Fastest Growing Jobs of 06: Are You Handy with Bedpans and Brooms?

Urgent breaking news for all job-seekers: The Bureau of Labor Statistic has released a list of the fastest growing jobs for 2006, and you might want to revise your resume accordingly. I quickly scanned it to see if “dissident freelance blogger” was on the list, but, alas, no. Nor were several other job categories that I would like to see on the increase, like primary care physician and particle physicist. I’m sorry, but we’re never going to get out of this nightmarish tangle of string theory and dark matter until we start generating huge cohorts of baby physicists.

Worse news -- only ten of the 25 jobs listed pay over $30,000 a year, and four of them of them pay less than $20,000 a year, which is just about the poverty level for a family of four. These are waiter/waitress, food preparation worker, home health aide, and “personal and home care aide.” Hovering just a little bit above $20,000 are janitor, hand laborer, receptionist, nursing aide, landscaping worker, and teacher assistant. And topping the list as the fastest growing job of all is retail salesperson at $22,880.

You see a pattern here? That’s right, these are not the kinds of jobs you are hoping your brilliant, or at least above average, children will aspire to. In fact, the most shocking feature of the BLS list is that only five of these fastest-growing jobs require a college degree -- or exactly 20 percent. OK, the third fastest growing job is “postsecondary teacher,” but in a job market dominated by janitors, truck drivers and customer service reps, what are these professors going to be teaching -- “combination food preparation and serving”?

Now of course the fastest growing jobs are not the only jobs available. There’s still presumably a need for a few elevator operators, blacksmiths and dissident freelance bloggers. But the list does give us a clue as to where our economy is headed, and it’s not in the direction we were promised.

For at least 20 years now, the mantra has been “get an education and you’ll be OK.” In some ways it made sense: Over that 20 years, the earnings gap between college-educated and non-college-educated workers widened to the point where the educated had a 70 percent advantage. That gap has begun to shrink a bit, although a BA on your resume remains almost as essential as an email address.

In fact, a certain point in the late 90s and early 00s, higher education was beginning to look like the solution to all our problems. Robert Reich touted it when he was Clinton’s secretary of labor and, on the more conservative end of the spectrum, dozens of readers of Nickel and Dimed wrote to inform me that the problem with the working poor is that they just hadn’t bothered to go to college. Outsourcing was no threat, according to this line of reasoning, since the US would send the dumb, routine, jobs abroad and keep the creative ones here. We would be a nation of thinkers and innovators, and the world would be our assembly line.

But that’s not how it’s turning out. Some companies have begun outsourcing their R&D to places like India -- i.e., their creativity and innovation. And when we study the list of fastest growing jobs left here in the US, we see a future filled with mops and trays, shovels and bedpans and cash registers.

Don’t let this stop you from going to college if you haven’t already and you’re lucky enough to have the money to do so. After all, we, or the science nuts among us anyway, need those particle physicists.

But you should consider revising your resume to suit the demands of our new “new economy.” Did you ever make lattés, rake leaves or change diapers? Good, pump that up! And you might want to lose that M.F.A. or Ph.D., because it would be a mistake to look “overqualified” for life in 21st century America.

Comments

[DLE]

Barbara,

I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and looked for the source for your information, but can't find anything that corresponds to what you're blogging about. The list I see listed at the site for fastest growing jobs is at this link:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab21.htm

and it doesn't have retail salesperson listed number one. Not only that, but the link I have above shows that most of the jobs offer good income, not the same as what you are quoting.

I'd like to blog more about this at my own blog, but can't duplicate your findings without that link you're citing. Thanks in advance for providing it.

[Laurie]

"...[D]ozens of readers of Nickel and Dimed wrote to inform me that the problem with the working poor is that they just hadn’t bothered to go to college."

Because the only thing stopping every member of the working class from going to college is his or her refusal to do so. (Note: Sarcasm.) Hypothetically, if every citizen in this country with only a high school diploma or GED went back to college for higher education, where would we employ them all?

[Hattie]

Are middle class people like me expected to clean and cook and do yardwork, take care of our kids and old people? Make our own clothes? Haul our garbage? Nonsense. We pay others to do these things, and we pay them as little as we can get away with.
Once upon a time in the 50's we middle class white folks did our own work. And we put up with the pollution that manufacturing our own goods caused. Everyone hated this, so we got rid of the onerous tasks of life, the messy industrial areas and such and replaced them with cool lifestyles supported by Chinese goods and cheap immigrant labor. Thus we became the high class affluent jerks we are today.

[Barbara E]

To DLE: I got the list from AOL. It was one of their news stories a few days ago -- http://jobs.aol.com/article?id=20060124162709990001

[DLE]

Barbara,

Thanks. I was able to go back to the BLS and find the original info at:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm

That URL deals with sheer numbers of people in those positions, while the URL I listed in my initial comment was for fastest growing by percentage, not by absolute numbers of people in those roles.

Still, I wonder about the accuracy of those numbers in either case. Computer-related jobs show up high on both lists and I can tell you that where I live in the Midwest computer jobs are not only paying very little now (as companies are even starting to hire high school students to do some of the work they normally gave to older tech workers), but most of those jobs are being farmed out overseas, with more going that way daily. It was common to see network techs being paid $80,000 a year in the late 1990s, but many of those same positions now pay under $40,000 a year. I know that I was offered a network admin job just a couple years ago that paid only $28,000 a year and required me to be on call 365 days a year. Needless to say, I got out of tech! So forgive me if I questions the government's projections in the computer field.

One last thing. The data you provide in that URL can't be used to make trend comments unless we have previous data (say from ten years ago) to compare the recent tables with. Do you have that information available? If the top five professions from ten years ago are largely unchanged from the earlier list, it's misleading to say that job opportunities are getting worse all around.

[Barbara E]

DLE: No, I don't have data from 10 years ago. Can you find it and let me know? I also wondered about the presence of "computer applications software engineer" at #19 on the list. If you have the time, why not call the BLS? I'd do it myself but I'm on the road for the next 4 days.

[A3K]

"Because the only thing stopping every member of the working class from going to college is his or her refusal to do so. (Note: Sarcasm.) Hypothetically, if every citizen in this country with only a high school diploma or GED went back to college for higher education, where would we employ them all?"

Well, Laurie, one of the complaints from corporate chiefs is a shortage of skilled workers. If some of our people took more math and engineering, they'd find employment in high paying jobs very easily.

The most recent report on unemployment showed total unemployment of 4.7%. However for those with less than a high school diploma, it was 7.0%, for those with a high school diploma but no college, 4.4% (already less than the overall average) for those with some college, 3.5%, and for those with a bachelor's degree, it's 2.1%.

[A3K]

"Everyone hated this, so we got rid of the onerous tasks of life, the messy industrial areas and such and replaced them with cool lifestyles supported by Chinese goods and cheap immigrant labor. Thus we became the high class affluent jerks we are today."

What a load of nonsense. You may be a jerk, Hattie, but that doesn't mean everyone who's "middle class" is.

There's actually little in your comment that reflects reality. Manufacturing employment may be down, but that's more attributable to improvements in productivity. See, we have robots do a lot of our manufacturing processes and instead of having 5 guys do backbreaking work, we have one guy maintaining the robots. And that one guy makes more money.

The Chinese who work for us, earn higher wages than they would if it weren't for our demand. So if you want to feel bad about exploiting them, go ahead. But the reality is, they're recovering from one of those wonderful socialist experiments in criminalizing self interest.

It'll be a little while before they catch up to us, but if you look at Japan, Singapore and South Korea you've got examples proving that it can and will happen. This is their first step. I guess you'd prefer they never take it.

As for those Mexicans who risk their lives so they can come up here and be exploited... Well I can't tell who hates them more. Hypocritical "conservatives" who want to shut the borders or hypocritical labor leaders who want to shut the borders. Can you?

Frankly, I like Bush's notion of making their work legal. But since it's his idea, I'm sure you don't like it. You being an affluent jerk and all...

[A3K]

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab21.htm

DLE and Laurie,

Of the top 31 fastest growing (by percentage) occupations, 23 require at least an associates degree in college.

So those are probably going to be better paying jobs. That means most of the fastest growing occupations can't be accessed by people who don't get a good education.

Sounds like an argument for breaking up schools with high drop-out rates and either reforming them with new faculty or giving the parents of the students a chance to pick their own school.

If we don't, the jobs of the future will not be accessible by the children of the inner city. Of course that's not a winning argument at an NEA meeting, but it's the truth.

[A3K]

"But the list does give us a clue as to where our economy is headed, and it’s not in the direction we were promised."

Barbara,

I consider that a particularly dishonest comment. Especially since you ignored the list showing the occupations with the highest RATE of growth, which does support the thesis presented by Mr. Reich and does give a hint about which direction the economy is going.

It may not support whatever it is you're trying to advance. Socialist revolution? Is that the goal? Because I can't seem to determine an actual theme to your meme beyond that.

The fact is, despite all your bellyaching (and to be fair, you're not alone) about outsourcing, the net effect of it is quite positive. You ignore that companies that outsource low level jobs actually free up cash to create new higher paid development jobs. If only there were the workforce here to hire.

And you further ignore the rate of INsourcing. Granted, the numbers aren't as easy to find, but the fact is, Toyotas are being built here now. Same for BMWs and Hondas and other foreign name plates. And they aren't the only ones.

I recommend the following story to your readers:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_07/b3971001.htm

Granted, it's a longer read than the AOL story that got you started on this entry, but it presents some provocative ideas for how to view our economy.

[A3K]

Oh, and one more point.

Manufacturing employment in China has been falling. Betcha didn't know that.

Seems productivity is having its effect there, too. That and closing state-run plants that haven't produced anything in years...

Of course, the in People's Republic, over 4,000 people died mining coal last year. As they become more capitalist, that should drop significantly.

[Hattie]

Yes, I am a jerk. Fully admit it. But I have nothing to lose by that assertion. I do believe it's the first step for me toward an honest and realistic way of life, though.

[mcsquared]

I think Barbara's half-joking comment about professors teaching cooking preparation may be more accurate than she realized--the only way I can see "post-secondary instructors" being the third fastest growing job is if it lumps together the trucking and cooking and ESL instructors along with the college professors. My history PhD friend (an excellent dissident blogger in his own right) says that the academic jobs he's applying for get 200 applicants minimum, so despite his pages of publications, he's practically given up on being a university professor after a year or so of trying.

[mcsquared]

I have to add though that the last part about MFAs and PhDs being overqualified for the majority of jobs seems to always have been true--isn't the situation of struggling artist/actor/writer working as a waiter while waiting to get their "big break" almost cliche? I've been hearing buzz about "MFA being the new MBA" since managers are a dime a dozen now but a lot of designers are needed--we'll see if that trend pans out.

[Laurie]

"Well, Laurie, one of the complaints from corporate chiefs is a shortage of skilled workers. If some of our people took more math and engineering, they'd find employment in high paying jobs very easily."

Really? How do you account for the "2.1%" of degree-holding Americans who are currently unable to find employment, then? If skilled workers were in such high demand, wouldn't college graduates have an unemployment rate of virtually zero? (I, too, hold a bachelor's degree and presently make below $10/hour. This amounts to the necessity of my return to college for another degree. If higher education was supposed to afford me the opportunity to get by, why are so many of us drowning?)

[Laurie]

"The most recent report on unemployment showed total unemployment of 4.7%. However for those with less than a high school diploma, it was 7.0%, for those with a high school diploma but no college, 4.4% (already less than the overall average) for those with some college, 3.5%, and for those with a bachelor's degree, it's 2.1%."

Even if we accept all of your statistics at face value, it still won't change the reality that motivation isn't the only factor keeping many Americans out of the college classroom. There were always be slackers, and these days their numbers are certainly growing, but branding all low-wage workers as lazy leeches mooching off the tax payer's dollar is ignorant at best. Circumstances, as I'm sure you've learned during at least one point in your life, can be a real bitch.

Again, if Barbara's referenced article is correct, and 75% of Americans aren't earning decent wages, are there enough conference rooms and office suites in which to put 75% of the workforce, assuming they all return to college? If so, who will clean the suites, prepare food for the conference attendees, and take phone messages while the executives are out?

[A3K]

"Really? How do you account for the "2.1%" of degree-holding Americans who are currently unable to find employment, then?"

Do you know anything about unemployment statistics? Unemployed doesn't mean "unable to find employment". It means currently unemployed. That's actually below a natural turnover number.

You do know that jobs are created and destroyed constantly, all bubbling under the surface, don't you Laurie? There can be a lag time between a person losing one job and finding the one that replaced it, but we've had a growing number of jobs, so more are created than destroyed.

But there's also something else in there. It's the willingness to take work available. Some "overqualified" people won't take a job they consider beneath them. I do credit Barbara for actually taking such jobs even if it was as a stunt.

"If skilled workers were in such high demand, wouldn't college graduates have an unemployment rate of virtually zero?"

That's what a 2.1% unemployment rate is. Virtual zero.

"(I, too, hold a bachelor's degree and presently make below $10/hour. This amounts to the necessity of my return to college for another degree.

Actually, you probably just need to find a job that matches your skill set (even though it may not line up exactly with your degree) and take an entry level job.

I started out in one field, changed and took a job without a salary, then when my wife was laid off twice in the same year, I decided to give up on the "dream" and go find a corporate job again. I knew I wanted to change industries, but didn't know how my education could be used, so I paid to go see a career counsellor. With her help, I narrowed it down to the industry I'm currently in.

Since I didn't have specific course work in the industry, I took a job that many would have considered "beneath" my level of education. Since then, I've proven a value to the company and seen my salary nearly double in four years.

Take a risk. Forget hiding out in college again. They don't teach job skills there.

"If higher education was supposed to afford me the opportunity to get by, why are so many of us drowning?)"

You have to look in the mirror for the answer to that, Laurie. Have you picked a career that pays decent money? How have you worked to pursue the job you think you deserve? What roadblocks have you placed in your own way?

The jobs are out there and other people are finding them. That you haven't yet is no reason to feel discouraged or to buy into Barbara's defeatist world view.

BTW, my wife when we met was making much less than I did and she felt much like you do now. But she stuck it out and her employer ended up promoting her rapidly and more than doubling her salary in a short period of time (she went from around 21K to 46K in four years).

By then I had quit my first job and she was supporting us primarily while I tried to build a practice. She then got laid off and immediately found a job that paid over $60K. Then that job was eliminated through a strange twist because she was the only employee in her division who had been hired after her division was acquired by a large telecom company. Then she found another job within weeks that didn't pay $60K, but it did pay what she'd been making at her first job at the end.

So I took a job that put me back to a salary I'd earned when I first started working and she remained our primary breadwinner. But as I said, my salary rose quickly (because I made myself valuable to my new employer) and now I make enough for us to afford for her to stay home with our daughter (and another on the way).

Keep trying. And don't go hide in school unless you're getting specific training for a job that you know you'll be able to get.

[A3K]

"Even if we accept all of your statistics at face value,"

I found them on the BLS site. They break that information out every month with the unemployment figures.

"it still won't change the reality that motivation isn't the only factor keeping many Americans out of the college classroom. There were always be slackers, and these days their numbers are certainly growing, but branding all low-wage workers as lazy leeches mooching off the tax payer's dollar is ignorant at best."

Did I do that? There's a difference between saying someone's lazy and saying that maybe someone hasn't been trying the right things. And my earlier comment focused on the failures of large inner city public schools with high dropout rates. If those dropouts would simply get a high school diploma, a whole new world would open up to them. Did you notice in the stats I provided that those who just get a diploma actually have an unemployment rate below the national average?

"Circumstances, as I'm sure you've learned during at least one point in your life, can be a real bitch."

Yeah. That's the point of life. Facing adversity and coming through it. I've actually suggested a few things to help. Complaining isn't productive unless it's paired with suggestions for improvement. So if you have any, post them.

"Again, if Barbara's referenced article is correct, and 75% of Americans aren't earning decent wages, are there enough conference rooms and office suites in which to put 75% of the workforce, assuming they all return to college?"

Virtually everyone can get a high school diploma. I don't think everyone needs college, but a diploma seems to be the basic entry point for the world of rewarding work. If a person is more academically inclined, then college should be considered. But I've never said everyone should got to college. That would be a wasteful use of resources.

i If so, who will clean the suites, prepare food for the conference attendees, and take phone messages while the executives are out?

I guess I don't hold the people who do that work in as much disdain as some of you do.

Laurie, I grew up on a farm and did hard physical work the entire time. We raised livestock and I cleaned up the shit they left behind. You think I look down on a janitor?

To pay for school (my father didn't pay a dime for my education) I worked at a packing plant, on a road construction crew and as a pizza delivery guy. I didn't get grants because my father owned all that farmland. The few loans I took out were personal loans not guaranteed by the federal government.

So I'd appreciate it if you and Hattie and others would have a little more respectful tone about the work that some other people do. You may not intend it, but your sarcasm demeans them.

[A3K]

"Yes, I am a jerk. Fully admit it. But I have nothing to lose by that assertion. I do believe it's the first step for me toward an honest and realistic way of life, though."

Take the second step.

[tanstaafl]

Good stuff, A3K.

An attitude of elitism seems to underlie the idea that certain jobs are "beneath" (one) and an impatience in wanting to jump into a job in the top tier and not do the legwork to prove you're worthy.

[Hattie]

I toted my share of bedpans in my day, and I'm glad I did it. But I also completed my college education. I didn't think my professional job was any less important and worthwhile than my bedpan toting, however. I just didn't want to do it for the rest of my working life.

[Hattie]

oops. bad post. I meant of course that I did not want to tote bedpans for the rest of my working life!

[A3K]

Hattie,

You have had better options than some.

BTW, I finally saw the item Barbara posted about "good jobs". I guess by the definition of those folks, I don't have a good job. But if all else were equal and I had to consider between this job and a job that provided a pension instead of the generously matched 401(k) I currently enjoy, I'd still take this one.

Given that a company (on whose future earnings much of a pension's assumptions are based) could go bankrupt beyond my control, why would I want both my paycheck AND my retirement check dependent upon the same source?

I'm not advocating the error that some Enron employees made of filling a 401(k) with company stock, either. I'd argue that a job with diversified investment choices inside a 401(k) should be more attractive than a job that holds a pension.

If we're all supposed to distrust our employers (which the dominant tone of this blog and BE's writings in general) why become doubly dependent upon them?

[A3K]

Oh, and one more question that maybe BE would consider taking up. What economy is currently doing a better job of creating "good" jobs than ours?

Because I could always emigrate.

[JML]

These issues are clearly far too complicated to debate in jabs passed back and forth in a few sentences, but I want to note the importance of discussing the issues. From books like Fear of Falling through this blog, Barbara has brought the issues up for discussion, and that's far more important than the accuracy of a number or the "true" cause for any given trend.

This is also a thanks to those posting comments here, though ad hominen comments made with impunity are rather pointless, and we all know it.

[Laurie]

"An attitude of elitism seems to underlie the idea that certain jobs are 'beneath' (one) and an impatience in wanting to jump into a job in the top tier and not do the legwork to prove you're worthy."

After having spent housands of dollars on a college education and doing the "leg work" to earn a degree, most people expect a return on such an investment. Struggling to make ends meet upon entering the job market is not the kind of reward most graduates have in mind.

[theresa]

"After having spent housands of dollars on a college education and doing the "leg work" to earn a degree, most people expect a return on such an investment. Struggling to make ends meet upon entering the job market is not the kind of reward most graduates have in mind."

Especially since the hype for college is that it leads to a good paying job...

[Laurie]

"Especially since the hype for college is that it leads to a good paying job..."

If that isn't the incentive, why is higher education pushed on the youth? Why is that promise made to high school students?

[Hattie]

Like so many other things in life, the advantages of higher education are not clear until you've been through the process. The thinking skills I learned in graduate school have helped me to make good decisions in life. I enjoy having a fund of knowledge to draw on. And I have the tools to learn more. These skills protect me from the cheap blandishments of popular culture and commonplace opinions. Of course I had a very good education. I was quite lucky.

[theresa]

Some believe the college hype began in the 30s Depression when all those in secure jobs seemed to hold college degrees. This belief led to the push towards making college scholarships a part of the GI Bill, a few years later during WWII. The myth perpetuated as the US economy was the only one intact after the war, and good employment for eveyone was the norm.

What most in the Depression failed to see is that people weren't well-off because they went to college, they went to college because they were well off...

[Laurie]

It is certainly true that some without college educations do extremely well financially, while others with degrees have been struggling to find decent employment for far too long. We can't deny, though, that a bachelor's degree is essential for just about any well-paying job.

[A3K]

Laurie,

Just getting a college degree doesn't guarantee you a lifetime of productive employment. You also have to pick a job that pays well. If you haven't done that, you should go back and reconsider your choices.

[Zachary]

I'd agree that college doesn't gurantee anyone success. Throughout high school, we are taught college is the ONLY way of becoming successful. We endure pointless prepareness for standardized tests to impress colleges and universities: which only in the end steals from us our individual uniqueness that ultimately inspires us to do whatever we wish.

We aren't taught we can go to trade schools and learn careers that are helpful to society. We are taught that if we don't go to college, we are pointless.

I believe high school pushes for college so much because it's a profit. When students make high grades on standardized tests...they profit from that. The same goes for universities and colleges....we are just cash to them. They train us to help the corporate machine. Not that that's bad per se, however, why can't schools just teach the basics and help us make our own decisions? How about giving students options?

And what's so bad about being in retail, janitorial service, or serving food? Someone has to do it...and if they enjoy what they're doing. So what?
I work for abercrombie as of right now. It pays $6.00 an hour and limits how many hours I can work. It's probably the most unfair retailer out there, but that's how it is. I enjoy what I do...even though I work for a very unequal employer. I'm currently looking for a second job and if that job is retail again or maybe food...so be it.

I eventually will be enrolling in cosmetology school because that's something I'm passionate about. It's something I know I'll be well at. College just isn't for me, it may be for some, but not for me. So...why is college so important? Do what you want and ignore the conformity of what society wants of you.

~Zachary

[Jim Durbin]

If you are going to suggest that college degrees are essential for good paying jobs, it's because companies have foolishly assumed that college degrees make for better employers.

Where you go astray is assuming that a well-paid job is the only way to get to a career. 38 million Americans run their own businesses, manage their own finances, and don't depend on what some executive says to make their living.

The bias against those folks who don't have degrees is fear, not reason. If uneducated are just as effective as employees as the degreed, what's the point of all the time and money wasted in college?

Colleges don't prepare people for the real world unless it's for technical or scientific study. The only people who lean on their degrees are the ones who assumed it was golden ticket to riches and lack the ability to prove themselves without fancy certificates.

And this comes from a guy with one of those fancy certificates from a real college.

[GreggB]

Hi Barbara,

I'm in my late 40's and got my BS degree in technical writing and communication in 2003, with a 4.0 in my major and a 3.7 overall. I worked for an airline for three years, and it recently went under and shut down for good. For that last 15 months, I've been looking for another decent job (I saw the end coming long before it arrived).

Even with almost 25 years of airline experience and 3 years of technical writing experience, I can't find a job. I guess I picked the wrong field to re-train myself for, as I have discovered that while I was in college, most of tech writing work for the biggest market (software) has been outsourced to India for a fraction of what Westerners get paid.

So what do I do now? Become a highly educated Wal-Mart greeter? What is the "land of opportunity" coming to when there is no opportunity for many intelligent, highly qualified and educated people? Where's the educationally-derived ROI for the worker in all this?

Re-education is touted as the 'cure-all' for laid-off employees, but it is obvious that it's not even close to a cure for the problem for anyone over 35 or so. Are we as a nation ready to consign well-educated, experienced, willing workers over 35 to economic oblivion? It certainly seems that way from my perspective.

I think you got it exactly right in your lastest book. I look towards my future with a chill in my heart, wondering how I will even service my school loans, but less prosper in the so-called new global economy.

[GreggB]

This article dramatizes exactly my dilemma, Folks.

That Good Education Might Not Be Enough
By Peter G. Gosselin
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 06 March 2006

American workers at all levels are vulnerable to outsourcing, experts say, posing a challenge to the assumption that more schooling is the answer.
Washington - When President Bush met with a group of business school students in the Indian city of Hyderabad last week, he came face to face with the very people whose first-rate educations, rising aspirations and readiness to work for a fraction of US wages were tugging jobs overseas, away from even well-educated Americans.

Bush used the occasion to offer some pointed advice to workers back home: Get more training. "Let's make sure people are educated so they can fill the jobs of the 21st century," he said.

But the president's assertion that the answer to foreign outsourcing is education, a mantra embraced by Democrats as well as Republicans, is being challenged by a growing body of research and analysis from economists and other scholars. Education - at least as delivered by most of the nation's colleges, universities and technical schools - is no longer quite the economic cure-all it once was, nor the guarantee of financial security Americans have come to expect from college and graduate degrees.

"More education has been the right answer for the past few decades," said Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan S. Blinder, "but I'm not so convinced that it's the right course" for coping with the upheavals of globalization.

Not that Blinder or other experts think workers would be better off not going to school. Rather, they point to emerging evidence that education may not offer as much protection against the effects of globalization as Bush and others claim.

"One could be educationally competitive and easily lose out in the global economic marketplace because of significantly lower wages being paid elsewhere," said Sheldon E. Steinbach, general counsel of the American Council on Education, an umbrella group that represents most of the nation's major colleges and universities.

Some analysts think that something like what Steinbach described is already underway.

Starting in 1975, the earnings difference between high school- and college-educated workers steadily widened for 25 years. But since 2000, the trend appears to have stalled. Census figures show that average, after-inflation earnings of college graduates fell by more than 5% between 2000 and 2004, whereas the earnings of those with only high school degrees rose slightly.

Most studies suggest that beyond the manufacturing sector, the "offshoring" of jobs has been comparatively modest. But some analysts say the ground has been laid for a substantial pickup. In a recent paper, Blinder offered a rough estimate that suggested that as many as 42 million jobs, or nearly one-third of the nation's total, were susceptible to offshoring.

These analysts warn that more education alone will do little to stop the flow of jobs to other countries.

"What's missing here from both parties is a global economic strategy and a worker adjustment strategy," said Anthony P. Carnevale, a scholar at the National Center on Education and the Economy who was appointed to major commissions by Presidents Reagan and Clinton.

"When they don't know what else to do," he remarked, "there's a tendency among politicians to stand up and say 'education.' "

In Bush's case, arguing for more schooling draws particular fire from some educators, because the administration's record of providing money to support the kind of training he advocates has been weak.

Bush previously has defended the offshoring of jobs as an economic reality and a trend that ultimately would work in America's favor. But he was exceptionally candid about its downside during his exchange with the Indian students.

"People do lose their jobs as a result of globalization, and it's painful for those who lose their jobs," he said.

Even so, Bush continued, the only way forward for Americans is through improved education and pro-growth economic policies, not protectionism.

"The United States of America will reject protectionism," he said. "We won't fear competition. We welcome competition."

In coming down foursquare against erecting trade barriers, Bush extended a string of policy positions he has taken in recent weeks that favor unfettered interaction between countries and corporations over other concerns. These positions have fueled intense controversy, even among fellow Republicans.

The president came out strongly, for example, in favor of a plan by an Arab company to take over operations at ports on the East and Gulf coasts, though White House aides subsequently said the administration backed a 45-day review. The proposal by Dubai Ports World provoked bipartisan criticism that Bush was shortchanging national security.

Bush also has offered a guest-worker program that's faced criticism in Congress, especially from conservative Republicans who have argued that the president's plan would encourage more migrants to enter the country illegally.

Bush's latest plug for the economic importance of education, especially college and graduate education, may contain the seeds for another controversy. Although the president has endorsed education rhetorically, many analysts say that he has not put federal money where his mouth is.

"The president's record for supporting college and post-secondary jobs training is anemic," Carnevale said.

Total spending on Pell grants, Washington's chief means of providing financial aid to poor college-bound students, rose from $10 billion in the 2001-2002 school year to $13.1 billion last year, but that was almost entirely because more students qualified. The average amount of aid per student barely budged in after-inflation terms.

The maximum school loan under Pell grants has steadily declined since 2002. At $4,050 per year, it covers about one-third of tuition, room and board at a public four-year college, down from 42% when the president took office, according to the College Board, the nonpartisan assessment organization.

The president's 2007 budget plan calls for cutting Education Department spending by, among other things, eliminating a major loan program to help needy students attend community college. Last week, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees education, labeled the proposal "scandalous" and "insufficient."

But Bush may face a bigger challenge than defending the dollar amounts his administration directs to higher education. He could soon find himself having to defend what until recently has been almost universally accepted as fact - that going to college or graduate school is a nearly certain route to higher pay, and a sure protection against the dislocation spawned by global competition.

What's undermining these comfortable assumptions, some analysts say, is a basic change in the kinds of jobs that are vulnerable to offshoring. Declines in transportation costs and improvements in communications technology - including computers and the Internet - are vastly expanding the range of things that can be bought and sold across international borders, and also the range of American workers who are exposed to international competition.

Until the last decade or so, most of what could be traded were manufactured goods that could be boxed up and sent abroad or bought overseas. Therefore, it was mostly American manufacturing workers who faced the brunt of competition. Services workers appeared immune and that seemed especially true of highly educated doctors, lawyers, computer programmers and financial experts.

But with the growth of the Internet, analysts say, many - although not all - sorts of service work can be performed almost anywhere in the world. Now many kinds of service workers are finding themselves exposed to the same global competition as their manufacturing counterparts.

"Many people blithely assume that the critical labor-market distinction is, and will remain, between highly educated (or highly-skilled) people and less-educated (or less-skilled) people, doctors versus call-center operators, for example," Blinder wrote in a recent article in the magazine Foreign Affairs.

The assumption is that those with higher education are either better shielded from global competition or better able to adapt to it, he said. And this leads many policymakers to call for "more education and a general 'upskilling' of the workforce."

But, Blinder wrote, the crucial distinction in the future may not be between the more-educated and less-educated, but between "those types of work that are easily deliverable through a wire ... and those that are not."

Some education-heavy jobs such as computer programming are proving easily deliverable by wire and many programming jobs have been shifted overseas, an irony in an era when many had thought that tech-savvy workers would be among the economy's big winners.

[DLE]

A few points:

Congress continues to push for an expansion of H-1B visa definitions. Having fought the no-win battle against H-1Bs in Silicon Valley, expanding that visa into non-tech areas will bring chaos to well-educated, experienced workers who will find themselves put out of work by people who will work for significantly less money and are at the mercy of the companies that hold their visas.

Silicon Valley is hiring again. However, the average wage they're paying now is $69,000 a year versus the $80,000 they were paying in the late 1990s. Having lived in Silicon Valley in the late 1990s, I can tell you that $69,000 is virtually impossible to live on as a single-wage earner due to the cost of living out there. Add-in the higher costs for gas and electric, plus the crushing tax load of California, and Silicon Valley's want ads don't look so enticing. So much for that Master's Degree....

[C Word]

I'm sorry to read that the only reason to go to college is to 'train for a job'. Isn't that what vocational schools are for? As an elementary school teacher, working 12 hour days, and weekends, and spending some of my own money on supplies, I hesitate now to encourage kids to study hard so they can go to college and get a good job, because it just doesn't seem true in so many ways. Reading the Chron the other day, I noticed that the Administration is opening our national doors (wider) to highly skilled workers while they concurrently outsource the lower-skilled jobs. So who's going to do the dirty work but, well, us?

[Janice]

C Word, thank you. One only needs to look in their local newspaper classified ads to know that good jobs are disappearing. Not everyone can afford to go to college. Not everyone can pass SAT's or other college entrance examines.
So the ones with only a High School diploma, aren't valued citizens. Can't be trained. Does anyone remember on the job training? Apprenticeship?
Working for the same employer for 30 years advancing up throught the ranks and pensions, years of service awards. 100% paid health care, bonouses.
That was when America was truly great. How did America ever survive without all the junk coming into our country from Japan, China, Tiwain etc.
It's till Five & Dime stuff to me except now it just cost more.

[steve fleischman]

Your blog is great! Thanks for the info!

[Softwarengineer]

Hi Barbara:

I'm a real liberal, against amnesty OVERPOULATION, as Europe is DEPOPULATING and recently took over the #1 spot from the USA (we dropped to #7 in 2006) in TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION. China, Japan, India, etc were way lower than Europe and America in technological innovation rating, but their OVERPOPULATION is insane. See the proof:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6502725.stm

Wher'e the screaming Globalists telling us amnesty OVERPOPULATION is good for us now? Its obviously destroying our country. The MSM will never admit though.

[Nixswicetet]

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://xanga.com/mayrapachecocn