The debate "The Federal Jobs Guarantee is economically illiterate and will harm the economy." was started by
August 22, 2018, 7:07 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
lachlan2 posted 4 arguments, MrShine posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 15 arguments to the disagreers part.
lachlan2, MrShine and 20 visitors agree.
Nemiroff and 6 visitors disagree.
I suppose I should clarify, there has not been an established need for more adjunct professors. Medical, sure, but I don't believe I am dancing around any point.
I am trying to figure out the metric you are using for adjuncts. My pre-conclusions conclude that there is a difference in the nature of their work, length out of the year, and actual need for full time instructors. What actually suggests more full time faculty are necessary? Are there more schools teaching less hours out of the year? A decline in attendance? A decline in acceptance? What metric can I use to conclude what you are suggesting as underpaid, a relative term you admit?
Tenure is slightly different than contract, but they do go side by side because tenure is a protection that keeps professors from being fired for differing opinions politically or otherwise... it proves they teach facts and can do research for the university. Can adjuncts say the same? Of course the pay would be different, especially when there is nothing forcing employers to take adjuncts for both semesters out of the year. I think failing to get renewed for a second semester can explain the pay disparity, and I would assume that universities hate high admission rates and consistent classes.
And I have provided that the private market has not been allowed to license new medical professionals. The AMA wanted to limit the amount https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/29/business/curbing-the-supply-of-physicians-who-said-we-have-too-many-doctors.html
If the market forces cannot intervene by regulation, what can be done? I know your interpretation has been that the AMA limited government funding, but I believe I have shown alternate enrollment has not been allowed.
"Not in training, necessarily, but it does take time to establish a contract."
I have no idea what you mean by contact. in education I'm guessing you mean tenure, but that was always a rare thing for senior staff I believe and didn't stop people from having non tenure full time jobs for decades. this doesn't explain the mass use of underpaid per class adjuncts. I'm not sure what point your making. it feels like your trying to dance around the situation to sustain an unworkable pre-conclusion. I am open to alternative hypothesis, but these just seem like wild guesses.
"Underpaid and understaffed? We have yet to address how the fields are understaffed, so unfortunately I can't provide a reason."
under paid is a relative term, although many would agree on teachers. however for medical staff, I've provided links showing shortages for doctors and nurses. I can provide evidence for many in the healthcare field, health aides for example I know are in demand... I have not heard of any shortages in banking or finance, yet the monetary rewards continue to funnel our brightest minds into these middleman fields. these medical shortages are not a new problem, where are the market forces?
Not in training, necessarily, but it does take time to establish a contract.
Underpaid and understaffed? We have yet to address how the fields are understaffed, so unfortunately I can't provide a reason. I could imagine it was implied when contracts weren't made at nearly the size of supply, but supply in itself doesn't make demand. Sure enough, it wasn't just the free market when certification is legally limited, but who am I to say, it's a broad statement.
An oversupply of half-year working employees will certainly drive down salaries when they can be replaced for reasons as little as "unlikeable". So far we have proven it is hard to be an adjunct professor, it is hardly a reflection of the economy
Supply and demand may be the foundation, but it is relevant because even high level calculations keep their principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. By breaking a foundation, a principle, even the tougher nuances become more difficult to manage. Money drives the market, and if people want to hire, they will hire if they can. Simple as that, it cannot be forced, so supply and demand is an overview of contracts that need to be stimulated.
Skill and value are not the same either. Skill in any field can be throttled to uselessness if there are 1. Too many available 2. Replacements or 3. Legal barriers.
I'm not sure how saying 3/4ths of a profession is in training is in anyway realistic. what kind of sudden disaster eliminated all of their practitioners? just because an analogy is logically possible doesnt mean it's talking about the same situation.
considering the situation, can you come up with any relevant explanation to why so many vital fields are underpaid while also being understaffed? was it really solely market forces that shaped the status quo?
the thing about supply and demand is that's economics 101. that means there are 3 more years of complexity to build on that freshman class, to add nuance and exception. and then when put that into the real world, it's still imperfect because how you need many years of psychology which itself isnt close to 100% reliable at reading human will and ingenuity. the notion that the market is "all natural" in any sense, is naive.
does the current valuation and compensation of labor seem logical to you? It is generally right in what it deems low wage, but arent the skilled jobs alittle wonky? and arent some jobs way sky high despite more valuable professions making nowhere near?
The example with the faux math was just to show how much smaller the number really should be. You gave 75% adjunct, I gave the fastest scenario to that number. I suppose that means the real life number isn't quite irregular.
Buck before bang in the private sector as a whole is the only way things move, but that isn't to say that is a bad thing. Bang comes from the individual investment, which cannot be stimulated by throwing buck out the window. Ideally, money will help actualize the results, and as it is displayed in college the professors With contracts, With Research, and With Tenure fulfil that request by the student population. Is there a need for (more) professors, or is it a need for (more pay)?
Not that I know which metric you use to measure professors, but your analysis of Adjunct professors and colleges as a whole was by professor pay when there is no contract. Which by your own admission takes time to form as a career, and training. The free market response does not suffer when it responds to too much of a supply, it simply opens up the demand elsewhere. It actually reminds me of a cheesy VHS tapes used to motivate workers to follow changes in demand "Who Moved My Cheese?"
This is to also ask, if the university wants money, does it snub contracts to save money? They don't! They make contracts to do research, the real moneymaker, it's intellectual property that stands when admissions change and government funding always has an interest in it. The only problem is that without research, they must be fired. I find Bang and Buck change in Tandem.
"I can concede to a shift in Adjunct professors being used more regularly ... but time spent as an adjunct before contracts start are expected. Suppose you are the first in a row of professors, and after 3 years you gain a contract. Schools want to know if you can teach, so you stick it out with the first batch and you are the first of many to receive a contract. The 3 rows each year behind you are still training, but at that point you represent 25% of the instructor population."
if you spend 3 years training, that doesn't meant you only spend 1 year fully qualified.... 3 years is a small fraction for a career, and an insanely long training period even for far more intense professions. It is clearly not the situation.
the situation is the private sector prioritizes buck before bang, which is great for amenities, but not necessities. education not being a necessity for a person, but it is a necessity for a society
The enrollment to rejection statistic does not distinguish financial need, but to say not one person would take out a private loan or that the percentage of wealthy students doesn't fluctuate does highlight a certain limitation. Even if it was about government training, for any given University private endeavors are accepted.
I can concede to a shift in Adjunct professors being used more regularly ... but time spent as an adjunct before contracts start are expected. Suppose you are the first in a row of professors, and after 3 years you gain a contract. Schools want to know if you can teach, so you stick it out with the first batch and you are the first of many to receive a contract. The 3 rows each year behind you are still training, but at that point you represent 25% of the instructor population. It is a minority, and after each year the number will certainly raise, but then at some point there is no need to hire more regular professors on contract. Instructors do not leave behind less professionals than their own numbers.
When class sizes fluctuate between 130 and 16 students, the demands for a regular professor for classes each semester regularly vary, but that is also another aside.
One of the major roles of contract professors is to do research, time spent not teaching. It is entirely possible to get courses already made or used, I am at a university and know those requests are made, but research must be 'new'. The qualifications of any adjunct professor can land them other jobs than contract, as I've pointed out with high schools, so the distinction isn't how many do and don't have a contract, but what the overall contract itself suggests about college.
All things considered, there is no lacking number of instructors, the on contract instructors are a decent measure of permanent laborers and should a professor be replaced, it would be adjunct more than likely. Adjuncts have career options, but it shouldn't be assumed that they must be contracted unless they are needed. Can't really force a raise in demand, but supply does make a surplus too. Is it so bad if there is a surplus of adjunct instructors?
would you really prefer if there was no centralized standard for doctors?
or any professional?
I think the entire jobs guarantee train of thought from the left is that these people have the idea that they have omnicient knowledge of productivity."
the jobs guarantee is a new idea that it's proponents openly say is a work in progress and one of many. I think it would be fair to let them flesh it out before sitting on it. I agree that the term guarantee (for all) is silly, but you dont even know how they will decide which jobs are needed. it may very well involve the market.
"The allocation of employment in the market is decided by the actions of each individual. Only the market can create prices and the structure of production for the reason that no individual is arbitrarily directing resources."
except for in the age of megagoliath corporations it is a few individuals making decisions while the demand side is disorganized and increasingly powerless.
"Except for tge authoritarian leftists that just "know" what is most productive for everyone else. We could have a free market were we gain through profit and loss competing to best suit consumer interests, but instead Nemiroff was just born with the supreme knowledge to predict the most efficient structure of production to save us stupid monkeys from acting on our own free will."
or instead of trolling the other side you could listen and see all the fact based evidence of vital positions being shorted and under paid regardless of demand or skill requirements. isnt it funny that the fields that handle money decide that their jobs are worth the most? middlemen are the most valuable? really? free market my butt.
it's not omniscience, its basic data reading.
also the article states that 75% of professors are adjuncts because market forces try to get the most bang for the least buck, so its shifting to adjuncts en mass.
so instead of just being about adjuncts, it's also about 75% of the entire field
unless I'm misreading
I believe the cap was on funding for doctors to be trained with public funds assistance.... not a cap on number of doctors over all
How is the article not what I think? There is a cap on how many doctors can be trained, not how high their qualifications are. If more people are applying, and more are turned away, it is entirely plausible that the cap can be passed. So why isn't it? Because it isn't about encouragement.
I do not advocate for blind Faith that everything works out, but I do take issue with being told that other avenues are not possible because only the government has the right to take a chance, or make a prediction. Instead of hoping for a thousand monkeys to have ^500 write Shakespeare, hope for two or three and build off of that. The entire market isn't the hero, it's the catalyst where the best and brightest can hone their craft, and betting on one monkey sounds pretty shortsighted.
And I see that the article isn't all professors, rather it leads with the Adjunct professors. It's kind of hard to have such a sweeping statement about the generally employed when adjuncts don't carry a long-standing relationship with universities because the question of "can you teach well?" is not met with the highest investments.
Move outside of the non-contractual end once it has been proven, and the number of wellfare recipients changes, the whole dynamic really. Because non-tenure, non contract professors can be fired in an instant, without cause, and it is really easy to dump resources that way. Adjunct do not handle the research responsibilities of other college instructors either, perhaps assistance could be provided, but realistically they do not head the research front.
And without a contract there is no guarantee for renewal, so they may teach one semester instead of two a year. That's a significant pay difference. So understandingly there is a career difference in the comparison. So much so, they could make more money teaching for a public school if they don't intend on becoming an instructor eventually, and yet if they did the pay changes.
I think the entire jobs guarantee train of thought from the left is that these people have the idea that they have omnicient knowledge of productivity. The allocation of employment in the market is decided by the actions of each individual. Only the market can create prices and the structure of production for the reason that no individual is arbitrarily directing resources.
Except for tge authoritarian leftists that just "know" what is most productive for everyone else. We could have a free market were we gain through profit and loss competing to best suit consumer interests, but instead Nemiroff was just born with the supreme knowledge to predict the most efficient structure of production to save us stupid monkeys from acting on our own free will.
You have to understand that government created "make work" projects are always less productive that before. During a recession labor and capital is unemployed because the structure of production must be reallocated (After the previous misallocation caused by artificially low interest rates). So means of production are waiting to be used for the most productive projects in the future under the free market. "Make work" programs just take labor away from the production that wpuld lead to sustainable employment (especially if the nake work program pays above the market wages).
So the jobs guarantee slows down the economy from reallocating capital in a recession and redirects labor to jobs that are less productive than the jobs they otherwise would have had.
so your saying you would prefer it if there was no common standards for doctor licensing?!?
once again, these measures are good things. if you want deregulation, the only place you'll find that is in 3rd world countries, and even there not by choice.
Just a preamble: If you think we have had a free marlek in medical care in the last 50 years you're an idiot, no offense. The state artoficially limits supply thrpught trade resteictions, legal monopolies of medicine, authoritarian license laws for doctors and much more. Then it furthermore artificially increases demand with medicare, medicade, and obamacare. And you are blaming a shortage on the free market private sector?
also, your very wrong about college professors:
also following free market forces, we have an impending aging boomer population. I'm a free market, first we get the need, then the market will need time to adjust reward. then we need to wait for them to train (7 years just for that) and by the time the market delivers, half the demand will be dead.
blind faith in the market is naive. unlike the dinosaurs, humans have the ability to forsee disasters and act preemptively. not surrender to forces supposedly beyond our control
I'm sorry but that article doesn't seem to say what you think.
the shortage continues and any progress was due to Medicare and aca public funding encouraging more doctors... so the private sector is a complete failure.
also I didn't mean just doctors. nurses, health aides, and everyone up and down the medical profession. we are also short on engineers. our private sector failure is pushing all of our best minds into middleman finance
Except the free market did not ignore the medical field shortage, and I agree that it needs to be addressed https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/train-more-doctors-residency/index.html?r=android-app%3A%2F%2Fcom.google.android.googlequicksearchbox
Suprise, Suprise, a federal program limited supply, just like AAA, except it's in an agreement. As for the teaching market, there is such a thing as common core, and being a teacher is very low reward.
Who decides a teacher's wage? Taxes help, and every time there is a vote teachers get a tax increase for them but never the actual raise.
But college instructors are not suffering. Neither are trade schools. Even with federal funding, a willing transaction between students and instructors lead to benefits for both parties. I think No Child Left Behind and Common Core both negatively impacted children, who have a mandatory requirement to be at school. Dissatisfaction on one end results in both sides eventually, and interference intended to (control and stimulate) (disrupted and disturbed) instead.
"If you throw money at anything, it will look better. Certainly the New Deal could guarantee that a person was working, and after the new deal perhaps they would have the experience and skills needed to land jobs similar to the requirements. The problem is that these programs must come to an end, eventually, if they are going to do good."
all things come to an end but the good it develops can last. you spoke of skills, but infrastructure can stimulate private sector growth that will perpetuate and exploratory programs can uncover unforeseen solutions.
furthermore, there will always be opportunities for more projects, or perhaps even education opportunities to address the teacher and medical field shortage the free market continues to ignore
I made a slight reference to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as a way that prices rose by destroying crops to force higher prices. Often cited as a success because it kept crop prices from being too low for farmers, it edged the responsibilities on to consumers to pay more. These were also people in need, and I firmly believe you cannot change demand by limiting supply. If you must, change demand by expanding supply.
Your source gave raw numbers. Let's put it into an example like the AAA. If crops cost more, farmers get more, like water bottle sellers after a hurricane incident. If more was gained, that alone is not success, and I think you'd agree with me on that.
Your source also acknowledged lower employment, while that was not my intention or pursuit allow me to supplement that perspective https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-fdrs-new-deal-harmed-millions-poor-people this source suggests it wasn't funded by the rich and their yachts or planes, but built on the poorer side of the economy.
Of course, the metrics appear to hold up when compared to other years, but the programs would not have higher crop prices or a continued plane-builder employed and naturally hold lower numbers. So these programs must exist to continue, and continue to exist, until it is no longer a stimulus plan but a contract. Without a need or market, how can the contract be feasible?
If you throw money at anything, it will look better. Certainly the New Deal could guarantee that a person was working, and after the new deal perhaps they would have the experience and skills needed to land jobs similar to the requirements. The problem is that these programs must come to an end, eventually, if they are going to do good. The tax system funding a new slew of jobs will further expand the potentially lost money in tax spending. (I know we have a disagreement on the degree, but if a full wage is paid by the percentage of that amount by taxes, added on by numbers, the Entropy of wasted funds only gets bigger) The pay doesn't stay unless the programs do, what happens when the need is gone on the market end?
If someone gets paid for scrapping metal, or cleaning up a nature preserve, it is a gain for the individual. But how many people should it take to finish their jobs? During or anticipating war, it is simple to mask weakness because you can run all hands on deck even if the persons available provide minimal returns. There is a "greater good" to justify diminishing potential, and no person is to blame.
But for a task, there is a creation of wealth, even if it is not monetary. A busser who cleans tables brings in wealth when the work environment is good, but restaurants seldom need 2 bussers. Another natural park or energy center when consumption or tourism does not meet these levels is excessive, and can sometimes even be considered lavish uses of resources.
So if there are jobs created, the goal cannot be a greater good or a lavish presentation, America does have many. The goal is a job that can be carried into the open market. And to predict the jobs market, there is a bit more to the trends comparison than a physical product. Physical sites can be maintained, but to what wealth?
about the new deal.
but just to clarify about the new job guarantee idea. a full guarantee is stupid, but every reference to it states clearly:
"it is just one idea being bounced around and it's a work in progress"
get rid of the unrealistic guarantee part and it becomes an idea worth considering. also the justification I saw was in relation to the trillion dollar tax cut saying not that this is a much better allocation of funds to working people *as opposed to* giving more funds to people buying their 7th yacht.
that actually sound far more literate and economically benefitial in comparison.
"The New Deal masked economic weakness and extended the great depression."
can you substantiate this?
"Instead I would factor 1. Predicting the market and 2. Universal income, because at the heart of any federal jobs guarantee it isn't just the job itself, just job security by a guaranteed paycheck. Any job created should be suited and valuable."
wouldnt it be beneficial to get work done for the money? and of course they should be needed work. wall street example aside. the new deal created physical public works like dams. that had guaranteed results, unlike predictive analysts.
I will suggest something I know will be unpopular.
The New Deal masked economic weakness and extended the great depression. I should address that it was more than temporary work projects, such as regulations that burned crops to control money while people starved, but that's not a work issue so I suggest we both refrain from the comparison.
Instead I would factor 1. Predicting the market and 2. Universal income, because at the heart of any federal jobs guarantee it isn't just the job itself, just job security by a guaranteed paycheck.
Any job created should be suited and valuable. In WWII making planes made sense, so if the government opened a job for a limited amount of workers, workers get skilled, government gets needed supplies, everyone wins... but what if the job is not needed, is wealth put into the economy, or just pumping up it's citizens for as long as it lasts? Wall Street is a group of professionals who get paid to predict trends yet they don't do very well, how should our government do better?
So I would say without the link to a successful demand, one that actually pays into the economy, it will either lead to exploitation of workers or economically unsound jobs. If the job is unsound, it doesn't matter because the worker is still paid. If the project wants to succeed it may even need to hold a stable amount of workers to justify funding, the "true demand" that the government, not economists, would view. When it comes to analyzing the project, a finicky market will not justify removing a project, but it certainly won't pay for it either.
what is your concern? is it the guarantee claim?
I have no idea what your talking about past data. I was assuming calculating future costs.
Is there magical math I'm not aware of that can use past data to predict the future?
Also considering that the arrangement of past statistics into math is 100% theory.
in economic theory... maybe
but your doing applied economics, which is 100% math
There is no math. Economics is not math.
sounds like a New Deal 2.0
what's your math?