Washington is enmeshed in the economic version of the phony war. The two sides have declared war on one another, but neither has faced up to the fierce battles yet to come. Too few seem aware of the staggering challenges that face this country.
Here is a summary of the carnage wrought by the Great Recession summarized by the Economist from a Pew study (HT to nakedcapitalism.com):
More than half of all workers have experienced a spell of unemployment, taken a cut in pay or hours or been forced to go part-time. The typical unemployed worker has been jobless for nearly six months. Collapsing share and house prices have destroyed a fifth of the wealth of the average household. Nearly six in ten Americans have cancelled or cut back on holidays. About a fifth say their mortgages are underwater. One in four of those between 18 and 29 have moved back in with their parents. Fewer than half of all adults expect their children to have a higher standard of living than theirs, and more than a quarter say it will be lower.. for many Americans the great recession has been the sharpest trauma since the second world war, wiping out jobs, wealth and hope itself.Stop and consider the implications. Then add the fact that continuing high levels of unemployment are now the consensus forecast. Long term unemployment will remain at record levels. In the US, where we provide only temporary support for the unemployed, this is a social catastrophe. Families break apart; drugs and despair increases; community institutions decline; domestic violence, racial and anti-immigrant hostility soar. The young graduating into this economy are likely to fare worse throughout their work lives.
In this context, the Washington debate seems particularly puerile. The business and financial elites are rolling out an attack on Obama as anti-business, accusing him of demonizing corporations. Given Obama's preternatural equanimity, the charge is risible. And utterly dishonest. (See for example, Paul Krugman's takedown of the latest screed by real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman, who Breitbarted an Obama quote, utterly distorting it to make his point.)
Republicans have returned to their supply side fantasies, arguing that top end tax cuts won't add to deficits, while filibustering against unemployment insurance and any jobs program. But we tried it their way in the Bush years. Deficit spending driven by top end tax cuts and wars produced a bubble economy, scarred by no jobs growth, stagnant wages, growing inequality, growing debt, and borrowing of $2 billion a day from abroad, largely from Chinese central bankers. And that was before the bubble burst. Surely, they have to offer something different.
Democrats, in contrast, believe the Recovery Act worked to save an economy in free fall, but wasn't big enough to put people back to work. So they call for more jobs initiatives, plus extension of unemployment supports as well as aid to cash strapped states to forestall layoffs of teachers and police. But, divided internally, with Blue Dogs focused on deficits, they've been reduced to offering up bite-sized legislative morsels not close to what is needed to address the problem.
Each of these positions assumes that we can recover back to the old economy. Just revive business confidence, or cut top end tax cuts, or offer up temporary jobs programs, and the economy will recover.
The problem, as President Obama argued so cogently in his Georgetown Economic Sermon on the Mount, is that we can't go back to the old economy and should not want to. The old economy was based on bubbles inflated by debt, with most Americans falling behind, meager job production, growing offshoring of manufacturing, and rising inequality. There is no answer there to the mass unemployment, declining wages, and even greater inequality we are experiencing now.
Obama argued that we had to build a new foundation for the economy out of the ruins of the old. He called for investing in areas vital to our future -- education and training, 21st century infrastructure, research and development. We had to shrink the financial sector so it no longer captured 40% of corporate profits. We had to balance our trade and make things in America once more. Capturing a lead role in the expanding renewable energy markets of the future was a national security and an economic imperative.
But that vision has been blighted in practice. The recovery act provided a down payment on the investment agenda, but now the president is committed to a three year freeze on domestic spending which essentially rules out any significant investment. The big banks were rescued but not reorganized, and emerged from the crisis more concentrated than ever. Germany and China and other mercantilist nations scorn Obama's call for balanced trade, and the president is reverting to peddling more of the trade accords that helped put us in this hole. Even on new energy, the US has lagged behind the Germans, the Spanish, the Chinese and others who are rushing to capture the lead on building the new technologies, and we can't even get a vote on an energy bill in the Senate.
And now the US debate is focusing increasingly on how we balance our accounts rather than how we build an economy that will put people to work and rebuild a vibrant middle class (and along the way bring our books into better balance).
House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority leader Steny Hoyer, now plan to lay out a new manufacturing strategy for America, a package of bills to support Making It in America once more. While the package is still being put together, it is likely to include a mandate to create a national manufacturing strategy and to review progress on it regularly. Tax credits and subsidies will be offered to jump-start new energy. Hopefully, US procurement laws will be revised to favor purchase of renewable energy made in America. A large national infrastructure bank that could help mobilize private capital for rebuilding America's decrepit infrastructure is vital (but has just been put aside in Congress). Comprehensive review of US trade laws, as well as a clear challenge to Chinese currency manipulation is essential. Given how empty the current debate is, the package will draw a sharp contrast, even if it isn't of scale.
It strikes me that the Democrats might be well advised to start with first principles. In 1946, faced with the daunting transition to a civilian economy after World War II with fear of a return to the Great Depression widespread, the Congress passed the Employment Act of 1946. The act mandated the federal government to use its powers to "foster continuous, useful employment for those able, willing and seeking to work." The act was fiercely debated, and, in the end, weakened by amendments that changed the name from the Full Employment Act to the Employment Act, dropped the guarantee of the right to a job to every American, and added price stability as an equally important goal.
That debate was revisited in the 1978 Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act, which initially sought to revive the mandate to full employment, and the right to a job. In the end, it too was diluted, offering five ultimate goals: full employment, growth in production, price stability, balance of trade and balanced budgets. It was this act that gave the Federal Reserve the dual mandate of pursing both full employment and price stability. Needless to say, over the last decade, the goals were distorted in practice, with price stability becoming primary, while trade deficits soared, manufacturing was shipped overseas, and budget deficits rose -- before the collapse.
It is time to reassert that full employment is the primary measure of our economy: "Continuous and useful employment for those willing and seeking to work." Mass unemployment is an unacceptable failure. We will not learn to live with it. We will keep pushing until we eliminate it. Government will strive to create the conditions for the private market to create the jobs we need. But it will act as an employer of last resort for those unable to find work over a long period of time.
It is easy to scorn such admonitions. Congress excels at setting high sounding goals that it is certain to ignore. But we've got an economy where corporate profits are up, bank profits are up, inequality is rising -- and there are no jobs. This cannot become the new normal. However naïve it may sound, it would be good for the congress and the president to have the debate. Commit clearly that full employment is the measure by which their actions should be judged. Or alternatively, admit that full employment is no longer plausible, so we will build a strong social contract -- of training, guaranteed income, health care -- for those discarded from the workforce. Let's have the debate -- for the one choice that is socially ruinous is the one we seem to be drifting towards -- mass unemployment without a safety net.
Follow Robert L. Borosage on Twitter: www.twitter.com/borosage
7/29/2010
Robert L. Borosage: Reality Check
A ‘Reality Economics’ View of Entrepreneurship « Acton Institute PowerBlog
This week I’m attending Mises University, one of the largest and most rigorous summer courses in the Austrian School of economics (or “reality economics,” as my friend Michael McKay likes to call it).
Among the various lectures, there was one in particular that struck me as particularly relevant to the work of the Acton Institute. Peter Klein, professor of economics at the University of Missouri, delivered a presentation on entrepreneurship, a large part of the focus of his academic work.
Dr. Klein approaches the subject of entrepreneurship from the more realistic Austrian perspective. Rather than viewing people as examples of the homo economicus, as almost robotic, quantitatively-driven machines, Dr. Klein views human beings as unique and free actors. When we act, we do so under conditions of time and uncertainty. Though every human action presupposes cause and effect, there is no guarantee that our instincts are correct or that our efforts will pay off. In this way, every one of us, whenever we choose some action, is a kind of entrepreneur. In the face of uncertainty, we have an intended – but not guaranteed – result of action.
Combine that with the Austrians’ very realist take on production: production is not some kind of abstract graphical function, but the concrete act of taking a natural resource (e.g. some wood, a stone, some metal ore), and using one’s labor – almost investing a part of oneself – to physically transform it.
In a very broad sense, we all participate in this two-sided entrepreneurial action: actively and consciously transforming the world around us, and doing so in the face of uncertainty and imperfect knowledge.
In a much more specific sense, this activity applies to the people we would usually call entrepreneurs (Ludwig von Mises called them, “entrepreneur-promoters”). These are the businessmen we all know: the small-business owner, the investment banker, the risk-taker. These are individuals whose entrepreneurial spirit in a special way exceeds those of everyone around them. They are the ones willing to take on greater risk, confront greater uncertainty, and make more difficult decisions.
In any case, I find that this realistic description of the role of entrepreneurship fits extremely well with the theology in The Call of the Entrepreneur. In the film, we learn that the entrepreneur is a “co-creator”: He participates in the act of transforming raw materials and natural resources into products for consumers; but the entrepreneur does so by investing time and energy into the production process. And creativity and imagination play an indispensable role in this process of co-creation.
I remember a kind of feeling of awe when this thought dawned on me during Dr. Klein’s lecture. Here we find yet another example of how the market process, when understood and employed correctly, is not simply a morally indifferent result of choice, but a morally positive thing. Society and its consumers and made better off, and both the laborer and the entrepreneur are reminded of their human dignity as they participate in God’s work of fashioning the world.
3
comments
share yoursCategory: Business and Society
Related Tags:
business, call of the entrepreneur, capitalism, christianity, economics, entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, freedom, wealth
The Diamondback - New living-learning programs focus on entrepreneurship, digital cultures
The University Honors Program’s fall curriculum will include two additional living-learning programs, with new focuses on entrepreneurship and computer science joining existing technology, humanities and interdisciplinary curricula.
The new two-year Entrepreneurship and Innovation Program will be headed by Jay Smith, who himself founded a multimillion-dollar creative services company right out of business school. Students in the program will be in an environment in which they can generate profitable ideas by building off of those living with them, Smith said.
“Something happens when you put students thinking in the same way together,” Smith said. “Everyone gets ideas at different times, not singularly in a classroom setting. ... This system gives the opportunity for ideas to be shared and bounced around during non-classroom hours.”
The program’s students — split evenly among business majors, engineering majors and students from other fields of study — are required to fulfill 10 credits of EIP courses and two Honors seminars for a total of 16 credits.
The other new Honors program that launches in the fall, Digital Cultures and Creativity, attracted attention in the spring when the university promised each of its 75 students a free iPad tablet computer.
Program director Matthew Kirschenbaum, an English professor who teaches courses on electronic literature and new media such as online books and electronic book readers, said the digital cultures courses are “aimed at the so-called ‘digital native,’ or the kids who have grown up with the computer and the web, but are not necessarily interested in programming or computer science.”
“A lot of time people think that computers and literature don’t go together, but when you think about it, they really do,” Kirschenbaum said. “People go into humanities because they don’t like technology, but today you really can’t separate them. This program is a good way to combine creativity and art with technology.”
The digital cultures program requires 16 credits during the first two years at the university, including a practicum that culminates in a major project.
All incoming Honors students are now chosen for one of the college’s five programs — the new offerings or the existing Honors Humanities, Gemstone or the more generic University Honors — based both on their individual preferences and decisions by Honors officials.
Provost Nariman Farvardin, whose office has helped fund the new Honors programs, said they were created to expand the reach of the honors program to interest and excite students.
“These new programs promise to be exciting additions to the Honors College and have been very successful in attracting highly talented students to the university,” Farvardin wrote in an e-mail.
Margaret Zheng, an incoming freshman finance major enrolled in the program, said she appreciated the university’s focus on connecting students outside the classroom.
“I thought living-learning was pretty cool,” Zheng said. “It makes it really convenient for things like projects and study-buddies, because everyone you live with will be taking a lot of the same classes. It’s just really a comfort knowing someone like me will be in walking distance.”
news at umdbk dot com
refresh -->
BERNAMA - National Entrepreneurship Forum Attracts Over 60 Top Entrepreneurs
July 29, 2010 16:18 PM
National Entrepreneurship Forum Attracts Over 60 Top Entrepreneurs
By: Ramjit-->
KUALA LUMPUR, July 29 (Bernama) -- The National Entrepreneurship Forum, Green Entrepreneurship 2010, which is organised by Enterprise Asia, has attracted over 60 top entrepreneurs from corporations in Malaysia and Asia.
In a statement here Thursday, Enterprise Asia, said the forum would focus on the alternative business opportunities accessible in Malaysia and emphasise how business could make money while still being responsible towards the environment.
"Through the forum, we hope to create a platform where local entrepreneurs are able to share best practises, network and to create opportunities for new ventures for the betterment of the industry's growth," said William Ng, president of Enterprise Asia.
The National Entrepreneurship Forum, starting today, is held in conjunction with the Asia-Pacific Entrepreneurship Awards and Asia Responsible Entrepreneurship Award to recognise the efforts of Malaysia's top entrepreneurs.
Among the speakers are president/chief executive officer (CEO) of Petra Group, Datuk Vinod Sekhar, Dr Geoffrey Williams (chairman of the Asia Environment Council), Matthias Gelber (CEO OWW Consulting), and Chad Merchant (executive director of Premium Liquid Assets Malaysia).
The speakers come from a diversified background, mainly from different countries and economic environments.
-- BERNAMA
We provide (subscription-based)
news coverage in our Newswire service.
Kaplan University Teams up with Kauffman FastTrac® to Offer Two Graduate Certificates in Entrepreneurship | Business Wire
Kaplan University Teams up with Kauffman FastTrac® to Offer Two Graduate Certificates in Entrepreneurship
With individuals pursuing business ownership in record numbers, entrepreneurship training is in demand
DAVENPORT, Iowa--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kaplan University, a leader in higher education innovation, has teamed up with Kauffman FastTrac®, a premier provider of learning curricula for entrepreneurs, to offer two new online graduate certificates specifically designed to prepare students for careers as business people.
“Teaming up with a market leader like Kaplan University enables us to equip even more entrepreneurs with the skills they need to start and grow firms—thus creating the innovations, jobs and wealth this country needs to recover and prosper.”
“This partnership provides a unique opportunity to combine the innovation of Kaplan University’s online platform with the stellar curriculum that the Kauffman Foundation has developed over the years,” said Wade Dyke, D.Phil., president of Kaplan University. “These certificate programs are a great complement to the University’s online business curriculum. Promoting entrepreneurship through education is central to both of our missions.”
According to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, a leading indicator of new business creation in the United States, the number of new businesses created during the current recession increased. In 2009, business startups reached their highest level in 14 years – even exceeding the number of startups during the peak 1999-2000 technology boom.
The Graduate Certificate in Entrepreneurship for New Ventures uses the FastTrac® NewVenture™ framework to help students learn the process of starting and building a successful business. The certificate provides instruction in key business areas, including creating business plans, developing financial and operation plans, and creating feasibility studies.
The Graduate Certificate in Entrepreneurship for Growth Ventures uses the FastTrac® GrowthVenture™ framework to help students learn how to manage an expanding business and to strategically align all aspects of the business for growth. The certificate provides instruction in key business areas, including creating marketing plans, identifying leadership strategies, creating growth business plans, and conducting internal assessments.
”Nearly all net job growth in our country comes from companies less than five years old. So, today more than ever, we need more people starting companies, and we need current business owners to be more successful in growing their firms,” said Carl Schramm, president and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation, which created the FastTrac program. “Teaming up with a market leader like Kaplan University enables us to equip even more entrepreneurs with the skills they need to start and grow firms—thus creating the innovations, jobs and wealth this country needs to recover and prosper.”
For more information on the new graduate certificates in entrepreneurship, click here.
About Kauffman FastTrac
Kauffman FastTrac is the leading provider of learning curricula that equip aspiring and existing entrepreneurs with the business skills and insights, tools, resources, and network to start and grow successful businesses. Kauffman FastTrac was created by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the largest foundation in the United States devoted to entrepreneurship. To learn more about Kauffman FastTrac, visit www.fasttrac.org.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation is a private nonpartisan foundation that works to harness the power of entrepreneurship and innovation to grow economies and improve human welfare. Through its research and other initiatives, the Kauffman Foundation aims to open young people's eyes to the possibility of entrepreneurship, promote entrepreneurship training and education, raise awareness of entrepreneurship-friendly policies, and find alternative pathways for the commercialization of new knowledge and technologies. Founded by late entrepreneur and philanthropist Ewing Marion Kauffman, the Foundation is based in Kansas City, Mo., and has approximately $2 billion in assets. For more information, visit www.kauffman.org, and follow the Foundation on www.twitter.com/kauffmanfdn and www.facebook.com/kauffmanfdn.
About Kaplan University
Kaplan University offers a different school of thought for higher education. It strives to help adult students unlock their talent by providing a practical, student-centered education that prepares them for careers in some of the fastest-growing industries. The University, which has its main campus in Davenport, Iowa, and its headquarters in Chicago, is regionally accredited by The Higher Learning Commission (www.ncahlc.org) and is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA). Kaplan University has more than 125 academic programs and offerings, and serves more than 78,000 online and campus-based students. The University has 12 campuses in Iowa, Nebraska, Maryland and Maine, and Kaplan University Learning Centers in Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri and Florida.
Kaplan University is part of Kaplan Higher Education, which serves more than 119,000 students online and through more than 70 campus-based schools across the United States and abroad. Kaplan Higher Education schools offer a spectrum of academic opportunities, from certificates and diplomas to graduate and professional degrees, including a juris doctor degree. Kaplan Higher Education is part of Kaplan, Inc., a leading international provider of educational and career services for individuals, schools and businesses. Kaplan, Inc. is a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO), and its largest and fastest-growing division. For more information about Kaplan University, visit www.kaplanuniversity.edu.
MATERIAL IMMORTALITY AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP | Business Tip
MATERIAL IMMORTALITY AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
But for the presence and relevance of companies such as the Habib Bank AG Zurich, the Folawiyo group, Transpaco, Siemens, Kewalram Chanrai group, Ghabbour Autos, Dantata Investments, and many others; names such as Habib Esmail, Iyanda Folawiyo, Sam Abelheim, Werner von Siemens, Jhamatmal and Thakurdas Chanrai, Kamal and Sadek Ghabbour, Alhassan Dantata, would have been long obliterated from the collection of people stored away in our memory banks. Individuals in their numbers, families and even whole communities still owe their existence and daily survival to the daring entrepreneurial strides of these iconic plungers.
Their names not only introduce the history scripts of their companies, but their vision, values and the cause they pursued, still influence the very nature of how business is carried on by these companies. The vision of the Ghabbour brothers at the start of their automotive trading company over 60 years ago still forms the bedrock of Egyptian GB Auto’s corporate quests. Now one of the Middle East’s largest auto manufacturers, the foundation they set is vivid and their influence lingers.
Daily as these corporations open to business, the memory of their founders will continue in the minds of their beneficiaries and generations to come. In 2008 alone GB Autos maintained 5,500 employees and contributed over (Egyptian pounds) LE100million in taxes. To say they have achieved immortality is certainly not out of place.
Albeit rarely pursued with deliberateness, ‘Material immortality’ – which describes a man’s continuous relevance even after exiting mortal world – is a desire for many. Entrepreneurship is one potent way this is achieved. Treading the many a time torturous path of entrepreneurship anchored by the values of discipline, self sacrifice, deferred gratification, deep insight, knowledge and an untamed desire to succeed would usually berth this ship of continuous impact.
Entrepreneurship however, isn’t just about securing your name a place in corporate history books or is it primarily a tool for attaining material immortality, but it is actually a cardinal contributor to the progression of society through the value its consequent products and services create.
The survival of modern capitalist economies is underpinned by the survival and continuous relevance and productivity of private corporations. They are at the very heart of the economic cycle of wealth creation and distribution, keeping people employed, families intact and society running. The cataclysmic effect of the global economic crisis discloses the effects when this group is left in jeopardy; massive job losses, crumbling economies, depreciating human and material value, frustrated people, edgy peace and a society perpetually at the brink of an eruption.
The initiation of new enterprises has therefore always been strongly recommended as a reliable route to finding solutions to problems, creating wealth for people, expanding the avenues for continuous value delivery and building self sustaining economies.
Travelling by road around Nigeria, it becomes palpable how individual prosperity remains the pillar upon which social and economic change of Nigerian states rest. The nature of the business practices carried out reflects in the prosperity of the state and the quality of its real estate. Hence entrepreneurship should be encouraged and promoted while real attempts at helping petty business persons grow and build their businesses into significant corporations are initiated. Entrepreneurial knowledge need be expanded to include the process of systematization and self sustenance to build more of such corporations that out lasts its founders and continues to add value to the economy.
The entrepreneur who has contributed one company is worthy of note let alone one who has not only created one company but has, by careful planning or just instinctive genius, ensured its survival and continuity beyond himself.
Sanyaolu Kehinde and Taiwo aka Stakes are the Founders of Stakes Capital Ltd and its research subsidiary International Corporate Research, the Stakes are business and investment aficionados with an enviable research knack. They are self trained experts in the rudiments of investing and the fundamentals of equity investing.
Research analysts of repute, the ‘Stakes’ have a natural talent for research and training and have provided solutions to clients of all classes in model design, developing evaluation frameworks, corporate assessment, industry benchmarking and project impact assessment.
They are the authors of numerous published articles and research reports which cut across diverse sectors and countries on the African continent and are driven by a purpose to ensure the creation, promotion and distribution of knowledge in all fields of endeavor with a bias for entrepreneurship and personal finance.
They have a firm belief that a revolution can only come to a nation if and only if there is a people revolution (a change in the mental state of its people).
The ‘Stakes’ are also very compassionate businessmen who believe that wealth should be used to pursue just causes. They have an obsession for clean environments and received the maiden award of the Centre for Values in Leadership club member of the month for their contributions towards cleaning up of dirty communities in Lagos, Nigeria.
They are both members of the International Age of Character Clubs of the University of science and philosophy, USA
More Entrepreneurship Articles
Making A Big Fat Bet on this Generation | Social Entrepreneurship
I'm at the Unreasonable Institute in Boulder as a mentor this week, and later today I'll be giving my take on the presentation that has kicked off the stay of each of the several dozen mentors that they have hosted this summer. Since it's the end of the program, I'm going to go a little meta and talk about the big, meaty bet we're all making on our generation to change the world.
A Unique Combination of Influences. Our cohort grew up with a strange combination of influences. We got a big dose of the holdover idealism of the 1960s generation. At the same time, we got the skepticism that characterized the boomer echo and Gen Xers. The important thing about this combination is that it has predisposed us to be critical and not shy about critiquing organizations driven by good intentions rathe than real impact, while keeping us generally idealistic and optimistic about the value of social change efforts.
A Strange Historical Moment. The 1990s was a truly weird moment in history. The Cold War ended, and as much as it was supposed to be the glorious 'end of history,' it actually was the most violent, turbulent decade since WWII. As we started to get into college in the 2000s, and -- in many cases prompted by the horror of September 11th -- looked back to see the real state of the world, many of of us found that what we remembered and what we experienced was vastly different than what most of the world was experiencing.
At the same time, the internet was creating the architecture for an expansion in human capacity and human connection unlike anything in history. Travel was becoming easier, and the end of the Cold War had seen an explosion in global civil society and nonprofit organizations.
Learning in Person. Taking advantages of these opportunities, our generation has had consistently growing rates of volunteerism. Study abroad is growing on just about every campus, and the places that people are going and the types of programs they're studying in are expanding just as rapidly. There is no learning as essential as learning directly from people experiencing the problems, and we've been fortune to have a lot of that very early.
A Growing Support Structure. Importantly, along with the growth in young people getting their hands dirty with social change has been a boom in the institutions that are designed to support that work by critiquing it, contextualizing it, and offering it new expression. Undergraduate centers, incubator and accelerator programs, training conferences - there is an entire ecosystem of organizations working to make sure that young people's efforts have the impact they wish.
Move Over Millennials, Make Room for Gen U: the...
A growing number of experts are suggesting a new demographic segment has entered the workplace: Generation U, or the Unretired.
The recession has driven many would-be-retirees back to the daily grind. For many though, retirement just wasn’t all they hoped it would be. Either way, research now shows older Americans returning to work are a considerable force to be reckoned with.
The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) says that 8 out of 10 baby boomers will keep working past retirement age.
The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire also released a study confirming that, since the mid-1990s Americans are retiring less and working longer, reversing a decades-long shift to earlier retirement.
The study, "Older Americans Working More, Retiring Less", authored by Anne Shattuck reports that 22% of men and 13% of women over age 65 were in the work force in 2009, an increase from 17% of men and 9% of women over the age of 65 in 1995. The research also reveals the proportion of older adults working for pay is still growing thanks in no small part to the recession.
Meanwhile, a Charles Schwab study finds that as many as 9.5 million retired Americans are considering at least a partial return to the workforce and 32% of those currently employed expect to hold their job and delay retirement.
The Pew Research Center also reports that older adults are staying in the labor force longer, as younger adults are staying out of it longer. “Both trends took shape about two decades ago. Both have intensified during the current recession. And both are expected to continue after the economy recovers,” the group states. Pew cites one government estimate projecting Gen U workers will fuel 93% of the growth in the U.S. labor force from 2006 to 2016.
The good news is that older workers are the happiest workers, according to Pew. The group reports that roughly 54% of workers ages 65 and older say they are "completely satisfied" with their job, compared with just 29% of workers ages 16 to 64.
One reason older Americans may be happier in the workplace: perspective. "Someone returning to the office with a career full of experience, can more easily leave the enjoyment of work life in, and a lot of the pettiness out. With age, comes wisdom that allows one to see the forest for the trees. Imagine that,” said expert and author Lynn Taylor in a Psychology Today blog.
Is the American Dream Dead for Millennials? » New Deal 2.0
Is the American Dream Dead for Millennials?
Wednesday, 07/28/2010 - 2:43 pm by Bryce Covert | 3 Comments --> Wednesday, 07/28/2010 - 2:43 pm by Bryce Covert | 3 Comments
Will the upcoming generation still be able to attain the American Dream?
With sky-high unemployment numbers and a pick up in hiring nowhere in sight, it would be easy for a new generation of college students and graduates to despair. With job prospects difficult at best, will they left out of the American Dream?
At a Century Foundation presentation yesterday, four panelists told a group of college students the answer: an unequivocal “No.” Hilary Doe, National Director of the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network, was joined by Greg Anrig, Vice President of Policy and Programs at TCF, Teresa Ghilarducci, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Chair of Economic Policy Analysis at the New School, and Barbara Kiviat, a Staff Writer at Time Magazine. They teamed up to debunk myths about US debt, the economy, and prospects for the next generation.
How is the American Dream staying alive? As Doe pointed out, while the recession has in many ways hurt millennials the most, the difficulties they have lived through — September 11th, Katrina, two wars, a recession — have made them extremely innovative, entrepreneurial, and creative. They are also highly attuned to the need for strong communities. Both of these qualities mean that they have quite a lot at stake when Obama’s Fiscal Commission threatens to cut programs such as Social Security. For this generation, being able to take risks with their careers is inextricably linked with a “robust” safety net, as Doe put it. And that net should look more like a trampoline that bounces people back to economic security, as a current Campus Network fellow recently told her.
But while the American Dream isn’t dead, it does need support. Anrig pointed out that rising deficit concerns risk sabotaging the economy at a time when government spending is necessary to tackle unemployment. Ghilarducci noted that the Federal budget promotes the American Dream through direct and indirect ways, with discretionary spending and the tax code. The “backdoor” spending through tax expenditures isn’t debated in Congress to see if they are efficient and effective (which they aren’t). Rather than focusing on cutting social programs, these tax expenditures are the real place to look for cost cutting. If the focus turns to deficit reduction through the withering of social programs, it may be an American Dream deferred.
But the change doesn’t all have to come from above. While millennials feel that the government has a role to play in lowering unemployment rates, they are, not surprisingly, distrustful of what it can accomplish. (Just take a look at how long Congress hemmed and hawed before extending unemployment benefits.) But Doe reminded the audience that actions at the local level can be a satisfying way to tackle the big debates over the deficit and unemployment. Movements such as neighborhood “stock markets”, Move Your Money, ending food deserts and getting more preventable health care into people’s homes tackle these problems. And they empower millennials on intimidating issues.
Meanwhile, Kiviat assured the audience that secular trends — such as the rising use of technology — will always trump business cycles, continuing the bright prospects for the American Dream. She did some research into the original American Dream, a term that was coined by James Truslow Adams in 1931 (which makes no reference to housing). His was a vision of a country where you can make your life what you want — as long as you work hard for it. That dream, the panelists agreed, is still thriving.
Bryce Covert is Assistant Editor at New Deal 2.0.
Millennials in the Workplace: Motivation vs. Compensation
Here is another great article by Travis Robertson. You'll love this. It continues with the discussion about Millennials from their standpoint. their shoes and their eyes. Enjoy!
Financial Help Generation Y | Financial Advice Generation Y | Considerations
Financial Help: Millennials Versus Baby Boomers
July 29th, 2010 · No Comments · Economics, Finance, Politics
American society -- and perhaps that of the entire Western world -- is going to have to make a choice now that the battle cry of Generation Y is starting to sound:
They are perhaps the best-educated generation ever, but they can’t find jobs. Many face staggering college loans and have moved back in with their parents. Even worse, their difficulty in getting careers launched could set them back financially for years....
Among 18-to 29-year-olds, unemployment is the highest it’s been in more than three decades, according to a recent report from Pew Research Center. The report also found that Millennials, also known as Generation Y, are less likely to be employed than Gen Xers or baby boomers were at the same age.
Millennials are generally well-educated, but they have have been cast as everything from tech savants who will work cheap to entitled narcissists. The recession has pitted these younger workers against baby boomers trying to save for retirement and Gen Xers with homes and families. [emphasis added]
As I wrote in a prior post on how governments (ideally) determine public policy, societies frequently need to choose between two competing priorities. The financial meltdown -- with its accompanying unemployment -- is a perfect example.
The Baby Boomers worked for their entire lives and paid into retirement accounts and Social Security with the (reasonable) expectation that they would be able to retire comfortably. However, the burst of the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis demolished many of their investments. So many are choosing to continue to work rather than retire. The motivation is just as understandable as it is unfortunate.
Generation Y -- and to a lesser extent, Generation X -- got good grades, went to college, took out thousands upon thousands of dollars in student loans, got graduate degrees for even more debt with the (again, reasonable) expectation that they would receive decent jobs that would lead to a comfortable life. However, the financial meltdown has demolished their dreams as well.
Both the old and the young are competing for jobs -- any job -- at a time when they are extremely scarce. There is always a greater supply of labor than demand in any free market, and the unemployment rate is even higher today -- especially when one counts the underemployed, those who have stopped looking, and those who no longer receive unemployment benefits.
There are two competing groups of people who are looking for work. Which priority is more important? Those who worked their entire lives with an expectation that disappeared, or those who made decisions based on societal suggestions that turned out to be wrong? On what should society focus.
Now, as someone who supports capitalism and the free market, I would never argue that the government should dictate one or the other. (Though, the government can nudge societies through economic means including subsidies, tax breaks, and so on.) U.S. society, through the choices of individuals, will make the ultimate decision.
I will be the first to admit that I am biased since I am nearly thirty (and thereby a part of both Generations X and Y), but just as economics determines that women are more valuable than men in the dating market, so should young people be preferred over the old.
The Baby Boomers have a few decades left to live, and only a portion if that will be able to spent in productive work. An impoverished, disillusioned generation of young people, on the other hand, will harm the United States for many, many decades. Parents always sacrifice for their children -- well, now it is time for the parental generation to step aside.
The Baby Boomers have collective responsibility for the damage that their generation has done through Reaganomics; hippie-inspired "free love" and extreme feminism; a series of mistaken, costly, foreign wars; two presidents who could control neither their libidos nor their daddy issues; and the excessive greed that resulted in the near-collapse of the financial system. It will be up to Generation X and Y to repair the damage. The questions is whether Boomers -- known, perhaps unfairly, as the Selfish Generation -- will let us do that.
Tags: car finance, financial help, certified financial planner, financial advice, business financial software, legal finance, finance degree, financial planning software, financial consolidation, auto credit finance
Now Available: E-Book download: "Letters from Israel: An American journalist’s adventures in the Holy Land."
Written by: Samuel J. Scott on 29 July 2010.
Related posts:
Tags:
No Comments so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment
The Generation Gap on Government — Why and How the Millennial Generation Is the Most Pro-Government Generation and What This Means for Our Future « Docuticker
The Generation Gap on Government — Why and How the Millennial Generation Is the Most Pro-Government Generation and What This Means for Our Future
The Generation Gap on Government — Why and How the Millennial Generation Is the Most Pro-Government Generation and What This Means for Our Future
Source: Center for American ProgressYoung Americans today across the ideological spectrum share a far more favorable view of the federal government than do their elders. Importantly, this so-called Millennial Generation may hold the key to reversing historic declines in public confidence in government—the major finding from a new survey commissioned by the Center for American Progress.
The May survey of 2,523 adults conducted by Hart Research Associates found that young Americans age 18 to 32 give the government more positive performance ratings and more strongly favor a significant role for government in addressing national challenges than does the public at large. Millennials’ distinctly pro-government outlook may well be a leading indicator of a nascent rebound in public confidence in government.
Despite their relatively positive outlook, though, Millennials do share their elders’ concerns that the federal government is often poorly managed and spends money inefficiently, the survey found. And there is no guarantee that their more favorable disposition toward government won’t sour as they age. The message for politicians and policymakers who would seize on the opportunity presented by relatively pro-government Millennials: Make government better, not smaller.
+ Full Report (PDF)
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 29th, 2010 at 8:56 am and is filed under Government and politics, Social and cultural issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Comments are closed.
How’s That Hope And Unemployment Working Out, Millennials? » Pirate's Cove
Hey, just remember, the policies of the Messiah most of you voted for are keeping unemployment high for the long term
They are perhaps the best-educated generation ever, but they can’t find jobs. Many face staggering college loans and have moved back in with their parents. Even worse, their difficulty in getting careers launched could set them back financially for years.
The Millennials, broadly defined as those born in the 1980s and ’90s, are the first generation of American workers since World War II who have cloudier prospects than the generations that preceded them.
Certainly the recession has hurt young workers badly. While the overall unemployment rate was 9.5 percent in June, it was 15.3 percent for those aged 20 to 24, compared with 7.8 percent for ages 35-44, 7.5 percent for ages 45-54 and 6.9 percent for those 55 and older.
Feeling hopey/changey yet? And all this long term unemployment, along with having to take jobs they are “overqualified” for, will apparently scare them mentally for life. But, hey, Obama’s Generational Theft Act can put you to work paving roads and painting bridges!
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds. Don't forget to Blogroll Pirate's Cove!
Gadi Ben-Yehuda: Millennials Want Better, Not Smaller Government; Implementation Is Key
The Center for American Progress (CAP) found that millennials, defined as Americans between the ages of 18 and 32, have far greater faith in and expectations of government than their older compatriots. This proved true regardless of political affiliation or ideological bent.
Two graphs from the report, "The Generation Gap on Government," drive home the point. I think there are two questions that flow from the data, and a third that makes it actionable. The first is: does their attitude simply reflect their youth? Had CAP been around to perform this survey in the early 60s, would they have found the same generation gap in attitudes?
Before we answer the questions, let's look at the graphs (click on each to enlarge). The first is a chart that shows that millennials have a more positive view of government across ideologies and party affiliation.
The second shows that millennials are more likely to believe that government should do more to solve problems. In fact, while a 20-point majority of older Americans think that government is doing "too many things better left to businesses and individuals," a plurality of millennials think that government "should do more to solve problems."
Let's assume for a moment that millennials' attitudes are not merely a reflection of their youth, but rather of their particular history. The second question is: Why should they have more faith in and expect more of their government than their elders? To make the data actionable, we must ask: how can bureaucrats repay that trust to keep faith with the new generation?
Why do millenials feel differently than their elders?
I think there are three historical factors:
1. Lowered expectations meant fewer disappointments
Simply put, the three generations prior to millennials either were promised the moon (literally, in the case of the boomers) and saw their governments persistently fail at keeping their promise. The Boomers (born 1946-1954) saw the dreams of Camelot and the Great Society give way to the upheavals of the late 60s; Jonesers (b. 1954-1965) reeled with their country as Watergate unfolded and Nixon resigned in disgrace, only to emerge into Carter-era malaise; Gen X (b. 1967-1977) came of age just in time for the stock market crash of 1987 (still the largest ever by percentage) and enter the workforce in the recession of the early 90s -- the youngest Xers (like myself) were also the smallest cohort ever, making us an unattractive and therefore easily-ignored consumer market.
Conversely, millenials (b. 1978-1990) are a larger generation even than the Boomers. They were born under Reagan, came into full consciousness around the time Clinton declared "the age of big government. . . over," and entered young adulthood under Bush, whose administration embodied the dictum "government never of itself furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way."
They were not promised much by their successive governments. Having their expectations set as low as possible, they were never let down. What CAP found, unsurprisingly, was the millenials want better, not smaller government.
2. Belief in separate spheres of private and public sector.
A second reason for this attitude is a keener understanding of the different functions of the public and private sectors. Despite the move toward increased corporate social responsibility (CSR), millenials have grown up in the world of Gordon Gekko. They have always lived in a world in which the idea that the private sector has as its highest value the drive to make money for shareholders.
But the role of government is also well-defined for them. In addition to regulating the economy (with the lightest touch possible, of course), and defending the nation, the government should provide essential services that are not in the scope of private industry for whatever reason. Another graph from CAP's report makes this clear.
So they want a better, not smaller government, and they want it to do what the private sector either can't or hasn't yet.
3. Understanding of the power and role of governments as demonstrated through social networks.
The reason for this may lie in the media environment in which millenials thrive: the interactive internet. LiveJournal, a popular and prototypical blogging platform, launched when the cohort was 9-22 years old, and MySpace launched only four years later, making millenials a prime audience: 13-26.
Their proficiency in digital and social media grew with the media themselves. They saw the power of huge groups brought together through ad-hoc organizations (starting with meetups for Howard Dean, moving on to MoveOn.org activities, and culminating in Barack Obama's election thanks in part to digital organizing).
It's not hard to extrapolate from the small groups achieving small goals -- meetups to repair playgrounds, etc .-- to large groups achieving large goals. Any millennial with internet access can create a Google group and she's off to the races; and along the way she learns that what starts online can very quickly have an impact in the real world.
Imagine what could be done if, instead of Google Groups, you had the resources of, say, the Corporation for National and Community Service at your disposal? And instead of relying solely on word of mouth or Facebook, you could talk to the Washington Press Corps? That's the organizing power of government as seen from the perspective of a millennial (and also Tim O'Rielly -- it's what "Government as a Platform" is all about).
To recap: millenials have more confidence in and expectations of government, and intrinsically understand 'government as a platform.' What should government executives and managers do about it?
How can government executives and program managers keep faith with millennials?
This question was also addressed by CAP at a panel discussion with Sir Michael Barber, the former head of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit under Tony Blair. He said that what really grabs headlines is the way a government handles (or mishandles) a crisis. But what changes people's lives is how a government handles routine functions; everything from pothole repair to ensuring all government Web sites are active and populated with accurate content.
With typical British understatement, he summed up how neither journalists nor historians cared much for implementation, but rather concentrate on strategy and policy. He said, "You read: 'Henry VIII gathered an army.' Really? He did it himself, did he?"
"The Generation Gap on Government" is interesting, at times inspiring, and always sobering. And all government employees -- political and career alike -- should read it, especially if they want to enjoy the kind of public support that the graph below shows is possible. CAP's survey shows that Americans want better, not smaller government, the kind that's delivered day after day and hinges not on ideology or politics, but on pragmatic assessment and competent implementation.
CBC News - World - Enbridge pipeline spills into Michigan river
Another oil spill? In the gulf of Mexico, then in China and now inn Michigan? What are the odds of something like this repeating like this in such a short period of time...
Wickedly Smart Marketing and Social Media Strategies —
How age, income and ethnicity affect time spent social networking
The Nielsen Company reported in June that, on average, the global consumer spends about 1 in every 4.5 minutes online on blogs or social networking sites. According to a report by market researcher Morpace, among US Facebook users time on Facebook rises to 1 in 3 minutes spent online.
Unsurprisingly, despite Facebook’s growing appeal to older users, 18- to 34-year-olds spend the most time on the site per week, at 8.5 hours out of 22.4 spent online. Weekly Facebook time drops to 4.6 hours among users ages 55 and older, representing a lower proportion of that group’s average of 21.5 hours per week on the internet.
Broken down by race and ethnicity, Morpace found Facebook usage heaviest by Asians. Not only did that group spend the most hours per week on the site, but they also devoted the greatest percentage of their weekly internet time to Facebook (39.6%, compared with 35.1% among blacks, the second-highest group). Hispanics spent the fewest hours on Facebook, and even compared with their low average time online came in last.
via emarketer.com
Bill Cosby is great!
