Jobs and Education

If we look to the future, when we talk about outsourcing jobs, when we talk about global competitiveness and our efficiency, none of that matters very much unless we have appropriate training and education for our young people today who are the workforce of tomorrow. It is an economic reality, and we are failing.
- Bill Frist

In the United States, we hold that the classes are not fixed.  We are not bound by titles of nobility, wealth or heredity.  “All men are created equal.”  Class mobility is a hallmark of our national psyche, our ethos.  We bask in the shared glory of those who have risen above their “station in life” and occupy the height of wealth and society.  Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and a college dropout, is one such person, and when we want to demonstrate that we have a mobile class structure, we can enlist his success to show others that we are a society where anything is possible.  There are, indeed, many, many such stories.

The stories are the exceptions, of course, and not the rule, and everyone knows this deep down, but we always hold out the possibility of success – without considering that there may be both some fundamental and inalterable reasons for class immobility and some factors that may favor mobility that are inherent in the individual. 

My sister-in-law, who is now deceased, argued fervently with me that there are no individual limits to success.  She believed that every person, regardless of any mental or physical limitation, could achieve the same level of success if they were given equal opportunity.  I challenged her belief with what I thought would be an example that was irrefutable; a mentally retarded child could not become a physician.  She was adamant that this should prove to no more than an obstacle to be overcome.  I argued that mental retardation is not only a limitation that would prevent them from retaining the information a physician needs to understand complex medical problems but it would prevent them from deriving a method of evaluating the problems, analyzing the information and prescribing a remedy.  Again, she opined that given opportunities for education appropriate for their level of understanding that the mentally challenged could, in fact, eventually absorb the information and use that information to be effective physicians.

Given my medical training and life experiences, I left that discussion thinking that her reasoning was incredibly naïve.  The mentally challenged could indeed function in society – but at a job and performing tasks appropriate to their abilities.  (I will talk more about this later.)

It occurred to me that, despite a significant number of exceptions, there are people who are poor because they have jobs that do not provide a living wage, but they may be unable to perform tasks that would allow them to take jobs in complex fields such as finance or technology.  There are also, however, people doing simple tasks that make a good wage.  This difference might indeed come from opportunity and training rather than ability alone, but the job must be available to provide that living wage.  The (rare?) exceptions are those that possess incredible intelligence or ability that lack the opportunity to improve their lot.  They can’t afford college; their upbringing did not include incentives to excel.  And so they languish in menial jobs.  A rare few break out of this mold, and that is why they are the rarest of exceptions.  The difference might be parents, scholarships, grants, or possibly even an idea that is marketable. 

My sister-in-law’s attitude was very generous towards the less fortunate, and so she viewed opportunity as the limiting factor in their success of everyone, but I heard another approach towards the less fortunate that was miserly, or at least unsympathetic.  Embracing the same idea that all individuals are equally capable of success, Herman Cain, who is currently a candidate for the Republican nominee for the Presidency, said,

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!  […]  It is not a person's fault because they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed.”

Without considering lack of opportunity, mental or physical limitations, Cain has put the blame for poverty squarely on the poor.  My sister-in-law would be very upset with Mr. Cain, but they both share the belief that the poor should be able to succeed regardless of their limitations.

Cain’s attitude, I believe, would remove opportunities, not create them.  Even the best idea requires some investment of capital to be successful.  Who would grant a loan to a proven “failure”?  Who would want to provide a loan for college to a “failure”?  If the poor are to blame for their own failure and resulting poverty, then they may as well be “Dalits”, the untouchables of the Indian caste system.  Cain seems to be implying that if they are poor, it is the fate they deserve.

Regardless whether Mr. Cain meant his remarks to be inspiring to the poor to “work harder” or “make your own opportunities”, the implication remains that the poor have the same abilities as the successful, but they are failures because of other failings:  a failure of will perhaps.

In any event, I have started thinking about the structure of society and the social and economic strata that we have currently.  Ideally, we should have a system that provides opportunity to all to achieve the best possible result, but the aim of that result should also be consistent with ability.  We should not, despite my sister-in-law’s insistence, expect those of limited ability to achieve as much as those of great ability.  We should reward ability, but not punish limitations.

Our task is to provide an education for the kind of kids we have... Not the kind of kids we used to have... Or want to have... Or the kids that exist in our dreams.
- Mary Kay Utecht

In the book, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, social and economic status was fixed by synthetically augmenting or limiting intelligence.  These strata (alpha, beta, gamma, delta and epsilon) were rigidly enforced by law and science.  The exact percentages of each of the categories of intelligence were precisely created in test tubes so that there would be enough of each “class” to perform the necessary tasks, but not so many that there would be competition and a waste of intelligence or ability, or a burden on society with unneeded numbers of those with deliberately limited or augmented ability or intelligence.  Everyone was supposed to be content with his or her job.  No one was given tasks they were unable to perform, and no one was capable of performing tasks above the degree of difficulty of their assigned jobs.  There were none so disabled that they couldn’t perform some needed task.

Let me be clear that I am not advocating rigid social structure based anything like Brave New World.

If I were to design a Utopian society starting with humanity as it is, instead of humanity as it could be artificially constructed, I would aim for a society where everyone has work that they can do, that they enjoy, and for which they are perfectly suited.  This work, regardless of the type, would provide a means of living that allows for enjoyment of life outside of work.

The challenges of such a Utopian vision are many.  How could we ensure that those of great ability and high intelligence are not trapped in circumstances that fail to take advantage of those qualities?  How can we know that people who are elevated to positions requiring certain qualities actually have those qualities and can function in the jobs they have?

On paper, our capitalistic society has the solution to these problems.  We reward accomplishments, and we provide equal opportunity while not expecting or demanding equal results.  We compensate effort and accomplishment so that everyone receives what they merit, and although we reward different skills differently, there is an ideal that everyone working deserves at least a “living wage.”  We incentivize success and define success in several ways: monetary success, fame or reputation, comfort and health.

On paper, equal opportunity comes from public education where skills are refined and abilities defined.  We have a minimum wage that is supposed to provide for a living wage for even menial jobs, and we have a “social safety net” to prevent those with the least ability, or with significant physical or mental limitations, from starving or dying of preventable and/or treatable diseases.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that reality does not match the vision.  All of the tools are in place to create a Utopian society, but the goal escapes our grasp.  The system has flaws, and without addressing these flaws, the United States will degenerate into an aristocracy and the poor will be neglected.

There are so many variables in the equations that determine how the economy functions that it is not possible to consider them all in a single paper, but the single issue that I wish to address is unemployment.  This issue, however, is in turn affected by many other factors, but rather than considering the working force as a homogenous group of equals, I think it might be helpful to consider the workforce as a Bell-shaped curve where there are broad categories of people who have different potentials.

When we compare the IQ of college graduates to the population, we see that the mean IQ is about 1 standard deviation above average.  This tells us that 1) there are a lot of people who would probably do well in college that have not gone to college and 2) as a measure of accomplishment, college education tends to correlate with higher intelligence. 

I do not mean to suggest that opportunities for college education should be limited to those who meet some arbitrary intelligence criteria, but I do suggest that college is not the only means of enhancing ones ability to work, and we should not be so narrow-minded that we overlook other types of education or training that may be better suited to people that are unlikely to excel in college.

The first condition of education is being able to put someone to wholesome and meaningful work.
- John Ruskin

I would agree with Laurence Lessig that “a safe and prosperous nation requires a well educated youth.”  I would also agree that there are many people who would do well in college that may never have the opportunity, but I disagree that “we can educate our children, including the poorest among us, to achieve college-bound competency” if, by “our children” we mean all of our children.

Almost everyone is capable of performing tasks that can translate into a job.  Almost all tasks require training.  It is my belief that our youth should be prepared for jobs with training that can take place either in high school, on-the-job or in trade schools if they are unable or unwilling to meet the standards set for colleges and universities.

In the last century, jobs were usually plentiful.  Many jobs consisted of relatively routine tasks in manufacturing or agriculture that would not require a college degree.  Our current unemployment crisis has affected these jobs disproportionately more than those that require a college degree, and unemployment among college graduates is approximately 4.1% while unemployment in general is approximately 9.1%.

My sister-in-law would probably argue, along with many educators, that the answer to high unemployment should be for everyone to have a college degree regardless of ability.  A college degree that does not enable the person to perform at a job is nothing but a piece of paper.  The Scarecrow notwithstanding, one does not become more capable or smarter because of a degree.  College does not necessarily provide specific job-ready skills, but instead can be a measure of flexibility, adaptability and aptitude.  There are jobs that are best suited for college graduates, but let’s not presume that all jobs require college education, or that having a college degree makes people more employable in the general workplace.

A realistic plan to promote employment of the population that is not college educated needs to address the fact that jobs for that segment of the population are disappearing.  Task oriented jobs have gone to overseas companies with lower wages (that we would not consider a “living wage”) or to automation.  There is no reversing the trend towards automation, but we can bridge the gap between training and the demand for jobs that require specific training. 

“Economic shifts — some potentially temporary, some permanent — have stranded an increasing number of unemployed workers in job limbo because their skills don't match up with employer demand.”

What I have suggested here may be considered a temporary fix for what may prove to be a permanent problem.  Thinking far, far ahead, what would happen if every routine job, from check-out clerk to truck driver to bank teller, could be replaced with a computer or a robot?  It may seem far-fetched, but look around and you will see it happening. 

Whether we can successfully negotiate the replacement of humans with technology may depend on market forces.  More unemployment might lead to less demand and less reason to consider automation.  Or the reverse:  More unemployment might decrease demand thus driving the trend towards automation in an effort to reduce operating costs.  Whether it augurs a nightmare future or a future of opportunity, it will remain true that “a safe and prosperous nation requires a well educated youth.”

Our challenge is to match education to the needs of society and with the abilities and desires of the individual.  We either meet the challenge or fail as a society.