Interesting post...
hindsight2020 said:
*DING DING DING*Exactly. In other words, overpopulation sucks. And since there isn't an ethical way around this little problem of ours, we have to deal with it. It scares me when I see college campuses today. Where are all these people going to go? There is just not enough space; negative returns on investment IS the commonality among those with college education nowadays.
I will agree that there seems to be a lot of college students, but I always thought higher education was good for the masses.
hindsight2020 said:
And what is suggested in the quote above is really the preface for what Thomas Friedman was trying to push for in his book "The World is Flat". Basically, what he defines to be the need to continually re-invent yourself so as to stay "ahead of the curve". That curve being the labor skill that's in demand and that is unique at the time. The computer geek in the late 80's-early 90's, the machinist in the beginning of the industrial revolution. Well, that's cute, but unrealistic; and outright condescending when you really grasp that his thesis is self-serving. In essence, HE is smart enough to understand this and capitalize on it, and he encourages you to grasp it too, but you could (or shall we say SHOULD) never be HIM and capitalize on it, otherwise he would disprove his own thesis.
First, I'm not an elitist who thinks that anyone who doesn't try to stay ahead of the game is a loser. What I was basically saying is that revolutions come and go, and the employment base in said revolution follows. In other words, what's hot today will be old news next week. The assumption that you should only learn once and then expect minimal change in your career field is ludicrous at best.
For example, the automobile of 20 years ago is quite different from today. Consequently, a mechanic who turned wrenches 20 years ago will have had to learn some new techniques in order to do the same job now. He/she will have additional training as the years go by. If no additional education is received, he/she will fall behind and, as a result, get left behind.
hindsight2020 said:
Clearly there's just so many iterations of the new 'thing' that's going to put you on top. Embry-Riddle? Absolutely! They are capitalizing on an inelastic demand for the perception of yesterday. But you [as the customer] aren't. Is it going to change? Nope.
I think we're in agreement here.
hindsight2020 said:
One alternative is to find niche markets. This is not very far from Mr. Friedmans' assertion. The question is however, do I feel confident enough in my ability to capitalize over others? I may, or I may not, but I don't think that should be the litmus test that should determine whether or not your family gets to afford a healthy life; this is where Mr. Friedman tells you to buck up and I tell him to shove it up his A$$. In a boundary-less environment, the free market will basically tells all of you who cannot clinch a niche status to buck up, and offer no recourse. Too Republican for my taste, but that aside, it's plain irresponsible. Yes, nobody is afforded the right to make six figures, but we should all have the opportunity to afford a median level of income with a service professionally provided.
I have not read Friedman, so I cannot speak to his writing.
hindsight2020 said:
I think there should be a little bit of social policy. I won't argue with the perception that government is awkward and ineffective in their handling of economic policy, but in a perfect world (or a better government) we could be able to put in place social policy that would enable those of us [coincidentally, the majority of us
] who aren't going to continually switch to 'new widget programming' because it's in high-demand (for the next 36 months anyways) to establish, at the very least, a living wage base. And it is not just because it's economically prohibitive to constantly change like that, but because, God forbid, many of us actually take pride in becoming good at doing something, and find non-monetary, personal satisfaction in performing a task that contributes to society, in the 80 or so years we have to do something with ourselves before lights out. What a far fetched concept!
Social policy enacted by ANY government is risky. Anytime a large body decides what is best for the whole there is a chance that the overall purpose will become cloudy and failure is likely. Classic examples can be seen in otherwise good intentions of Socialism, Communism, and even Capitalism. The idea was to provide "equal footing" to every citizen in hopes that classism would be limited or eliminated.
The Great Depression was a horrible time for many Americans, and one of the best examples of social policymaking is found in the public works projects (Hoover Dam, among others). These projects eventually ended, but the need for financial assistance did not. Therefore, welfare payments were distributed, and people realized that the government would release citizens from any financial responsibility.
You gave the example of a programmer keeping up with the latest languages. Having worked in the IT industry for almost 10 years, I can attest to the fact that the programmers would be happier if the industry stuck with a language for a while. This was more of a reality before the advent of the Internet (and World Wide Web). Now, however, new languages are coming at a faster pace, and developers are having to keep up in order to stay competitive.
Similarly, aviation has changed. No longer are pilots walking out to DC3's. Instead, they are walking into computers that fly. As technology advances, so does the workforce. That's just the way it is.
I would like to think that it is still possible to be a plumber and have a living wage. The issue is, however, what the plumber considers an "acceptable lifestyle." Certainly, there has to be an improvement in quality of life from decade to decade. But, does that mean $10,000 credit card bills, two new cars, and a house with an interest-only loan?
If the "average man" lives at a level beyond his means, then he is going to be unhappy with life. He will complain that the Government should help him out, force his employer to pay more, and that everything else should be cheaper. He will sit back and become cynical, declaring that he does not need to improve himself. He went to college 30 years ago, and that should be enough.
hindsight2020 said:
The aviation industry is shot, that is for sure, people's demand for the job is just too d$mn inelastic. That said, I personally would go for the dis-incentivizing (sp?) of what I call the "Kobe factor". That is to suggest the erasure of top figures, the "dream"-but-elitist-conditioned expectations, for any particular profession. In essence, reduce the standard deviation of salaries in a given job title. Make management decisions that force-fit that new curve, chop at the top. A large scale analogy to this would be the implementation of the consumption tax as our tax code for instance. Back to the aviation case. If you don't like it, great, that reduces the pool of applicants. Concern yourself with raising the bottom of the pyramid, at the cost of lowering the apex. This is clearly not how pilot compensation currently works, so that says something. Those who are not appeased by such a framework will naturally gravitate to find Mr. Friedmans panaceaic 'IT' thing to make them capitalize, but not at the cost of those who choose to perform a job and expect to give themselves and their families a livable income.
Nice thought, but highly unrealistic. You want those who are at the top to redefine what wealth is? That's basically saying take from the rich and give to the poor. While I agree that major celebrities and sports figures make way too much money for what they do, does that give a large body (government, citizen-based organization, etc.) the right to decide what constitutes too much?
I don't know about you, but I don't want to be told that a penalty will be levied if I happen to do well in life.
Expecting the corporate machine to police itself and correct wage disparities is like saying the Federal Government is a wise spender of tax money. It simply won't happen. When the company janitor gets a degree, works 20 years in the "trenches," and finally gets a corner office on the executive floor. Should he be held liable for his achievement?
The Utopia we all seek is not possible. I personally believe that Man's sinful nature will prevent any semblence of true equality from ever taking hold on Earth. Even if wages are "in sync," what about racial and ethnic equality?
hindsight2020 said:
Altruistic? Maybe, but NOT that altruistic when you consider that this train of thought IS NOT the thought process that rules our capitalism today, nor our aviation industry.
You're right. Capatilism is not based upon the idea that everyone is worthy of wealth. If that were the case, there would be a lot less "independant wealth" and a lot more reliance on other sources for survival.
Again, good post!
--Dim
