenced by wealthy elites & the special interest / lobbying groups. The common man, or a woman, doesn't have any power in influencing public policies, even the ones directly & adversely affecting him / her.
Now, I know that correlation doesn't imply causation but you do have to wonder how come most, if not all, policies coming out of the government end up favouring the wealthy much more than the poor public. Be it the taxation debate or jobs discussion, or the minimum wage or homelessness, or any number of social & public problems, the rich & wealthy always win out, while the poor left holding the empty bag.
Democracy in the world, especially in the West, only exists superficially. The mass public thinks that since they are voting, their voice matters. Nope it doesn't. Take Canada, for instance. Majority of public is against Syrian refugees making Canada their new home or Canada supplying $15 billions of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. But did the government listen to the public to actually not welcome Syrian refugees, especially when government is cutting funding to help reduce urban homelessness or rising unemployment through financial injections in the economy. Please keep in mind here that we are not discussing the morality of these issues. That's a whole different discussion in itself.
We can also take US public opinion when George Bush's approval ratings before winning his second term was the lowest of any American president before him but he still won a second term. Or how a majority of German public is against Merkel's insistence on keep welcoming more & more refugees & migrants? Once again, not discussing morality of such issues as refugee crisis. Or Japan where a majority of public was against Abe's decision to turn the country towards more militarism than pacifism. Or is it really democratic of all those dozens of nations involved in TTP (TransPacific Trade Partnership) without any input, whatsoever, from the general public, who will be taking the brunt of all the adverse effects of this trade partnership, while the rich elites make a fine buck out of this trade partnership?
Remember, democracy is not about voting in general elections, but actually about having an actual influence in how the country is run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTON WORONCZUK, TRNN PRODUCER: A new study titled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, & Average Citizens (PDF) says what we've all long felt to be true: the rich & powerful have much greater influence than the rest of us. Political scientist Martin Gilens of Princeton University & Benjamin Page of Northwestern looked at about 1,800 survey questions of public opinion between 1981 & 2002, & they concluded "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
So, Benjamin, tell us how you came to this conclusion. Tell us about the data that you looked at. And give us some concrete statistics to show that democracy gap between the public & the economic elites.
BENJAMIN PAGE, FULCHER PROF. OF DECISION MAKING, NORTHWESTERN UNIV.: Well, Marty Gilens & his people worked for about 10 years to do this. It's a very difficult study. ... . It involved gathering a lot of information about public opinion, about what affluent people think, & about what interest groups stand for. And we then looked at how public policy came out on these 1,800 cases. And it turns out, if you wanted to predict it, the average citizen simply appeared to have no influence whatsoever, no measurable influence, but organized groups had quite a bit, & affluent citizens even more.
WORONCZUK: So you looked at about two decades' worth of surveys of public opinion. Do you see a change in influence of economic elites over that time? Or is it relatively constant? And also, do you see a change in the kinds of elites that have influence over policy?
PAGE: Well, there appears to be some change over time. As economic inequality has increased & there's more money among the most wealthy people, they seem to use more of it for politics & have more influence. And, of course, the study data ended some time ago. This was before the Supreme Court decisions that increased the power of money still far further.
WORONCZUK: And so what kind of issues do we see the wealthy having a greater influence over? What kind of policy choices do they seek that differs from that of the desires of the public?
PAGE: Well, there are certain kinds of issues on which wealthy Americans tend to disagree quite a bit with the average. One of the biggest is Social Security, where the average American really likes the program, wants to increase it, & wealthy Americans tend to want to cut it to reduce budget deficits. Then there are a lot of policies that have to do with jobs & incomes where you get the same kind of situation--the wealthy people, of course, don't particularly get anything from those, & I think they may underappreciate their importance to average people. There are also disagreements about economic regulation. The average American's much more keen on regulating big corporations, for example. And there are difference about tax policy. The average American would like to close loopholes & have high-income people pay a substantially larger share, whereas upper income people are less enthusiastic about that.
WORONCZUK: Do you see any policy desires of the public or the economic elite that tend to converge?
PAGE: Yes. There are many of them, and particularly in this study. ... in many cases, the average person agrees & they get what they want, but apparently it's only because the affluent want it.
What we suspect but don't really have evidence for is that much wealthier people may be exerting most of that political influence. And they tend to have much more different policy preferences from the average person.
WORONCZUK: Okay. So judging this democracy gap that exists between the public & the economic elite, let's say that Obama called you tomorrow & put you on economic reform task force. What recommendations would you make to him?
PAGE: ... what I would suggest is that we really work hard to reduce the role of money in politics. The Supreme Court's made it a little harder, but there's still things you can do--full disclosure of all kinds of political donations, for example; limiting lobbying; & probably public financing of campaigns. Most people don't want to give a bunch of tax money to politicians, but the alternative is to have them rely on private money, & public funding would probably help quite a bit reduce that reliance.
The Resegregation of American schools
I used to, & still do, love TheRealNews network. I used to post their stories & my thoughts on their stories on my personal Facebook page, but since last year, when I started this blog, I haven't been able to go through any of the stories of TheRealNews network. But now, I am finally going through them.
Anyway, this news story / analysis didn't surprise me that much. The developed / Western world is becoming that much racist, & in general, discrimination of all kinds are increasing. Now, this story only explores how the American schools are re-segregating students based on skin colour. But, this re-segregation, & the story alludes to it a little bit, is symptomatic of larger & deep-seated socioeconomic problem.
That problem is centuries old. That problem is ingrained in the minds of leaders, & the general public, of the Western world. The general public is not generally racist or discriminatory but it discriminates unconsciously. The white leaders & a large proportion of the general public, who is white, think they are superior to other races.
Let me show this with an example. Let's take the example of a segregated school &, as the story explains below, how adversely it impacts a child of a minority or discriminated public.
When a poor African child studies in a segregated school, he/she is pretty much slated to be poor all his/her life. Reason being is that poor people of all walks of life, with all different skin colours, enroll their kids in these urban schools. These schools lack sufficient funding from government. Even if they are getting funding from governments, which are usually insufficient, they have parents with such socioeconomic backgrouds that these schools cannot even fundraise on their own. The parents of these poor students then grow up & make friends which are going through similar situations; homelessness, poverty, drugs, gangs, crime, broken families, etc.
Even if a child goes through all these social problems, which are going around him / her, unscathed, he / she graduates from a university or college but lacks those vital connections, which can land him / her in a job from where he / she can meaningfully improve his / her future.
All the while, white or wealthy children of other races, which are usually not that many, attend schools which have more than enough resources to give them a "complete" education & prepare them for a good, & perhaps even private, universities, where they themselves & their parents make those vital connections, from where they can land those financially-rewarding jobs & careers.
That's how the wealth & achievement gap starts to appear & keeps widening. And the cycle, or history, repeats itself & it goes around again with their children.
That's the same case with immigrants & their children in the Western world. African populations in Western world came to these countries by force, but immigrants were shown a world where, if they themselves won't be able to achieve a good life, then at least, their children will. That dream is generally coming apart for most children of the immigrants. Why people immigrate & how the West is complicit in that regard, too, is a topic for another blog post & has been blogged earlier.
Good / financially rewarding jobs are going to the wealthy children because of their own & their parents' connections. Of course, the well-connected rich parents can easily pass down their rolodex or connection lists to their children. Some prime examples are current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, using his father's vital connections to eventually become a leader of a country, or the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, & multiple other children of the politicians becoming politicians themselves, with the help of their parents' connections or children of famous celebrities becoming celebrities themselves. Whenever I come across a personality who is successful, I first go through his / her past & try to find that one piece of connection that must have created that first big opportunity for them. I usually find one easily. Nowadays, there are very few people in this world who get to the top without anyone's help, whatsoever.
So that dream or expectation of achieving greatness with education when never materializes hurts the children a lot. Hence, those children, then lash out at the society through violence, because that's the only method they know how to vent their frustration at the injustice & false dreams / promises of the society. That violence can be in the form of being involved with trafficking of all kinds, big or small crimes, or even moving to another country to join terrorist groups like ISIS or Boko Haram.
So, as we can see, that the impact of discrimination is huge. I always say that slavery / serfdom hasn't actually died, yet. It has merely taken a different shape. White people, all over the world, are still at the top, for example, if you go visit Dubai, you will find all the rich & glamourous downtown Dubai residences are taken up by wealthy white people from Europe, UK, Canada, US, & Australia. Of course, they are living in those expensive residences with the help of big fat tax-free paycheques they are getting because of their high & influential positions in companies over there. Immigration, or even refugee asylum, in the West is due to the fact that these Western countries need workers for the jobs for which their own white populations is voluntarily unavailable, for example, for agricultural work.
So, this discrimination starts from segregated school & go all the way up to employment, & immigration in the public arena. Consequences of this discrimination are one of the worst but governments don't want to do anything substantive because this discrimination on all levels is all planned & not an effect of unplanned & haphazard policy making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: There's a brand new story out detailing how one of desegregation's success stories in the South has become one of the nation's most racially & economically segregated schools. Today, a third of black students attend schools in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, that look like the 60-year-old Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that said separate schools for black & white students is unequal never happened.
Writing for ProPublica, Nikole Hannah-Jones writes, quote:
"Tuscaloosa's school resegregation--among the most extensive in the country--is a story of city financial interests, secret meetings, & angry public votes. It is a story shaped by racial politics & a consuming fear of white flight. It was facilitated, to some extent, by the city's black elites. And it was blessed by a US Department of Justice no longer committed to fighting for the civil-rights aims it had once championed."
...
NOOR: So, Nikole, you really get into this story by talking about Central High in Tuscaloosa. It was an all-white school before Brown v. Board of Education. It was desegregated over ... a fairly decent, long period of time, & it became, when it was desegregated, one of the top schools in the whole state. Tell us the story of how it went from being desegregated to re-segregated now & what the impact has been on the students.
NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES, REPORTER, PROPUBLICA: Well, Central High School was actually created by a federal court order. Before Central existed--came to existence in 1979, there were two high schools in Tuscaloosa. One had been the historic black high school, & one had been the historic white high school. And even in 1979, 25 years after Brown v. Board, they were still segregated. So a federal judge ordered the merger of the two high schools into one, & they created Central High School.
So Central High School became a city-wide high school, meaning any public high school in the city, no matter their race, no matter where they lived, all went to the same school. And it became a true powerhouse in the state. It was the second-largest high school in the state. It was a school that swept up academic competitions, math competitions, just as easily as athletic competitions. And it really became the pride of the town & kind of a story of how integration in the South could be successful.
But what happened is there were white parents who had been turned off by desegregation. And as we've seen across the country, there was white flight from the school district. And city officials decided that the court order that had created this school was the problem & that they needed to break this school apart in order to bring white parents back to the district. So in 2000, when a federal judge dismissed Tuscaloosa from its federal desegregation order, immediately the school board voted to break apart Central High School. It created three new high schools, & it turned Central High School into a 100% black, almost entirely poor high school.
NOOR: And so talk about what that impact is for the students that go there.
HANNAH-JONES: Well, I think, one, we should make it clear that black kids don't have to sit with white kids in order to learn. But what we also know is never in the history of this country has separate been made equal. So, in Tuscaloosa, once these kids were separated off from the rest of the kids in the district, they were then kind of ignored. These kids spend their entire education, starting in kindergarten through graduation, in entirely segregated schools. These schools were once called the dumping ground for bad teachers. A teacher could be let go from a school that was an integrated school & could be hired on to work at Central or the other all-black schools in Tuscaloosa. Or, until last year, Central High School didn't even offer physics to the students. There were many years where it didn't offer advanced placement courses. So the most integrated high school in the city offered 12. So these kids were not given the same education opportunity as other kids, & they suffered for it.
NOOR: And this story of resegregation is not just happening at Central High or Tuscaloosa; it's really happening all over the South. Talk about its broader impacts.
HANNAH-JONES: Okay. I mean, first I think we should note that the reason that I focus on the South was in 1954 the South was completely segregated, & it was the most segregated part of the country, but because of these court orders, by the early '70s the South had become the most integrated part of the country, far more integrated than the Northeast or the Midwest, & it actually remains the most integrated part of the country. So I wrote about the South because the South has the most to lose. It educates more black students than anywhere else in the country. And because it had actually desegregated, where, as we know, many northern cities never have, this is the one place we got traction.
And what we're seeing is, as hundreds of school districts have been released from their court orders to integrate in the last 10 to 20 years. And as they release, within a few years these districts almost always start to take actions that resegregate black students. And so we're seeing a rise in the number of black students that are attending intensely segregated schools, which are schools that are less than 10% white. And a large number of students, black students, are now attending what some scholars call apartheid schools. And those are schools that are 1% or less white. And as a result, we're seeing the achievement gap that had started closing during the height of desegregation has widened, & it has remained wide.
NOOR: And as you mention in your story, this is not limited to the South. In fact, the Northeast has a really high number of schools. And according to a new report out by the UCLA's Civil Rights Project, it's actually New York State & New York City itself that has the highest number of these apartheid schools that you just mentioned. And I worked at a Museum in New York & I taught at public schools across New York City, & it'd be an ordinary experience for me for one day, for example, to teach in the upper West side, often children of investment bankers, people that worked on Wall Street, very wealthy, & the next day I'd teach at a school in West Harlem, just a few miles away, where all the families there were African-American & lived in the projects. And you could see the resources were different. In New York City each school gets the same amount of funding, but for example, the schools in the Upper West Side, the parents of those students would raise $1 million every year for extra resources & extra funding, & even extra teachers. So I would teach kids as young as kindergarten, but then all the way up to high school & college, & you could see what the long-term impact of the lack of resources & the isolation & segregation are.
HANNAH-JONES: Absolutely. And I think even outside of additional funding that these schools are able to raise, you have to look at--districts make very clear which students they prize, & those students tend to be middle-class students, & they also tend to be white students, I think largely because people believe that their parents are more influential in the community.
So what happens is black schools & Latino schools, not just in terms of additional resources, but they don't get the same quality of teachers. They tend to get the least experienced teachers. For instance, I live in Bedford-Stuyvesant & Brooklyn, which is an almost entirely black neighborhood, & there's not a single talented & gifted program in the schools in my neighborhood. So these kids aren't even getting access to the same types of courses, the same types of rigor. And those are resources that school officials are providing, & it has nothing to do with the wealth of parents.
NOOR: Right. And ever since No Child Left Behind, & now Race to the Top, teachers in schools are evaluated by their student performance. And we know that the biggest predictor of student performance is your socioeconomic background, so there's no incentive for teachers to really teach in the most challenging schools, because they know that they'll be held accountable for their students' performance.
HANNAH-JONES: That's right. Teachers will be penalized for the way that school districts have allowed high poverty to be concentrated in certain schools. So there is a disincentive. That's why you tend to see young teachers right out of college teaching in these schools. And once they get experience, they move on to more integrated schools.
NOOR: But what's being done in places like Alabama, & even in New York City, to challenge these policies, if anything? And do you see any hope of re-segregating these schools? You know, we're talking about 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education.
HANNAH-JONES: I mean, to be honest, very little, very little is being done. I think we've seen very little national will to deal with this issue. Even President Obama, while the administration says that they support integration, if you look into how they fund school, they offer no financial incentive & really no larger incentive for districts to voluntarily integrate. And, in fact, some of the biggest incentives are for charter schools, which, of course, research shows in many places are more segregated than traditional public schools.
So I think we don't have a lot of will about this. I think we're still trying to make separate equal. That's what No Child Left Behind does, that's what Race to the Top does, is it tries to say, okay, we have these high-poverty black & Latino schools, let's bring them up to par, instead of doing what everyone knows can have a great impact on achievement, which is: why don't you break up the racial & economic isolation of these schools? But we're not really willing to talk about that.
NOOR: Worth mentioning: all these policies are supported by Democrats & Republicans.
HANNAH-JONES: That's right.
Anyway, this news story / analysis didn't surprise me that much. The developed / Western world is becoming that much racist, & in general, discrimination of all kinds are increasing. Now, this story only explores how the American schools are re-segregating students based on skin colour. But, this re-segregation, & the story alludes to it a little bit, is symptomatic of larger & deep-seated socioeconomic problem.
That problem is centuries old. That problem is ingrained in the minds of leaders, & the general public, of the Western world. The general public is not generally racist or discriminatory but it discriminates unconsciously. The white leaders & a large proportion of the general public, who is white, think they are superior to other races.
Let me show this with an example. Let's take the example of a segregated school &, as the story explains below, how adversely it impacts a child of a minority or discriminated public.
When a poor African child studies in a segregated school, he/she is pretty much slated to be poor all his/her life. Reason being is that poor people of all walks of life, with all different skin colours, enroll their kids in these urban schools. These schools lack sufficient funding from government. Even if they are getting funding from governments, which are usually insufficient, they have parents with such socioeconomic backgrouds that these schools cannot even fundraise on their own. The parents of these poor students then grow up & make friends which are going through similar situations; homelessness, poverty, drugs, gangs, crime, broken families, etc.
Even if a child goes through all these social problems, which are going around him / her, unscathed, he / she graduates from a university or college but lacks those vital connections, which can land him / her in a job from where he / she can meaningfully improve his / her future.
All the while, white or wealthy children of other races, which are usually not that many, attend schools which have more than enough resources to give them a "complete" education & prepare them for a good, & perhaps even private, universities, where they themselves & their parents make those vital connections, from where they can land those financially-rewarding jobs & careers.
That's how the wealth & achievement gap starts to appear & keeps widening. And the cycle, or history, repeats itself & it goes around again with their children.
That's the same case with immigrants & their children in the Western world. African populations in Western world came to these countries by force, but immigrants were shown a world where, if they themselves won't be able to achieve a good life, then at least, their children will. That dream is generally coming apart for most children of the immigrants. Why people immigrate & how the West is complicit in that regard, too, is a topic for another blog post & has been blogged earlier.
Good / financially rewarding jobs are going to the wealthy children because of their own & their parents' connections. Of course, the well-connected rich parents can easily pass down their rolodex or connection lists to their children. Some prime examples are current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, using his father's vital connections to eventually become a leader of a country, or the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, & multiple other children of the politicians becoming politicians themselves, with the help of their parents' connections or children of famous celebrities becoming celebrities themselves. Whenever I come across a personality who is successful, I first go through his / her past & try to find that one piece of connection that must have created that first big opportunity for them. I usually find one easily. Nowadays, there are very few people in this world who get to the top without anyone's help, whatsoever.
So that dream or expectation of achieving greatness with education when never materializes hurts the children a lot. Hence, those children, then lash out at the society through violence, because that's the only method they know how to vent their frustration at the injustice & false dreams / promises of the society. That violence can be in the form of being involved with trafficking of all kinds, big or small crimes, or even moving to another country to join terrorist groups like ISIS or Boko Haram.
So, as we can see, that the impact of discrimination is huge. I always say that slavery / serfdom hasn't actually died, yet. It has merely taken a different shape. White people, all over the world, are still at the top, for example, if you go visit Dubai, you will find all the rich & glamourous downtown Dubai residences are taken up by wealthy white people from Europe, UK, Canada, US, & Australia. Of course, they are living in those expensive residences with the help of big fat tax-free paycheques they are getting because of their high & influential positions in companies over there. Immigration, or even refugee asylum, in the West is due to the fact that these Western countries need workers for the jobs for which their own white populations is voluntarily unavailable, for example, for agricultural work.
So, this discrimination starts from segregated school & go all the way up to employment, & immigration in the public arena. Consequences of this discrimination are one of the worst but governments don't want to do anything substantive because this discrimination on all levels is all planned & not an effect of unplanned & haphazard policy making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: There's a brand new story out detailing how one of desegregation's success stories in the South has become one of the nation's most racially & economically segregated schools. Today, a third of black students attend schools in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, that look like the 60-year-old Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that said separate schools for black & white students is unequal never happened.
Writing for ProPublica, Nikole Hannah-Jones writes, quote:
"Tuscaloosa's school resegregation--among the most extensive in the country--is a story of city financial interests, secret meetings, & angry public votes. It is a story shaped by racial politics & a consuming fear of white flight. It was facilitated, to some extent, by the city's black elites. And it was blessed by a US Department of Justice no longer committed to fighting for the civil-rights aims it had once championed."
...
NOOR: So, Nikole, you really get into this story by talking about Central High in Tuscaloosa. It was an all-white school before Brown v. Board of Education. It was desegregated over ... a fairly decent, long period of time, & it became, when it was desegregated, one of the top schools in the whole state. Tell us the story of how it went from being desegregated to re-segregated now & what the impact has been on the students.
NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES, REPORTER, PROPUBLICA: Well, Central High School was actually created by a federal court order. Before Central existed--came to existence in 1979, there were two high schools in Tuscaloosa. One had been the historic black high school, & one had been the historic white high school. And even in 1979, 25 years after Brown v. Board, they were still segregated. So a federal judge ordered the merger of the two high schools into one, & they created Central High School.
So Central High School became a city-wide high school, meaning any public high school in the city, no matter their race, no matter where they lived, all went to the same school. And it became a true powerhouse in the state. It was the second-largest high school in the state. It was a school that swept up academic competitions, math competitions, just as easily as athletic competitions. And it really became the pride of the town & kind of a story of how integration in the South could be successful.
But what happened is there were white parents who had been turned off by desegregation. And as we've seen across the country, there was white flight from the school district. And city officials decided that the court order that had created this school was the problem & that they needed to break this school apart in order to bring white parents back to the district. So in 2000, when a federal judge dismissed Tuscaloosa from its federal desegregation order, immediately the school board voted to break apart Central High School. It created three new high schools, & it turned Central High School into a 100% black, almost entirely poor high school.
NOOR: And so talk about what that impact is for the students that go there.
HANNAH-JONES: Well, I think, one, we should make it clear that black kids don't have to sit with white kids in order to learn. But what we also know is never in the history of this country has separate been made equal. So, in Tuscaloosa, once these kids were separated off from the rest of the kids in the district, they were then kind of ignored. These kids spend their entire education, starting in kindergarten through graduation, in entirely segregated schools. These schools were once called the dumping ground for bad teachers. A teacher could be let go from a school that was an integrated school & could be hired on to work at Central or the other all-black schools in Tuscaloosa. Or, until last year, Central High School didn't even offer physics to the students. There were many years where it didn't offer advanced placement courses. So the most integrated high school in the city offered 12. So these kids were not given the same education opportunity as other kids, & they suffered for it.
NOOR: And this story of resegregation is not just happening at Central High or Tuscaloosa; it's really happening all over the South. Talk about its broader impacts.
HANNAH-JONES: Okay. I mean, first I think we should note that the reason that I focus on the South was in 1954 the South was completely segregated, & it was the most segregated part of the country, but because of these court orders, by the early '70s the South had become the most integrated part of the country, far more integrated than the Northeast or the Midwest, & it actually remains the most integrated part of the country. So I wrote about the South because the South has the most to lose. It educates more black students than anywhere else in the country. And because it had actually desegregated, where, as we know, many northern cities never have, this is the one place we got traction.
And what we're seeing is, as hundreds of school districts have been released from their court orders to integrate in the last 10 to 20 years. And as they release, within a few years these districts almost always start to take actions that resegregate black students. And so we're seeing a rise in the number of black students that are attending intensely segregated schools, which are schools that are less than 10% white. And a large number of students, black students, are now attending what some scholars call apartheid schools. And those are schools that are 1% or less white. And as a result, we're seeing the achievement gap that had started closing during the height of desegregation has widened, & it has remained wide.
NOOR: And as you mention in your story, this is not limited to the South. In fact, the Northeast has a really high number of schools. And according to a new report out by the UCLA's Civil Rights Project, it's actually New York State & New York City itself that has the highest number of these apartheid schools that you just mentioned. And I worked at a Museum in New York & I taught at public schools across New York City, & it'd be an ordinary experience for me for one day, for example, to teach in the upper West side, often children of investment bankers, people that worked on Wall Street, very wealthy, & the next day I'd teach at a school in West Harlem, just a few miles away, where all the families there were African-American & lived in the projects. And you could see the resources were different. In New York City each school gets the same amount of funding, but for example, the schools in the Upper West Side, the parents of those students would raise $1 million every year for extra resources & extra funding, & even extra teachers. So I would teach kids as young as kindergarten, but then all the way up to high school & college, & you could see what the long-term impact of the lack of resources & the isolation & segregation are.
HANNAH-JONES: Absolutely. And I think even outside of additional funding that these schools are able to raise, you have to look at--districts make very clear which students they prize, & those students tend to be middle-class students, & they also tend to be white students, I think largely because people believe that their parents are more influential in the community.
So what happens is black schools & Latino schools, not just in terms of additional resources, but they don't get the same quality of teachers. They tend to get the least experienced teachers. For instance, I live in Bedford-Stuyvesant & Brooklyn, which is an almost entirely black neighborhood, & there's not a single talented & gifted program in the schools in my neighborhood. So these kids aren't even getting access to the same types of courses, the same types of rigor. And those are resources that school officials are providing, & it has nothing to do with the wealth of parents.
NOOR: Right. And ever since No Child Left Behind, & now Race to the Top, teachers in schools are evaluated by their student performance. And we know that the biggest predictor of student performance is your socioeconomic background, so there's no incentive for teachers to really teach in the most challenging schools, because they know that they'll be held accountable for their students' performance.
HANNAH-JONES: That's right. Teachers will be penalized for the way that school districts have allowed high poverty to be concentrated in certain schools. So there is a disincentive. That's why you tend to see young teachers right out of college teaching in these schools. And once they get experience, they move on to more integrated schools.
NOOR: But what's being done in places like Alabama, & even in New York City, to challenge these policies, if anything? And do you see any hope of re-segregating these schools? You know, we're talking about 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education.
HANNAH-JONES: I mean, to be honest, very little, very little is being done. I think we've seen very little national will to deal with this issue. Even President Obama, while the administration says that they support integration, if you look into how they fund school, they offer no financial incentive & really no larger incentive for districts to voluntarily integrate. And, in fact, some of the biggest incentives are for charter schools, which, of course, research shows in many places are more segregated than traditional public schools.
So I think we don't have a lot of will about this. I think we're still trying to make separate equal. That's what No Child Left Behind does, that's what Race to the Top does, is it tries to say, okay, we have these high-poverty black & Latino schools, let's bring them up to par, instead of doing what everyone knows can have a great impact on achievement, which is: why don't you break up the racial & economic isolation of these schools? But we're not really willing to talk about that.
NOOR: Worth mentioning: all these policies are supported by Democrats & Republicans.
HANNAH-JONES: That's right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)