Skip to main content

Quotation

Real Education vs Paper Education or Internships and the Minimum Wage

Many universities have some students who just want a piece of paper (called a "Degree") in order to justify something to their parents and/or improve their odds of obtaining a job in their desired line of work.

There are other who students attend to obtain an education in order to better themselves, make themselves actually more valuable to potential employers, etc...

The mix between these types of students at any particular location of higher learning can vary wildly. Off the top of my head (i.e., no actual research done), I'd rate University of California, Santa Barbara as the biggest paper-seeking school in the nation and George Wythe College the one with the most students interested in an actual education. Having lived near and known students at both, UCSB is the "party" school, while GW isn't quite accredited yet (so no real piece of paper), but GW has a massive learning load that would astonish students at UCSB.

Both sets of students pay (via one method or another) in order to attend these colleges. The colleges don't pay them to attend class, do papers in their "free" time, etc...

Colleges and Universities have a long tradition and history in the world. There has also existed another tradition of learning, one typically considered more suited for less academic pursuits, but used in academia as well. It's the internship. Way back when, apprentices (or their parents) would pay the master of a craft to take them on as an intern. If they worked out they got a promotion to journeyman and started seeing some money, if not they went and found something else to do. Either way they learned something.

Mark Cuban has recently pointed out that the federal government's current stance on unpaid internships is "Screw You!" As in, an unpaid intern isn't making minimum wage, so therefore they are to be legally prevented from contracting to do a little marginal work in order to gain valuable experience and learn something valuable.

That stance is fine for the group that just wants a little cash in their pocket (albeit at the cost of higher unemployment among the youngest, the poorest and the least educated in our society), but what about people who are just in it for the learning?

There are many industries where school doesn't prepare you to be an immediately contributing employee in your chosen field. Either the employer takes a hit while waiting for you to learn enough to be useful, or you just don't get a job. In a recession economy where employers aren't desperate to find new employees, guess which one they will tend to choose?

So to the people who want an entry-level job or an unpaid internship in order to learn something that will actually enable them to get paid quite well in the future, via the minimum-wage laws Congress proclaims, "Screw You!"

Obama's no Reagan, but we're gonna need one

The media likes to compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan. They note their shared charisma, etc... and attempt to say that Obama is going to be the next "great communicator" and convincer.

What they fail to see is that unlike Reagan, Obama has never really had to convince anyone of his principles and ideals and has never had to convince people that disagreed with him to follow him.

Reagan had to convince the SAG to go along with him. He spent years convincing audiences across the country as a spokesman for General Electric until they fired him for becoming too controversial. He had to convince Californians to follow him as Governor and then convince the skeptics that Goldwater conservatism was the economic answer in order to be elected President after a couple of tries.

Do you recall Obama ever being considered "too controversial" during his pre-Presidential career? In contrast, Obama "organized" a community that already agreed with him. He taught law. He never proposed and fought for anything in the Illinois Senate that was controversial, preferring to stay aloof from the fray. His record is dotted with "bipartisan", not controversy and idealogical conflict. He didn't have a big signature initiative in the Senate that he convinced Congress to pass. The closest he had come in his pre-presidential life to leading people to a conclusion is when he was running for President and adopted a poll-tested platform to campaign on that didn't quite reflect his real goals. Even then, he was trying to get people to see that he agreed with them, not to convince them to change their minds.

With the above biography, is it really a surprise that while Obama may have charisma, he doesn't actually have any idea how to convince the American people to follow his ideas? Now that he's President and he's actually trying to accomplish his goals, he's suddenly discovered that no matter how high his personal popularity used to be, the people don't agree with him. That's causing his personal popularity to sink rapidly as he tries to campaign for what he actually wants to accomplish instead of what the polls said he should announce during the campaign.

Obama does have much in common with a different former President. He inherited a poor economy with problems caused by government regulations and then extended it and made it worse through more government involvement. He's being praised by the press as an "intellectual" president, since most of the media agrees with his core principles. You can find many comparisons between Obama and Carter already out there. Nixon and Ford's domestic and economic policies have more in common with Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" than you might think.

Reagan had a clearly announced plan to fix the economy once elected. He followed his plan and the economy turned around very rapidly. Some of us were alive in 1981 to see it happen. Obama's plans have just made the economy worse. Like Carter, he started with "even more of the same" things his predecessor was already trying. Like Carter, he's getting more of the same results.

No, Obama's no Reagan, but when 2012 rolls around we're going to need another Reagan. A credible candidate with a clear vision of limited government, lower taxes, and limited spending to get us out of the mess Obama will have created.

Syndicate content