Category Archives: Common Sense Policies

#383 Job Creation to Address Climate Change

25 Monday May 2020

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Common Sense Policies, Economics, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #378 began the series. At this point not sure how many entries.  Comments and suggestions welcome.

ENTRY #383 BEGINS: Is there a simple, understandable way to get virtually everyone in the United States to support actions to address climate change? Secure support from the left, right, center, techies, climate deniers, etc.?

My conclusion is, “yes.” The simple approach is to link climate action to job creation.

Post-CIVID-19, the US is likely to experience an unemployment rate of 10+% for at least five (5) years, if not longer. Many pre-COVID-19 jobs will be lost permanently.

How does the US re-energize the economy post COVID-19? Focus on creating jobs associated with technologies that will reduce carbon emissions. Not just jobs installing solar panels and putting up wind generators but a wide range of jobs.

There are numerous technologies that could be implemented to reduce carbon emissions. Why point fingers about who’s right and who’s wrong about the causes of climate change? If you think climate change is fake news, then you need to talk to people worldwide in coastal cities. If you think climate change is just part of the earth’s natural warming and cooling cycle, then take a hard look at the chart of temperature change just since 1950.  Now imagine that same amount of increase by the end of the century.

OK, even if you don’t believe the climate data, the US still has a major problem – and that long-term economic growth. Don’t believe the economy is going to return to pre-COVID days. Look in your history books and study what’s happened after every major economic disruption or war – things change dramatically. Post-COVID-19 will be no different.

So let’s begin thinking about how to create new products and new jobs that also reduce the impact of climate change. If you’re still in denial about climate change, then just focus on the job creation part.

Yes, science is sometimes difficult to understand. Science denial is also a major talking point with many politicians.

Job creation, however, is not hard to understand. Jobs generate income and help people to a better life. Job creation also appeals to both sides of the political aisle. Rather than blaming someone else, why not start asking, “Is there a way to stimulate the economy long-term and address climate change? Is there a way to ensure a better lifestyle for our children and grandchildren”?

In this discussion, seems that scientists might be better off to spend less time on CO2 PPM, mean temperature – for many people it is difficult to understand or appreciate what a couple of degrees Celsius means – loss of amphibians, greater intensity of hurricanes, etc. Important topics? Yes. But not a front-line topic when you’re out of a job, which many people are going to be for some time.

Making the message about actions to address climate change more positive and less about how people must be prepared to “sacrifice” is also not necessary. With the right technology, people won’t experience sacrifice.

What’s the sacrifice with a more efficient HVAC? An electric lawn mower? (I use a manual push mower and time to cut is about the same as the neighbor’s gas-powered mower.) An electric car? Attractive solar panels on the roof that look like shingles? More trees? And many other ways to reduce CO2 that are not “sacrifices” and can be configured as fun, new products.

Some groups are working on taking a more jobs-focused approach to help gain support for actions to address climate change. I’m part of such a group. Let me know if you’d like to learn more. Comments welcome, as always.

#380: Shopping Centers — Surplus to Stimulating (“We Gotta Get Out…” #3)

03 Sunday May 2020

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #378 began the series. At this point not sure how many entries.  Comments and suggestions welcome.

ENTRY #380: If one believes COVID-19 will trigger some changes in societal behavior, then what behavior might be disrupted permanently after the immediate threat has dissipated? Last week’s entry discussed how the general public likely will demand more affordable or government-provided healthcare coverage.

This week’s entry addresses how shopping patterns might continue to be affected and the implications of major changes. The “stay-at-home” mandates during early months of COVID-19 accelerated the use of on-line shopping.

While some brick-and-mortar stores were able to generate on-line business for delivery or store-side pickup, many shoppers shifted to such on-line stores as Amazon. The shift affected food shopping as well. Even though most grocery stores remained open, many people ordered on line with curbside delivery at the store or home delivery.

The big unknown is whether consumer shopping behavior has been altered permanently. If it has, how will such behavioral change affect attitudes toward participating in such other large-crowd activities as football games, concerts, restaurants, even religious services? If people are satisfied to watch sporting events at home on large-screen TVs, to shop on-line, to have food delivered, to live-stream religious services on the same large-screen TV, then what happens to the physical structures supporting large-crowd activities?

For the businesses/organizations associated with these activities, what happens to the value of the real estate or the value of the franchise, whether the organization is a chain restaurant, retail outlet, or religious institution? (Interesting, the value of a sports franchise may be less affected since much of the value is not based on the number of fans attending an event but the advertising revenue associated with the media broadcast of the event.)

If the value of the real estate falls, then what should be done with the property? Let’s start with the most obvious real estate – shopping centers. As suburbs were developed following WWII, shopping centers became the de facto downtown for the suburbs. Just as the value of real estate in many downtowns declined as shopping centers proliferated, the value of shopping centers has declined as on-line shopping has proliferated.

Without having any hard data, the United States likely has at least two times the number of shopping centers needed. Some of the surplus shopping centers are large-footprint centers with multi-anchor stores and some more neighborhood centers and/or strip malls. Most larger centers also have a number of big-box stores on the periphery, which are also not needed.

What should be done with these surplus shopping centers and big-box stores? Converting the real estate to office space has been an option. However, following the coronavirus the US may end up with too many office buildings as well. As people were forced to work from home, and the implementation of technology was accelerated, many companies began to rethink requirements for (i) office space; (ii) employees on staff. The result of this rethinking is likely to be fewer office buildings and smaller staffs. (For more information about the impact on employment of the implementing more technology, download Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement).

If office space is not needed, then what could be done with these shopping centers? Why not address a national need and convert the shopping center to affordable housing? The coronavirus pointed out the irony that many workers deemed “essential” were also lower-paid workers. Converting shopping centers to affordable housing for these workers also would allow them to live closer to public transportation, which usually is available in larger shopping centers.

The shopping centers could be reconfigured to become true neighborhoods. Many shopping centers have large areas devoted to parking that could be converted to playgrounds, small parks, even neighborhood sports fields. Many centers are ringed with restaurants, dry cleaners, drugstores, etc., which could stay in place following redevelopment. With some creative planning, neighborhood schools could be built as part of the conversion. (School nicknames could incorporate the name of the former shopping center – the Carolinaplace Cougars or the SouthPark Sentinels. Just kidding.)

As a centerpiece of the neighborhood, the schools could be designed with classrooms for the traditional “3 R’s” education, as well as classrooms for introduction to sciences and the arts.

Neighborhood schools would reduce the need for and the inconvenience and cost of busing. Neighborhood schools would encourage children to participate in after-hours extra-curricular activities as well as be available, if needed, for remedial classes. Such here-and-now remedial classes would help students keep pace.

The proximity of the school near students’ homes would reduce the need for parents to spend money on expensive babysitting. Building design could include rooms adaptable for adult education and/or neighborhood meetings.

To help address the problem of limited access to healthcare faced by many lower-paid workers, the redeveloped shopping center could include a neighborhood clinic with office hours tied to non-working hours of neighborhood families. Clinics would serve basic needs, including physicals for children and adults and would be linked electronically to larger medical facilities. Such “preventive medicine” would reduce visits to ER.

Next week. More on post-coronavirus impact on societal behavior, including how religious institutions might be affected. Could some churches, synagogues and mosques suffer the same fate as many big-box stores?

#379: Healthcare Quagmire: We Gotta Get Out of This Place (Part 2)

25 Saturday Apr 2020

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Benefits of Revolution, Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #379 is the second entry and addresses healthcare cost. At this point not sure how many entries.  Like #378 this entry is a bit long.

ENTRY #379:  At the end of part 1 of this series (#378), I indicated suggestions to help address inequities in society would be forthcoming. Let’s start with what appears to be the closest to a practical solution, affordable health care for everyone.

The chart indicates the increase in medical care cost in the US as a percent of GDP. Since 1960, medical costs have increased from about 5% of GDP to more than 18% in 2018. These percentages include “discounts” offered to insurance companies and Medicare.

The impact of medical costs on a family vary widely. For families with health insurance partly or fully funded by an employer, the costs are relatively low. Yet, even with subsidies from employers, for most every family medical costs have increased faster than family income.

Until the Affordable Care Act passed under the Obama administration, families which did not have subsidized insurance, faced premiums that could be breathtakingly high, especially for those over age 50. In addition, many who had any one of a range of “pre-existing” condition often were unable to secure any coverage for the pre-existing condition.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, made considerable progress in filling the “unaffordable insurance hole” in the societal safety net and for getting coverage for pre-existing conditions. While Obamacare included some coverage gaps, in part to ensure passage in Congress, the AFA did significantly reduce the number of people without medical insurance.

For example, immediately prior to AFA coverage taking effect, about 18% of the US population was uninsured. That percentage continued to drop through 2016:Q4. Immediately upon taking office in 2017:Q1, the Trump administration repealed many features of the AFA.

The Trump administration has continued to eliminate features, including many insurance exchanges, through which uninsured people could at least buy some coverage. The result of Trump’s policies has been a sharp uptick in the number of uninsured. While the chart stops at 2018, the latest projection for 2020 is 45-50 million people in the US will be uninsured.

Opposition to broader insurance coverage seems to focus on two issues: (i) potential elimination of the option to buy additional private insurance; (ii) additional taxpayer cost with expanded coverage for everyone. Both issues are solvable, if opponents will listen.

A Medicare-for-All (MFA) type coverage does not preclude availability of private insurance that would offer an additional level of service or benefits. In some metro areas, selected medical practices offer what is promoted as “concierge service,” ensuring quick access to physicians and more private facilities for many procedures.

While the initial cost for a MFA program could be somewhat higher as people formerly uninsured begin to address issues, longer term the cost could be less. Much of the cost savings could be from eliminating “unproductive” costs. While estimates vary because of different assumptions, overhead costs for Medicare appear to be about 50% less than overhead costs for private insurance. (NYT article)

Currently hospital costs and therefore healthcare insurance premiums include some amount for emergency room visits by the uninsured and those without financial resources. ER visits are far more expensive than office calls. In addition, people who have no insurance often wait until an illness or situation becomes extreme before visiting ER, thereby increasing the cost of treatment.

Opponents to Medicare-for-All should think about medical cost in the same way they think about maintenance on their personal vehicle. Routine maintenance, such as changing oil regularly, is much less expensive than doing no maintenance and eventually replacing the engine. In many ways, the human body operates much your car’s engine; preventive maintenance is much less expensive.

Getting Congress to agree to some form of Medicare-for-All should be much easier following the United States’ experience with the coronavirus. There has not been an event in most everyone’s lifetime that has demonstrated the importance of medical care for all citizens. Recent estimates indicate those without insurance infected with COVID-19 will face medical bills of $50,000-$75,000. Even those with insurance could face medical bills of $25,000 or more.

For those who still think the US cannot afford such coverage, the chart lists healthcare costs per capita by country. Note the cost per capita for highly developed countries. The cost in the US is 75% HIGHER than Germany, the next most expensive country. OK, if you’re still concerned these countries don’t offer the same level of care as the US, then buy the additional-cost option.

Addressing the Naysayers. Any effort to implement a Medicare-for-All type system will be met with vigorous opposition from the right. Following are some likely questions as well as suggested answers. I recognize no answer, however logical and supported by facts, will satisfy the hard right. But given how so many people have been affected by COVID-19 so far, and how many are likely to be affected in the coming months, the voice of the naysayers may be heard less and less, especially when facts are presented to support a Medicare-for-All type system.

Comment #1: The US has the best healthcare system in the world. Don’t mess with it! Leave it alone.

Response #1: Let’s look at the expected lifespan in the US compared to other countries. The US ranks 47th behind such countries as Sweden, Germany, China, Taiwan, France, Korea, Canada, UK, Costa Rica, French Guiana and a host of other countries and ranks just one ahead of Cuba. If the US has such a great healthcare system, why does it rank 47th?

Comment #2: Those countries don’t have as many immigrants as the US. Those immigrants are what’s causing the problem here.

Response #2: Take a look at life expectancy among whites, blacks and Hispanics. Whites have the longest life expectancy but the others are not bringing the US total down by much. You also realize that life expectancy in the US declined under the Trump administration, don’t you? The decline was the first since WWII.

Comment #3: Why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare? There are lots of slackards out there who don’t pay income taxes. Paying for their medical care is not fair to me.

Response #3: First, anyone who has worked, whether or not they pay income tax, contributes to funding Medicare. In addition, the vast majority of Medicare recipients paid while working and continue to pay a monthly premium in retirement.

Comment #4: Medicare-for-All will create another inefficient government bureaucracy. The private sector is always more efficient. Why waste my hard-earned dollars?

Response #4: The bureaucracy supporting Medicare already exists. Plus, overhead for Medicare is substantially less than for private insurance. While there are different estimates for overhead, there is almost universal agreement that overhead costs for Medicare are substantially less than for private insurance. Most estimates are savings for Medicare of 50% or more. Medicare is more efficient at administering care than private companies. Why should people have to pay 2x the administrative costs for private insurance as they do for Medicare?

Comment #5: How are the doctors going to make any money? Medicare screws them on pricing.

Response #5: One adjustment with Medicare-for-All might be to weight payment to doctors more toward prevention rather than procedures. The change should also generate cost savings. In addition, if necessary, fees to doctors could be increased. The area needs further analysis.

SUMMARY: Some form of “Medicare-for-All” with an option for additional-cost coverage seems an ideal solution to help us address “we gotta get out of this (healthcare quagmire)  place.”  Obviously there are some issues to be worked out in order to implement a Medicare-for-All type program. However, most of the issues have been solved with existing Medicare programs and the Affordable Care Act prior to the Trump administration cuts.

Enough discussion for now about a practical solution to addressing healthcare costs. Likely more later.

 

#369 Climate Change. Who’s Right about the Cause? Doesn’t Matter.

02 Sunday Feb 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

ENTRY #369 BEGINS.  Recently, a longtime colleague sent an article from a local paper about a series of speeches he’s been giving focused on electric transportation and climate change. The article noted his position about the increase in the earth’s average temperature was due to natural causes, and not due to actions by humans, such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation.

In the speeches, he argued because the change in temperature was due to natural causes, society should continue to burn coal, gasoline, natural gas, etc. He stated the CO2 generated from the burning would not be harmful to the environment and, in fact, could be could be helpful – e.g., more CO2 could increase agricultural production.

While I agree that the average temperature of the earth and CO2 ppm have varied over time due to natural causes, the changes have occurred very, very slowly, often taking hundreds if not thousands or even tens of thousands of years. In addition, in periods with very high concentration of CO2, all evidence suggests that humans didn’t exist.

I’m a big supporter of science-based decisions. However, the science doesn’t matter about the cause of climate change. What matters is how to mitigate the potential damage associated with the rapid increase in the earth’s temperature.

You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that if the earth’s average temperature continues to rise more polar ice will melt. Actually, a 3rd grader can understand the problem. What happens when all the ice melts? Oceans will rise. (Much of the ice is on land.)

Let’s say the ocean level increases 12-18” inches over the next 50-100 years, which is not an unreasonable estimate. Well, that amount of increase in ocean levels would be goodbye to much of Florida as well as goodbye to many coastal cities in the US and around the world.

In addition to the rising seas and the millions of people displaced, we are likely to see oceans as a less productive food source. There would also be a major disruption to agricultural production since many crops would not grow in the current location. The transition in agriculture could result in major shortages of food for years, possibly decades.

Regardless of the cause of climate change, the risk of doing nothing could be catastrophic. So let’s not get our panties in a wad about who’s right or wrong.  Instead, let’s figure out what it takes to mitigate the effects of higher temperatures and capitalize on any opportunities.

An obvious action that can start now is to accelerate the elimination of fossil fuels. And why not? Why not add solar panels to roofs? Add solar panels even in areas where the sun shines say only 50% of the days per year. While the electricity generated in the 50% areas won’t match electricity generated in Arizona, the cumulative effect of all houses in the 50%-sunny area would be an enormous amount of electricity over time.

Why not reduce the number of animals raised for meat? Cows are great for hamburger but they’re also a methane machine. Increased use of plant-based “meats” would have a positive impact.

My colleague was trained as a nuclear engineer. Despite his belief the increase in earth’s temperature is the result of natural causes, he is an advocate of migrating from using fossil fuels to nuclear power to generate electricity.

I’ll not argue the burn-fossil-fuel-and-switch-to-nuclear logic and agree with using more nuclear fuel as long as the industry chooses the least damaging and easiest to manage nuclear fuel. Based on very limited research I think that thorium would be a better choice than uranium, although I’m not a hundred percent sure.

Many other changes can be made to reduce CO2 emissions. As many of us are experiencing in the auto industry’s migration to electric-powered vehicles, the change can be challenging but also exciting fun. The changes are very likely to spawn a plethora of new technologies and create many new jobs.

The first step in this journey, however, is to have both sides quit pointing fingers about who’s right and who’s wrong. Folks, it does not matter. The consequences of continuing to do nothing are bad and worse. Consequences are the issue. Forget about who’s correct about the cause.

And, oh, what if the average temperature starts to fall in the future because of natural causes? Mmm, what has been lost by all the efforts to reduce CO2 ppm?? Absolutely nothing, nada, zero. In fact, the earth will be have cleaner air, more productive citizens and some new jobs. Not a bad thing to have happen.

So, to all the so-called “climate-change deniers” and to all the so-called “climate-change extremists”, let’s shake hands, go grab a coffee and start working on solutions, together. Something productive might get accomplished.

#367 Prescription? Conscription for All. Steps to Implementation. (Part 2)

19 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

If you want to a diversion, there are easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

ENTRY #367 BEGINS.  Blog entry #366 proposed reinstituting conscription and expanding it to include women.  Doing so makes sense only if those “conscripted” can be productive and the output benefit many US citizens.

If implemented, the goals of conscription would be:

  1. Improve understanding with a broader swath of the population how to:
    • Work in teams
    • Work with people who have different skills
    • Work with people from different socio-economic backgrounds
  2. Provide reasonably skilled labor for major government projects, such as rebuilding infrastructure. Think of the 1930s and how the WPA was used for building roads, dams, and other infrastructure throughout the United States.
  3. Create a sense of having served, and being proud of having served the country. Less than 1% of citizens currently serve in the military. In addition, of those who volunteer for the military, most are from families whose members have also served. The current military is supported by a very narrow segment of the population. The current enlistment model is likely unsustainable over time.
  4. Create skills that allow those discharged to find meaningful employment in the private or public sectors.

Key components of a broad-based conscription program would include:

  1. Everyone subjected to conscription at age 18.
  2. Minimal exemptions from serving.
  3. Being able to serve other than in the military. Individuals would have the option to select the military or other agency. If after joining the military, the individual could not meet the physical requirements, the individual would then transfer to a non-military assignment.
  4. Assignments would be throughout the United States, not just near the individual’s hometown.
  5. Assignments outside the US would be available for certain categories.
  6. Basic training would be required for everyone, even those not serving in the military. For anyone who has served in the military, basic training is a memorable experience. For those who have never lived away from home, basic training is an opportunity to begin to understand how the world operates.  The non-military basic training would not be as intense as the military but would have many of the same components: (i) being trained with people of disparate backgrounds; (ii) living in “barracks” for a certain period, including some KP. Total basic training for non-military would be maybe 8 weeks. Advanced training would vary by general assignment but likely not exceed 8 weeks. Depending on assignment, likely additional OJT.
  7. Meaningful tasks. During the time in service, members should be taught a skill that can be used in a meaningful job as well as a skill that can be transferred to the private or public sector once discharged.
  8. Uniform for all serving. While the uniform for non-military assignments would be different from the various military uniforms, requiring a uniform during working hours would help to: (i) designate who is serving their country; (ii) reinforce to the participant that he or she is a member of a team.

US Departments/Agencies where trainees could work include:

  1. Defense – optional. However, if DOD does not meet its recruiting quotas by branch, then some trainees could be assigned to help meet quotas.
  2. Interior.  Participants would work in national parks, for example.
  3. EPA.  Monitor pollution in and sources of pollution in lakes, rivers, air.
  4. Education. Could work at federal facilities – Native American schools, e.g., state facilities – academic institution, or local – neighborhood school. Dep’t of Education would be overall coordinator and manage selection of location.

Time Required to Serve. Two (2) years active service plus four (4) years reserve duty. Reserve would allow government to recall key individuals in critical situations.

Reenlistment. Participant could re-up for an additional two years, including seeking a higher-level position.

Years of Credited Service. Number of years would transfer with the individual if he or she transitioned to a government job, whether federal, state or local level.

Options of When to Serve. All individuals would be expected to begin service not later than age 23. Participant could join immediately after high school, at age 18 to 19. Program would include option to defer service until after college, with a maximum deferral of five years.

Exclusions from Serving. Minimal reasons for not serving.  Bone spurs would not qualify for exclusion. Few would be categorized as “4F.” Even those with physical handicaps would be expected to serve, unless the level of physical handicap was deemed extreme. Every effort, for example, would be made to include people using wheelchairs. For those who are handicapped there might be different level of training and jobs might be somewhat different. Nonetheless, every effort would be made to include them in the “corps.”

Autism Spectrum. To the extent possible all but the most extreme on the autism spectrum would be expected to serve in some capacity. Like those with physical disabilities, training routine and the type of job might be different.

While some might argue against including people with special needs, the service requirement would: (i) help train the individual with some transferable job skills; (ii) help reduce the stigma often associated with some type of perceived disability; (iii) help reduce the long-term cost of care since many will be employed following service and become taxpayers.

Non-Citizens in the US. Would be eligible to serve. Serving would be a path to US citizenship.

While the devil is in the details for large-scale projects, much of the framework to implement a conscription program is already in place. The US military has systems and procedures that could be modified. In addition, a “conscription-for-all” program could be implemented in phases, allowing inevitable kinks to be worked out before the program is expanded to everyone turning age 18.

An argument can be made that with such a low unemployment rate, a “conscription-for-all” program would make finding employees more difficult.  Well, if you look behind the numbers of the unemployment rate, its not as rosy as what the White House promotes.  Many counted as “employed” are in fact workers with low-paying, part-time jobs.

In addition, the economy is not going to grow forever.  There will be another recession, possibly depression. While the likelihood of a depression is the topic for another blog entry, there is ample historical evidence that supports a sharp economic downturn following a period of rapid concentration of wealth and “bubbles” in the financial markets.  Both conditions exist today.

Another reason to support “conscription for all” is to help mitigate the impact of the coming “technology tsunami.”  The tech tsunami will cause a major disruption to the workforce.  For more about the technology tsunami and the likely impact, download Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement.

Now, how to get the House and Senate to pass a bill to expand conscription.

#366 — Prescription? Conscription for All. (Part 1)

12 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

If you want to a diversion, there are easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

Start of Entry #366.  With the new year, I decided to try, emphasis on try, and get back to outlining practical solutions to complex societal problems. Ideally all of the topics in the coming blog entries will be related to factors that could contribute to the 5th US Revolution, the Revenge Revolution.

Some topics will be more obviously linked to the projected revolution; some less so. Doubtless, there will be entries that are more a reaction to some recent event inside the Beltway, or some inane comment or action by Trump. However, one of my resolutions for 2020 is to keep “reactionary” entries to a minimum, or at least put the entries in a broader context.

A societal issue that seems to generate little discussion but one that has long-term implications for a stable US democracy is how to staff the military. In a previous entry (#293), I recommended conscription be reinstituted in the US. I also recommended that satisfying requirements of conscription could be expanded beyond service in the military. One could satisfy requirements by serving in any number of government agencies – Federal, state, local – as well as serving in certain jobs outside the US – embassies, e.g.

The general benefits of conscription include: (i) exposing “draftees” to jobs, people and activities they would likely never experience otherwise; (ii) providing an excellent way to train people for work in the private sector. Many of the jobs skills learned while serving, especially non-military assignments, would have direct applicability in the private sector; (iii) helping people understand how to build a highly functioning team from a group of individuals with disparate backgrounds. Such an understanding should help reduce the polarization that continues to worsen in this country; (iv) maybe the most important, allowing people to state rightfully and proudly they served their country.  Under the proposed conscription system, let’s change the term “draftee” to “patriot.”

Conscription would help overcome what is a growing problem for the military – a very narrow segment of the population volunteers to serve. According to an article in the New York Times (20 01 11 NYT Makeup of Military Recruits), less than 1% of the US population serves in the military. Further, nearly 80% of the current recruits come from families where someone has served, and 30% of the recruits come from families where one or both parents have served in the military.

The current volunteer system limits the personality profiles of people in the military. While some might find this comforting, my experience has been limiting personality types in a group can result in distorted thinking and/or distorted behavior. Expanding the type/personality profiles of individuals serving in the military can have a moderating influence on “group think” behavior. Such moderation seems especially important for members participating in units subjected to extreme training and precarious assignments – special forces and Navy SEALs e.g. Members of these units may find having a moderating force in the ranks would help mitigate the difficulty in transitioning to civilian life.

Admittedly, the number of former special forces personnel I’ve worked with in say the last ten years is limited. However the actions of each suggest a problem in the transition to civilian life. Of the four (4) in various special-forces units, one was a convicted felon, two were extortionists, and one was a seemingly “normal” individual but who also maintained a significant cache of weapons, including several .50 caliber rifles. Folks, .50 caliber rifles are not for hunting. They’re for armed warfare.

The military seems to be trying to address the most egregious misbehavior of personnel in special forces. Recent examples include the Navy’s conviction of Edward Gallagher, a high-ranking NCO SEAL, and the Army’s refusal to restore a Special Forces tab for Major Mathew Golsteyn, who had been accused of killing an unarmed Afghan suspected of bomb making.

Unfortunately, the efforts by the military have been thwarted by Trump. Trump, who has zero military experience and apparently no appreciation of the need for discipline within the system, pardoned both men and hailed them as true “warriors,” thereby undermining the military justice system.

Whereas reinstituting conscription won’t necessarily stop egregious, even criminal behavior by those in special forces, it will increase the appreciation among a wide swath of citizens, including those inside the Beltway, of what is required to operate a military that can be model of integrity for other countries worldwide. A credible, well-disciplined military with proper, separate oversight is also critical to a functioning democracy.

For “patriots” who serve in government organizations other than the military, the organizations will benefit by being exposed to a workforce with fresh ideas and skills that should be especially useful as more technology is integrated into these organizations. The “patriots,” in many respects, will be like interns in the private sector. Having “patriots” as workers allows managers of the government organization an opportunity to evaluate performance and then potentially recruit the higher performing individuals for employment following discharge.

Reinstituting conscription needs to be fair and equitable. Some ideas in the next entry.

 

#331 Solution to Diversity? Economics, Not Gov’t Intervention.

14 Sunday Apr 2019

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author.  Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution.  Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.”  One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog.  Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.” 

Entry #319 begins a series describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), and how the US should prepare.  Last week’s Entry #330, outlined reasons why diversity will be important to prepare for…and then capitalize on…the coming technology tsunami. The entry also noted that some conventional ways of creating diversity — school busing, for example — are fraught with problems and have significant potential downsides.

Diversity seems best accomplished on its own. Our neighbors, within a stone’s throw or two, include families from at least four countries. Within this group, there are at least five religions. All that in a suburban environment.

How did such diversity occur? With government intervention? With housing subsidies? “No” to both questions. The diversity evolved from economics…and attitude.

Granted our neighborhood is a bit more affluent than most but affluence may result in less, rather than more diversity. In Entry #330, I described observations from a 5-day visit to a well-known retirement community in Florida. When leaving the community, my wife and I both remarked we had seen no blacks, no Hispanics — yes, this was Florida — one Asian, and no one from the Middle East. We also both commented while we had a lovely time visiting our friends, we wouldn’t want to live there.

So what strategy can help stimulate diversity? Throughout the technology tsunami series I’ve stressed education as a key. Education opens the mind to new ideas, both academic and societal. And for the vast majority of people, education also provides a chance to improve economic status.

Education for this discussion consists of four major stages, or chunks:

  1. Primary education — i.e., “readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic” — and some social skills
  2. Secondary education — middle school and high school
  3. University or Advanced Technical Training
  4. Continuing education – following initial employment and continuing throughout one’s career

For primary and secondary education, the public has consistently supported taxpayer funding. While some changes to the primary and secondary curriculum might be required for the technology tsunami, the key to preparing for the coming technology tsunami seems to lie in Stage 3 — College, Advanced Technical Training — and Stage 4 — on-going training once in the workforce.

Currently, only a small percentage of the population can afford securing a college degree or advanced technical training certificate without financial assistance. Even with scholarships or reduced tuition, many students need loans. Terms of these loans are often onerous, saddling graduates with years of debt, which in turn reduce their opportunity to save for buying a house and/or to start saving for their children’s education. (For more about the problems with people paying off loans, or thinking they have paid off loans, see 19 04 13 Student Loan Repayment Issues and Problems)

Maybe the solution to the how-to-finance-advanced-education conundrum is easier than we think. Why not take the same approach to financing education that seems to work well for medical coverage in all industrialized countries…other than the US (so far). Allow students to attend a home-state university at little or no charge for a specified period — say five (5) years. Extend the no-charge time period if a student works.

Like universal health care, offer a “private,” additional-cost option. Under this option, students could attend an out-of-state university or private college/university. Tuition and other costs would be set by the institution. The private institution could still offer financial aid to students.

Technical trade schools could have the same option. Attend state-run technical schools at no charge with the option to attend private-technical or trade schools.

Technical/trade schools would need to meet one hurdle not currently required — accreditation.  Accreditation would sharply reduce considerable fraud among private technical/trade schools — Trump University being but one example. The accreditation process would be similar to that used for academic institutions.

And please don’t view subjecting the trade/technical schools to accreditation as government overreach. Educational institutions need some form of regulation. A market-based system will not work because, by the time the student understands the school is not providing adequate education, the student has wasted several years and is saddled with significant debt.

What about people who do not want additional education or who are not mentally capable? We’re not living in Lake Woebegone where all students are above-average.

A portion of the student population will not pursue additional education and a percentage of those will not even graduate from high school. While some low-skill jobs likely will continue to exist, people in those jobs should earn a minimum wage that allows them to live above the poverty line.

Policies to address this lower-education group are separate from policies to prepare the US society for the coming technology tsunami. The goal of the “tsunami series” is to outline approaches that will increase significantly the percentage of the population that is skilled adequately to thrive in a technology-based economy.

What about the education outlined in Stage 4? Ongoing education seems to be in a black hole where: (i) there is no existing infrastructure supporting such education…and none planned; (ii) no one in state or Federal government seems to be responsible for on-going Abbott Costelloeducation; (iii) there is no coordinated effort by private industry and/or trade groups. Policies for on-going education seem to have evolved from the Abbott and Costello routine of “Who’s on First?” Just who’s in charge of continuing education?

Logically you’d think private companies would want to maintain an educated workforce. But because of lack of restrictions…or penalties…re relocation, many US companies operate as if they have no responsibility to spend money to provide continuing education to their workforce. When the workforce skills become dated, a company, with little or no penalty, can close shop and move to another location. The new location will be selected based on which state or city is offering the most incentives, including training the new workforce.

Taxpayers at both ends – the location where the company left and the new location – get stiffed while the company management and shareholders benefit. (For more about the impact of how companies can adversely affect a community, and not suffer any consequences, see Entry #86, “Is North Carolina a Stealin’ State?” and Entry #87. There are several other entries as well that address similar issues.)

As far as addressing the issues of ongoing education, that deserves a separate entry, which will be number #332.

Note: within hours of publishing this blog entry, received the 04/14/2019 edition of the Charlotte Observer.  A front-page article discussed whether eliminating certain zoning restrictions — banning single-family zoning, e.g. — would help stimulate diversity.  My short answer is “No.”  Tweaking of zoning regulations for single-families is different than wholesale banning, which is likely to have major negative consequences for attracting higher-income families to remain in the city limits.  Link to article, 19 04 14 CLT Observer re Zoning Changes for Diversity. 

#330 Is Diversity a Key Component of Preparing for the Technology Tsunami?

06 Saturday Apr 2019

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ 1 Comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author.  Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution.  Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.”  One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog.  Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.” 

Entry #319 begins a series describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), and how the US should prepare.  Part of the preparation is understanding and appreciating other countries and cultures. How do people in other countries/cultures think, behave, and interact with others? Developing this understanding will help prepare the United States for how to respond when other countries attempt to use technology against us in the future.

As technology has evolved from sailing ships to ocean liners to airplanes to communications via satellite, the world has become smaller. Earlier this week, I was reminded how small the world has become with advances in technology. A chain of communications started when I emailed a business colleague, congratulating her on more than 20 years operating a consulting firm.

Her response, which I received the next morning, thanked me for the note…and also indicated she was responding from a hut in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. A couple of back-and-forth emails explained she had access to some solar power and a slow-speed satellite link. The link was fast enough to allow sending a picture of a rather large tarantula meandering on the deck surrounding her hut.

While my business colleague was experiencing diversity in the Amazon rainforest by working with indigenous people, what about experiencing diversity at home – in the city where you live? In your neighborhood? And does experiencing diversity even matter? Well, yes, I think diversity does matter if the US is to develop an effective strategy to capitalize on the coming technology tsunami rather than being overwhelmed by the technology tsunami.

A key component of preparing for the technology tsunami is education…and education for all age cohorts. Part of that education includes learning about and really understanding other cultures. Ideally that understanding is gained on the ground in the local country. Unlike my business colleague, few families, however, can afford to travel worldwide and experience these cultures firsthand. What’s an alternative? A great way to start is trying to understand cultures in your immediate locale. Most urban areas in the US have pockets of different ethnic groups and cultures.

What happens when your locale is not diverse? When everyone in your locale looks and speaks the same? Does the lack of diversity really matter? Homogeneity may be comforting but it runs the risk of stifling creativity. Homogeneity is also a breeding ground for “group think.” Make no mistake, overcoming the threats of technology tsunami will require significant creativity.

Recently my wife and I visited some longtime friends who moved to a well-known retirement community in Florida. Their house is lovely, and in the larger community the grounds well-maintained and almost every shopping need and service is nearby. Our host jokingly referred to the development as a “reservation.” He also noted liking to stay on the reservation and avoiding the real world, which he considered not always pleasant.

Another friend, whom we met for coffee, had lived and worked on the “reservation” but later moved to a nearby location. He noted how virtually every aspect of life in the retirement community was managed, including hiring doctors in the clinics who fit a “Marcus Welby” profile.

During our stay, which included golf, multiple restaurants, shopping and extensive travel by golf cart, neither of us saw any blacks, Hispanics or members of virtually any non-western European ethnic group. Only one member of a golf group that I was in, which included several foursomes, was Asian.

So, back to the question – “Does diversity really matter in preparing for the technology tsunami?” Does living in a sanitized bubble really matter, especially for people who are retired? Do the retirees really care about the coming technology tsunami? And does the rest of society care what retirees think?

My vote – living in a sanitized bubble is not good for society, even for retirees. Most retirees living in the bubble have children and grandchildren. Why Gramps may be technology challenged and/or a curmudgeon, Gramps still has some influence on the grandchildren. And Gramps still votes. And we know Gramps mostly watches Fox News, which seemed to be the channel of choice virtually everywhere we went on the reservation.

The technology tsunami will be a major threat to Gramps children and grandchildren. Without an effective US response, sustained economic growth will become nearly impossible. To create an economy that can capitalize on the technology tsunami…and not be overrun by it…will require a range of thinking from people of different cultures.

If you don’t believe diversity and creativity are linked, take a look at the mix of faculty and students at say the Media Lab at MIT. Then take a close look at the range of highly innovative ideas and products emerging from the lab. Living in a bubble, whether physically or politically, lessens the opportunity for creative thinking.

Diversity can be accomplished a number of different ways. Ideally, diversity evolves on its own without any intervention. For example, in the eight houses in our neighborhood that I pass on the way to get coffee, there are families from at least four countries. And the eight houses include families practicing at least five different religions. An even more diverse population exists in the apartments that I pass closer to the coffee shop. That cultural/religious mix happened on its own.

Forcing such a diverse mix is problematic and smacks of too much government intervention. However we…societal we…can Implement policies that encourage more diversity….and we can also prohibit policies that intentionally discourage diversity.

What about policies that encourage diversity in schools? How should diversity in schools accomplished? A seemingly obvious solution is busing. While busing might make create a diverse classroom, busing has many negatives, including excessive cost and excessive travel time for many students. Another downside of busing not often discussed is the risk that businesses may decide not to locate in a school district where busing is mandated. The longer-term effect of not attracting businesses and staff is a lower tax base and slower economic growth for the school district.

A policy that discourages diversity is charter schools. North Carolina is an example of this strategy, although not necessarily representative of all states with charter schools.

In North Carolina, charter schools: (i) receive taxpayer funding; (ii) select students, although the charter schools claim admission is open to all who “qualify”; (iii) are not subject to the same rules and/or oversight as public schools. Recently, the North Carolina legislature passed a law requiring all teachers in North Carolina to secure a North Carolina license. Teachers licensed to teach in other states still need to pass the North Carolina test because the test in another state “might not be as rigorous” as in North Carolina. All teachers…oops all teachers except those in charter schools…are subject to the license requirement. Thus, any teacher relocating to North Carolina is effectively incentivized to avoid the hassle of getting a NC teachers license required for a public school and instead, teach at a charter school. In addition to not needing a license, teacher pay at a charter school is not subject to the same guidelines as at a public school.

The continued negative policies of the North Carolina legislature to erode the value of public education is one of the reasons I wrote blog Entries #324 and #325, which outline why banning charter schools is a necessary component of preparing for the technology tsunami. Still, banning charter schools still does not solve the diversity issue. And busing kids to create diversity has too far many negatives.

What’s the solution to more diversity in schools and society? Economics and attitude. More to come.

 

#329 College Admissions Scandal – a Different Perspective

23 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author.  Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution.  Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.”  One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog.  Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.” 

In the entry describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), I suggested a way for the US to help mitigate the impact of the inevitable tsunami was increasing support for public education. How does the college admissions process fit into the discussion of the US preparing for the coming technology tsunami?

The topic seems appropriate for two reasons: (i) as noted in several blog entries, the US needs to increase the percentage of students with either an advanced technical degree or a college degree; (ii) the public discourse about the college admissions process is missing a key component.  That overlooked component allows many students to attend certain higher-end academic institutions.

The rhetoric about the college admissions process ratcheted up in March 2019 with a number of articles published about parents using influence…and/or cash…to help their children get admitted to various colleges/universities. Some of these activities involved cash bribes and a few high-profile parents have been charged by the FBI.

After the FBI charges were made public, many media “talking heads,” pundits, not-so-privileged students and others claimed to be outraged by the activities of the parents. “Such practices are unfair!” “What about the students whose place in the college/university was taken by one of the privileged?” “The admission process needs to be based more on meritocracy!” Some further claimed the admissions process was racist.

Seriously folks? You’ve been living under a rock if you don’t think it’s a long-standing practice for parents to leverage connections and to “bribe” the administration to get children into prestigious schools. For decades, academic institutions have tweaked admissions standards for certain students. If parents were willing to say make a healthy donation to the school or there was a long history of family members attending the school, then students were often admitted under somewhat different standards.

I recall in my high-school days learning that the brother of a classmate that I’d known since the first days of grammar school had been admitted to a rather prestigious college. When I asked how, my classmate laughed and said “Simple, my dad paid for a new building.” Does anyone really think George W. Bush was admitted to Yale, then the Harvard Business School on his own merit? And, hmm, maybe the Donald falls in that same category.  Wonder why he insists his transcripts not be released?

However, what seems to be new in this story about privilege is the academic institution is getting cut out of benefitting from the bribe. Yale, for example, apparently was unaware their long-term soccer coach was on the take and willing to recruit for the team each year a couple of players who would not be admitted to Yale based on academic merit. If the coach only had given Yale part of the take.

What seems more prevalent than cash bribes, although the proactive is not new, is having someone other than the student take the SAT or ACT. What is new in the last decade or so is the parents claiming the student has some type of learning disability, which then allots more time to complete the test. While using “stand-ins” and claiming “learning disability” are unethical, such practices should be fairly easy to stop.

Some who are outraged at a few privileged students skirting the normal admissions process have also claimed that athletes granted scholarships did not skirt the rules because the scholarships were based on merit. Really? Merit for what? Playing basketball? Playing football?

Okay, the individuals might be gifted in a particular sport but how many of these athletes are gifted academically?  5.0%?  10.0% tops.  Last I looked, the primary role of a college or university was academics, not athletics. Colleges and universities are accredited based on academic standards, not the success of the football team or the basketball team.

Let’s see if I get understand how the athlete is admitted based on merit. A student is admitted to say Duke University under a scholarship to play basketball. The first semester the student does not attend class, fails all subjects and is put on academic probation. The terms of the probation state if the student’s GPA doesn’t improve in the second semester, he will be ineligible to play basketball, and might be subject to expulsion.

The student continues to play basketball through the second semester – and Duke hopes the NCAA tournament – but like the first semester fails all classes. The penalty? Even if the student-athlete is expelled, what does he care? His goal was never a college degree. His goal was to get drafted by an NBA team. The Duke coaching staff, the University’s administration and the student knew from day one he was going to be a “one-and-done.” But the student was admitted anyway.

So tell me how the “one-and-done” student-athlete was admitted to Duke based on merit? Merit to help the basketball team but not admitted based on academics. For those claiming such athletes are enrolled based on their merit, while other students are admitted based on privilege and not merit, please stop the hypocrisy.  (Want to read about a real-world example of the hypocrisy of one-and-done? 19 05 15 NYT NBA Draft and Rights to Duke Freshman)

A final thought, which no one seems to talk about…and to me is a critical component of the discussion. Admitting a limited number of students from very wealthy families is a benefit to all students at the institution. Why?.  Go back to my classmate whose parents donated a building as a trade for her brother’s admittance. Yes, it was a deal for the privileged. But from a broader perspective, for many years students at the college benefited from the cost of a building not being part of their tuition.

A question we should be asking is, “How many students who otherwise could not afford to attend an Ivy League or other top-line school have benefited from the wealthy contributing to the endowment of the college/university?” Maybe the students who are attending such schools only because of a scholarship should ask themselves, “Would I be able to afford to attend without subsidies from the institution’s endowment?” In almost all cases, the answer would be “no.” So for the not-so-privileged students, please swallow your pride and be grateful that someone is subsidizing your education.

Thus, from my perspective, the so-called “admissions scandal” for the privileged has two very different sides. First, no question that illegal bribes are out-of-bounds and should be prosecuted. However, those who claim using a back-door or side-door route to admission is unfair need to be careful about wanting to make the admissions process the same for everyone. Instead, take a deep breath, step back and be thankful for donors who help build buildings and who donate generously to the endowment that is allowing more students to attend a college or university they otherwise could not afford…and allowing the US to prepare more effectively for the on-coming technology tsunami.

#328 Public or For-Profit Educational Institution. Which More Cost Effective for Specialized Training?

17 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author.  Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution.  Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.”  One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog.  Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.” 

In the entry describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), I suggested a way to help mitigate the impact of the inevitable tsunami was increasing support for public education. Here’s another aspect of public education that needs more discussion.

Entry # 327 outlined arguments why society would be better off banning for-profit universities, or FPU’s, from charging students for class material that should have been taught as part of their secondary, and in some cases, primary education. Why should students who learn at a different rate, or learn in ways outside the standard teaching method, be penalized and required to “pay twice” for the same classroom material?

But what about course material not taught in public schools? Or course material taught in technical schools? Why burden the taxpayers with such cost? Why not use for-profit universities for such training?

If someone wants to become a licensed cosmetologist, why should the public have to subsidize such training? Same with say someone who wants to become a licensed auto mechanic. Why should the public support such training?

Such an argument is a valid one. At the same time, society needs to consider the role of public education beyond high school. If North Carolina’s Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) is representative, there are numerous classes and training programs aimed at some very narrow occupational fields. In some cases at CPCC, classes are designed specifically for types of companies. Based on a cursory review of CPCC website, students have an opportunity to prepare for licenses, earn certificates, or an Associate degrees in a wide range of occupations. Yet all these classes, including those for the companies, are subsidized by the public.

Some key benefits to having such specialized classes taught using the public education system include:

  1. Control over quality of the course material. There is more oversight over relevancy and quality of course material at accredited universities than at for-profit universities.
  2. Ability to integrate other learning material into the course. For example, courses could include basic class material as well as additional information about how to integrate emerging advanced technology such as artificial intelligence. Having this opportunity to broaden the student’s perspective, would help the student understand how to use emerging technologies.
  3. Using a community college for specialized training is less costly to the student and to the public. Because the infrastructure and administrative overhead are already in place, the incremental cost to add specialized classes is less at a public university than the cost at a standalone for-profit education institution. As a result of using public-education facilities, the student can be trained and begin working with fewer outstanding loans and ideally no loans. The reduced financial burden increases the likelihood the student will quickly migrate to becoming a full-time worker and taxpayer.

Some will ask, “Is subsidizing the cost of specialized training yet another aspect of more socialism? Another harebrained giveaway by liberal Democrats?”

Clearly, or maybe not so clearly, there is a point beyond which the public should not pay for specialized education. Such training should be the responsibility of the individual or the company where the individual is employed.

The beginning of the “no-more-subsidized-training” line will vary by geographic area. Community colleges in urban areas will have a different course mix than community colleges in rural areas. I think most everyone can agree that local communities should make that choice of what courses should be subsidized rather than letting the federal or even state government do so.

“Isn’t subsidizing specialized education a slippery slope? I mean, should the public be subsidizing someone who wants to learn basket weaving or how to make greeting cards? C’mon. What about those situations? We know someone will push for such classes and then claim discrimination if the classes aren’t offered. Why create all the hassle. Let them all go to the for-profit teaching institutions.”

The “slippery slope” argument is often cited…and probably occasionally valid. But always justifying not doing something because of a slippery slope would negate most societal norms and laws we have today. Laws and behavioral norms are based on actions of a “reasonable man” (or woman). In many cases there is no clear line between reasonable and unreasonable. Focusing on how the extremes, or outliers, might be affected is a path to stagnation and not a path to progress and Improvement. For those classes or technical programs that fall outside the norm and could be considered unusual or extreme, then maybe a for-profit university or a collection of private tutors is a better choice for such training.

The default, seems to me, whether for general education content or for specialized content, should be through a public institution. If the public education path cannot work, then consider a for-profit institution. Public institutions afford greater opportunity to control content quality and greater opportunity to control cost for the student…and public.