Business Model? We Don't Need No Business Model!

Few things raise my hackles more than irrational or illogical behavior. And, in this collection I also include my own behavior. Take for example the recent news of a student, Timothy Arnold, a University of Central Florida student, who developed an application. His application, UCouldFinish, helped students find courses with open seats. Armed with this knowledge, over 500 students found acceptable courses in which to enroll. In higher education, 500 students x 3 credit hours equals 1,500 credit hours. Now UCF charges $208 per credit hour (site). Doing some simple math...1,500 x $208 equals (make this easy: 15 x2 x1000) about $300,000 dollars. Hypothetically, Mr. Arnold helped UCF bring in $300,000 with his application.

Consulting the UCouldFinish web site, Timothy has been subjected to punishment for being so bold as to help his university improve the conditions of his fellow students and also helping improve the financial environment of his university. Mr. Arnold's application earned him 3 semesters of academic probation, a research paper on the management of MyUCF, and counseling on how to make good choices.

To throw some positive vibes on this debacle, the 3 semesters of probation is not a big deal. Timothy sounds like a smart guy. He will either make those semesters pass easily, or he will bid UCF adieu and find a more suitable uni to finish his education. My sense is a company, like Google, or Facebook, or Twitter will offer him a job. Writing a research paper on the IT on the UCF ERP system will undoubtedly require some research. He should need to speak with many IT folks, network analysts, programmers, and system admins to get a sense of the breadth and depth of the inner workings of the ERP system in order to understand the impact his application had upon UCF IT. All of his research will undoubtedly result in more experience dealing with systems, programming, and the entire ecosystem of higher ed IT, giving him even more insight into the trials and tribulations of systems administration. Thus, in writing the research paper, he could end up with even greater knowledge of how to exploit...er, augment educational IT systems.

In a broader sense, Timothy Arnold v. UCF illustrates a much more important and sobering issue in Higher Education. Traditional higher education, public & private colleges and universities, are being assaulted on numerous fronts. Set aside for a moment the Conservation/Right-wing/GOP gutting of education, in general. The literal attacks committed against Education by Republicans is well-documented and is a true source of concern. However, critical thinking requires us to ask, Why? Why is their such animosity against Education, especially Higher Education?

I submit one essential reason: Higher Education has become sclerotic, hard, calcified, resist to change and adapt, entrenched in a management mindset at least a century old. For traditional colleges and universities to not only remain relevant but to serve current and future educational needs, the Higher Education business model needs to evolve from the 19th century academic mindset into a a mindset capable of being nimble and adaptive to 21st century educational needs. If Higher Education had been more vigilant in adapting and evolving new business and academic models, these specious attacks would have no merit

A propose a number of remedies to address the improvement of our College and University business models. First, classes need to be able to be added & dropped as needed. Doing such will require some transcript flexibility. Department chairs and deans are best able to support student advising and transcript adjustment. ERP systems need to be able be adaptive enough to manage student academic records, as well.

Colleges and Universities must be allowed to leverage faculty, staff, and student expertise. Unquestionably and undeniably, colleges and universities must be open and receptive to using on-site knowledge, experience, and expertise to address the daily and long-term mission of the institution. As Timothy Arnold attempted, when a need is identified, such as the notification system Timothy developed, those needs should be immediately addressed. Students should be allowed to help design and implement CMS and help manage institutional web sites. Students should be allowed to help develop institutional applications which help the overall function of the institution. One of the greatest complaints new graduates have, and have always had, is that of experience, having none. Students assisting with all aspects of institutional management, planning, and IT will have experience upon graduation. Perhaps experience with Drupal, Joomla!, PHP, Python, WordPress, Javascript, HTML5, SQL and SQL Server, or Oracle. Graduating student would have experience in application development, design, implementation, and enhancement. A phenomenal example of such a team is the InfoGraphics Lab in the Department of Geography at the University of Oregon.

Online courses, for-private schools, and now the growing presence of massively open online courses (MOOC), with the movement of so much content into "the cloud" is going to push universities to evolve into something new. Those who do not evolve, who do not revolutionize their educational business model are going to slide away into obscurity.

Current business models and the closely related academic models will need to evolve into something else. Global economic forces change faster than seasons or global climate change predictions. Business, industry, and global commercial sectors need employees who can adapt to change and work within fluid environments. Industry needs nimble thinkers who can address current business trends yet also be able to act quickly and foresee changes in technology, consumer tastes, trends in raw materials and labor markets which are embedded in Globalization.

Of current concern is unemployment. As of this writing, 12.8 million people were unemployed. The national unemployment rate is 8.3%. Again, doing some quick math, 12.8 / 0.083 and we arrive at a labor force size of about 156 million Americans, which is about 50% of our population, and that is my "rule of thumb" for determining the size of any country's labor force (about 50% of population, give or take) (Source: BLS).

Also, of this writing there are about 3.8million open job postings. We can debate the accuracy of the number, I will grant that. But, hypothetically, let's say ...entertain me here... 3 million of those open jobs were filled by people from the 12.8 million group. Then, we would have only 9.8 million unemployed. Simple math gives us 9.8 / 156 which equals 6.3% unemployment (Source: BLS)

Now, 6.3% is not bad. Not great, but certainly better than +8%. The question then becomes, "Why are those jobs not being filled by people in the 12.8million group?"

I don't have an answer to that question. I know some factors include unwillingness to move to where the jobs are, the pay of those open jobs, and the experience gap between the unemployed group the experience those open jobs require.

Retraining & re-education can help fill some of those jobs. Re-education requires colleges and universities to be open, fair, and honest with themselves, and be open to new ideas, fail fast, fail often, and learn and grow from those experiences, and be ever-evolving. Self-assessment mandates interaction with business and industry to make sure graduates have both the education and experience necessary for those graduates to succeed.

Higher Education cannot be a stove-pipe themselves, or become educational "silos" immune to local, state, national, or international influences and catalysts. Those institutions who pay attention will succeed by their graduates. Those institutions who fail to adapt to 21st century educational changes and evolving business needs will falter and suffer under constant mis-identification of goals and mis-aligned "mission statements" and find themselves under-going continual identity crises which will do nothing but undermine institutional confidence at all levels.

Institutions of Higher Learning represent a bizarre dichotomy of work environments. On one hand, some of the most brilliant people on the planet are employed by them, and some of the most pedantic, too. Even the educated folks are routinely bound by limited vision and are what I might label as "novice learners" being unable to see past their own discipline, specialty area, or responsibility. Thus, the very institutions which were created to promote critical thinking and openness are just as poisoned as any other institution or corporation.

So, yes, my hackles get up when these institutions victimize innovation, stifle advancement, creativity, and stymy new ideas and concepts, and squash young, middle-aged, an older minds in favor of "tradition" and "that just not the way its done" mentalities.

I invite all rational and reasonable comments :)

PAX

Are You Raising A Global Child?

A good friend of mine lived abroad when she was of middle-school age. Her mother was in the military, stationed in Okinawa, Japan. Living abroad when old enough to notice the life going on around you, having a life in the States to compare to, and being old enough to appreciate the details and differences of people with whom your rub elbows with every day has an effect on a child. I would argue a good effect. While living abroad is rough on a young person, away from friends, having to learn to adapt to a different culture, she learned to appreciate the differences she saw. Having to adapt meant having to develop initiative to problem-solve, learning to use the subway, buses, eat a different diet, work at a different pace, and perhaps be differential towards elders.

Children, foreign nationals living outside their country of birth, may have a distinct advantage above children which do not live abroad, or later in life, choose to "study abroad." Children exposed at early ages to different food, a different set of cultural or societal rules, different languages, and even different climates should develop skills and attitudes which should make them more successful later in life than their stay-at-home peers in our increasingly globalized world society.

I see adult students every day, living in fear of moving to another county or an adjoining state for education. Students, male and female alike, literally tremble at the thought of the unfamiliar a mere 60+ miles (90km) away. Meanwhile, 10%-15% of campus is comprised of students not hundreds of miles from home, but 8,000 miles or more from home.

The United States' geography is both blessing and course. The U.S. has avoided the devastating effects of two world wars. Historically, North American was not the convenient cultural crossroads of Asia Minor or Europe. The benefit of distance has encouraged us to be aloof, buffered from political, economic, and cultural interactions common throughout Europe. Sure, we have experienced our own discord, our Civil War, our Civil Rights, literal battles over organized labor. We have had the added benefit, though, of not also having to worry about disagreements brought about by cultural factions, as evidenced by the controversial European Union, language barriers, or multiple currencies, to name only a few complicating forces.

Our geography has made us aloof, given us a sense of protection and ease, which few other global realms enjoy. We have only two immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Canada is very similar to the United States culturally, politically, and with a shared British and French history. We expect immigrants to conform to our society and make little to no allowance to accept theirs. Immigrants fare better in urban areas where cultural diversity is normal and people from the same ethnic background offer support. Rural areas, locations of most state colleges and universities, immigrants and foreign students are met with more varied reactions.

The remainder of the world, I argue, does not realistically have an option to ignore or downplay the influence of their neighbors. They are forced to learn, listen, cope, i.e. interact with their neighbors as a part of doing business.

Children capable of handling diversity, being introduced to diversity in language, arts, culture, and expression I see as being the future.

For more reading: How To Raise A Global Kid (Lisa Miller, Newsweek)

The above article highlights many issues associated with the increasing amount of global interaction our current generation is a part of. But, we cannot simply be a part of the interaction without some analysis of how to better prepare both ourselves for what lay ahead tomorrow and prepare our children for lies ahead for them.

"I a worried that in this interconnected world, our country risks being disconnected from the contributions of other countries and cultures" (Arne Duncan, U.S. Education Secretary, 2010.)

I am worried, as well. I can't raise a global child; I don't have any children. I spend most of my time attempting to convince adults to become "Global Adults." My hopes are my students will accept some of what we discuss in class, what they learn themselves by reading English-language editions of foreign newspapers, and what they read in their textbooks, and through what little exposure I coach, the realization will dawn on them how much they need to pay attention to current events, if not for themselves, but for their children, and their children's children.

200 million Chinese schoolchildren are studying English

Some U.S. citizens say, "Yeah, our language is important. Good for them!" I don't disagree but the problem is the learning transaction is only one-way. Few of us are learning Chinese. They have a greater ability to understand us than we have of understanding them - and there are 4x's more Chinese than U.S. citizens.

"South Korean parents ... demand that their children begin English instruction in the 1st grade, rather than the 2nd grade."

Again, no argument from me, yet South Korea is one of the most important economies in all of East Asia and Southeast outside of China. Having competent people who can play well with others, and raising competent people who can play nice can has all sorts of benefits, from the individual to our general U.S. social fabric.

"Not training our kids to be able to work and live in an international environment is like leaving them illiterate."

Raising a global child is about helping your kids be successful. Traits developed in making them a "global child" also make them into good people. There is no downside. Essentially, parents of "global children" are helping their children be "globally literate" and "globally functional." Our geography impairs us, creating a sense of aloofness, a false sense of security, and an inflated ego, that we are better than we really are.

We can see evidence of our national ego today. Our foreign policy certainly exemplifies our national ego, e.g. "You either stand with us or against us," and our unilateral policies associated with Afghanistan, Iraq, and our demands for China to devalue its currency against the dollar. We can literally stand apart and command without having to face any immediate threat or retaliation, unlike South Korea, Taiwan, or Israel.

Some U.S. schools are making some progress. Last year, I wrote a brief post on a Delaware school introducing Chinese language classes ("Red Clay CSD Building Chinese language program".) I have not followed-up with the program, and one of the concerns voiced was how well the program would fare in light of the demands of state and federal curriculum standards and assessments. To wit, I respond with, to hell with those standards; those standards obviously not only do not set a very high bar, they do not address the future needs to students, the state of Delaware, or our country, in general.

At times, I often wonder why "algebra" has not been banned. Or, perhaps not banned, but legislation written, changing the name of the bane of all high school and some college students to a more Anglo-friendly term, like "Freedom Math," or "Patriot Math," or other nonsense. Our so-called "English" language is rife with foreign words and derivatives and I await the pronouncement from some heretofore anonymous group to announce they have written legislation removing all Arabic, Chinese, or African words from the American language lexicon. Yep, I'm cynical.

See, the another danger of being so physically remote from other cultures is the perceived threat Americans have from those different from us. Should our children learn Chinese, they could become stark raving mad atheist Communists. Or, even worse, should they learn Arabic, they might come home one day with a mullah beard, reciting the Qu'ran, and proclaim the house and all which falls under the roof as the "domain of Allah."

Recently, in Arizona, some people were upset over the term, "haboob." No, not because the second syllable references slang for human anatomy, but because the term is of Arabic origins, meaning "dust storm." No seems upset over "alcohol" or "banana," though.

For further reading: "Haboobs cause storm of complaints" (July 12, 2011; Time)

Antagonism towards diversity has only negative consequences. At an individual level, antagonism to diversity inspires fear, trepidation, bigotry, and bias. We succumb to stereotypes and myths are are no better off today than yesterday, and the future won't be much different. Adults who ascribed to these traits pass them along to their kids. A mother in one of my classes related how her son was called names and berated for looking Arab during local high school games. Even more disgusting, the coaching staff of the opposing team not only did nothing to stop the abuse but assistant coaches were right there with the players shouting the same insults. The family was not Arab but Greek, but dark-skinned. The family has since moved from the area.

Old news, from last year, a Texas school tried to institute Arabic language classes. Community outcry halted progress on implementing the language program.

For further reading: "Teaching Arabic Is No Cause For Fear" (February 2011, CNN)

As long as all domestic policy is viewed through the lens of 9/11, we will never be as free, as creative, or as adaptable as we need to be in order to ensure our long-term economic and social success. Yes, 9/11 was tragic, yet the more insular we become, the more fears of diversity we harbor and pass along to our kids, the weaker our society becomes. Our leaders, from local school boards, governors, to National figures, have allowed our society to be compromised and undermined and weakened by the actions of 19+ men. Even Europe has overcome aversion to Germans, the Wehrmacht, and the Nazis, for the most part.

So, to you parents coaching yourselves to be "Global Parents" so your kids will be "global kids," you tuck the Fate of the World in every night. You should be proud of that.

Obese People Burn Hotter

I never really thought about fat people burning hotter. Sounds morbid. In fact, I think thinking about the obese corpses of dead people burning defines "morbid."

My World Geography students keep journals. They scour English-language foreign newspapers for informational tidbits which can be tied to geography. Since we cannot take a field trip, we cannot get a true sense of life abroad. I want them to develop a nascent sense of geography in other places, and one way I've figured out how to do encourage them is to have them scrutinize the news of other countries.

My students write a 1-pg response and a hardcopy article is attached; perhaps I should have them author a blog...anyway.

A student recently presented me with an article from Der Spiegle (the Mirror), a German news source. In Germany, cremation of a loved-ones body is popular. Death is a growth industry in Germany, as the number of crematoriums has increased from 100 in 2000 to 159 in 2012, with more being planned.

Coupled with the increase in number of crematoriums is the increase in girth of modern Germans. Recently, in January 2012, a 400-lb corpse was cremated. The burning human fat increased temperatures in the crematorium so much flames shot from the 33-ft tall chimney, melting portions. Fire officials calculated the temperature of the chimney was in excess of 1,100F (600C).

German crematorium operators are concerned. As the German population grows heavier, and cremation gains in popularity, burning human fat is now an issue. Many furnaces are not capable of handling the burning fat of over-weight Germans. Furnaces are not capable of handing the plus-sized coffins, either.

Could Western diets be an issue? More specifically, are Germans eating more like U.S. citizens? More Big Macs, more Kentucky Fried Chicken, and more Taco Bell?

Obviously, the current furnaces were built with a smaller German in mind. The question then becomes, what has created the change in German physiques? Diets? Is the globalization of fast food to blame? Are German becoming more sedentary? Indigenous Germans are getting older, as a statement of fact. Are they not exercising as much?

Here is the article, for your reading enjoyment.

If All Else Fails, Blame China

I’ve spent the last year educating myself about economics. Why economics? Simply put, government bureaucrats use the Ignorance of the Masses to push through economic policies which superficially sound well-grounded yet have dangerous and harmful downstream effects. Being ignorant myself of economics, I did recognize many U.S. foreign and economic policies were damaging in the long run, I couldn’t find the words to express my concern, nor explain why the policies were damaging. Saying “something is this way,” is not as powerful as saying “something is wrong due to these 5 factors.”

On Tuesday, October 4th, U.S. and global media outlets (Reuters) announced plans by the U.S Congress for the design of a bill to pressure China to modify the value of the Yuan, the Chinese currency.

According to Reuters, the U.S. Senate voted to open debate on a bill allowing for the imposition of tariffs on consumer products entering the United States from countries deliberately undervaluing currencies.

People may read right past that comment; I own bias is people do read right past “tariff” comments, not understanding the implications.

A tariff is a tax placed on a good entering a country. The country making the good does not pay the tax. We do; American consumers pay the tax. When we decide to buy a Blu-Ray player, LCD or Plasma TV, the price we pay includes the tariff. The cost is passed to us. Essentially, as we notice prices increasing, we decide not to buy, or we decide to buy a cheaper competing product. But, we pay the price, using more of our income to buy consumer goods.

“What is wrong with that?” You ask. “Maybe if tariffs were high enough, jobs would reappear in the United States!”

Maybe. Just remember the tariff is a social tax, a form of Socialism, designed to ‘level out the labor market’.

“How can you say that? That sounds like crazy-talk!”

A tariff is a method governments have of manipulating the price of consumer products ABOVE the fair market value. For example, say Taiwan produces a Blu-Ray player and your price at Wal-mart is $128. Now, say, Taiwan also undervalues it’s currency. According the U.S. Congress, the Blu-Ray player will have a tax added to the price. Now that Blu-Ray player will cost you $140. You’ve just been removed of $12 of your disposable income because the Congress does not like the way Taiwan manages its money. And, more importantly, the fair market value of that device has now been manipulated. You might be cool with that; I just want you to know you are out $12.

The Better Question: Why Does China Undervalue Its Own Currency?

This is the question I wish someone would ask, simply because I want a public figure to validate my own knowledge.

OK, so the controversy is this: China keeps the Yuan cheap relative to other currencies so products made in China are less expensive and people around the world buy more stuff. Right? People in Germany, and France, and Sweden, and Canada buy stuff made in China because the stuff is cheap. Buying inexpensive stuff means you have more utility with your money, you can do more things with your money.

Somebody has to make the stuff we buy. Enter the Chinese worker. China has an enormous labor market. China has a population of about 1,300,000,000 people. About 50% of those are workers, or about 650,000,000.

In other words, the Chinese labor force is more than 2x’s as large as the entire population of the United States, and larger than the entire population of Europe.

Most of these workers are barely literate, illiterate, or working their way through school to become fully educated. But to find work for over 1/2 a billion people is an amazingly complex task.

An easy way to provide employment is to undervalue your currency. If products made in your country are cheap compared to elsewhere, you can sell more, which means making more, which means employing more people.

From the Chinese perspective, an undervalued currency makes sense because keeping workers employed and working is essential.

I envision if China decided to allow their currency to “float” and operate against global financial markets as other currencies, Chinese economic growth would drop from the 9-10% range experienced now, to 4-5%. The U.S. Congress would say 4-5% is acceptable. The Chinese workers would riot in the streets from being unemployed. I’m not sure I want 650,000,000 people pissed off at me.

What About the United States Currency?

The U.S. Congress telling China to revalue the Yuan comes off as disingenuous. The U.S. dollar is slightly undervalued against the European Union’s Euro. The European Union has voiced displeasure over the value of the U.S. Dollar as a low dollar against the Euro makes U.S. goods cheaper in Europe. On the other hand, European goods are more expensive in the U.S., thus we don’t buy as much.

But This Controversy Is About Job Creation!

In part, no doubt there is some truth to the Job Creation argument.

Even the Job Creation Argument needs examination, though.

Do this: visit the web site Learner.org, and watch the video, Guangdong: Globalization in the Pearl River Delta. Fast-forward to about the 7:00 minute mark. Those workers in the video are making shoes for Nike. Sitting at a shoe press for 8-10 hours per day.

That is the job the U.S. Congress wants you to have, sitting at a shoe press, the vertebrae in your back calcifying from hours of hunched-back sitting.

Really? That is the job Congress wants to bring back to the United States?

My point is this:

For the United States to maintain a technological advantage, to maintain a standard of living our parents have worked hard to achieve, we cannot cling to labor market philosophies and policies better suited for the 1950s. Our U.S. labor market needs to adapt to for the 2050s, and beyond. Those brute-force manufacturing jobs are better suited for countries with necessary manpower and wage flexibility. The United States should leave those jobs behind and focus on the future, not the past. We seem to be riding a horse into the future, seated backwards in the saddle, lamenting what has come before.

Manufacturing jobs will always be present in the United States. Making cars, trucks, washing machines, dryers, heavy equipment, items both large and small, simply makes economic sense.

However, some jobs really can go somewhere else, and I argue, the U.S. benefits by having those jobs leave.

Technorati Tags: education,labor,globalization,congress,currency,employment,jobs,unemployment

Education Is Not Simply About What One Knows

Whether one is a welder, a foreign diplomat, or a genetic engineer, being educated about the world makes a society better.

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a front-page piece detailing the educational efforts of our state legislators, “How Educated Are Our State Legislators?” Definitely some surprises.

Arkansas, for example, ranks higher than Maine. I never would have guessed that. Also lower is Delaware; never would have guess that either. New Hampshire comes in 50th; the study really should have excluded New Hampshire, though. The NH houses meet infrequently, do not have full-time legislators, and few of the legislators posted their educational background. With better data, New Hampshire might rank higher.

California is at the head of the class, with 90% of legislators having at least a Bachelor’s Degree. In fact, if I were to include “Some College,” that percent would rise to 93%. Not bad, for a broke state.

My adopted state of Kentucky fairs pretty well, too. 77% of our state legislators have a Bachelor’s Degree. Toss in another 9% for those who have had “Some College,” and that percent pops to 86%. Pretty amazing.

Some legislators created profiles for themselves on their state-supported web sites. Sometimes, educational information was listed, such as school attended, what he/she studied, and what degree was attained, if any. A few even posted a GPA. Good for them.

Some posted as education the “School of Life,” or “Self-Educated.” One legislator stated she went to “gun school.” One legislator is 19 years old. Kyle Jones (NH) works the night shift at Burger King and goes to school part-time. That is awesome!

Adam Brown, Brigham Young University, makes some good comments about politics and education. “Legislators aren’t only supposed to represent the white-collar workers of the world. They need represent everybody.” Brown then goes on to say something that somewhat boggles me. When asked if he learned anything about public higher education, or about education in California, he is quoted as saying, “No, of course not. I was just a student.”

I hope this not quoted properly. How can a person not learn something about higher education while being a Ph.D student? Hell, as a graduate student at a small regional university, I learned about grants, state funding for capital projects, state funding for educational programs, salaries, allocation of degree programs throughout the state. I find this statement almost to incredible to believe, actually. I can see that comment coming from a BA/BS student; frankly, most of them have no idea what goes on in higher education. Nothing against them, they simply do not work behind the scenes. Just because I watch the Space Shuttle launch doesn’t mean I know all the details behind the planning of a launch.

I am really bothered by a couple notions.

First, people misinterpret the word, “liberal,” when used with education. Or, rather they choose to identify with only 1 or 2 of the word’s 15 potential meanings. When used with “education,” “liberal” does not mean “socialist,” or “communist,” or “left-leaning,” or “to advocate for political reform as defined by progressive social Democrats.”

Liberal Education simply means “generous” or “abundant.” We could extend that to include “tolerant of others,” or “to encourage the pursuit of intellectual thought and discourse in an academic manner.”

To receive a liberal education, simply puts, means a student has been exposed to a number of different influences, local, regional, national, and global in reach and depth. Nothing is wrong with this, and a lot of things are right about it.

Which brings me to my second notion.

Daniel Thatcher illustrates my problems with the anti-intellectualism that is rearing its ugly and ignorant head in the U.S. Definitely a dragon that St. George needs to behead.

Daniel Thatcher is a self-taught electrician in Utah and is a freshman senator. College drop-out. To be clear, I have no issues with college drop-outs. People who are uniquely motivated and have skill, drive, desire to do something with their lives – more power to them, I say. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to begin Microsoft, probably the most famous example. Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy’s, same thing. Drive, desire, and determination are powerful influences in a person’s life.

But, remember this, they did not sit on their asses, watching TV, and wondering what they were going to do for the day. They did something. They taught themselves, and surrounded themselves with smart people, many of whom were/are highly educated people.

Here is what Daniel Thatcher is quoted as saying,

“You go to college, you take a foreign language, and all these ridiculous diversity requirements-how does that help you become a better welder? Why is it that we’re telling kids, ‘You can get any degree you want, and you’ll make all of this money,’ when they won’t?”

And, in a nutshell, this is what is wrong with America.

Let me deal with the only thing he said correctly first. How does learning Spanish make you a better welder? Technically, being versed in Spanish will not help you make a better weld, that is true. You win, Mr. Thatcher, on that point. On that point alone, you win.

Having learned Spanish might make you a much more marketable welder, though. Being able to speak Spanish might make you a crew chief, team leader, foreman. One day, you might be a consultant on a job where the ability to speak a foreign language comes in handy. Perhaps the language is Russian instead of Spanish.

Perhaps your jobs become fewer and fewer because clients are taking work to other facilities because they not only work on domestic contracts but are able to work on multi-national contracts, too.

Go ahead, Mr. Thatcher, weld yourself into a corner.

Who cares about globalization, global labor markets, the global movement of labor, the movement of production and products, and the growing interconnectedness of the world? Not the United States, right?

Ignorance is bliss, right? Americans should be down-right jolly with more of your ilk in state legislatures.

I ask, how can Americans understand how labor works, or how the economics of Nike, or of Dell, or of Toyota work, if all we do is learn just the modicum that we need in order to weld?

We can’t.

How can the United States prepare our current population, and our future workforce, and continue to evolve our society, with such ass-backwards, 1950s, riding forward into the future sitting backward in our saddle, thinking?

Our ignorance will be our undoing.

And, you Mr. Thatcher, are guilty of the irresponsible argument that education is completely and totally useless for most professions.

U.S. citizens need to be educated. I am not advocating formal education, compulsory education. The growing anti-intellectualism in the U.S. must end, though. Americans need to be aware of their communities, their state, their nation, their national neighbors, and understand the dynamics involved in even the simple economies that make our world what it is today.

Technorati Tags: higher education,education,senators,representatives,legislators,university,college

The Complicated Geography of Labor

 

Americans are an ignorant lot. Though pained to state this, I believe that by-and-large Americans are pretty ignorant. Ignorance does not mean “stupid,” ignorance simply means, “uninformed.” Lest you think I am above being ignorant myself, I am not. I realize I am ignorant, though, and the more I learn the more I realize the depths of my own ignorance.

Americans are becoming more ignorant, I fear. Despite the increasing prevalence of technology in our lives, we are becoming increasingly fragmented in our knowledge. The Internet allows us entry into an enormous world of information. Sort of. Sifting for Truth on the Internet is very much like searching for a precious item in a New Jersey landfill. And, what is “Truth,” anyway. Let’s avoid that debate.

Politicians, and Corporations, deliberately or unwittingly, take advantage of our ignorance. Our lack of knowledge works to their advantage, and against ours. Also, our politicians are not immune to being ignorant or vacuous. Many of them seem to lack wisdom to truly understand dilemmas faced by the United States, especially when it comes to Unemployment, Employment, Labor, and Education.

As a result of their lack of knowledge, wisdom, or, perhaps, malevolently they hide their knowledge knowing that they can leverage the ignorance of their districts of their own benefit, politicians pander to Americans, furthering economic myths, and establish bad economic policy.

Here is an example of what I mean by saying “politicians pander.” A politician who says, “We need to bring jobs back to America,” might illicit a nice response from his constituency, and people will rally around a politician who proclaims that the “government needs to protect American jobs and punish those companies that move manufacturing to other countries.” This is pandering, potentially bad economic policy, potentially bad for America, and bear with me and I will explain why.

For this essay, my focus is manufacturing. Specifically, shoes. I am really discussing Globalization – the interconnectedness and dependence among various people, places, things, and ideas driving global development. But I want to couch my discussion of Globalization in terms of shoes.

For the record, I do not view Globalization as a good thing or bad. Guns are neither good nor bad; their use can be used for good or ill. Same as money. Money can be given to charity, or used for buying drugs, or people. Question the motives of anyone who says “globalization is _____” (bad / destructive / harmful / etc.) That person has an agenda and is distorting information for his/her own purpose.

Let’s get started.

Nike’s international headquarters is located in Beaverton, Oregon. In 2010, Nike made $19 billion in gross profits from its different business ventures. Nike has over 30,000 employees working in 160 countries. Including their suppliers, shippers, and retailers, Nike employees over 1 million people world-wide.

Nike does not make shoes, per se. Nike designs shoes. Nike sells shoes. Nike markets shoes. Nike contracts with factories around the world to build their shoes. Nike does not own the factory. Nike simply finds a shoe factory, perhaps in Brazil, China, Viet Nam, and contracts out the job of building the shoes. Nike may help find the raw materials for building the shoes. Nike might assist in finding rubber from Malaysia. Find cotton from France, or the United States. Locate leather from Brazil or Argentina.

Nike does not hire the labor that works in the shoe factory. Those workers are hired from local pools of labor by the managers of that shoe factory. Those local workers need employment and are willing to work. Willing to work for $5-$10 per day. Those workers do not protest for vacation days. Generally. Those workers do not protest for health care, for dental plans, for eye care. Those workers do not protest for retirement plans. That is the fact on the ground. For the time being. We may see changes in labor in Southeast Asia over the next 5 years or so.

Yes, yes, you say, you know that. People work for 1/10th of the wages of an American. In the U.S., our Minimum Wage is $7.25 per hour. The minimum average wage in Viet Nam (2009) was $1 per hour for an 8-hour day.

Now, place yourself in the shoes of a business owner. You are going to pay the same transportation costs as your competitor. You are going to pay the same raw material costs as your competitor. Those are economic truths, not my truths. Raw materials like cotton, leather, rubber, etc. are traded on global markets. The global markets determine those prices. You and your competition, Reebok, Asics, New Balance, will be buying from the same pool of resources.

You can try to find better labor costs, however. If you were building shoes in the U.S. you were paying one employee $54.38 per day to build shoes. In Viet Nam, you could pay almost 7 workers for one day’s work for the same job, and arrive at the same product, with 7x’s as many shoes. And, as the case is, those workers are not yours, you do not have to worry about them. Remember? You are contracting with a factory in Viet Nam. You will pay that factory based on the shoes produced. In turn, that company will pay workers.

 

Your U.S. workers will cry “foul!” and complain, and protest, and picket your office.

You, on the other hand, will still employ people, designers, engineers, chemists, advertisers, salespeople, lawyers, accountants, etc. Plus, you will also indirectly employee people around the world. In other words, skilled employees that make decent money.

People who buy your shoes will be happy because they will still be able to afford to buy your shoes because you have managed to control the overall cost of your shoes.

Consumers, you and I, push companies to relocate to find cheap labor. When we buy devices, clothes, and shoes at Wal-Mart, or Target, or CostCo, we are telling Nike, Reebok, Levi, Lee, Magnavox, etc., we want cheap clothes and cheap electronics.

By preventing the movement of manufacturing jobs abroad, the cost of our clothes, shoes, DVD players, iPhones, Droids, XBoxes, LCD TVs, will all go up.

“Yeah, but paying people high wages to assemble that stuff will put money in their pocket to buy those things!”

No, not really. Remember the cost of paying those American workers is going to be passed along to us, the consumer. If a company could save 90% of its labor costs by shifting the production to Viet Nam, and chooses not to, well, that is not really in the interest of the company, is it? That company is not maximizing capital, human capital, therefore not acting efficiently. The costs of labor will be passed along to us, the American consumer. Prices will inflate to match the increased cost of labor, thereby putting these devices, clothes, etc. out of reach of many people aka The Middle Class.

Another bad side effect is Inflation. If wages did go up, then companies tend to increase prices. Companies feel people can afford to pay more, since they are making more money. And, another economic “law” is that as the amount of something goes up, its value goes down. Put more dollars into circulation, the value of a dollar decreases and what you can buy with that dollar goes down.

Goes like this: Say all Americans gets a 20% pay increase. Sounds good, right? Wonder Bread, seeing this, thinks, oh wow, everyone is making more money now. Let’s sell a loaf a bread for $1.20, instead of $1.00. Wonder Bread bumps the price of bread up 20%, not because their costs increased, but because consumers can now afford to spend more.

“No fair, that isn’t right! Wonder Bread just negated my raise because now my grocery bill just went up 20%! Government, you need to stop this!”

What are you, a Communist? Who are you to tell Wonder Bread how to run their business? What business is it of the government to tell Wonder Bread what they can charge for bread?

Maybe the good isn’t bread, it is a Blu-Ray player. Let’s revisit the earlier notion of passing along costs of production to the Consumer, you and I. For the sake of argument, consider from before the example of the U.S.-made Blu-Ray player versus an identical Blu-Ray player available from China.

The increase in cost of that Blu-Ray player from being made in the U.S. with U.S. wages now is $200 versus $150 for the China-made version. Now, if you are standing at Target, and two equal Blu-Ray players are shelved beside each other, and the U.S. Blu-Ray is $200, and the China Blu-Ray is $200, which one are you going to buy? You also think, if I save $50 I can go back and buy 5 of the Blu-Ray DVDs off the $10 rack.

History has already proven what Americans will do. That is why shoes are made in China, and TVs are made in China. In the 1970s and 1980s, Americans opted for the cheaper devices made in foreign countries over the same products made in the U.S.A.

“Yeah, the government opened up the trade floodgates! It’s the damned <insert political party here> fault!". They are the ones who destroyed manufacturing!”

Yes, you are correct. The U.S. government opened trade with China, and Japan, and Taiwan, and Singapore, and India, and Bangladesh, and wherever. And, you benefited. You ran right out and bought that LG LCD TV, that XBox, that iPod Touch, that microwave oven. Or, your parent’s did; or, grandparents. Doesn’t matter. Americans saw the value of the products, the savings they were able to achieve, and how they could better use their money for other things.

Let me get this straight: you would rather pay an extra $50 for that Blu-Ray player to keep an American employed? In other words, you want the U.S. government to place a $50 dollar tariff on the China-made Blu-Ray player so that the cost is the same? $50 is a lot of money. Are you sure you would do that?

If you answered “Yes,” then you are advocating for government involvement of Labor, which is primarily a platform of the Democratic Party. Are you a Democrat? Then, you are also advocating for tariffs to protect domestic economics, throwing a wrench into Free Market economics, and that is a Socialist tenet. Are you a Socialist?

Listen to the news, and listen to political pundits from all parties. Politicians speak from all sides of their mouths. They want to keep costs down, yet prevent jobs from going off-shore, yet want to reduce education spending that builds a healthier economy. Right …

And, Americans seem to want it both ways, too. We want cheap phones, and cheap TVs, and cheap cars, and cheap whatever. Yet, we also claim to want good, high-paying jobs. Well, remember folks, that someone has to pay for that high-paying job, and that someone will be you and I.

Americans need to be aware of the repercussions of their “calls to action.” Like “fix unemployment!” or the cry for “we need jobs!” That is why you need to stay awake in Microeconomics and Macroeconomics; this is where we learn about these topics. But most of us are like, “man, these supply and demand curves are freaking boring.”

Yeah, well ignoring those Supply and Demand curves allow corporations and politicians to work their magic at our expense.

And, ignoring your math class allows corporations and politicians to run a numbers games against Americans as our ignorance grows.

We have jobs, 3.5 million that have gone unclaimed.

Those jobs have gone unclaimed, in part, because Americans do not pay attention to educating themselves to the Job Vacancies or Employment Growth Sectors. We educate ourselves for stuff that sounds fun. Like “Sports & Leisure,” or “Journalism,” or “English.” There is nothing wrong with those degrees in and of themselves. The U.S. doesn’t need them right now. We need computer programmers, nurses, health care workers, chemists, engineers, database managers. Those are good jobs. High paying jobs.

Educated people will always have a distinct advantage over those that have fewer skills or lack formal education.

As the Election Season begins, we will have to listen hard and well to sift through the BS from all sides. Take nothing said by anyone for granted. Do not fall victim to Confirmation Bias, believing what you hear or read from people who seem to think as you do. That is borderline Fascism.

Question.

Technorati Tags: education,unemployment,nike,reebok,globalization,democratic party,republican party

EarthPulse - National Geographic

EarthPulse - National Geographic

I recently had the opportunity to review some new educational materials published by Wiley & Sons, in cooperation with National Geographic. Earthpulse represents a collection of maps, stories, images, and statistics collected and bound for student's use, to augment instruction.

Earthpulse is now a branch off of the National Geographic website. I have just started to examine this website, but I can already see me using this in my World Geography courses. Imagery really helps convey a sense of place; graphics help convey information. The "Globalization" page under "Our Connected World" seems to indicate that much of the money we spend on goods tends to stay in our own country, despite all the noise we hear that all of our dollars are headed to China.

This site will take much exploration.

Child Labor - Forbes.com

Child Labor - Forbes.com

Geographers have a difficult road ahead of them. The irresistable force of Globalization extends its tendrils into all facets of our lives. We are not even safe from the malevolent aspect of globalization when we purchase a soccer ball. That soccer ball may have been sewn together by a child, according to this story by Megha Bahree.

Not only do soccer balls represent a negative aspect of globalization, but so do embroidered jeans, beaded purses, or those little decorative boxes available at many department stores. These products could also, potentially, have been constructed by children.

Child labor is nothing new. Even our society in the United States has involved a fair amount of its own child labor. Talk to anyone who grew up on a farm. Ask them what it was like for them to grow up. They will probably say, "chores!" I know I worked each summer on my grandparent's farm in Nebraska; and I know that my mother and her brothers worked throughout their childhood on their parent's farm. Child labor in the U.S. is nothing new.

For some children in the U.S. things are somewhat different. Children, and I should say that the definition of a "child" depends. For some, those people under 13 are consider children. For others, the age might be 14. From other viewpoints, those 18 and under are children. But as I was saying, things for some U.S. children are different. They get paid.

Many farmers pay their labor fairly well. According to Ms. Bahree's article, some teenagers may make as much as $7/hr. The other difference is where the money is spent. U.S. teenagers are probably not going to use their income to pay for food for their family, or to help pay off family debt. Children in other countries may make $0.20/hr, or perhaps $1-$2/day. This money is then used to help pay for family expenses-food or debt, not for shopping at the mall, buying Miley Cyrus' new CD.

But is Globalization really that bad?

I argue that Globalization is an amoral force - it doesn't care, really, one way or the other if children are employed or not. The people behind the force have the responsibility of these decisions, however. Guns don't kill people, bullets do not kill people - it is the person wielding the tool that decides how the tool is used.

It can be argued that Globalization may be a potential savior for some of these children. The outsourcing of jobs overseas, not only from the U.S. but also from Europe, Mexico (yes, even Mexico outsources), and Japan, can push technology and new jobs and higher wages into new regions. As wages increase, children may be less likely to have to work outside the home. Families won't feel compelled to "sell" their children's services to others to help the family survive. The children would then be able to educate themselves, further increasing their income potential.

But all of this occurs slowly, and the distribution of these activities is spotty. However, this is the way of Diffusion. Just like disease outbreaks begin slowly, sometimes in isolated areas, pretty soon, under the correct conditions, the disease begins to thrive.

Globalization may act this way, becoming spatially diffuse, and, unlike an infection, may gradually improve the standards of living of millions of people abroad.

Four Tiers of Growth and Prosperity

Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn makes a good pitch in this recent article. Within, he describes the transition from our traditional First World, Second World, Third World mentality - which within the last decade or so has migrated towards High Income, Middle Income, Low Income nomenclature - to a new paradigm.

The world now consists, or will soon consist of, a different structure. First Tier is used to describe Western and Northern Europe, the United States and Canada, and Japan.

The second tier, comprised of former middle- and low-income nations, is represented by countries like India and China.

The third tier are represented by countries in the Middle East and South America. These countries have significant economies yet do not have the influence within the world economy to either require significant help or have the ability to significantly influence world economic policy. At least according Wolfensohn. I would suggest that while, overall, this may be true, certain economic sectors are certainly influenced by countries in these regions. The Middle East is a significant player in petroleum, which influences energy prices. Brazil and Argentina are significant players in agriculture, which carries over to subsidies, food costs, and perhaps energy (think ethanol).

The last tier of countries are chiefly found within Subsaharan Africa. There are a few other countries that fit into this are found outside the region, such as Haiti.. These countries have extreme human poverty, benefit little from the forces of globalization, and unless there is outside intervention (which may have been the initial catalyst for their problems), will probably continue to lag behind the rest of the world - at best.

The article is very detail-rich and Wolfensohn does offer some advice to counteract some of the forces currently at work that undermine potentials across the globe that seek to elevate countries to higher tiers. Finally, being European, I would guess, he challenges Europe to rise up and take a leadership role in eradicating the extreme differences in growth and wealth around the world.

A certain amount of income-disparity is important to have, I believe. In fact, in a free-market world, there will certainly be a stratification of wealth and income. Not everyone is predisposed to risk, entrepreneurial attitudes, climbing the corporation ladder, or the means-justifies-the-end type mentality. Thusly, there will also be disparity in wealth. One cannot eliminate the ability to achieve a better standard of living, however. Maybe it could be likened to a football game (American), where one team gets down so far, becomes demoralized, and loses. There are examples of comebacks, however.

The Houston Oilers and the Buffalo Bills game comes to mind.