A promise of jobs to come back to America, but do we have the workforce ready to go? — Workers can’t depend upon the benevolence of employers…

UPDATE (10-14-11)

After posting what follows below I happened to talk to one of my brothers on the phone, and since I am a truck driver, he commented to me that he heard a story on NPR that there is a strong demand for truck drivers (thanks I already have a driver job — don’t need another one), and that companies are so desperate that they in some cases are offering free training. I said, yes, that story comes out or is redone about once a year. The company I work for has a sign out front saying “drivers wanted” and it has been displaying that sign for more than a decade and a half. But way back in 1995 I did go to a three-week whirlwind truck driving school (not with my present employer) in Fresno, Ca., held in a dusty dirt lot and then on the city streets of Fresno and finally on old Highway 99, and it was paid by my first employer. And I was hired out of that school run by that employer. I also have a four-year college degree. For me, although I enjoyed college immensely and am glad I attained my BA degree (in political science — please don’t laugh, as most interviewers did when I searched for jobs), the three-week school gave me an occupation that has provided me steady work ever since. I still strongly believe in a liberal arts education. But whether you go for academics or hands on, you have to train for specific skills (and not too narrow either) at some point (the brother I mentioned went to law school and is a lawyer — that is a specific skill). I did work as a newspaper reporter both before and after attaining my BA degree, but the skill sets I had there are in about as much demand these days as those for a buggy whip salesman. My point in all of this is that there might be more jobs available if the powers that be in public education pushed real job skills (along with academics — they actually go hand in hand), or at least once jobs do return — and they will, there would be a workforce ready to go. Public schools need to upgrade their vocational education programs, to include training for both hands-on trades and business skills (always in demand). But most (not all) professional educators live in a protected bubble outside of the real world. Ever talk to a career or guidance counselor? Don’t bother. Do your own research.

And since I mentioned my one brother, I feel I should mention my other one, and my sister. My sister attained a four-year degree at a public university and became a lab scientist in the medical field and my other brother was in the Navy for 20 years and then was a college instructor for many years (all of us have combined academics with specific skills is what I am trying to say).

——————————

I just read a story about an American businessman who is bringing some of his jobs back to the U.S. — only some mind you — because the rise in the cost of labor in China makes it worthwhile to do the work here and it cuts down on the lead time for orders (it takes three weeks to get the stuff from China — the slow boat from China).

There have been some other stories recently in the news that suggest there is a movement to bring jobs back to the U.S.

This is all very promising.

But it was interesting to me that the man interviewed said that he believed in having stuff made here because there is more control over the production and better product safety protection — yeah a businessman worried about product safety. He made that remark in relationship to buying a crib for his child. He wanted to make sure it was safe — none of that toxic Chinese paint and such.

On the other hand, he is perfectly willing to have the bulk of his stuff made in China and sell to the American public. Business is business.

But he is not in the crib-making business. His firm sells tap handles and other brewing equipment.

In the story (to which I will provide a link) he said that the advantage of doing some of the work here is that it can be partially automated with skilled American workers operating the machinery and he can get the orders to his customers much quicker. But some of the work for his products requires intensive and skillful hand labor, the workforce for which he has only been able to find in China.

Whatever. It does sound good that some jobs are coming back.

Personally, I think that any firm headquartered in the U.S. and taking advantage of the market here and the services and protections offered by the taxpayers here should pay a hefty tariff for products it has made overseas and then imports back here.

I do think, though, that this shows a promise that manufacturing can return to the U.S. and our economy can recover.

He also made a comment about the fact that a relatively new provision in the law that allows him to take immediate depreciation on capital investments allowed him to finance an expansion that will allow him to create new American jobs.

Now veering off the main point here, I think now and into the future American workers are going to need to quit seeing themselves as just workers at the whim of their benevolent employers and instead think of themselves as independent contractors — but not necessarily in the strict or legal sense — who have skills for sale. But accordingly, just like the business lobbies, they will have to look out for their own interests and prevail upon their elected representatives at all levels of government to cater to their interests. And I am not trying to talk up so-called organized labor. In some instances unions might be the answer (I don’t know). But unions have a way of becoming an entity all to themselves that do not always represent the interests of the working man or woman. I also think a working person is better off to have a skill to sell and to be able to deal directly with the person who wants that skill.

As to corporate greed, that is a problem. But corporate greed is just an extension of the natural inborn greed of any human being (not saying that everyone is by nature greedy, but greed is not exactly an aberration either).

I have been listening to a book on tape (I’m a driver so this works best for me) about Alexander Hamilton, and the interesting thing is that the issues that we might think of as new today are just old history — they had the same problems of the varying interests of workers and businessmen and government, to include people using government to line their own pockets, and so on, back at the founding of our nation.

This may not fit in here, but it seems to me is that what we need is a representative government that is not bought and paid for by special commercial interests. Voting out all incumbents might not be a bad idea, but we do have to be concerned about who replaces them. And I still favor a non-professional set of legislators and elected executives. I would like to see people wanting to please the voters not the fat cat contributors, but also people willing to stand up to the voters themselves and do what is right — that is leadership.

Oh, and that link to the story that inspired this post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/business/smallbusiness/bringing-manufacturing-back-to-the-united-states.html?pagewanted=2

I hope that link works. You see the NY Times limits how many freebies I get, but I sometimes just Google the story and get it without paying or logging in. I have no problem with the idea that news is a product and should be paid for (I used to be in that business), but if something is free or for a fee, I’ll take free every time (as long as it is the same thing).

It may not be just a lack of jobs but a lack of available workforce (often for the not-so-attractive jobs) …

NOTE:

The following is a repost of a blog post I originally offered several months ago — I’ve just changed the headline — but I still think it is appropriate:

“Empirical“, yes, that is the word I am looking for. So much of what we believe is not based on hard research or statistical studies but what we observe. And the fact that a large portion of our population are freeloaders is something I have observed and thereby believe via empirical evidence (by simple observation).

I fully believe there is a vast potential labor force out there — quality maybe somewhat questionable at times — that could be tapped for relatively low-wage jobs, or even not-so-low wage jobs, if only you could get it to work. And if you could get it to work, investors and business people might create or restart domestic industries, thus helping to solve our economic and unemployment problems.

Employment is one of the major ways we distribute (and I did not say redistribute) wealth in society. It sure beats having those who worked for their money simply hand it over to those who do not (and I am not talking about those who actually cannot).

Another problem that could be resolved if we could get this potential labor force off its collective duff would be that of illegal immigration. I just read a story a few minutes ago, actually one that seems to pop up at least annually near harvest season anywhere (and it’s always harvest season somewhere) in which big agriculture weeps that if you cut off its source of illegal alien workers it will go under (and of course we need it for our food and the economic boost it supplies through the supply chain and the support industries (I’m talking good employment of  American citizens).

Yes white folks (and others) can do farm labor and have done it in the past.

And to get off track here a little, another thing I know from empirical evidence over the years is that in agriculture hand labor is generally replaced by mechanization when it gets too expensive (as when there is a shortage of cheap labor). Not everything can be mechanized, maybe (a big maybe here), but damn near everything can.

But all of this I have written so far is really just a preamble or an excuse for me to provide you with a link to a column in my local newspaper (I snatched it from the free online version). I generally agree with the sentiments of the writer:

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/jun/05/sharli-haines-the-pot-addled-population-needs-to/?partner=popular

While the weeds grow in Solyndra lot, we need to revive basic industry, and unemployment is not a racial problem; it’s a problem of attitude…

In my job as an over-the-road truck driver I found myself sitting next door to the headquarters of the now bankrupt former jewel of the Obama green energy movement called Solyndra. There were a few cars there, but it looked empty and weeds were growing in the parking lot.

Ironically, while Solyndra the new hope for modern and green energy flopped, I was delivering newsprint next door, destined to become pages in the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, part of a dying industry of the old order itself — both the Chronicle (a poor excuse for a  newspaper these days) and the newspaper industry as a whole, especially the conventional paper newspaper part of it. But delivering that newsprint keeps me in work and all those folks who were working at the so-called wave of the future are out of a job.

I have to wonder what the Obama administration has against basic industry or for the matter what any of our economic leaders have against it. We need all types of industry, to include the new green type, no doubt, but we have to have basic industries for our economic survival. Why we let them wither and die over these past many decades is pretty much a mystery to me. Part of it, of course, is the fact that the capitalists found that it was cheaper to produce products overseas, sell them there or even ship them back here too. Meanwhile they had the cover and protection, to include military and judicial, of the American taxpayer — as well as the American market.

American workers had enjoyed a higher and higher standard of living, thanks to a large part to unions. Most workers benefited in the end whether they were union or not. Years ago, I heard about a sawmill in my neck of the woods, so to speak, whose owner purposely paid high wages to keep his employees from going union — easier to pay more and not deal with arbitrary works rules and meddling of unions in management decisions. I even worked for a trucking company a few years ago and benefited from the union indirectly. While I worked at a then non-union terminal, I was paid as much as the union drivers were. But that terminal has since gone union, thanks to the card check system, in which if you get enough people to sign cards, the union can force a closed shop (union only). For the record, I am not in a union — my kind of trucking is not unionized (but I’m not complaining — I have job, a lot of union or former union people don’t (unions can do a lot of good things, but they can’t guarantee work).

But in this Solyndra thing where the government may be out more than half a billion dollars in a guaranteed loan, I wonder whether the government should be in the business of venture capital. It seems to me a better role of government in green energy would be in research and development, primarily through research grants.

Also there is nothing wrong with small business loans from the government, but they should have to compete by way of supporting business plans, not simply via lobbying and campaign contributions, as seems to have been the case in the Solyndra fiasco.

Tariffs or higher tariffs on incoming products would not hurt either. American industry and American workers, and their standard of living, needs to be protected.

And here is something somewhat unrelated to all of this, but when I was at the facility that was receiving may load of newsprint I encountered two young, clean cut black men on the dock who worked there. This was in Fremont, Ca,. So they have what are probably fairly well paid jobs and seemed quite efficient at them. Just up the road in Oakland so many of their black brothers (and others) engage in gangs and the illicit drug trade. Even when I am in Oakland (which has to be the murder capital of the West Coast) I note that black workers have good jobs in the warehouses (and of course in all kinds of work — I‘m just not in those other places).

Unemployment and hopelessness has little to do with race and a whole lot to do with attitude.

(Of course right now we are suffering from an economic recession.)

Some people prefer to or are willing to work for a living and follow societal rules and others cannot be bothered.

What do the voters think of Obama jobs speech? Don’t know yet…

Maybe I’m not looking in the right places, but while I see and read pundit and partisan reactions to President Barack Obama’s jobs speech to congress last night, I don’t see any polling results among voters or even any voter interviews.

But it was a strong speech, probably one he should have given some three-plus years ago.

I am concerned that he may have hinted about making cuts in Medicare and Social  Security as a bargain with Republicans to get more government economic stimulus money.

And here’s something I once mentioned in a blog post, but I think rather than raising the retirement age for Social Security it should be lowered. That would allow people to retire  early and get more enjoyment out of life — none of us really knows how long we have — and would conceivably open up jobs for younger workers.

I have to say that when the president claimed his $447 billion jobs proposal would not raise the deficit or debt (those two terms get mixed up in reporting — I probably should just use debt), I’m afraid, well heck I know, that is just so much smoke and mirrors and nonsense. You cannot spend money you don’t have, thus requiring borrowing, and not raise the debt. We all know this, it’s just something politicians have to claim to try to get us all to buy into some kind of alternate reality.

But if he can get the government to introduce a massive amount of money into the economy and things can get rolling, then perhaps economic activity will pick up and be able to sustain itself.

All the republicans offer is cutting benefits for everyone (except tax breaks for the super rich), abolishing safety regulations and other protections for general public, and gutting health care. All the GOP candidates are vowing to dismantle what they tag Obamacare.

While I am not a fan of Obamacare — too complicated and probably overdoing things — all the Republicans offer is some kind of free market free for all in which a whole lot of us would be priced out of the market.

Obama talked about restoring teacher jobs and made a swipe at the GOP for being more interested in preserving tax cuts for the wealthy than preserving the jobs of public school teachers. Personally I think public schools should be funded and operated at the local level and it is the responsibility of local taxpayers to fund them, probably with the help, but only help, of  the states.

And back to health care: Rick Perry is adamant that he would with the stroke of a pen abolish Obamacare as his first act as president. Today in the LA Times there is a story telling of the dismal state of healthcare in Texas, the state of which he is governor.

Mitt Romney also says he would abolish Obamacare, but he designed the Massachusetts health care law when he was governor there and it served as the model for Obamacare. Mitt is kind of everything to everyone He just wants to be president. And he just might get there, although a lot of the pundits seem to think the firebrand Perry has a better chance.

I’m wrapping this up for now because I have to make a living. But I’ll be back.

Obama comes on strong in address to congress on jobs…

Just began watching the president’s speech:

A forceful speech so far. President Obama calls for passage of his (to be introduced) American Jobs Act and repeats several times “You should pass it right away!”

He asks why we should sit back and let China surpass us in infrastructure, especially transportation, to include high speed rail, and says we can make what we need right here.

Calls for tax relief for the middle class and chides Republicans for making pledges to raise no one’s tax ever and asks they not do it to the middle class.

I’m making these comments live in the early part of his speech. So far he is coming on strong and I think maybe some of the Republicans in the audience are stunned. Don’t know. But John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have sickly, worried expressions on their faces.

If Obama can sustain this attitude past this speech and show some action and results he has nothing to fear from Mitt Romney nor Rick Perry or any possible opponent in his re-election bid.

He just said he won’t let this economic crisis be used by anyone (Republicans) to wipe out safety regulations and other protections, of which he included collective bargaining (that should help get back the base).

I’ve watched presidents speak to congress ever since Eisenhower. I have never seen a speech with such a forceful tone. His decibel volume is even up…

Obama said he would take his message to every corner of the nation — thus putting his opposition on notice by threatening to use the full powers of the bully pulpit.

It was only words, but I think he hit a home run way out of the park.

No details on his plan and it remains to be seen how much substance there really was or is in his plan, but it seems to me he has put Republicans on the defensive. He can do such things as call for bridge projects in their home districts and let them try to deny people jobs by voting against them.

I think he used the usual vague and questionable suggestions politicians always use as how to pay for his program which he said would not raise the deficit, but that is the way things are. You know? It costs money to do things. We need that money circulating in the economy and we need to do useful things.

I said I was making these comments early in his speech. Well it was fairly short. It is over. A commentator said he did not actually use the world “infrastructure” because it was decided not to use “Washington speak”.  Not sure about that. It’s just a word, anyway, describing, well, infrastructure.

I once saw a documentary on the Great Depression saying we were the only country ever to go to the poor house in an automobile. I would say now we are the first country to go to the poorhouse in a big pickup pulling an RV and living in a humongous home (albeit underwater mortgagewise and maybe in foreclosure). It goes without saying that was a broad generalization not meant to be literal, but I do feel a bit embarrassed that we are so soft these days. But we are in dire economic straits nonetheless:

My original post for today follows:

Don’t know if I will be able to watch or listen to President Barack Obama’s big jobs speech this evening, but if I do I hope I can post something on it afterwards; it certainly seems as if it is a make or break event for him for his chances of re-election, that is unless the Republicans choose someone like Rick Perry and he (Perry) scares enough independents and other clear-thinking people with his rants against Social Security and his anti-science stance.

I do have a hard time understanding how Obama can increase employment or at least how he can increase and then sustain it by more government spending. There has to be money from the private sector and from citizens, taxpayers, to support that government spending. Using the government to create jobs is income redistribution, a practice our government has been using one way or another through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Even if you believe in income redistribution, you have to have a sustainable source of income. So it seems to me Obama needs to come up with some new economic direction and something beyond the bubble and burst cycle we have been going through.

Re-industrialization would be promising. Better utilization of our own national resources, especially for energy (while preserving reasonable environmental safeguards) certainly would be good (we would not have to wage costly and economically-draining wars that are really over oil not what we pretend them to be over).

Extending unemployment benefits (even if it needs to be done) will not create more jobs, except arguably through maintaining the purchasing power of people out of work and thus preserving jobs that depend upon that purchasing power — but that can’t go on forever (the money has to come from somewhere).

Extended unemployment benefits do have the effect of encouraging idleness, although they are needed at times too.

I’m not sure whether it is high tariffs on imported goods or some type of incentives for the increased production of consumer goods right here in the USA, but I think that would help, and as I always note in quick defense when I suggest this, I know the economics historians say that trade barriers is what exacerbated or even created the Great Depression of the 1930s, and as I always say: that was then, this is now.

When I began over-the-road truck driving I used to haul USA-made television sets out of  the Dallas-Ft. Worth area Zenith plant. People the age of my children (adults now) probably assume TV sets were always made in China.

But I know we don’t want to close the door to trade. It’s a two-way street or it is supposed to be. We ship them (other nations) stuff and they import our stuff. One bright spot I see constantly in my own job is agriculture. I haul both agricultural and other products to the Mexican border and bring back agricultural products from Mexico. One heck of a lot of jobs, including my own, are created and sustained by this. But we have to have a level playing field, and I don’t think we do.

In my opinion the big culprits may be United States-based corporations that outsource jobs and production and then bring it all back here. There should be some mechanism in government to discourage this. They get all the advantages, to include the protection of the judicial system and our military, not to mention a big market — they should be more loyal to the nation that provides so much.

It is sad to me that Levis — what could be more American than Levis? — are not made here anymore. And neither are Justin cowboy boots. We have sold our soul to foreign production.

There should also be, perhaps, more incentives for businesses to provide training. I was surfing the web and noted an advertisement for the Union Pacific Railroad. It noted that it provides training with no previous experience required (this was not a specific recruitment ad, just a generic ad for all their services).

I got into trucking through an employer who provided free training and a guaranteed job; no experience required. I don’t think there was a government incentive in my case, but a lot of people get unemployment benefits while training (legally). That is or can be money well spent.

Also, I hate to say it (but I have already broached the subject once), minimum wage laws probably do discourage employment at the low end. While no one wants to work at the low end, sometimes it is better than starving and going without shelter and one knows he or she is living off of his or her own efforts not the charity of government. Something has to be said for dignity and personal initiative. But the good aspects of low-end employment are offset to a degree when the government has to step in and subsidize those workers and/or their employers — maybe we do need to retain the minimum wage, but it should be just that, a minimum.

But something that has been floating around in my head for a long time is something I call the “government labor pool”. My idea is that people without jobs and without hope could sign up for a labor pool that would guarantee them a low-pay job doing most anything, from picking up trash to doing others things that usually just don’t get done for lack of revenue or priority — probably jobs not in competition with existing jobs.

(And it occurs to me: why are we putting so many people in prison. Sure the violent people need to be locked up — but all of the others? It really drains our economy. Kind of off the actual subject here, and then, I realize, they would all be in competition or jobs, but I’m just saying…)

Then there is the military:

Maybe we should have a mandatory draft for all young people (women included? Not sure). Instantly our military recruitment problem would be solved and a large chunk of job seekers would be removed from the market. Meanwhile, young people could learn valuable life skills and even jobs skills in the modern military which is so technology-driven.

I did not learn a lot in the Army, but then again, I did learn to make my bed in the morning and I drove a 52-ton tank. Today I drive a 40-ton (loaded) big truck.

Just some thoughts in anticipation of the Obama jobs speech.

ADD 1:

Just heard political pundit Ron Reagan say that the tax code needs to be overhauled so the rich have to pay their share. I think it needs to be simplified so everyone, no matter the economic class, pays a fair share with a minimum of tax deductions, although I see the need for tax incentives at times, which are essentially deductions and tax shifts to someone else. A simplification of the tax code would or could lead to much more efficiency in the use of tax dollars and provide business with a clear signal on what it faces, allowing it to make decisions on expansion.

A government that fails to protect its own people will eventually fail; are you listening Washington?

And just what is our government doing to protect domestic industry and its citizens’ ability to earn a living? Not enough it seems.

The Blue Heron paper mill has closed in Oregon City, Oregon, and its management says it is primarily the result of competition for recycle materials from China. The mill had filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and in an attempt to get back into the black it shifted much of its production to recycled paper products, but apparently that was not the solution, especially when, according to the mill management, the Chinese government subsidizes its industry and lets it bid up world prices for raw materials.

I can’t blame it all on Obama or even his predecessors (then again, maybe I can), but why can’t our government do something to help workers and to help domestic industry and why do we take part in trade deals that allow other nations to subsidize their industries and give them an unfair advantage on the world market and in our own domestic market?

And why did Obama who campaigned on the promise that he was going to help ordinary working folks immediately turn his back on them when he became president and fall all over himself to bail out fat cat bankers? (Probably because like most of us he does not understand banking and was intimidated by them and their threat to take us all down with them.)

Yes he also presided over the bailout of GM and Chrysler, saving a lot of high-paid union jobs, but while I would generally applaud saving jobs, I am not sure that was such a good idea or even necessary, but I’ll get back to that.

And I doubt one can actually blame the mill closure solely on China. I know something about that paper mill. I’ve hauled many thousands of tons of paper out of that mill for something like a decade and a half as a long-haul truck driver. The mill is old, and although I personally thought of it as a colorful place (well actually kind of dismal and gray, but colorful in another context), I imagine, judging from its outside, it may have not been the most technologically advanced on the inside (I don’t know). There has been a mill on that site under various names dating well back into the 19th Century. What I hauled out of there was newsprint, and with the downfall of the newspaper business, demand for newsprint has taken quite a dive. But much or most of the newsprint I hauled out of there went to commercial printing plants that printed advertising circulars primarily — some of them going into newspapers, some not. But I hauled a lot of newsprint directly to newspapers too.

I did see the trucks bringing in recycle material that was turned into all kinds of recycled paper products. Apparently, according to what I have now read, much of that recycle material is going to be shipped to China. The Blue Heron mill management claims that China has bid up the price of recycle material to the extent the Oregon City mill could not make a profit.

(A letter-to-the-editor writer to an oregon newspaper noted the irony that in the name of green industry recycled material will be shipped to China and the finished products shipped all the way back to the U.S. — and that saves energy and the environment???)

There are other paper mills in the region. Business is always a competition, but it should be a fair competition, and one would think that our own government would want to look out for our own domestic industry.

Now I know the whole line about you can’t get all protectionist and keep out foreign products because that is what happened worldwide in the 1930s (countries put up high tariffs) and it only exacerbated the Great Depression. But as I think I once blogged already, that was then and this is now.

I know everyone, or at least all the “enlightened” ones, think that the answer is for all the young people to go to college and get into something in which they can keep their hands clean. Well you know we tried that computer/financial services/speculative/Taco Bell economy for the past few decades. How’s that working out for us?

Back to the GM and Chrysler bailouts:

While I think the government should do what it can to promote and protect domestic industry, it can’t run it and should not directly finance it.

GM and Chrysler got stuck in marketing one kind of product and got too big and bloated to quickly shift gears when product demand changed. And Detroit union workers got a little greedy themselves and lost out to non-union, but domestic workers hired by foreign companies down South.

While I don’t think our government should heavily subsidize our own industry, it could do more in the way of tariffs on incoming products, as well as outright bans on unsafe products coming out of China (such as toxic toys), as well as in some cases import quotas.

A government that fails to protect its own people will eventually fail, and in this day and age that eventually can come rather soon (look around).

Are you listening Washington?

P.s.

Probably not.

What a novel idea, young people should make a decision early on which way they want to go, academic or vocational…

So now some brilliant minds at Harvard have done a study and have come to the conclusion that college is not for everyone and that young people need to decide at middle school (junior high) whether they want (or can) be college bound or vocational bound, the European model as it were.

Pardon the sarcasm, but why did it take a study and what took them so long?

The hard fact in life is that everyone, except those who can enjoy a hefty inheritance, and it would need to be huge, needs a trade in order to do their part in life and get their share of tokens we call wages, money.  And by using the word “trade” I am using that term broadly. Some may eventually wind up in a trade that uses words and ideas and some may use a wrench or pliers or hammer (as examples).

That seems to run counter to the notion touted by the Obama administration and others that everyone should be able to, and in fact, go to college.

Maybe what they really mean, or should mean, is that regardless of what your trade is, in this 21^st century, you have to be smarter, know more math and science, be more versed in modern technology, along with being worldly and well versed in the liberal arts.

While having basically a two-track system, academic and vocational, is an old idea or methodology, it could be improved upon with something like a third track, which would be a blend of academics and vocational training.

But the bottom line is that we, in the USA, spend too much time in school going over the same thing and we pass our children on from grade to grade, more often than not, with little to no future planning.

And I think it is a scandal, especially here in California where I live, that our education dollars are eaten up by the fact we have to provide remedial education at the college level. What has everyone been doing all this time? Lack of focus becomes expensive.

Many of us, myself included, find ourselves in college and even in mid life (at 61 I wish I was still there) trying to figure out what we really want or can do for a living. Freedom to contemplate can be nice, but can we really afford it?

(Let me clarify; I am not in college now, that was the past. I spend most of my days out on the road as a long-haul truck driver. Sure glad I got that college education.)

Yes, while I think it is nice we have so much freedom in this society not locking ourselves into a particular trade, I do not think it is always terribly practical. And I think we can and should maintain as much freedom or flexibility, as possible or practicable. No one should be forever tied to a single trade, but on the other hand, one does have a responsibility to one’s self, one’s family, and society as a whole to be productive in order to share in the benefits of society.

There is some concern by some that tracking students into vocational training will return us to the old ways where minorities were shunted into shop class and away from academics. Well, no one should be forced (except by lack of God-given ability) away from academics based on skin color or ethnic or social background, that should go without saying. On the other hand, solid training in usable vocational skills could go a long way towards solving the chronic unemployment problems (overall economic conditions not always withstanding).

But as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink the water. As a journalist (in my former life), I once did a story about a vocational class at a high school where the students were taught carpentry and other construction skills. These were American white bread kids, not so-called minorities. Teenagers will be teenagers, but these kids seemed to lack much interest, and the teacher said as much to me.

No system is perfect. Germany is often lauded for its two-track academic and vocational approach. But a German school principal, visiting America, once told me that even there they have problems. He said that a lot of children who are supposed to be young academics are not up to the challenge or lack motivation. And we know that there is unemployment in Germany and there is hooliganism.

But I am glad that an old idea has resurfaced and could be spruced up to fit the modern times.

P.s.

The story that inspired this post is at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110202/us_yblog_thelookout/study-says-college-isnt-for-everyone

Mr. Obama, here’s a clue: IT’S JOBS PEOPLE NEED…

Bill Clinton’s campaign mantra was “It’s the economy stupid”.

Here’s one President Obama should take to heart: “It’s the jobs ……”

Just read a Time Magazine piece that says the president is in big trouble politically because both the elites and the common working folks are unhappy with him over the economy and most of all the lack of jobs, which of course is part of the economy. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599202471800;_ylt=AnwKqwPLXBxetDykXKbTmyKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJpY2pjaW0xBGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMDEwMTEvMDg1OTkyMDI0NzE4MDAEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMxMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNvYmFtYWlzaW50aGU

I’m thinking it might not be all that bad for Obama if the Republicans were to hand him a stunning defeat in the midterm elections.

Two things could happen: First, he would be forced to work with the other party (not that he has not already or at least made a gesture or two at that) and second, the Republicans, especially if they were to win a majority in both houses, might have to put up or shut up and do something besides vote no.

The puzzling thing to me about Obama is that he did not put an emphasis on putting the unemployed back to work. His much ballyhooed and maligned stimulus program has certainly helped some people, but overall seems to be rather feeble (but he gets criticized for spending tax money and running up the deficit). Had he managed to make headway in that regard I think a lot of other things could have followed. Even government-funded or backed employment on a large or massive scale could work to boost the economy in at least the short run, especially since we are such a consumer-driven economy.

Rather than running up the deficit and wasting political capital on a convoluted health care program, he would have done far better for the electorate and his own political health to have put the thrust of his efforts into a massive jobs program and a massive re-industrialization program, with an emphasis as far as practical on new green energy.

————————————————–

 ADD 1:

Over the long run it is the private sector that must dictate the economy, but it may well need a boost from government. What we really need is a massive restructuring of the U.S. economy towards production rather than consumption (and there is no reason we can’t have both a strong consumption component and a strong production component, I would think).

—————————————–

I’m like a stuck record on this one, but I still cannot see why health care could not have been disposed of by simply assuring that anyone not covered due to falling through the social safety net was covered. Our system in the U.S., like it or not (and apparently many do prefer it), is basically health insurance through your employment and Medicare and Medicaid other government social programs for the retired and disabled and in some cases unemployed. While Americans seem to like their Medicare, the majority do not seem to want the government to totally run their health care.

(In a perfect world the health care professionals, most notably doctors, would run it — but they don’t pay your bill and neither do you most of the time — the insurance providers do, so that gives them a big say in things).

As far as foreign policy goes, while I never heard anything from Republican candidates that gave me any comfort, I have not taken much comfort from Obama’s policy of profusely apologizing to the Islamic world and at the same time digging us deeper and deeper into the quagmire of the Middle East.

Would we have been better off with McCain? I doubt it.

P.s.

Why does the presidency have to be on-the-job training?

Outsourcing is unpatriotic and borders on treason…

If I had my way, American companies would not be allowed to outsource employment or at the very least would be forced to pay a penalty for doing so, in which case they no doubt would not outsource — that would take care of that.

It seems unconscionable to me with the unemployment rate so high and the worst recession in decades that we allow outsourcing to take place.

I found it particularly irritating the other day when I received a cell phone call while on the job (I’m a truck driver — don’t worry I’m hands free; I use blue tooth technology, for my phone that is) telling me that I was past due on my cable TV bill and that is why my service was shut off. First I had just sent off the astronomical payment (I thought on time) in the mail, and second of all I could not clearly understand the representative on the other end of the line. I asked him if he spoke English. He did not respond to that question. I asked him where he was calling from. Several times he did not answer that question. Finally he said he was calling from Mexico City. Millions of U.S. citizens out of work and our companies are hiring folks in Mexico.

I’m not concerned that my cable was shut off — I’m hardly home anyway and my dear late wife is not there to watch TV either. But if I was to need cable TV I’d like to boycott that outfit, but there is only one cable outfit in my area to choose from and I found Dish not to be so great either and besides I suppose they all outsource.

Maybe there is something I am missing in all of this, but I truly think it is unpatriotic, bordering on treasonous to outsource.

The enterprises that outsource jobs that should be going to U.S. citizens gain from the protections of the federal government, to include an armed forces whose members give their lives in the name of the defense of America (the efficacy of our war policies notwithstanding) and a court system that reliably stands behind big business the largest percentage of the time.

And none of us should complain if we had to pay a slightly higher cost for goods and services by hiring U.S. citizens. That is what it takes to promote and maintain a higher standard of living.

CORRECTION:

On my just previous post I referred readers to my transport blog and in that blog’s original version I inadvertently used the word vertically when I really meant truck trailers were slid horizontally onto train cars. That’s one of those mistakes that occurred to me as I was driving down the road and could not get to my computer. When I worked for newspapers those mistakes came to me in the middle of the night, and you can’t unprint a newspaper story.

See http://tonystransportblog.wordpress.com

Out of work? Change occupations (if there are any left)…

I’m not a jack of all trades by any means, not even close, but then again when I compare myself to some who have basically done only one job or one kind of work their whole life, then I feel like one.

And I bring this up because I have been hearing of late that there is a greater upheaval going on in this economic crisis than in those in the past, save for the Great Depression, or maybe even more than then. That upheaval is the phenomenon of the disappearing occupations — we’re not talking about no more need for buggy whip salesmen here; we’re talking about much of the work world as we know it going down the drain, what with automation — not just in factory work, but in office work. And even outsourcing plays into all of this.

The point is many many jobs are not only in the lost category right now but they are never coming back, or at least so we are told.

Well, if we have indeed reached that utopian stage where no one is needed for work, we really are in trouble, because, generally speaking, work is the only way most of us get those tickets called dollars that allow us to continue to keep having food and shelter and all the other things we consider life necessities and even luxuries.

But what I really wanted to write here, and as usual got off track a little, is that when I read or hear about someone out of work for a long period of time and not being able to find a job I automatically wonder if they have realized that they might have to change occupations and that they might not even make as much money as they did before. And then again they might actually find something more suited to them and something that pays more than they ever made before.

I suppose a lot have, thought about changing occupations — of course they have. I know from personal experience how hard that is to do. And if we really have reached the point of automation where huge numbers of people will have nothing productive to do, well I don’t know what…

The only bright idea I have in the employment situation is for the government to do anything it can to promote domestic production over consumption in order for more jobs to be created and maintained. People who are employed will consume.

And one crazy thing I read from time to time are those stories about highly educated people who cannot find work. What precipitated these words was a story about a woman reported to be a bilingual PhD who had a secure job at some university but took a chance on another job and then found herself out of work because the Great Recession hit and now she’s been out of work nearly two years and has exhausted her savings and has no prospect of work.

For one thing, she should not be too shocked. No doubt in her studies she has read some literature and history and should know that many famous and learned people spent years, sometimes whole lifetimes, in near poverty.

And for another thing, it would seem she could step down from her ivory tower to do some lower kind of work for awhile. I know there are barriers to that because employers don’t want to even speak to over qualified people. So what you do is you don’t sell yourself with those old qualifications (you might have to lie about your past — and I wonder, could you then later be fired for not disclosing that you were intelligent?).

Not quite the same thing, for sure, but when I was finally forced to leave my so-called career in journalism, I also had to hide the fact that I ever was a journalist – that’s a definite turn-off to most employers for a variety of reasons.

But this idea that many jobs will never come back has surfaced in the recent debates over extending unemployment insurance, the idea being that it may be pointless to hold out hope that we are just tidying over folks till they get called back to their old job — it ain’t coming back.

And we have to ask ourselves as a society how practical is it to have or force a major portion of our workforce to be forever on the move and forever unstable, not knowing how long any job will last and whether one will be able to pay the rent, much less a mortgage payment. But who asks these questions? — not the employers — the politicians (more concerned about their own jobs and retirement at taxpayers’ expense).

But, personally I still think there continues to be a demand for skilled workers in a wide variety of occupations, but many call for a whole lot more diversity these days, and I mean diversity in skills and abilities, not equal employment (although that too).

While in some lower level employment the trend has been to dumb down work so employers can get cheaper labor, the other trend is to make things more complex so it takes a higher level of skill and even variety of skills or skill subsets and understanding.

So education is becoming more vital than ever. But when we say education we may mean technical more than the standard liberal arts, although that standard study of literature and history and such continues to be vital for what I would call the thinking occupations, and Lord knows we need more people who can actually be creative and think.

Meantime, many of us are just left to bumble along.

In my work life my lines of work have included:

Soldier, wood products manufacturing plant worker, farm tractor driver, irrigator, cow milker, newspaper photographer, newspaper reporter, radio reporter, worm farm worker, newspaper editor, substitute teacher, big truck driver — and I may have missed a couple.

Currently I’m a truck driver (have been for 15 years). Could I, would I, go back to any of those previously mentioned occupations? Maybe not unless I was somehow forced to, and then only maybe, due to age and attitude and ability and just plan practicality or lack thereof.

So to displaced workers — I feel your pain.

P.s.

The public school system needs to take heed. Students need two things: One, a solid education in the basics and liberal arts (I’m calling that one thing) in order to understand and appreciate the world around them and to be responsible members of society, and two, technical skills to enable them to get and hold a job in this modern ever-changing world.

Please let’s drop the everyone gets a participation ribbon and feel good training and get down to business.

I don’t think all young people are soft. I do suspect some of those in charge of preparing them for the world are, though.