[EconProf]

Government subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!

[EconProf]

Government subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!

[EconProf]

Government subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!

[EconProf]

Government subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!

[EconProf]

The government definition of “unemployed” is out of work and looking for work.
This definition must stay constant for the measurement to meaningful over time.
It would be wrong to suddenly include the part-timers wanting to be full-timers, or those working below their capacity (think sociology majors working at Starbucks), or discouraged workers who are no longer looking for work.
So the government is not trying to hide anything when they quote unemployment figures. They are just being consistent, so let’s not blame them.
BTW, the broader definitions of unemployment are also made available for those who dig for it.

[EconProf]

The government definition of “unemployed” is out of work and looking for work.
This definition must stay constant for the measurement to meaningful over time.
It would be wrong to suddenly include the part-timers wanting to be full-timers, or those working below their capacity (think sociology majors working at Starbucks), or discouraged workers who are no longer looking for work.
So the government is not trying to hide anything when they quote unemployment figures. They are just being consistent, so let’s not blame them.
BTW, the broader definitions of unemployment are also made available for those who dig for it.

[EconProf]

The government definition of “unemployed” is out of work and looking for work.
This definition must stay constant for the measurement to meaningful over time.
It would be wrong to suddenly include the part-timers wanting to be full-timers, or those working below their capacity (think sociology majors working at Starbucks), or discouraged workers who are no longer looking for work.
So the government is not trying to hide anything when they quote unemployment figures. They are just being consistent, so let’s not blame them.
BTW, the broader definitions of unemployment are also made available for those who dig for it.

[EconProf]

The government definition of “unemployed” is out of work and looking for work.
This definition must stay constant for the measurement to meaningful over time.
It would be wrong to suddenly include the part-timers wanting to be full-timers, or those working below their capacity (think sociology majors working at Starbucks), or discouraged workers who are no longer looking for work.
So the government is not trying to hide anything when they quote unemployment figures. They are just being consistent, so let’s not blame them.
BTW, the broader definitions of unemployment are also made available for those who dig for it.

[EconProf]

The government definition of “unemployed” is out of work and looking for work.
This definition must stay constant for the measurement to meaningful over time.
It would be wrong to suddenly include the part-timers wanting to be full-timers, or those working below their capacity (think sociology majors working at Starbucks), or discouraged workers who are no longer looking for work.
So the government is not trying to hide anything when they quote unemployment figures. They are just being consistent, so let’s not blame them.
BTW, the broader definitions of unemployment are also made available for those who dig for it.

[EconProf]

CA renter: You are quite right about boosting vocational skills in HS and beyond.
60 Minutes had a show Sunday night about a “successful” inner city school in Harlem that attempted to push everyone into being college-bound, and measured their success solely by that metric. While their longer school day, involvement of parents, stress on discipline, use of uniforms is all commendable, their obsession with college for all is appalling. What about the boy who is fascinated with wood and wants to be a master cabinet maker, or the patriotic girl who wants to enlist in the military, or…you get the picture.
To push college on all is to denigrate vocational education, as well as those who want to stop with a HS degree and get on-the-job training and advancement.

[EconProf]

CA renter: You are quite right about boosting vocational skills in HS and beyond.
60 Minutes had a show Sunday night about a “successful” inner city school in Harlem that attempted to push everyone into being college-bound, and measured their success solely by that metric. While their longer school day, involvement of parents, stress on discipline, use of uniforms is all commendable, their obsession with college for all is appalling. What about the boy who is fascinated with wood and wants to be a master cabinet maker, or the patriotic girl who wants to enlist in the military, or…you get the picture.
To push college on all is to denigrate vocational education, as well as those who want to stop with a HS degree and get on-the-job training and advancement.

[EconProf]

CA renter: You are quite right about boosting vocational skills in HS and beyond.
60 Minutes had a show Sunday night about a “successful” inner city school in Harlem that attempted to push everyone into being college-bound, and measured their success solely by that metric. While their longer school day, involvement of parents, stress on discipline, use of uniforms is all commendable, their obsession with college for all is appalling. What about the boy who is fascinated with wood and wants to be a master cabinet maker, or the patriotic girl who wants to enlist in the military, or…you get the picture.
To push college on all is to denigrate vocational education, as well as those who want to stop with a HS degree and get on-the-job training and advancement.

[EconProf]

CA renter: You are quite right about boosting vocational skills in HS and beyond.
60 Minutes had a show Sunday night about a “successful” inner city school in Harlem that attempted to push everyone into being college-bound, and measured their success solely by that metric. While their longer school day, involvement of parents, stress on discipline, use of uniforms is all commendable, their obsession with college for all is appalling. What about the boy who is fascinated with wood and wants to be a master cabinet maker, or the patriotic girl who wants to enlist in the military, or…you get the picture.
To push college on all is to denigrate vocational education, as well as those who want to stop with a HS degree and get on-the-job training and advancement.

[EconProf]

CA renter: You are quite right about boosting vocational skills in HS and beyond.
60 Minutes had a show Sunday night about a “successful” inner city school in Harlem that attempted to push everyone into being college-bound, and measured their success solely by that metric. While their longer school day, involvement of parents, stress on discipline, use of uniforms is all commendable, their obsession with college for all is appalling. What about the boy who is fascinated with wood and wants to be a master cabinet maker, or the patriotic girl who wants to enlist in the military, or…you get the picture.
To push college on all is to denigrate vocational education, as well as those who want to stop with a HS degree and get on-the-job training and advancement.

[EconProf]

wfb and flu:
Standardized nationwide tests would indeed be worth considering for a lot of fields besides the current CPA and Bar exams. Noted author Charles Murray (wrote the influential book Losing Ground), believes such tests could apply to many fields.
They would also serve as the organizer for the self-taught college grad, or “master of a discipline” or whatever one wants to call this certificate. The resulting test score would be a credential that person could take into the job market–let the employer decide. Of course, existing faculty would see this system as a job threat and call it inferior.
Some people can indeed be self-guided learners and want to short-circuit all the party atmosphere, political correctness, and waste inherent in 4 – 6 years of college classes.

[Author]

Posts