In a 2012 column in the New York Times entitled "Average is Over," Thomas Friedman argues:
"In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over. Being average just won’t earn you what it used to. It can’t when so many more employers have so much more access to so much more above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics, cheap software, cheap automation and cheap genius. Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra — their unique value contribution that makes them stand out in whatever is their field of employment. Average is over."
According to Friedman, technology, automation, a hyper-connected world, and growing competition from abroad all contribute to an increasingly demanding world for those looking to earn a living and sustain themselves. Over and over he repeats: "average is over," and that sustaining lifestyles which once came easy will increasingly demand more.
In a column from the same newspaper earlier this month, Paul Krugman expresses "sympathy for the Luddites," a broad term encompassing, "a member of any of various bands of workers in England (1811–16) organized to destroy manufacturing machinery, under the belief that its use diminished employment" (Source).
As quoted by Mr. Krugman, many petitioners at the time asked, "'How are those men, thus thrown out of employ, to provide for their families?...And what are they to put their children apprentice to?'"
While Mr. Krugman admits the mechanization of British industry in the late 18th century eventually raised living standards for citizens in general, he argues that current trends are different from those affecting the early Luddites. According to Krugman, "conventional wisdom" today holds that increasingly higher levels of education shield one from job losses associated with automation and global competition. Yet citing research from the International Labor Organization and The McKinsey Global Institute, Krugman suggests the notion that education protects employment and income is flawed: that not only is labor's share of profits falling, but also that technology is advancing so quickly that many skilled professions may soon be replaced by machines and computers. So while we can "educate" ourselves and learn an in-demand skill, the window during which that skill is remunerative may prove very small indeed.
These points all bring us to a column published today by George Will in the Washington Post, entitled "America's Broken Bootstraps." Much like Messrs Friedman and Krugman, Mr. Will admits to an "increasingly demanding world," from which he argues that in such circumstances, inequality of wealth, income, and education all become exacerbated. Citing Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, Mr. Will claims this is due to the increasing complexity of society, which "...intensifies the demands on mental abilities," and lead, "People [to] invest increasingly in human capital — especially education — because status and achievement increasingly depend on possession of the right knowledge."
At the root of his argument, Mr. Will points to what seems to be a very important (and often torn) thread of America's bootstraps: the family. From the start, Will brings out Friedrich Hayek's argument from "The Constitution of Liberty" (1960) that "...families are the primary transmitters of human capital — habits, mores, education," and that, "...families, much more than other social institutions or programs, are determinative of academic and vocational success." Later Mr. Will cites Lindsey again, who relates research suggesting, "'...by the time they reach age 3, children of professional parents have heard some 45 million words addressed to them — as opposed to only 26 million words for working-class kids, and a mere 13 million words in the case of kids on welfare.'" Explicitly then, Will argues that family matters; implicitly, that the institution is broken, and plays a part in the inequality we see in society today.
Will raises some interesting points. Chief among them is the notion that context - particularly one's immediate and local context - can have a large influence on one's future trajectory. Where a family lives, how it engages with its children, and what sorts of habits it inculcates in the young, all play a role in development and attitudes toward life. On 18 June, ScienceDaily summarized a paper in the International Journal of Obesity which found that, "Kids whose moms encourage them to exercise and eat well, and model those healthy behaviors themselves, are more likely to be active and healthy eaters." Engaged role-models do seem to provide an advantage for children, one that often grows enormously over time. If average is really over, as Mr. Friedman suggests, then these are the children who should thrive in a future of increasingly limited opportunities for anyone but the brightest and/or best placed.
Yet I also find Mr. Will's argument problematic, as I do most "bootstrap" arguments. Context is important, but little is made in them of individual potential. Mr. Will begins his column with a couplet from an old colonial almanac reading, "All men are by nature equal, but differ greatly by the sequel." Yet in terms of nature and nurture, it seems this cannot be true. And yes, nature-nurture does not play out as a dualism in reality, but as an interaction where each affects the other. Be that as it may, everyone is born with different genetic predispositions and potentials; and as Mr. Will's column makes clear, different environments. There is also the biological effect of past generations on their off-spring. Consider for instance the off-spring of survivors of the Dutch famine of 1944, who were born smaller than average, and proved "...more susceptible to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, mircroalbuminuria, and other health problems" (Source). As it turns out, the grandchildren of those survivors also experienced such problems. Mr. Will makes clear "the sequel" is different (and decisive) for everyone, but can we really say then that "all men are by nature equal," even from a biological perspective?
Whatever the potential one has, however, a stimulating, engaging context is where it is likely to emerge and be met. I actually suspect, for better and worse, that almost no one reaches these levels. But I also think Will's argument, while acknowledging an increasingly demanding world, does not address how the United States (or any country) and its citizens will continue to grow and prosper in a world with so few remunerative opportunities.
So what are we to do, faced as we are with these potentially-looming problems? In his column discussed above, Paul Krugman almost gives up on the issue, advocating for, "...a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income."
On the other hand, Thomas Friedman argues that:
"... the world does not care what you know. Everything is on Google. The world only cares, and will only pay for, what you can do with what you know...We’re moving to a more competency-based world where there will be less interest in how you acquired the competency — in an online course, at a four-year-college or in a company-administered class — and more demand to prove that you mastered the competency."
In this vein, Mr. Friedman supports new avenues through which valued skills can be acquired, assessed, and credential; that while the current university model has value, the grades and diplomas these institutions award may no longer be sufficient signals for employers to judge employee competence. If someone learns how to code by watching online lectures and practicing on their own, let's offer them a way to get credentialed that doesn't require university attendance and tuition.
From George Will's column we get not so much a proposal as a prognosis. A complex world, he believes, leaves many behind, and those it does can't catch up because America's boot-straps are broken. Kids from working-class and welfare-recipient families are developmentally behind their professional-led family peers as soon as age 3, and the gap only rises as "assortative mating" (like marrying like) concentrates class advantages and exacerbates inequality. Clearly a college education has earning-power advantages, but college students today study only half as long as their peers in 1961, and universities go easy on them anyway, in that half of students today take classes where less than 20 pages of writing is required of them. Those who succeed are those who master today's complexity, and those who have the right family more often than not fall into this category.
Mr. Will makes a good point regarding socioeconomic status, but his point is nothing new. I think Mr. Krugman gives up too easily, settling for an enhanced safety-net and a minimum income for all while discounting the possibility that revolutions in automation and innovation might one day spur revolutions in labor, and the means by which individuals and families sustain themselves. Who knows, perhaps automation will compel people to take greater care of the money they have, investing more of it in assets that accrue value over time rather than lose it. I'm personally sympathetic to the early-retirement/financial independence movement espoused by Mr. Money Mustache and others, who advocate saving and investing large percentages of one's yearly income until such time as one's passive income equals or exceeds one's expenses. It's not an easy path, but seems to build real wealth for those who manage it. A job becomes a luxury rather than necessity, which could be an advantage in a jobs-poor, automation-rich future world.
Which is changing, and fast. Average is seemingly over. Education is becoming essential, and increasingly expensive. What you can do matters more than what you know, and perhaps who you know and who your parents were matter even more. It is a complicated issue, touching subjects as diverse as immigration, healthcare, and education. I don't know where the world is going, but I like to think we'll find a way to make it work. We'll need to be creative probably, and optimistic too. I expect many people in school today will work jobs someday that don't yet exist. We shall see where this goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment