Saturday, October 27, 2012

Soaring College Debt Means One Thing: Education Levels Will Fall

In June of 2012, President Obama told a college group that “making college affordable” was “one of the best things we can do for the economy.”  So what has been happening financially with college?

Student borrowing started to rise along with large tuition increases in the 1980s.  The mean student loan debt among college seniors in 2008 was over $23,000, along with an average of $4,138 owed on credit cards.  The share of students with loans increased from 47% of those starting college in 1995 to 53% beginning in 2003, with the portion of bachelor’s degree recipients owing money on student loans up from 45% in 1992 and 1993 to 66% in 2008 and 2010.  Average amounts increased from $24,000 in 2009 to $25,250 the next year and an estimated $27,200 in 2011.  Loans from private sources have become more common since 2002, as borrowers responded more to direct marketing efforts.  Defaults on student loans, though still far behind the 1990 historical high of over 20%, have become much more common since the Great Recession, increasing from 7% in the 2009 fiscal year to 8.8% the next.

Now, for the first time, total national student loan debt exceeds that owed on credit cards.  As of the middle of 2012, Americans had a total of over $1 trillion in student debt, of which over $850 billion was borrowed from federal government sources.  For-profit universities, not included in the 2010 numbers, have much higher rates.   More loans have been cosigned, the rate increasing from 67% in 2008 to over 90% just three years later.  Defaults were close to 10% for those starting payments in 2009, a four-year doubling.  Approximately twice as many borrowers who have defaulted outright are in arrears, and only 37% of those who started making payments in 2005 have paid them in full and on time.  Additionally, of course, many students have debt they will repay to parents, which according to one estimate were $6,800 per student.  Federal student loan debt cannot easily be erased in bankruptcy, with laws allowing garnishment of Social Security checks or tax refunds.  As Mark Kantrowitz, proprietor of two college-payment websites put it, “student debt goes up and it doesn’t ever go down.”

As before, loan repayment rates are not the same for all groups of students.  Those who fail to complete college are, as of 2012, over four times as statistically likely to default on student loans as those who obtain their degrees, with a rate of 16.8% compared with 3.7% of graduates.  More borrowers have been dropping out as well, from 23% of those starting college in 1995 to almost 30% eight years later.  However, students taking on debt see it as positive, with one study showing the self-esteem of those aged 18 to 27 correlating positively with amount owed on student loans and credit cards.  Many just older, though, became less optimistic about the debt.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has reduced the requirement for minimum federal Stafford student loan payments to 10% of the borrowers’ disposable income, reduced from 15%, effective 2014, along with forgiveness of all balances owed, if sufficient payments have been made, after 20 years instead of the 25 it has previously been.  The interest rate on current loans, though, increased from the temporary 3.4% figure to their previous 6.8% on July 1, 2012.  The rise was not as significant as it may seem, as it only affects money borrowed for school years starting in 2012, and will amount to an average of only $6 per month per loan year, yet it will still make a difference.

What does the growth of student debt, often unpayable, mean for the choice to go to college?  While higher education still correlates with higher income, there are severe problems with it.  Non-federal governmental loan sources decreased 24% from 2001 to 2011, while tuition at state colleges increased an average of 72%.  Typical annual costs for tuition, other fees, room, board, and other living expenses at Ohio State are about $25,000, with the University of Dayton, which advertised itself as affordable costing about $48,000, and Oberlin $60,000.  Already, lower-income students, according to Kantrowitz, are more often choosing community colleges over more expensive four-year schools.

What will happen with all of this student debt?  Without a vast increase in the number of jobs, it is hard to imagine it being paid off.  The chances are good that an Obama administration, or one later, will forgive it.  That will mean more money lost, and more hardship stretched across the nation.  As with mortgages and housing loans, it will be harder to get money for college.  Private lenders will drop out.  Admission rates for four-year schools will do what they have not done since before World War II – they will fall, maybe substantially.  Private, four-year schools will face the issue of how much of their often ample endowments to spend supporting students who would otherwise not have a chance of attending.  That will put the problem where it truly belongs, in the hands of these private organizations which have much more disposable income, in effect, than any government agencies.  Yet the result will be lower education levels, in general, for Americans. 

Friday, October 19, 2012

Romney and Obama Similar on Jobs - And Both are Lacking

We're less than three weeks from Election Day, and the end of this hard-fought effort by Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama to get the next presidential term.  We are to believe that there are profound differences between the two in all significant ways, that Obama is somewhere on the left side and Romney there on the right somewhere, and that we are choosing between vastly different outcomes, especially in an area as important as how to improve the 20.7 million jobs Americans could absorb right away.  Yet in truth that is not the case.

During the campaign, neither candidate has voiced much of substance about how to create more jobs than recent levels, which have increased monthly but not enough to cover population increases.  Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention proposed no significant action on jobs, and Romney has said little than expecting a stronger-economy-fueled gain of 12 million of them over four years.  

What difference is there between Obama and Romney on jobs and related issues?  On tax rates, the most significant differences between the candidates were on people with the highest incomes.  On corporate rates, the sitting president supports a 28% top rate, with a challenger who wants 25%.  We can bring in someone who thinks capital-gains taxes for those with the highest incomes should be 15%, or retain one who prefers 20%.  We can choose as president one of two who advocate similar welfare payments, similar Social Security benefits, and more free trade.  We can have a candidate who has “energy independence” listed first among his five-point plan for American jobs, or a president who publicly wished, in the fourth paragraph of his 2012 State of the Union Address, for “a future where we’re in control of our own energy,” and later on, said he was ordering his “administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.”  We can either pick a self-avowed conservative, or re-elect someone who said earlier in the year that he believed, as did  Republican Abraham Lincoln, “that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”

Many people have questioned Romney’s conservatism, but how liberal is Obama, actually, on jobs?  Consider the following statements he has made this year:

- “We should start with our tax code.  Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas.  Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world.  It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.”
- “We can give more tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, or we can start rewarding companies that open new plants and train new workers and create new jobs here, in the United States of America.”
- “I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products.”
- “Michelle [Obama] and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families.”
- “I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.  I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense.  We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years.”
- “Right now, our immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile.  People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year.” 

 Those are the sorts of things as likely to come to pass under a President Romney as under a second Obama term.  They will help - but will they be enough?  The drop in official unemployment may have fooled some into thinking the jobs crisis is ending, but it is not.  If times are relatively good, we will likely postpone the time of reckoning on Work’s New Age, but before the next election most will know we have something more here than a slow recession recovery.  We need help.  Perhaps in 2016 the jobs crisis will be drawing specific, maybe hard, solutions from the presidential challengers.  For now, though, we’re looking at four more years of same old-same old – no matter who wins. 

Friday, October 12, 2012

What Career Fields Best Resist Automation and Globalization?

In Work's New Age, the largest reasons for jobs to be lost are automation and globalization.  Automation generally comes down to two questions - how resistant a job is to robotics, and how resistant it is to computer algorithms and connectivity.  Globalization is a factor when a job does not need to be done locally.
Which career fields, in general, are most locally bound?  This table presents the average ratings within each of the 25 U.S. Department of Labor occupation groups, weighting each job equally, using ratings of 1 for low local boundness, 2 for medium, and 3 for high, in order from most to least locally bound:

Occupation Group
1 to 3 Scale
Average Result
Building and Grounds Cleaning     
3.00
Very Locally Bound
Construction and Extraction     
3.00
Very Locally Bound
Food Preparation and Serving     
3.00
Very Locally Bound
Personal Care and Service     
2.88
Very Locally Bound
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry     
2.86
Very Locally Bound
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair     
2.78
Very Locally Bound
Community and Social Service     
2.70
Very Locally Bound
Healthcare     
2.69
Very Locally Bound
Protective Service     
2.57
Very Locally Bound
Transportation and Material Moving     
2.31
Somewhat Locally Bound
Education, Training, and Library     
2.29
Somewhat Locally Bound
Entertainment and Sports     
2.25
Somewhat Locally Bound
Management     
2.07
Somewhat Locally Bound
Sales     
2.06
Somewhat Locally Bound
Production     
1.90
Somewhat Locally Bound
Office and Administrative Support     
1.89
Somewhat Locally Bound
Legal     
1.67
Somewhat Locally Bound
Life, Physical, and Social Science     
1.65
Somewhat Locally Bound
Media and Communications     
1.60
Somewhat Locally Bound
Architecture and Engineering     
1.30
Not Locally Bound
Arts and Design     
1.30
Not Locally Bound
Business and Financial     
1.28
Not Locally Bound
Math     
1.00
Not Locally Bound
Computer and Information Technology     
1.00
Not Locally Bound
Military     
1.00
Not Locally Bound
Overall Average
2.18
Somewhat Locally Bound


How about resistance to robotic technology?  When we use the same 1-2-3 system, also averaged among each job within each occupational group, we get this comparison:
Occupation Group
1 to 3 Scale
Average Result
Business and Financial     
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Community and Social Service      
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Computer and Information Technology     
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Education, Training, and Library     
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Entertainment and Sports     
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Legal      
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Life, Physical, and Social Science     
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Management     
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Math     
3.00
Very Resistant to Robotics
Architecture and Engineering     
2.93
Very Resistant to Robotics
Healthcare     
2.81
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Arts and Design     
2.80
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry     
2.71
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Personal Care and Service     
2.68
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Media and Communications     
2.60
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Sales     
2.59
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Food Preparation and Serving     
2.50
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Protective Service     
2.50
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair     
2.49
Generally Resistant to Robotics
Building and Grounds Cleaning     
2.17
Somewhat Resistant to Robotics
Office and Administrative Support     
2.11
Somewhat Resistant to Robotics
Transportation and Material Moving     
2.03
Somewhat Resistant to Robotics
Military     
2.00
Somewhat Resistant to Robotics
Construction and Extraction     
1.80
Somewhat Resistant to Robotics
Production     
1.19
Not Resistant to Robotics
Overall Average
2.45
Generally Resistant to Robotics


The third table shows susceptibility of a job to being automated through computing algorithms and computing connectivity.  Applying the same 1-2-3 scale job-by-job produces the following:
Occupation Group
1 to 3 Scale
Average Result
Building and Grounds Cleaning     
3.00
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry     
3.00
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Food Preparation and Serving     
3.00
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair     
3.00
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Military     
3.00
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Personal Care and Service     
3.00
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Protective Service     
3.00
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Construction and Extraction     
2.98
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Management     
2.93
Very Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Life, Physical, and Social Science     
2.74
Generally Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Community and Social Service     
2.70
Generally Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Transportation and Material Moving     
2.69
Generally Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Healthcare     
2.69
Generally Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Production     
2.68
Generally Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Math     
2.60
Generally Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Entertainment and Sports     
2.50
Generally Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Education, Training, and Library     
2.35
Somewhat Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Sales     
2.35
Somewhat Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Media and Communications     
2.30
Somewhat Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Arts and Design     
2.20
Somewhat Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Architecture and Engineering     
2.07
Somewhat Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Legal     
1.83
Somewhat Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Business and Financial     
1.80
Somewhat Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Office and Administrative Support     
1.74
Somewhat Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Computer and Information Technology     
1.38
Not Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity
Overall Average
2.58
Generally Resistant to Computing Algorithms and Connectivity

As you can see, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, some of the careers that have been first will later be last.  You will see a number of rather modest occupations close to the top, and some with excellent reputations and even consensus high future expectations near the bottom.  The