Snobs and Jobs – Educating Elitism in America

March 20, 2012 Smarmoofus Economic, Education, Political

Last month, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum famously told a group of supporters in Troy, Michigan that President Obama is a snob for wanting everybody in America to go to college. His remark was met with applause and cheers in this Detroit suburb.  Perhaps the President is a snob.  After all, he did obtain a Bachelor of Arts in political science before eventually going on to graduate from Harvard Law School–with honors, even.

But by that measure, Rick Santorum must be a snob, too.  Back in 2006, he said in a rather unusual Senate campaign ad that he “teamed up with Joe Lieberman to make college more affordable for low-income families.”  And not only did he work to give low-income families access to higher education, Mr. Santorum went to college himself.  The GOP presidential candidate holds a Bachelor’s degree in political science (with honors) and a law degree (with honors), as well as a Master’s in Business Administration (MBA).

Not to leave any candidates out, Mitt Romney, too, has an undergraduate degree, a law degree, and MBA.  So it would seem that all three gentlemen see value in obtaining higher education, at least for themselves.  Snobs, the lot of them.

Access to affordable higher education is an important issue.  The candidates’ views on this issue are a matter of serious concern for several reasons.  First, the cost of college is going up at a much faster pace than the median household income. This means that obtaining a college degree is rapidly becoming an unattainable luxury only for the more affluent members of society.

Meanwhile, though the economic downturn hurt all job seekers, it has been especially hard for those who had a high school diploma or less.  In 2010, people holding a bachelor’s degree or higher enjoyed a lower unemployment rate and higher median income than the population as a whole.  Therefore, post-secondary education, which is quickly becoming a luxury, is also quickly becoming a necessity for earning a living wage.  For families struggling just to put food on the table and keep the utilities turned on, this is a frustrating quandary.

If current trends continue, only affluent families will be able to afford to send their children to college.  Sending their kids to college would secure their position in the higher income brackets for another generation.  At the same time, more and more middle- and lower-income families are going to be shut out of higher education, or saddled with overwhelming debt in their effort to obtain it.  The result is that too many unskilled workers will wind up competing for the too few jobs not requiring a college degree.  In a less technical society, this would not be not so problematic.  But that brings us to the final point.

It turns out that as access to affordable education has declined, the share of jobs requiring post-secondary education has increased from about half in the 1970s to more than three quarters currently.  And looking into the future, “economic trends show that more and more jobs are requiring post-secondary credentials.“  In fact, by 2018 the US labor force may not have enough college-educated workers to meet demand.

Thus, it is imperative that we find a solution to this problem of access to higher education soon, for the sake of the economy and for families trying to earn a living.  Divisive remarks like Mr. Santorum’s, which demonize higher education as elitism, cannot be that solution.  And, though he was referring to elementary and secondary public education, his belief that “the federal government should get out of the education business” is a bad indication of how he would treat the access-to-college issue.

 

What do you think?  If education is increasingly necessary for the emerging labor market as a whole, and if it is economically advantageous for the individuals who receive it, why might those in the public sphere encourage the view that education is synonymous with elitism?  How might we address this problem to avoid further widening income disparity?

4 comments , , , , ,

Bill Would Allow Employers to Fire Men Who Undergo Vasectomy

March 16, 2012 Smarmoofus Political, Social

The lower house of the Arizona General Assembly today voted in favor of a measure that would allow employers to inquire into the medical necessity of men undergoing vasectomy–a surgical procedure that effectively sterilizes the man.  If he could not show that the operation was required to treat or prevent an underlying medical condition, but was performed purely for contraceptive purposes, his employer would be permitted to deny coverage of the procedure.  The bill would also erase a law that bans religious-based employers from punishing or firing workers who get a vasectomy from a source other than through their employers’ health plans.

The law, which supporters say is meant to protect the religious beliefs of employers, is expected to pass the senate.  Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, has not stated a position on the bill, but there may be enough support in the legislature to override a veto.

This would be a sensational news story if it was true.*  And yet, this is analogous to what is actually being considered for women who choose to use oral contraceptive pills.

Under Arizona’s House Bill 2625, if a woman works for an employer who has stated a religious or moral objection to use of “the pill” for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes — even if the place of employment is non-religious in nature — she would first have to pay out-of-pocket for the prescription and then seek reimbursement.  In her reimbursement claim, she would be required to demonstrate a medical need for the pill, such as acne, endometriosis, or severe premenstrual syndrome (PMS) symptoms.  In short, she would have to divulge personal, and perhaps embarrassing, health information to her boss to get a basic prescription most American women have been enjoying for the past five decades.

Even more disturbing, buried near the bottom of Arizona’s HB 2625, section 5 is a section of strike-through text.  This bill would repeal Arizona Revised Statutes 20-2329 part E, which states “a religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.”  Repealing this law removes any prohibition on a religious employer from firing a women for obtaining birth control at all, funded by any source (including out-of-pocket).

Proponents of this legislation cite the First Amendment to the US Constitution, saying “the government shouldn’t be telling employers, Catholic organizations and mom and pop (businesses) to do something that’s against their moral beliefs.”  Critics say the bill allows employers to violate their worker’s privacy, and ask that the care of medicine be left to women and their doctors.  Notably, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, a major advocate for First Amendment rights, is reportedly in opposition to the bill.

The topic of reproductive rights and women’s health has been a major media focus of late.  From Rush Limbaugh’s verbal assault on Sandra Fluke to Mitt Romney’s pronouncement that he would get rid of Planned Parenthood to Rick Santorum saying that women who are impregnated during rape should “accept what God is giving to [her]“ … and more, it seems like everybody has an opinion on what women should be doing with their own bodies.  In fact, the Seattle Post Intelligencer put together a slideshow containing some of the many recent public statements on the subject here.

* Not only is it not true, but apparently men can get free pizza for having a vasectomy procedure during March Madness.  They got the “madness” part right.
 
 

What do you think?  Why this sudden public interest in women’s “health” and reproduction?  Should employers have a right to request their employees’ medical information or to deny coverage under employer health plans?  Should they be permitted to fire employees who use birth control?

4 comments , , , ,

Liberals More Likely to Block Disagreeable Friends

March 13, 2012 Smarmoofus Political, Social

A new study from the Pew Internet and American Life Project, reported here on PBS’s MediaShift blog, found that 18 percent of people who use social networking sites have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone because of that person’s disagreeable political postings.  Of those who admit to blocking, unfriending, or hiding someone for their political posts, approximately 70 percent did so to a “distant friend or acquaintance”.  But, significantly, nearly one-third of them did so to a “close personal friend”.

This is already remarkable.  But this graph reveals an even more striking find:

Graph: Have you ever blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on a SNS (by political spectrum)?

When they report the results of the survey by political ideation of the respondent, we see that liberals are much more likely to have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone who posted an opposing view.  While it is logical to expect the extremes (liberal and conservative respondents) to be more likely than moderates to have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone of opposing view, it is a curiosity that there is such a disparity between liberals and conservatives.

Researchers do not address this apparently significant finding, which opens the question up to our speculation.

What do you think?  Do these findings correlate with your own experience?  Why might liberals more often than conservatives block their friends who post opposing political views?

7 comments , , ,