CounterPunch | Why do we live in a society that thinks that it’s reasonable to ask
someone to shoulder an adult’s responsibility at home, support
themselves and perhaps other family members too, and go to school on top
of that? And then why do we call them failures when that doesn’t work?
Some students receive financial aid to cover their tuition, but that
doesn’t cover their other needs. It doesn’t keep them from working long
hours, sometimes on the night shift, in order to make ends meet at home.
This year, some students have an added challenge.
Some are undocumented immigrants, brought here as children through no
fault of their own. Obama allowed them to pay a fee in order to avoid
deportation and legally work in the U.S. temporarily. Trump ended that
program.
When students’ two year work permits run out, what will happen to
them? Some students have had relatives, parents even, get deported.
Students who try to educate themselves in these conditions are
heroes. We should make it easier, not harder, for them to devote
themselves full time to study.
And we certainly shouldn’t discuss them as if they are human garbage who should be deported.
alhambrapartners |Commentator Bill Kristol of the Weekly
Standard reignited a fierce debate this week, though it seems like he
correctly surmised at the time anonymity would have been preferable.
Speaking with author Charles Murray, Kristol echoed a sentiment that has
been underneath a lot of what passes for analysis these past few years
of the “rising dollar.” Being one prominent Never-Trumper, the most
prominent, in fact, there is a fair amount of disdain that is political
more than pure economic interpretation. It was the disillusionment,
after all, of the working classes who delivered Mr. Trump his current
Pennsylvania Avenue address.
If you google “job openings” chances
are very good that in almost every one of the news articles that comes
up the words “skills mismatch” are prominently placed. It has become
something of an obsession in official circles, to which Kristol is
apart, because how could it be any different? After massive infusions of
“stimulus”, the economy never caught fire even though it was supposed
to at several points along the way. The JOLTS survey of BLS configured
data has been at record highs for several years, surging in 2015 as the
economy fell off. Therefore it must be something wrong with workers
rather than the economy the “experts” worked tirelessly to bring about
with the best-designed programs in history.
Now after several more years of
economic hardship, the “experts” now consider it more so lazy Americans
whose communities deserve to die. To be fair, Fed officials have never
expressed it in these terms, nor would I expect that they ever would.
However, their analysis is in keeping with the basis for those
unfortunate sentiments. Everything was supposed to be normal by now, but
it isn’t. The Great “Recession” was supposed to have been a recession,
but it wasn’t. What failed? The experts…or you?
Even if there wasn’t self-interest on
the part of Fed officials to answer that question, as noted earlier
today monetary neutrality leaves even credible and intelligent Fed
members (like Tarullo, actually) to have to attribute the lack of
recovery to the same absurdity of Baby Boomer retirement and skills
mismatch that they rightly rejected in 2011 and after. They are
prevented from arriving at common sense because common sense was
renormalized out of the math, and thus out of official analysis that
gets parroted by the rest of the “experts” in deciding what they will
proclaim has been going on.
Populism isn’t a dismissal of the
necessary messiness of rising living standards, it realizes far more
that living standards aren’t doing anything like that, where one symptom
is the utter and obvious lack of opportunity. It has demonized
the globalization of so-called free trade because it is the rejection
of “experts” who have no idea what they are talking about. These are the
same experts who make sweeping generalizations based on sophistry
rather than data, the very deficiency they believe of us. As I wrote
last year, we are notthe barbarians.
We may not have advanced degrees, but we don’t need them to know
exactly who it was that has been incompetent. If the Great “Recession”
wasn’t a recession, and that is now the general consensus, admitted
publicly or not, it’s not my fault for being a little more than upset
about it, and directing that ire at those who for years said it was, and
more than that said first it wasn’t ever even possible.
ineteconomics | Upcoming labor market shortages will devastate Science and Engineering.
This was a mantra heard through much of the 1980s. And yet,
the predicted “seller’s market” for talent never materialized as
unemployment rates actually spiked for newly minted PhDs in technical
fields. In fact, most US economists seemed to think that the very idea
of labor market shortages hardly made sense in a market economy since
wages could simply rise to attract more entrants.
In the late nineties, in the course of research into immigration, I
became convinced that our US high skilled immigration policy simply did
not add up intellectually. As I studied the situation, it became
increasingly clear that the groups purporting to speak for US scientists
in Washington DC (e.g. NSF, NAS, AAU, GUIRR) actually viewed themselves
as advocates for employers in a labor dispute with working scientists
and were focused on undermining scientists’ economic bargaining power
through labor market intervention and manipulation.
Increasingly the research seemed to show that interventions by
government, universities and industry in the US labor market for
scientists, especially after the University system stopped growing
organically in the early 1970s were exceedingly problematic. By 1998, it
was becoming obvious that the real problems of high skilled immigration
were actually rather well understood by an entire class of policy
actors who were not forthcoming about the levers of policy they were
using to influence policy. The NSF/NAS/GUIRR complex appeared to be
feigning incompetence by issuing labor market studies that blatantly
ignored wages and market dynamics and instead focused on demographics
alone.
During the late 1990s I became convinced that in order to orchestrate
lower wages for scientists, there would have to have been a competent
economic study done to guide the curious policy choices that had
resulted in the flooded market for STEM PhDs. For this theory to be
correct, the private economic study would have had to have been done
studying both supply and demand so that the demand piece could later be
removed, resulting in the bizarre ‘supply only’ demographic studies
released to the public. Through a bit of economic detective work, I
began a painstaking search of the literature and discovered just such a
study immediately preceded the release of the foolish demography studies
that provided the public justification for the Immigration Act of 1990.
This needle was located in the haystack of documents the NSF was forced
to turn over when the House investigated the NSF for faking alarms
about a shortfall.
The title of this study was “The Pipeline For Scientific and
Technical Personnel: Past Lessons Applied to Future Changes of Interest
to Policy-Makers and Human Resource Specialists.” The study was undated
and carried no author’s name. Eventually I gathered my courage to call
up the National Science Foundation and demand to speak to the study’s
author. After some hemming and hawing, I was put through to a voice
belonging to a man I had never heard of named Myles Boylan. In our
conversation, it became clear that it was produced in 1986, as
predicted, immediately before the infamous and now disgraced demographic
shortfall studies.
The author turned out, again as predicted, not to be a demographer,
but a highly competent Ph.D. in economics who was fully aware of the
functioning of the wage mechanism. But, as the study makes clear, the
problem being solved was not a problem of talent but one of price:
scientific employers had become alarmed that they would have to pay
competitive market wages to US Ph.D.s with other options. The study’s
aim was not to locate talent but to weaken its ability to bargain with
employers by using foreign labor to undermine the ability to negotiate
for new Ph.D.s
That study was a key link in a chain of evidence leading to an
entirely different view of the real origins of the Immigration Act of
1990s and the H1-B visa classification. In this alternative account,
American industry and Big Science convinced official Washington to put
in place a series of policies that had little to do with any demographic
concerns. Their aims instead were to keep American scientific employers
from having to pay the full US market price of high skilled labor. They
hoped to keep the US research system staffed with employees classified
as “trainees,” “students,” and “post-docs” for the benefit of employers.
The result would be to render the US scientific workforce more docile
and pliable to authority and senior researchers by attempting to ensure
this labor market sector is always flooded largely by employer-friendly
visa holders who lack full rights to respond to wage signals in the US
labor market.
economist | Perhaps, though, China is less interested
in running the world than in ensuring that other powers cannot or dare
not attempt to thwart it. It aims to chip away at the dollar’s status as
a reserve currency (see article).
And it is working hard to place its diplomats in influential jobs in
multilateral bodies, so that they will be in a position to shape the
global rules, over human rights, say, or internet governance. One reason
Mr Trump’s broadside against the WHO is bad for America is that it makes China appear more worthy of such positions.
China’s
rulers combine vast ambitions with a caution born from the huge task
they have in governing a country of 1.4bn people. They do not need to
create a new rules-based international order from scratch. They might
prefer to keep pushing on the wobbly pillars of the order built by
America after the second world war, so that a rising China is not
constrained.
That is not a comforting
prospect. The best way to deal with the pandemic and its economic
consequences is globally. So, too, problems like organised crime and
climate change. The 1920s showed what happens when great powers turn
selfish and rush to take advantage of the troubles of others. The
covid-19 outbreak has so far sparked as much jostling for advantage as
far-sighted magnanimity. Mr Trump bears a lot of blame for that. For
China to reinforce such bleak visions of superpower behaviour would be
not a triumph but a tragedy.
yahoo | “California
is in so many ways a trendsetter, whether it is in pop culture or in
politics,” Holder told Yahoo News. “That’s why it was such an attractive
possibility for me to go to California and work with the legislators
there in crafting their response to the Trump administration — because I
think what California does gives courage to other states and other
public officials in other parts of the country who might be thinking
about principled opposition. It shows how that opposition can take
shape.”
So
far, the legal resistance has been largely improvised, with young
liberal lawyers spontaneously descending upon airports in the wake of
Trump’s Muslim travel ban and state attorneys general individually
butting heads with Jeff Sessions, their federal counterpart.
Holder wants to change that.
“You
look at this as kind of a continuum, where you oppose the policy as it
is proposed, you hope that it doesn’t become law, but then, to the
extent that it does, you use the courts to try to overturn it,” he
explained. “As the different states and different public officials start
to stand for the same things and take the same positions — as they
start to use the same tactics — the opposition becomes that much more
effective.”
“We’re
here with a very clear purpose: to underscore the undeniable truth that
preserving and enhancing trust, real and genuine trust between law
enforcement and the diverse communities they serve, is essential for the
safety and well-being of all residents of this great state — indeed,
this great nation,” Holder said at Monday’s event, alluding to the
argument that undocumented immigrants will stop reporting crimes to the
local cops if those same officers are also tasked with deporting them.
“California
is leading,” Holder concluded. “California is doing the right thing.
This is something that needs to be done nationwide.”
If Holder gets his way, he will spend the months and years ahead ensuring that’s exactly what happens.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...