There are multiple factors behind the "bipartisan" push on "education reform". But one of them is the long-standing liberal/conservative agreement that education is a pathway to prosperity. Of course, the meaning of this belief is historically quite different to liberals than it is to conservatives. For liberals, education is a way out of poverty for the disadvantaged, in combination with broader systemic and institutional reforms. For conservatives, it's a way of reinforcing the Horatio Alger myth--that individual success through virtue, hard work and diligence is the answer to poverty, rather than any sort of social reform, no matter how modest. For neo-liberals, who have come to accept--more or less--the conservative reframing of the politically possible, the logic of the conservative arguments prevail, along with minor tinkering that's an almost private homage to ideals abandoned in fact, but still given lip-service to.
Of course education remains a pathway to better living for most individuals. But what's better for the individual isn't simply additive for society as a whole. And this reality for society as a whole can trickle down to the individual level as well. Just ask any "overeducated" job seeker in any number of fields or situations over the past 20-30 years. What's more, things mount up. The end result is that incomes for the college educated have been relatively stagnant overall for some time now (individual fortunes may still vary considerably, of course.) I made this point in my diary "Higher Education, Lower Wages" in October 2009, which included the following graph, showing the relatively stagnant incomes of the college-educated, compared to those in the top 5% and 10% of income-"earners":
This is evidence of a relatively over-supply of educated workers. There's still a premium for a higher education, but that premium is not keeping up with the more general increase in income for higher-income individuals as a whole.
But another way to see the problem is to realize that most of the future job projected with our economy does not involve a demand for people with higher education. He's a chart I just created, presenting data from the ten fastest-growing job categories listed in the Economic News Release "Table 6. The 30 occupations with the largest employment growth, 2008-18", last updated December 11, 2009:
Aggregating these jobs by the level of training required, we see that over half of them require nothing more than short-term on-the-job training, 70% require no college, and 86% require nothing beyond a 2-year associate degree:
MINNEAPOLIS-Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is advising Republican candidates on November's ballots to frame the choice for voters between Democrats as "the party of food stamps" while selling the GOP as "the party of paychecks."
...
"Most Americans would like to get a paycheck," Gingrich said. "Most Americans would not like to be forced to have food stamps handed out by liberal Democrats."
But, as 'twas said back in Truman's day, "To live like a Republican, you need to vote like a Democrat":
The red line is actual job growth under Bush. The blue line is what job growth would have been, at the rate of job growth under Clinton. So, tens of millions more jobs under a Democratic president. But it's not just the number of jobs. It's also the little matter of income, as I pointed out last year in the following chart from "New Census Data--Same Old Bad Bush Economy--Only Moreso":
Those at the top got hurt most in dollar terms. So much for voting their self-interest. Tax cuts really aren't that great when your income is actually declining, as another chart from that same diary showed:
I started this during the week, and it now seems like ancient history... Except, of course, we all know how things just keep popping up again, like you was playing whack-a-mole....
Last Saturday, over at TPM, Josh called attention to yet another example of ABC being in the tank for McCain. First, he cited the fact that McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds called Obama "recklessly dishonest" for directly quoting McCain's own words. Then he noted that ABC News had picked up the Tucker Bounds claim and written a story around it. Now, compared to the mega-travesty of the presidential debate a few days earlier, this was certainly small beer. On the other hand, considering how much criticism ABC got for that sorry outing, you might think they'd want to keep their noses clean for a least a millisecond or so.
But noooooo!
In fact, as you'll see below the fold, the sequence followed this simple pattern:
(1) John "Straight Talk Express" McCain makes a contradictory set of statements, both acknowledging that Americans are hurting economically (which is true), and claiming that the country has made "great progress economically," under Bush (do you have to ask?)
(2) Media doesn't say diddley.
(3) Obama picks up on the absurd lie, and uses it to attack McCain as out of touch.
(4) McCain spokesperson attacks Obama as "recklessly dishonest."
(5) ABC News writes story, "Obama Twists McCain on Economy," with the lede:
Who says Barack Obama doesn't know how to "twist the knife"?
This sort of sequence is so incredibly commonplace that we barely even notice it sometimes. But it's worthwhile to stop and take a closer look at it, dissect it a bit, in order to better understand how ABC is helping John McCain.
STATE BLOGS
