Two Issues that Arose on the Radio Show Today
Today was the show on “Increasing Income Inequality in America.” I’m well pleased with how it went.
Among the issues that arose on the show, there were two that I’d like to follow up on: I believed that what I was saying was true, but in each case the caller disputed it, and my level of confidence was below the threshold I’d call “sure enough.”
If y’awl would be willing to help me nail down what’s truly true, I’d appreciate it. I’ll get it onto the air in the next week or two– if I was right, I’ll give the info to show it; if I was wrong, I’ll concede that I was in error.
Issue # !: I said that for American families of average means, it had become more difficult in the past thirty years to afford sending their kids through college, and more expensive for college graduates to get advanced degrees.
Is that true? The question is NOT whether tuition has increased, nor even whether it’s increased faster than people’s incomes. The question is whether those factors PLUS whatever has happened regarding the availability of aid has left college more or less within reach of average Americans.
Issue # 2: A caller maintained that the “Card Check” legislation that the labor movement has been pushing would eliminate the secret ballot in voting for our against joining (or forming) a union. I said that I believed that to be false, and that in any event it didn’t make any sense to me that LABOR would want to look over the shoulders of workers voting on such issues, i.e. that labor more than management would WANT a secret ballot under those circumstances.
What’s true about the legislation with respect to secret ballot matters?
Thanks for your help, NSBers.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
There is a pretty comprehensive presentation of this issue on wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act
Bottom line: it could eliminate the secret ballot in some circumstances. However, if 30% of the employees requested that certification be done by secret ballot, then a secret ballot would be required.
February 16th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Not a direct answer to your first question. And a complication to boot, IMO.
In several fields, “good, well-paying” jobs during the past 30 years have moved from requiring an undergraduate college degree to requiring a graduate school degree. One company I joined almost 30 years ago had a department with people with undergraduate degrees, and if I recall correctly had nobody with a doctorate in the department. Now that same company and same department as a matter of policy requires a PhD degree for new hires.
So even if the “cost of college” is now “about the same” as 30 years ago, the “amount of college” one may need to get the sort of job one wants has in many cases increased.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I found this on Wikipedia:
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) (H.R. 1409, S. 560) is a bill presently being considered in the United States Congress. Its text states that it would “amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.”[1] The latest version was introduced into both chambers of the U.S. Congress on March 10, 2009.[2]
In order for a union to be recognized as the official representative for employees in a workplace bargaining unit under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his or her colleagues.[3] If at least 30% of the workers in a workplace bargaining unit sign the cards, the employer may request that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hold a secret ballot election to decide whether the workers want to be in a union.[3] In practice, the results of the card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards.[3] If the employer decides to demand an election, and the majority of votes in the election favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees of that particular bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
As last introduced in the U.S. Congress, the EFCA, if enacted, would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards.[1] It would take away employers’ present ability to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and require employers to allow unions to be certified through the card-check process. In cases where at least 30% of the employees want to have a secret-ballot election, they would allowed to petition for one.[3][4] The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.[3][4] The proposed legislation would also establish stricter penalties for employers who violate provisions of the NLRA when workers seek to form a union, and set in place new mediation and arbitration procedures for disputes.
In late July, 2009, news media reported that key Senate advocates of the EFCA have proposed dropping the provision of the bill allowing a union to become certified only on the basis of majority sign-up (card check), while leaving other provisions of the bill intact
February 16th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
I got the following from an article at regarding “Losing Ground, a special report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, examines the affordability of higher education in America today.”
“Our principal basis for assessing the affordability of a college education is to examine tuition and the other costs of attending college, in relation to family income. We believe that this perspective-that is, comparing tuition and other costs to income-best captures the reality of what it means to pay for college. Based on this analysis, Losing Ground finds that most families today, compared to those 20 years ago, must devote a larger share of their income to pay for college. This finding is, unfortunately, ironic: Just as college opportunity has become indispensable, it also has become less affordable.
Chapter 1 begins with this fundamental finding and describes four additional trends that, if they are allowed to remain unchecked, will have adverse consequences for broad college opportunity in America:
1. Increases in tuition have made colleges and universities less affordable for most American families.
2. Federal and state financial aid to students has not kept pace with increases in tuition.
3. More students and families at all income levels are borrowing more money than ever before to pay for college.
4. The steepest increases in public college and university tuition have been imposed during times of greatest economic hardship.
5. State financial support of public higher education has increased, but tuition has increased more. ”
Link: http://www.highereducation.org/reports/losing_ground/ar1.shtml
February 16th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Hi Andy, here is a very short answer to one of your questions, in 1971 my wife my wife and I got married; she was 18 and I was 19, and she worked as an aid in a nursing home and I had a job at a local fast order hamburger restaurant. The same year we were married and with those same jobs we purchased a modest house, a used car, paid for my first year of college, and one year of training for my wife in a private medical technical college where she got a certificate to be a medical assistant. Also during the same period we actually were able to start a savings account. We lived in a moderately large city (Seattle) but this was before there was anything like Microsoft and the biggest employer in the Northwest was the local aircraft manufacturer where I really didn’t have any qualifications to work. To be fair I only attended school at the local community college but we paid our own way without any loans or help from parents, mostly because neither of us had parents who had the capacity to help us finically. After working a year at the hamburger stand I got a really unfortunate draft lottery number so I spent the next three years in the military. My military duty ended at the beginning of 1976.
During the time I was in the military earning about $480 per month and my wife earning a little over minimum wage I think about $1.50 per hour, as a medical assistant. During this time we managed to save money each month, we bought and paid for a brand new car with cash, we bought really nice furniture, and I took a few more classes at University of Texas at El Paso. I can’t remember if I had to pay for the classes at or if they were paid for by the Army as it was more than 35 years ago and I’m old now. I also rented out my house in Seattle while I was away in the military. I was fortunate to get a duty assignment in Seattle for my last year of service and returned with my newly pregnant wife where she delivered our first child just about a month before my military term was up. When we first arived back in Seattle my wife got a job in a local hospital with a very modest salary but we also got some benefits. By now I was about 23 and she was about 22 and since we were abut to have a new baby it was time to get a bigger house. We purchased our second house in 1976 with savings, the income from my wife’s job and some income from odd jobs I was able to pick up on weekend and after school as a carpenter. I was determined to finish college so I enrolled back in the local community college right after getting out of the army and received an associate degree (2 year degree) in math and science which I was able to transfer to the University of Washington. When I started at the community college the cost to me for in-state tuition was $70 per quarter with no limit on how many credits I could sign up for. By the time I finished at the community college the tuition had risen to around $110 per quarter but that was still much less than the $240 per quarter that it cost at the University of Washington. When I actually finished college 1981 the tuition had risen to about $380 per quarter at the University. I have to say at $380 dollars a quarter with another $150 to $200 for books we were struggling. Our second child was born abut the same time I transferred to the University which didn’t help the financial challenge part. I did get the GI bill support which helped a lot but I still had to work, and take care of kids and by the time I was a Junior I was also paying for daycare and tuition for the kids to attend church sponsored private school. At that time the tuition for the kid’s school was actually more then my University tuition. Again I was working, going to school. and my wife was working but we didn’t have any debt other than our house payment and we were paying our own way.
Andy I can tell you for sure that no one can buy any house in Seattle or anywhere else in Western Washington with the incomes from a fry cook and nurses aid for an old folks home; let alone pay for any college. It would take at least 5 incomes from a fry cook job to qualify for the most humble house anywhere in the greater Seattle area. Now, I am an engineer with 25 years experience in a very good paying job and with my income alone I would need save for several years to get the $40,000 to $60,000 down payment for the most modest house in Seattle. Young people out of high school can’t do it anymore; and by the time they finish college they have a house loan size mountain of debt in college loans to pay back. Most of the college loan programs that were created during the repugnacants administrations were mostly designed to make banks and loan officers wealthy not to help with the kids education. I believe those college loans are at least partially the cause, pushing the cost of education out of many folks means. Other causes are the inability of ordinary people to actually save any money because of the cost of living in this economy. The actual cost to live with the taxes that people pay is causing ordinary people to have use the equity in there homes to pay for their kid’s college, or to purchase a car or pay other ordinary living costs. Now homes are falling in value below what many people actually owe on them, and so where are people going to get money to keep the ship afloat? Again Regan’s rising tide floating all boats story is a crock of crap. The yachts are doing fine but all the little boats litter the bottom of the economic sea filled to the rim with an anchor of debt with no life jackets visible.
Sorry Andy, I guess this wasn’t as short as I thought it would be.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:40 am
If one goes back, to review the `Powell Memorandum,` it becomes quite clear, that there is little chance for the underclasses to avail themselves of the expensive opportunities surrounding them. Costs are rising, while incomes are stagnant. The american dream is now farcical!
February 18th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Here is a link with data showing an upward trend to young student participating in college and a flat trend for students completing a Bachelors degree.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/collegeaccess.aspx
Basically what this says it about the same number of students finish college but more are trying and are failing to finish. There is also a report that I downloaded as a pdf that indicates that the flat performance of the US in relationship to the rest of the world is bad as the rest of the world is increasing the percentage of students who get bachelors degree. So, in other words, the US is falling behind the world. Both of these articles mention increasing cost a area of concern as affordability of college is decreasing.
The PDF document I downloaded was the “Measuring Up 2008, National Report Card on Higher Education”. From what I could tell, they seem to come out every two years so a new one should be out this year at some time. Here is a link to the site where you can download it yourself:
http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/
Here is a good link showing the increasing price to attend college both regionally and nationwide:
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/trends-in-college-pricing-2008.pdf
This shows a strong trend upward in costs as we all know and expected.
Also, I read a report that makes the point that most of the recent funding made available by states to try to improve attendance to colleges by citizens of their states are almost all merit based, not need based. My take on all this is that fortunately, the climate in the United States still values a college experience and education highly but when graduates come out they are burdened with a larger debt that probably causes many students to major in subject areas that are likely to yield good jobs with good pay.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Probably not quite what you’re after, Andy, but: I read a news article recently about unemployed people no longer being able to use that time productively to attend college because there’s now insufficient help available for going to college. For years people have relied on help to go to college. I did myself. I would not have been able to get the education I did without those guaranteed student loans that the Federal and State governments made fairly risk-free for the banks. In another article I recently read that community colleges, which are generally cheaper, are booming and expanding unusually rapidly. Sorry, I have no clues as to where I read those articles except I’m fairly sure they were both in major papers with online access.
Larry