Valerie Strauss has a column describing a puzzle: younger Americans, ages 18-34, are more educated than their parents’ generation, but making less money.
Your guess is as good as mine, but here is my guess. Inequality is growing; the middle class is less secure. The “reformers” want everyone to go to college, but they do nothing to address the shrinkage of jobs, especially jobs that pay what college graduates are led to expect. All their “reform” blather is a convenient way of diverting attention from growing wage inequality and growing wealth inequality.
Strauss writes:
Young adults in the United States today — those Americans from 18 to 34 years old — are on average earning less than their counterparts 35 years ago, but more have a college degree, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
This piece on the bureau’s blog says that earnings among young adults range from state to state across the country, with some states seeing an increase. In Massachusetts, for example, young adults earn on average $6,500 more annually, adjusted for inflation; in Virginia, they earn $4,100 more. But states where there have been big declines are “Michigan, Wyoming and Alaska where young adults earn at least $9,000 less than they did 30 years ago,” the blog post says.
What does this all say about America today and the earning prospects for young people? The post says:
Young adults’ experiences may reflect a rise in inequality. Since the 1980s, income inequality for households and families has gone up at the same time as the country as a whole has become more educated. The picture that emerges from these statistics reveals a generation of young adults who may be, at once, both better and worse off than their parents.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
If younger Americans, ages 18-34, are more educated than their parents’ generation but making less money, then what is the REAL agenda behind corporate public education reform and destroying teacher’s labor unions?
A few facts:
For ages 24-65, the average high school graduation rate for OECD nations is 75%, but for the United States, that high school graduation rate is 90%
In addition, the average college graduation rate for OECD nations is 38%m but for the United States, the college graduate rate is 42%
What is the real reason that U.S. and global corporations are waging war against public schools and labor unions in the United States?
That is why the war on teachers is a war on the middle class, the same group that Obama claims to want to protect.
Does Obama’s neo-liberal war against the middle class and public education/teachers explain why the Voter turnout in 2014 was the lowest since WWII?
http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2014/11/5/why-the-real-electionturnoutwasfarlowerthanreported.html#alabama
From PEW, I learned that it was the 18 to 44 age group that caused the lower voter turn out. The 45 to 65 group had an increase or just had a larger ratio compared to 2010 & 2012 elections.
PEW reports, “And even though Democratic candidates won the 18- to 29- year-old vote by an 11-point margin, 54% to 43%, this group didn’t carry the same weight as it did two years ago when Barack Obama was re-elected. They made up a much smaller share of the electorate than in 2012, and the Democratic margins among this group also were not as large as in 2012.”
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/as-gop-celebrates-win-no-sign-of-narrowing-gender-age-gaps/
It’s obvious that Obama lost too many of the under 44 voters—the Democrats lost not because the GOP had more votes but the Democrats had fewer voters who helped them win many elections in 2012.
Lloyd,
Cuomo didn’t help things here in NY either. The Gov griped about Obama being the reason turnout was low among Democrats, but Obama wasn’t at the top of the ticket here. It was Cuomo himself.
When the Democrats have “leaders” like these men, fully in the thrall of the Wall Street banksters and corporate plutocrats, we have lost that party as the party of the people. As long as the Democratic Party represents those people instead of us, they will struggle to get people to the polls, in my opinion.
I think you are right.
Lloyd Lofthouse — no doubt here in NJ, there were other over-44 stay-at-home Dems like myself. Our candidate for Sen, neoliberal Cory Booker whom I loathe, running against an old-school Reagan conservative. And 3 times I have tried to unseat our local Congressman, a Rep whose voting pattern reflects radically more conservative platform than his local constituents– gave up this yr as the best Dems could do was a mayor w/little statewide experience. Hopefully the state Dem party gets a clue: if your candidates have nothing to offer middle-class voters (or can’t even hope to compete), time for a little self-examination.
A continuing problem in NJ (IMHO, w/perspective as a former out-of-stater) is the many-decades history of a corrupt & profligate Dem party. There’s a large bunch here in recent decades, despite continuing blue-state status, who reflexively vote Rep in hopes of lowering outrageous prop taxes, or out of long-held grudge at loss of mfg jobs blamed on Dems, or at min out of trying to keep the county Dem freeholders (freeloaders myself & husband call them) from feeding at the trough.
However I think Christie’s expensive gaffes (like killing cross-Hudson tunnel, & failing to get RTTT $ despite ultimately caving to all its demands) & more recent excesses (like Bridgegate, & upbraiding demonstrating teachers) can only help the Nj Dem party. Nevertheless, they have a long way to go.
If the parties and their billionaire masters keep giving voters no choice candidates, why vote when no matter who wins, we get the same results?
Forgot to include in Christie’s expensive gaffes– education: One Newark/Cami Anderson, & privatization underway in Camden & Paterson. Tho corrupt scandals have been revealed in the 30-yr implementation of Abbott Schools (state support for schools in impoverished areas), I predict that Christie’s venture into aggressive privatization of poor inner-city schools will haunt his presidential aspirations.
In Utah, we had the lowest voter turn out in the country, and the lowest since the 1960s. I think people are staying home because they know that ultra-conservative, whack-job Republicans will win, regardless of how the rest of us vote. It’s sad to be hijacked by a fanatic wing of one party. We also have the fewest women in the Legislature–only 6 of 29 senators and about 15 of 75 house members.
Mother Jones provides the answer that explains why this is happening. Just look at the chart and think. Then scroll down and look at the WINNERS TAKE ALL info graphic. Then keep looking. There’s more. The answer is there and it is the Milton Friedman economic theory of GREED at work.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
This is the person the Democrats chose to be on a panel to help figure out why people didn’t come out to vote for them last election:
“The Democratic National Committee is convening a group that includes Google Chairman Eric Schmidt with a goal of figuring out what went wrong in the midterm elections”
Because who better to understand the trials and tribulations of the working and middle classes than a CEO! I think their plan is to deliver another patronizing, clueless lecture on the “skills gap” to the plebes 🙂
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-04/democrats-name-googles-eric-schmidt-to-election-postmortem-group
Another problem is that a lot of 1% squirrel their money away in passive investments that don’t contribute to a growing economy. They are not job creators. Unless we have a vibrant middle class, the demand the goods and services will decline, unemployment will increase, and our economy will shrink.
I think most billionaires cannot understand the problems of working class folks. I am reminded of Romney and his 47% of “takers.” He is living in a bubble with “binders full of women” candidates for employment. The “skills gap” speech is just so they can import cheap labor from overseas while they put our trained young people out of work.
“Another problem is that a lot of 1% squirrel their money away in passive investments that don’t contribute to a growing economy.”
yes, in the Cayman Islands for example. A lot of squirrels out there, so I hear.
There is a genuine debate among economists on the “skills gap”. It is disputed. One of the economists who disputes it once worked in the Obama Administration.
The President and his Secretary of Education should stop reciting “the skills gap” to young people as fact. It isn’t fact. It’s one side of a debate.
Squirrel away their money? Alternative answer, the 0.1% plutocrats lack the capacity to spend money fast enough. Bill Gates can’t stop patting himself on the back for his “charitable giving”, yet, he can’t seem to work himself off the “richest men” lists. Either he donates little or, getting rid of riches, others toiled for, can’t keep pace with his exploitation.
Think for oneself. The politicos and the rich care not a hoot. They have theirs and want even more. It’s a sickness that destroys anything in its path.
You are so right! It’s not about billionaires’ level of understanding of the problems of middle-class folk. Unless and until those problems impinge on the bottom line, there will be no concern.
The only way the concerns of American middle-& working-class folks’ concerns will impinge on 1-%’rs bottom line is when we have laws favoring the workers of the nation-state USA. That’s because ‘trickle-down economics a la Reagan is a fantasy. In a global economy, the $ trickles down to the cheapest laborers, who are located elsewhere– places where the QOL is lower, & ultimately to poorest developing countries.
With a very humanitarian viewpoint (such as that of our own TE), one may envision the current impoverishment of the US middle & lower classes as a necessary counterbalance to providing a higher QOL to traditionally-impoverished 3rd-world nations. There is certainly some merit to that viewpoint. Nevertheless, the highest echelon of US earners in the global ecenomy so far have been able to capture a grotesque share of profits (see the charts at Lloyd Lofthouse’s Mother Jones link above). I maintain that in the global economy, the only way to maintain democracy in the US is for more equitable societal sharing of that profit.
How? Let’s start with progressive tax reform, & continue by putting zglass-Steagall back in place, then take a look at those unenforced anti-trust laws already on the books.
Only about 10% of kids who are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch will go on to complete college. The changes in the American and global economy notwithstanding, getting a college degree is still far and away the best route to getting out of — and staying out of — poverty.
Tim, I don’t think that’s being debated. The issue is what does the college degree actually get someone? For example, what about those who grew up in middle class families? Are they worse off with their college degrees than their parents with college degrees?
The issue is about American society in general, not a subset of one group. For example, I live in Michigan, where unemployment is down over the last four years, but so is household income. Being out of poverty is a low standard for the population in general.
I’ve read the statistic before this: the current younger generation is better educated but economically worse off than their parents. First time in US history in which this is the case.
And while the college degree is a potential ticket out of poverty it isn’t quite the guarantee it was 30 years ago. Especially when factoring in college debt versus 30 years ago.
So, I ask, who would go into teaching when salaries are depressed compared to 30 years ago with no promise of sufficient wages in the future (school funding is endlessly chipped at and charters are based on non-union, low-pay models far too often)? You graduate from college with tens of thousands of debt and into a job that pays $35k in year five.
And this isn’t just true in education. I have many former students with STEM degrees who can’t get STEM jobs. And when they do, the pay isn’t nearly as handsome as they initially believed when they’d heard stories from their parents.
What you say may be true, but it avoids the fact that jobs that once paid a solid middle class income and provided for a secure retirement, such as working in an auto plant, no longer do.
Your statement also avoids the fact that the incomes of college-educated people are stagnant, and that their relative prosperity is based on the fact that the incomes of non-college educated workers are collapsing.
Is that a system you really want to argue for?
As a result of the global economy, we have lost most of the manufacturing jobs that paid decent middle class wages. While there are a few of these jobs left, there is the constant threat of them relocating overseas.
While it is true that the U.S. has lost jobs to cheaper labor in developing countries, not as many went overseas as is popularly thought. More jobs were lost to automation, and, maybe you haven’t heard, but jobs are starting to come back as some U.S. manufactures are returning to the U.S. as the cost of labor in developing countries is rising.
The media has reported on the trend. For instance, from the LA Times, “After decades of exodus, companies returning production to the U.S”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-returning-jobs-20140513-story.html#page=1
In addition, the U.S. manufacturing sector is one of the largest in the world if not number one. In 2008, the U.S. led the world in manufacturing output at $2.31 Trillion, and if you look at a chart, you will discover growth has been on an upward trend for years while employment has dropped as automation is implemented to replace humans.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Industry/Manufacturing-output
I think the reason why so many Americans don’t know these facts is another example of how easy it is for the media to mislead the people.
Here’s more recent news:
The manufacturing sector continues to be a mainstay of our economic productivity, generating $1.8 trillion in GDP in 2011 (12.2% of total U.S. GDP). U.S. manufacturing firms lead the Nation in exports: The $1.3 trillion of manufactured goods shipped abroad constituted 86% of all U.S. goods exported in 2011. Moreover, manufacturing has a larger multiplier effect than any other major economic activity – $1 spent in manufacturing generates $1.35 in additional economic activity.
The manufacturing sector employed 11.8 million workers in 2011, or 9% of total employment, and supported additional non-manufacturing jobs up and down the supply chain as well as in financial services. …
But U.S. manufacturing has begun to rebound from the “great recession”. Since December 2009, manufacturers have increased their payrolls by almost 500,000 workers. In the first four months of 2012 alone, the U.S. manufacturing sector added 139,000 jobs.
http://manufacturing.gov/mfg_in_context.html
Reblogged this on Network Schools – Wayne Gersen and commented:
I know that Marc Tucker is persona non grata among some of Diane Ravitch’s readers and commenters, but in the early 1990s he wrote a prescient monograph titled: “America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages”. America made it’s choice: instead of investing in education it has passed legislation making it easier for corporations to offshore their jobs, to avoid paying overtime, to break unions who represent the workers, and to avoid paying the taxes required to fund a world class education. And in the Newspeak that passes for “reform” we are simultaneously engaging schools in a “Race to the Top” while we continue to abet the corporate Race To The Bottom in wages, benefits, and working conditions. We MIGHT still have the choice Tucker offered… but the window is closing fast.
They should tell young people the truth:
“Explore how state and federal support has declined as a share of overall revenue—putting a greater burden on students—at more than 600 four-year public colleges and universities since 1987.”
How can they have a forum on going to college where they tell young people only half the story? This is part of why students have to borrow so much. Surely we can tell them the truth about our priorities and our national decision to shift a big chunk of the burden of paying for college to students. We decided it was better to load them up with debt than collect and allocate tax revenue to public colleges.
http://chronicle.com/article/25-Years-of-Declining-State/144973/
Interesting info there.
I wish it included the changes in (1) price-per-credit-hour and (2) enrollment over that same period. One thing the bar charts don’t show you is the changes in overall revenue at these schools. If you click on a school and hover over each bar in the chart, you can see the overall revenue for each year. For the University of Illinois at Chicago, the first one I looked at, overall revenue doubled between 1987 and 2014, adjusting for inflation.
Also, at least as far as I saw from randomly looking at different schools, it doesn’t seem to be the case that the share of federal support declined over this time. It generally looks like federal support as increased, actually. It’s the share of state support that has fallen.
Does the university revenue breakdown show the huge growth in university endowments, how little of it, they spend on their mission, and the resources they devote to raising and managing the capital? It provides a nice chunk of change for the hedge fund managers. A few years ago, the IRS threatened to take away tax deductibility, for the billion dollar endowments.
Can we parse out the amount spent on the tech trappings (literally traps of recurring investment) and, the amount spent in the front office?
With 70%-75% day-laborer faculty, the money isn’t going to teaching.
Here’s another look at the reduction in state funding for higher ed. Two states have kept funding levels steady.
Wyoming and North Dakota 🙂
http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/state-funding-a-race-to-the-bottom.aspx
I know this makes all of us so mad, but it’s got to be come out at some point. No argument. David Sirota, Thomas Frank, and Robert Reich all agree: this is a huge problem.
Redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of wealth . . . . . . .
You get the idea . . . . . From the government and from the private sector.
Redistribution or revolution.
It’s a choice, not a fate.
Maybe what is called increased “inequality” is a form of equalization,
as in “all men are equal UNDER the law. UNDER the law, NOT above it.
see Powel Doctrine…
My understanding of the fall in income despite the rise in levels of school education is that our over exploitation of finite natural resources using cheap fossil fuels has reached its peak and is now slowing down. We’re all subject to these resource limitations, but those holding the strings are the last to suffer. As their profit margins shrink, the loss is passed down in layoffs, lower wages and benefits, etc. Meanwhile the rich deftly “diversify” into the business of providing “educational” products and services which they promise us will help us climb the socioeconomic ladder once more. ANd the most far-sighted among them also go into disaster relief and security solutions.
This is all very simple. The 1% know that one way to hold onto power is to reduce the number of college educated and high school educated students. History shows that most revolutions are started not by the poor but by the middle class. Even the leaders of the Russian Revolution of 1917 were from the middle class (Lenin, Trotsky et al). Therefore, this RTTT and CCLS is a set up to reduce the number of educated Americans who can think for themselves. Look at the new diploma requirements in New York. The emphasis on a career and technical diploma is a fraud. It is a diploma to make sure there will be subservient workers for McDonalds and Walmart. The purpose of Common Core is to reduce the number of high school graduates to about 30% and to have about half that number go to college. The cost of college is increasing exponentially while government aid goes down and loans get harder to get or cost a lot more.
As I have been saying. Forget about the Dems. We must do two things. We must talk to young people and tell them what is happening. This income decline is a good starting point. Next, we must convince others to join with us to form a new progressive party–one that will be a billionaire-free zone. Only billionaires that truly believe in income redistribution and that government’s purpose is to serve the public good need join. .
What is the connection between the reformers push for everyone to attend college and the money they are reaping from everyone attending college?
Beth, think of this. If everyone goes to college, then it is their own fault if they don’t find a job. Our vaunted “job creators” are creating them or eliminating them somewhere else.
I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and trying to get a straight answer from those who believe in “the new world order” (which isn’t so “new” anymore).
How are we, in the USA, supposed to “compete” for these jobs when there are people in other countries who are willing to work for far less, either because their economic structure allows for a comfortable lifestyle at that salary or they just have no choice other than to work in substandard conditions?
Why have our leaders allowed their constituents to be put into this position? I have a friend who’s told his daughter she should move to India. We have to relocate to another country in order to get a job?
It’s getting harder and harder to support self and family, due to these conditions. It’s not about a poorly trained work force. It’s about American corporations outsourcing jobs and shielding profits from taxation. And it’s about the politicians who not only allow this to occur, but have been and still are aiding and abetting the process.
“… do nothing to address the shrinkage of jobs …” I think this has it all upside down. NORMALLY demand drives supply. But with college education/graduation the frame of mind is that you have to do it all in “your early years” and then be done with it. So people do not first check out what the job market demands – they rather produce “for the shelf” then complain if the items on the shelves are slow sellers and eventually they have to opt for a “clearance” sale. That said, though, there must also be a deeper reason: imagine: would not ANY job that can do with a less qualified person accept a better qualified person? I mean why not have a medical doctor in a nurse’s place, an engineer as a mechanic, a chemist as a chef? If two chefs vied for the head position and one was a college grad the other not – who would make the race? Always the academic – IF, and that’s the point, he was still equally good at the “lowly” chores as well. So: that either means these graduates are less capable (!) in mundane fields – then why should they want excessive pay or they just refuse to adapt to the situation, take a cut initially, then make an even more spectacular rise …
IME, the traditional mode of thought has been that the college degree will open doors that otherwise wouldn’t be there for you without it. “Get that sheepskin”.
I have a friend who’s running a company that’s into computer game design. A college degree’s a prerequisite if you want serious consideration. Another friend of mine is all for liberal arts degrees. Her feeling is that she can train an intelligent person to do many of the jobs she’s hiring for, but she can’t train someone how to be able to converse effectively and intelligently with a broad array of people from different socio-economic levels. A liberal arts education will give you those skills as well as more honed skills in the chosen major.
I don’t think this is a question of being willing to start at the bottom and work up. It’s a question of being able to find a job with a future other than in the service sector (e.g., Walmart)
Reblogged this on National Mobilization For Equity.