THE MYTH OF EDUCATION?

Got a BS and Unemployed? That’s BS

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

– Albert Einstein

It appears that sending young people to college is unemployment funded by parents. For 5 years (the new standard for completing an undergraduate degree) parents pay out over $40 thousand to keep their son or daughter out of the house and “on their own.” The result is a $32,000 a year job that is insufficient for independent living. And those that have that low paying job are considered the “lucky ones!”
After college over 50 percent of students are returning to the nest because college loans are due and low-paying service jobs are inadequate to cover payments, rent and other expenses. (Less than 30 percent of college graduates are finding jobs in their field of study.) A large percentage is now choosing to go on for a Master’s degree, thinking that more education will open the door for higher paying jobs. (More debt and disappointment?)
Why are parents “funding unemployment?” They believed in the myth of higher education: get a good education and get a good job. Before the launch of Sputnik in 1958, college was not big business. It was for a minority of students that had different ambitions from those who would go into agriculture or manufacturing. At least before the advent of Reaganomics, there were career choices!
When the Russians shocked America with the launch of Sputnik, Americans rallied by making a college education a priority. College attendance got another boost by the VietNam War. With a military draft hanging over the head of every male 18-year old, choosing college provided a deferment and a better alternative to jail. College attendance never waned after the 60’s.
Today, the loss of high paying jobs that came with manufacturing and the loss of small family farms make attending college a must for over 65 percent of all high school seniors. The battle of where to attend is now one of the modern rights of passage.
So is this an anti-college rant? No it is leading to the idea that college should be an integrated part of life rather than the focus. My idea is that students after high school seek work experiences that will serve them for life. They could work as carpenters for Habitat for Humanity. They could be personal assistants for the elderly and those confined to their home. If Mom and Dad are supporting them anyway, why not make a contribution to society? (BTW: they could learn high paying vocations such as plumbing or truck driving.)
Considering that today’s 18 year olds are projected to live into their 80’s, what is the rush? They just finished 12 to 15 years of public/private school; take a break. I understand that around 30 percent are too driven to take a break and that’s OK; go to college. The classrooms will be less crowded and you’ll get a better education. For the other 70 percent, take courses part time and build a résumé. Once you figure out what is working best for you, then begin to focus.
Imagine what the unemployment rate of the US would be if all high school graduates were counted. According to unemployment guidelines, a person is counted as unemployed if they are collecting benefits (that takes one year of steady employment) or are actively pursuing work through a state sponsored career placement service. If students are not meeting either criterion, they are not counted.
It appears that the old saying, Get a good education and you’ll get a good job has become a myth. Why not embrace a different course of action and see if the results will change?

ALL’S FAIR IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Unemployment Knows No Country of Origin

The growth of the global economy is supposedly the reason why nearly all the manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the US. Besides eliminating the good paying jobs for “blue collar” workers, it has also eliminated thousands of middle and upper management “white collar” jobs.
Further, over the past 5 years, college graduates have found the job market fairly thin. Less than 30 percent have been hired in their field of study. This year, the demand for graduates is up but it has a long way to go to reach 50 percent. For example, last year the State of Pennsylvania reported that 13,000 people graduated from state colleges and universities with an education degree but only 6000 were hired. (It does make you wonder why so many students are being directed into the education field.)
That is old news; the “new” news is that job market has now become saturated in China, the same country that is sending billions of dollars of manufactured goods to the US. According to the newsmagazine, The Week, 4.1 million Chinese will complete the requirements for a degree yet there are only 1.7 million jobs. As one analyst stated, Asia’s success will soon be eclipsed by a huge army of unemployed.
With the age of automation and mass production that is “cheap” and can produce “abundance,” maybe its time to start thinking about rotating workers, kind of like serving on a submarine.
Sailors on submarines have equal periods of active and non-active cycles. It’s not practical to bring a sub home every night, so a sailor serves for several months and then is assigned to the base for a similar period of time before the next assignment.
With so many qualified workers, companies could start to cycle their workforce, for example 6 months with one group of workers, 6 months with a second group and then rotate the original group back to the job. Gone would be holidays, vacations, sabbaticals and other such benefits. Since you are only working 6 months, you will have plenty of family and recreation time. There would need to be some overlap of workers to help “pass the torch” after each 6-month period, but it should only be a modest cost to the company.
A final idea that differs from the work-split idea is to employ a modification of the 80/20 Rule (where 20 percent accomplishes 80 percent of the results). Perhaps the world only needs to employ 30 percent of the population. The other 70 percent become “wards of the state,” or permanently unemployed, drawing financial support from a fund designed to meet their needs.
I’m sure some sci-fi writer has already figured this out. Why not give it a try?

WE THE PEOPLE?

So You Think You Know Our Government?

Below is a short list of definitions for types of government. The list is "short" as there are over 200 words that describe various forms of government. As you look at the list, it is obvious that American government is not represented in every definition. But, how many definitions do you feel would apply? Several will probably be your answer.
Like so many problems that we are faced with these days, the idea of change is never as simple or easy as would be expected. An overhaul of American government would ask the imposing question: “OK, where do you want to start?”

anarchy
1: absence of government
2: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
3: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

aristocracy
1: government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
2: a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified
3: a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
4: the aggregate of those believed to be superior

autocracy
1: the authority or rule of an autocrat
2: government in which one person possesses unlimited power

bureaucracy
1: a body of non-elective government officials; an administrative policy-making group
2: government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules and a hierarchy of authority
3: a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape and proliferation

democracy
1: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority
2: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
3: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
4: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

monarchy
1: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person
2: a government having a hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute

oligarchy
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes

plutocracy
1: government by the wealthy
2: a controlling class of the wealthy

technocracy
1: government by technicians
2: management of society by technical experts

theocracy
1: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided