News Surviving without College Education: The Struggle of High School Grads

[Ryan_m_b]

Consider how many people that complain about automated procedures "stealing" their jobs, I think it can be claimed that many people simply do not see the connection of "unemployment" and free time as the positive thing it should be.

That would be lovely if we lived in a leisure economy but when you are unemployed (as I was for several recent months) it is hell. There's constant stress about money, future opportunities, paying debts and then there's the upset that comes with working so hard to attain an education and not being able to use it and finally what I want to do in my leisure time looks a lot like work for some people.

It is easier. Everyone in the world could have enough to eat, sufficient shelter, and the wherewithall to pursue some sort of personal goal. But the political will necessary to make that happen doesn't exist. That is, the governments of the countries of the world which could make that happen simply aren't interested in making that happen.

It's not just the political will but the social will. If we posit a future country where automation makes a significant percentage of people unemployed (and we posit that there are no job stimulus packets that are going to solve the problem) then the only way to sustain these people is through taxing those who do have jobs and some sort of welfare for those who don't. There are many people who would object to this being against their sense of "fairness"

 

[ThomasT]

It's not just the political will but the social will. If we posit a future country where automation makes a significant percentage of people unemployed (and we posit that there are no job stimulus packets that are going to solve the problem) then the only way to sustain these people is through taxing those who do have jobs and some sort of welfare for those who don't. There are many people who would object to this being against their sense of "fairness"

I agree. And that's one reason why I'm not optimistic wrt the OP's question.

 

[Zarqon]

That would be lovely if we lived in a leisure economy but when you are unemployed (as I was for several recent months) it is hell. There's constant stress about money, future opportunities, paying debts and then there's the upset that comes with working so hard to attain an education and not being able to use it and finally what I want to do in my leisure time looks a lot like work for some people.

I agree, it isn't positive today, but that's why I said should be. People having more free time really should be positive (who doesn't want to spend more time with the children?), and we should change our society to make that happen.

It's not just the political will but the social will. If we posit a future country where automation makes a significant percentage of people unemployed (and we posit that there are no job stimulus packets that are going to solve the problem) then the only way to sustain these people is through taxing those who do have jobs and some sort of welfare for those who don't. There are many people who would object to this being against their sense of "fairness"

This is really the core point, many people don't agree with non-working people getting money, indeed, many posts throughout this political forums demonstrate that.

That being said, I really don't think it's impossible to change our social will. Just consider how our social views on women, blacks and homosexuals (to name a few) have all changed during the last 100 years towards the positive. I'm sure one could have made the same argument 100 years ago, that it would not be possible to give women/blacks political rights, because the social will wasn't there, but lo and behold, persistent political activity towards this will also have an impact on our social views.

Similarly, I believe that with the right construction of wealth re-distribution from the political side, it will most certainly be possible to make it socially acceptable to not work. It's just a mater of finding the right balance between "still rewarding extra work" and "not screwing people who doesn't work".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That being said, I really don't think it's impossible to change our social will. Just consider how our social views on women, blacks and homosexuals (to name a few) have all changed during the last 100 years towards the positive. I'm sure one could have made the same argument 100 years ago, that it would not be possible to give women/blacks political rights, because the social will wasn't there, but lo and behold, persistent political activity towards this will also have an impact on our social views.

Agreed, it's not even as though there aren't examples of such societies in the world. Some European countries have very socialist practises and attitudes and they get on just fine.

 

[SixNein]

One, orderly and more or less comfortable. And the other a dog eat dog world of everyday life and death trials and animal aggression. And those two societies will, I think, have to pretty much continually violently clash. Especially since the less fortunate society will represent the bulk of humanity.

There is also an interesting perspective of automation with regards to military. At what point will people in power become locked into power permanently through automation?

 

[ThomasT]

There is also an interesting perspective of automation with regards to military. At what point will people in power become locked into power permanently through automation?

It might be argued that they're already locked into power, more or less permanently, via the distribution of wealth. And of course with that comes access to the sort of technology that can control masses.

The controlling factors of the world's political systems isn't likely to change. Nor is the distribution of wealth, imo. If anything, the disparities will become increasingly more apparent.

So, the well being of those not needed in the workforce will be upon the 'haves' to do something about, or not. And, as Ryan opined, it's quite possible that the 'haves' will consider helping those not needed in the workforce to be an undue and unfair burden.

 

[Elihu5991]

I see that there are two main types of people ruling this world: those that only view things in a capitalist manner and those that view things in a socialist manner. (I see communism as a minority in our world, so am ruling it out for now in my reply). Some politicians and prominent business-people care about others (ie. socialists) and others don't (ie. capitalist). What a lot of people don't see is that we can have an even more flourishing economy if we cared about each other. My post is BY NO MEANS me advocating socialist regimes, I'm just stating that there are two types of elite people in conflict, concerning control; it's hard to tell who'll overcome - if at all.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I see that there are two main types of people ruling this world: those that only view things in a capitalist manner and those that view things in a socialist manner. (I see communism as a minority in our world, so am ruling it out for now in my reply). Some politicians and prominent business-people care about others (ie. socialists) and others don't (ie. capitalist). What a lot of people don't see is that we can have an even more flourishing economy if we cared about each other. My post is BY NO MEANS me advocating socialist regimes, I'm just stating that there are two types of elite people in conflict, concerning control; it's hard to tell who'll overcome - if at all.

Hmm I disagree because I don't think it is far to suggest that capitalism and socialism are on the opposite end of a spectrum, you can have socialist capitalism (1, 2) and I can't think of any country that has no socialist policies or institutions.

The opposite of socialism is individualism which IMO is damaging to society at large if it is the majority practice. Also with regards to communism I'm not sure why you think it is a minority as the most populous and second richest country in the world practices communism.

 

[Elihu5991]

Hmm I disagree because I don't think it is far to suggest that capitalism and socialism are on the opposite end of a spectrum, you can have socialist capitalism (1, 2) and I can't think of any country that has no socialist policies or institutions.

The opposite of socialism is individualism which IMO is damaging to society at large if it is the majority practice. Also with regards to communism I'm not sure why you think it is a minority as the most populous and second richest country in the world practices communism.

Ok, I see that I was not adamantly clear ... my apologies. I was not stating that capitalism and socialism or on opposite ends of the spectrum (think of the quartered graph thing in politics - sorry but can't momentarily remember it's name). I can think, on the top of my head, that Zimbabwe doesn't (please don't take this example in a racist manner).

Individualism = egotism = corruption amongst self and all.

I meant country wise. Think of how many countries are communism, not it's population. Besides, China is not a true communist nation.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ok, I see that I was not adamantly clear ... my apologies. I was not stating that capitalism and socialism or on opposite ends of the spectrum (think of the quartered graph thing in politics - sorry but can't momentarily remember it's name). I can think, on the top of my head, that Zimbabwe doesn't (please don't take this example in a racist manner).

Individualism = egotism = corruption amongst self and all.

I meant country wise. Think of how many countries are communism, not it's population. Besides, China is not a true communist nation.

I think on the whole no country is truly socialist and none is truly individualist/capitalist. Moreover I would suggest that most countries are mostly socialist.

 

[Elihu5991]

I think on the whole no country is truly socialist and none is truly individualist/capitalist. Moreover I would suggest that most countries are mostly socialist.

I wouldn't say most, but a lot are. There's a lot of this world that we don't know that goes on (ie. you didn't know about ZImbabwe as such) and I don't of other nations as such, too. So I say we are generalising far to much to say that most countries are. Of those nations, most of them 9for sure) have poorly functioning (if at all) 'socialist' systems.

 

[Gokul43201]

Where will they go now?

To college?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

To college?

A university education is not for everyone, I have a big problem with the often espoused assumption that educations and training is a linear process with university as a climax rather than the reality that university as a route for certain specialties.

On top of this how would they actually pay for this education? And will it really help having an overqualified workforce with huge debts and not enough work for them?

 

[Gokul43201]

And will it really help having an overqualified workforce with huge debts and not enough work for them?

The basis for this thread is the following sentence from the OP:

On that note, I came across an http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf that claimed 60% of jobs over the next decade will require a college education.

So:

1. Having an underqualified workforce go after the qualifications that they are anticipated to need does not make the workforce overqualified.

2. The article cited includes all kinds of "post-secondary education" in the statistic quoted in the OP. That includes trade school, community college, etc. - a lot of which does not come with huge debts of the kind that are common with private university tuition.

3. Do you think the fraction of the workforce with a college education today is the same as it was 20 years ago, 50, or a 100? The cost of tuition and the resulting expected salary (amongst other factors) determine the position of the (quasi) equilibrium - the fraction of the workforce with a college education. As these risks and rewards vary with time, people living near the margins of the equilibrium will move over into one side or the other, in response to those forces.

Why is it that the question raised in this thread, "how will the workforce respond to a greater demand for college education" is answered with a number of possible scenarios, not a single one of which is "they will respond by seeking more college education"?

 

[SixNein]

More Jobs Predicted for Machines, Not People

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/technology/economists-see-more-jobs-for-machines-not-people.html

IT spending has hollowed out labour markets, to the detriment of middle-income workers

http://www.economist.com/node/16990700?story_id=16990700

 

[SixNein]

A university education is not for everyone, I have a big problem with the often espoused assumption that educations and training is a linear process with university as a climax rather than the reality that university as a route for certain specialties.

On top of this how would they actually pay for this education? And will it really help having an overqualified workforce with huge debts and not enough work for them?

I think the labor market will eventually get saturated with college educated people. Maybe it already is in quite a few areas.

 

[ThomasT]

I think the labor market will eventually get saturated with college educated people. Maybe it already is in quite a few areas.

You can probably make some sort of accurate statement about "where they will not go".

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the labor market will eventually get saturated with college educated people.

Wait ... are you saying that more people will start getting a college education?

 

[OmCheeto]

The data at the Bureau of Economic Analysis might indicate where they might go.

GDPbyInd_GO_NAICS: Gross Output by Industry in Current Dollars, Quantity Indexes by Industry, Price Indexes by Industry


(dollars in millions)
% Δ________1998________2010____Description
68%____$215,672____$362,308____General Federal nondefense government services
14%____$320,990____$366,383____Other nonresidential structures
81%____$214,504____$388,590____Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities
37%____$296,292____$406,174____Management of companies and enterprises
20%____$377,990____$454,476____Insurance carriers
13%____$477,434____$537,816____Telecommunications
29%____$429,724____$556,071____Food services and drinking places
78%____$316,283____$562,360____Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related activities
46%____$390,964____$572,369____Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners
294%___$154,000____$606,411____Petroleum refineries
59%____$394,794____$626,833____Hospitals
55%____$413,200____$642,181____Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation
74%____$405,963____$708,297____General Federal defense government services
25%____$815,047__$1,021,821____Real estate
29%____$957,347__$1,230,213____Owner-occupied dwellings
19%__$1,032,467__$1,231,934____Wholesale trade
13%__$1,176,978__$1,335,540____Retail trade
36%__$1,355,308__$1,843,225____General state and local government services

These are the top 18 sectors by 2010 gross output.
Other than doctors and nurses, I don't see much on the list that would require any college.

 

[Gokul43201]

The data at the Bureau of Economic Analysis might indicate where they might go.

How are you using this data to answer the question? I don't follow your argument. Admittedly, you are not explicitly answering the question in your post, but the last line seems to be implying that you are.

GDPbyInd_GO_NAICS: Gross Output by Industry in Current Dollars, Quantity Indexes by Industry, Price Indexes by Industry


(dollars in millions)
% Δ________1998________2010____Description
68%____$215,672____$362,308____General Federal nondefense government services
14%____$320,990____$366,383____Other nonresidential structures
81%____$214,504____$388,590____Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities
37%____$296,292____$406,174____Management of companies and enterprises
20%____$377,990____$454,476____Insurance carriers
13%____$477,434____$537,816____Telecommunications
29%____$429,724____$556,071____Food services and drinking places
78%____$316,283____$562,360____Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related activities
46%____$390,964____$572,369____Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners
294%___$154,000____$606,411____Petroleum refineries
59%____$394,794____$626,833____Hospitals
55%____$413,200____$642,181____Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation
74%____$405,963____$708,297____General Federal defense government services
25%____$815,047__$1,021,821____Real estate
29%____$957,347__$1,230,213____Owner-occupied dwellings
19%__$1,032,467__$1,231,934____Wholesale trade
13%__$1,176,978__$1,335,540____Retail trade
36%__$1,355,308__$1,843,225____General state and local government services

These are the top 18 sectors by 2010 gross output.

The important numbers in that list are in the first column: %Δ. Those numbers tell us which sectors are growing most/least rapidly, and from that, one might be able to guess something about necessary changes in qualifications. The retail trade sector, for instance, has grown only 13% in the last decade, a period over which the US GDP has grown about 30%. So if you believe that most of the workforce in that sector requires no college education (and I have no good reason to doubt that), that is an argument against the point you seem to be making, or at least implying.

Other than doctors and nurses, I don't see much on the list that would require any college.

Really? Maybe you have a very different opinion of the usefulness of a degree than most hiring and HR departments. Or maybe they don't have as much time as you do to delve into the intangibles of the applicants.

 

[SixNein]

The data at the Bureau of Economic Analysis might indicate where they might go.

GDPbyInd_GO_NAICS: Gross Output by Industry in Current Dollars, Quantity Indexes by Industry, Price Indexes by Industry


(dollars in millions)
% Δ________1998________2010____Description
68%____$215,672____$362,308____General Federal nondefense government services
14%____$320,990____$366,383____Other nonresidential structures
81%____$214,504____$388,590____Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities
37%____$296,292____$406,174____Management of companies and enterprises
20%____$377,990____$454,476____Insurance carriers
13%____$477,434____$537,816____Telecommunications
29%____$429,724____$556,071____Food services and drinking places
78%____$316,283____$562,360____Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related activities
46%____$390,964____$572,369____Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners
294%___$154,000____$606,411____Petroleum refineries
59%____$394,794____$626,833____Hospitals
55%____$413,200____$642,181____Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation
74%____$405,963____$708,297____General Federal defense government services
25%____$815,047__$1,021,821____Real estate
29%____$957,347__$1,230,213____Owner-occupied dwellings
19%__$1,032,467__$1,231,934____Wholesale trade
13%__$1,176,978__$1,335,540____Retail trade
36%__$1,355,308__$1,843,225____General state and local government services

These are the top 18 sectors by 2010 gross output.
Other than doctors and nurses, I don't see much on the list that would require any college.

How much is the output attributed to automation vs people?

 

[ThomasT]

... I don't see much on the list that would require any college.

Low level, relatively unskilled or semi-skilled positions wrt any sector don't generally require college. The problem is that the relative incidence of these sorts of jobs is decreasing. Hence, the OP's question. How will the inordinately increasing masses of unskilled and semi-skilled people be employed? Will a large portion of them simply be unnecessary in the American economy of the future?

 

[OmCheeto]

Low level, relatively unskilled or semi-skilled positions wrt any sector don't generally require college. The problem is that the relative incidence of these sorts of jobs is decreasing. Hence, the OP's question. How will the inordinately increasing masses of unskilled and semi-skilled people be employed? Will a large portion of them simply be unnecessary in the American economy of the future?

Tougher question than the OP, IMHO.

 

[OmCheeto]

How are you using this data to answer the question?

Answer? I have no answer.

But the numbers talk to me, in different ways.

Sorting by %Δ, the numbers look even worse.

Half of the top 3 digit gainers are in the extraction industries.

Should they go into mining and oil?

And I am no Santorum. I spent 6 years in university trying to get my EE degree.

 

[ThomasT]

Tougher question than the OP, IMHO.

It seems so. How many non and semi skilled individuals will be needed 10, 20, 30 years from now? Will the employment proportions change? Will a significant number of even college degree holders fall into this category? What will the proportion of outsourced/offshored jobs and imported employees be?

I guess that where they will go and where they won't go are both problematic projections.

It entails making certain assumptions about the applicability of current trends, making assumptions about policy changes and effects of those changes, and then doing projections based on those assumptions.

 

[OmCheeto]

It seems so. How many non and semi skilled individuals will be needed 10, 20, 30 years from now? Will the employment proportions change? Will a significant number of even college degree holders fall into this category? What will the proportion of outsourced/offshored jobs and imported employees be?

I guess that where they will go and where they won't go are both problematic projections.

It entails making certain assumptions about the applicability of current trends, making assumptions about policy changes and effects of those changes, and then doing projections based on those assumptions.

My company sent me to a class a month ago. As an old dude, I loved the whole thing. Then I got to speak to the instructor, one on one, last week. We talked business, and then we diverged into, "I'm retiring and...", talked 'future' business. He recommended I read "The Coming Jobs War". I think he recognized that I was both insanely optimistic about my idea, and, um, quit naive...