Who wouldn't want to be able to predict the future? To be able to say with certainty that something will happen, then have it happen just that way would be great fun. There may be a little bit of that happening these days as seen by this latest news report published on eschoolnewsdata.com regarding the American job market according to a Harvard economist.
Of course Americans need jobs. My dog could have made that prediction. Of course higher education is required. Hasn't that always been the case? Who among us is operating the crystal ball that predicts which industries need more people and which ones don't?
In the mid-nineties when my husband graduated college with a BS in Mechanical Engineering, the prediction had been that he would not have a problem finding a job.
WRONG.
In the mid-nineties when teachers were graduating from college, there was supposed to be a teacher shortage. That would sound like a safe bet, right?
WRONG.
So when one sees a report indicating that Americans are not receiving the right education for the health of the economy, does anyone question the validity of the information? The report in question implies that in order for economic recovery to take place, there needs to be more education in the 'service' industries - skilled jobs in such fields as health care, information technology, and information analysis.
Also in the report is the prediction that recovery may not be seen until 2014 or later, and that most of the 8.4 million jobs lost to the recession may never reappear. Millions of lost jobs in real estate, for example, aren’t likely to be restored this decade, if ever. Again, my dog could have predicted that one.
(She is a VERY smart dog)
Pay for future service-sector jobs may vary from very high to very low. While at the same time, the number of middle-income service-sector jobs will shrink, according to government projections. Any job that can be automated or outsourced overseas is likely to continue to decline. My dog had that one too...of course companies are going to outsource if it is economically beneficial. They have been doing that for a long time now, right?
The statement proclaiming that our nation is not educating enough people for the higher skilled service jobs of the future, knowing how the prediction people have gotten it wrong in the past, should come with a grain of salt.
“There will be jobs,” says Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist. “The big question is what they are going to pay, and what kind of lives they will allow people to lead? This will be a big issue for how broad a middle class we are going to have.”
Does this guy really get paid for this?!? Does anyone else marvel at the thought of payment for this brilliant proclamation?!?
"On one point there’s broad agreement: Of 8 million-plus jobs lost to the recession—in fields like manufacturing, real estate, and financial services—many aren’t coming back. In their place will be jobs in health care, information technology, and statistical analysis. Some of the new positions will require complex skills or higher education, while others won't require extensive education, but won't be good paying jobs either"
These Harvard economists don't make mention of the future of 'green' jobs, and one could wonder why there is no mention of that industry when the future of any jobs market in the US is being discussed.
Are you wondering exactly what job would fall under 'information analysis'? You are not alone.
Could it be that you yourself could become a Harvard economist and make lofty predictions of your own using the new, handy dandy crystal ball? "What crystal ball" you ask? Why, the one that must come with that Harvard economics degree of course!
Should we not be telling our young people to go into a field where people are needed, and a field of study that would make their life worthwhile because it is something interesting to them?
If there was only the view that one must get a college degree that will make them wealthy financially, would there be teachers, social workers, or writers?
Who even knows what 'informational technology' is anyway?!? And for that matter, what analysis is being done and upon what kind of statistics?!? Inquiring minds would like to know...
Comments