Employment

Some High Demand Jobs of the Future Will Not Require College

/ The Old Crank

Jared Bernstein takes a look at the latest BLS tables and makes an interesting observation: of the first three occupations expected to add the most jobs in the near future, two of them (retail sales and home health aides) are in industries that generally do not require advanced education:

Educational Composition - top three fastest growing occupations

Source: Jared Bernstein, Citing BLS Employment Projections

Bernstein is not suggesting that skills and education do not matter. As he notes, it’s hard to say now what the skill demands for a food prep worker or cashier will be ten years down the road. More importantly, he has previously made the case that it’s better for the worker and society overall when people within these occupational categories have more skills and training.

But even if there are more job opportunities for those with lower education levels than some would have you believe, the quality of those jobs isn’t great. Where I live, in Washington, D.C., many of retail jobs, for example, pay the minimum wage or just slightly better, and don’t offer much in the way of advancement, and/or have lousy benefits. The median wage for workers in low-income families in D.C. is just a little over $9.00 an hour (this comes from a 2010 report, but I doubt it’s gone up much), which is too low to lift a family out of poverty even working full-time.

So I understand why college access is an attractive anti-poverty policy lever: (1) the jobs for those without college often do not pay enough to lift people out of poverty, and (2) those living in poverty have often been denied access to a decent education, perhaps over multiple generations.

But if we expect there to be a continued demand for employees in industries that do not generally require a college degree, what else could be done to lift wages and improve working conditions in these high-growth, low-skill industries—rather than just asking workers to get a degree in order to escape them?

Unemployment Benefits Extension Should be Approved Friday – and Without GED or High School Diploma Requirement

/ The Old Crank

Full text of the bill, now titled  “The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012” is posted here.

It is reported that the bill will get to the floor of the House on Friday. It is expected that the Senate will also approve the bill the same day, before going on recess for a week.

In the compromise bill, unemployment benefits eligibility will not require a high school diploma or a GED, or some kind of proof that you are in a class and making progress toward one for the other. As reported, a much more limited authority to require drug tests did get in, as did a modified version of the state waiver proposal. I haven’t had a chance to study that. Hopefully someone else will offer an analysis later today.

High School Diploma, GED Requirement Apparently Dropped in Unemployment Benefits Extension Compromise

/ The Old Crank

(updated below)

According to press reports, the House-Senate committee charged with coming up with a compromise measure to extend the payroll tax reduction and unemployment benefits reached a tentative agreement last night. In the deal, Republicans have apparently dropped their proposal to require unemployed workers who lack a high school diploma or GED from collecting unemployment benefits until they acquire one or the other (or are enrolled in a class to acquire one). From a New York Times story on the deal this morning:

Democrats, elated after winning the Republican tax concession after months of clashes, said they had also been able to beat back new conditions that Republicans had wanted on jobless pay, like requiring beneficiaries to seek high school equivalency degrees…

From the Boston Globe:

Republicans also were expected to drop a proposal requiring unemployed people to enroll in GED classes to obtain benefits, and a GOP proposal allowing states to employ drug tests as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits would be scrapped as well. But Republicans won a provision requiring jobless people to be more diligent in job searches as a condition of receiving benefits.

It will be interesting to look at the final conference report to see what that last sentence means.

Also, it’s not entirelly clear to me what has happened with the drug testing requirement. The Globe report above says its been dropped, but an earlier report in Roll Call quoted a Republican aide saying that the deal included language allowing states “to drug screen workers seeking a job that requires a drug test or who lost a job due to a failed drug test.”

Politico, reaffirming that the high school diploma/GED requirement has been dropped, but suggests that the deal might have an extremely watered version of the drug testing requirement:

The deal would drop language called for by Republicans allowing states to drug test potential recipients of jobless benefits and requiring the unemployed to be in a GED program if they have not finished high school. Republicans said the deal’s language on drug testing will reaffirm existing law.

Update (6:00 PM): Roll Call reported this afternoon that House Republican leaders emerged from a Conference meeting this morning “tempering expectations” that a majority of their Conference will accept the deal. Democrats were also reportedly “quick to note that a deal is not yet final.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent was forwarded talking points that House Republicans have been circulating about the deal, which includes the following:

“Those receiving unemployment benefits must be searching for a job, and every state will be allowed to drug screen workers seeking a job that requires a drug test or who lost a job due to a failed drug test.”

Rep. Reed Continues to Characterize Restrictions in House UI Proposal As Giving People “Tools”

/ The Old Crank

(edited slightly at 5:33 PM for for clarity)

In yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor story on the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance (UI) extension negotiations, Rep. Reed (R-NY) is again quoted making the claim that the House’s proposal to deny unemployment benefits to those without a GED or high school diploma until they obtain one (or are at least enrolled in a class and making certain undefined progress toward such a credential) is actually providing “tools” to assist these individuals.

“Democrats are not willing to allow states the flexibility they need to give people tools to be reemployed,” says freshman Rep. Tom Reed (R) of New York. A strong advocate for these provisions, Congressman Reed says he’s now prepared to send unemployment benefits back to a 26-week level.

Again, as noted previously, there is nothing in this restriction that provides “tools” of any kind that will help people become reemployed. All the House proposal does is cut off benefits to those who are otherwise eligible but who lack a GED or High School diploma—unless they they can satisfy the vaguely-worded requirement that they are enrolled in a “class” and making “satisfactory progress” toward one of those two credentials (and only those two credentials). It doesn’t provide new funding for those classes, or any other “tools.”

Moreover the only “flexibility” provided for states in this proposal is the flexibility to opt out of the new restrictions the House wants to impose.

If you think the idea of providing more education and training opportunities to the unemployed sounds good, then the House UI proposal is not for you, because it does not actually do that. Instead, I suggest contacting your member of Congress and urging them to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, and to include an additional increase in funding for Title II of that act. That would result in putting actual adult education tools and resources in the hands of the unemployed—and others—seeking adult education opportunities.