Kathryn Anne Edwards Profile picture
Jul 16, 2020 12 tweets 2 min read Read on X
I agree with the general sentiment: the #FindSomethingNew campaign is ill-timed and tone deaf. 17,750,000 people are unemployed, the federal add-on is about to expire, and the pandemic is spiking.

But, if I (trying my hardest hardest hardest) ignore that:

(long thread)
A user friendly website that compiles job, career, education, and financial resources for workers in a single location is long overdue.

This website is a meh start. It has some strengths.
The federal government has: careeronestop (incl. myskillsmyfuture), O*NET (incl. my next move), and the Occupational Outlook Handbook.

^All of these websites are in desperate need of updating and their competing/complementary roles haven't always been clear on the user side.
FSN also has a similar compiler of community colleges and trade schools, as well as sources of tuition aid. I know less about this so I can't comment.
And I was legitimately surprised and impressed that FSN had a page of how to apply for assistance, including child care, food stamps, unemployment, and internet access.
A websites that has that brings together job, school, and assistance resources is great.

There are a lot of not great things about it:
Not great:
1. The name. I get wanting to make the career exploration something positive. So "Find Something" is a bit of a letdown. But "Something new" is the wrong message during a recession and the wrong message for new/young workers.

^Obviously I have no suggestions.
Not great:
2. The exploratory pathways include, alongside apprenticeships or community college, "intensive programs." These are mainly coding bootcamps such as the Flatiron school and App Academy. These programs are expensive and have unproven financing schemes.
Not great:
3. The apprenticeship page include redirects straight to private companies (Apple is at the top of every list on every page) without flagging whether they are federally registered apprenticeships. This is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction.
4.-n. ^is the same problem. Blending public and private resources means that the website conflates:

Federal resources designed for the benefit of the public and Federally approved and regulated schools/programs

with

Private company ads (?) links (?) recruiting pages (?).
Finally, the inclusion of geography filters is limited. But a website that is supposed to navigate career/education/training at the sub-baccalaureate level needs geographic filters. At the sub-bacc level is where many of the "good jobs" have high geographic concentration.
A better website would have you enter the zipcode where you want a job/to learn and then pull up resources as appropriate and applicable.

^This is how to make it *truly* about the worker and not about the private partner.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kathryn Anne Edwards

Kathryn Anne Edwards Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @keds_economist

Mar 21
Fun fact about moms that is often totally lost in the childcare debate:

They are overrepresented in jobs that are facing a worker shortage.

1/
Here are the occupations with the highest NUMBER of moms working in 2021.

Right at the top: registered nurses, then teachers.
In the top 15: nursing assistants, teaching assistants, more teachers.

2/ Image
Here are the occupations with the highest SHARE of moms out of total workers in 2021:

At the top again: nurse practitioners
In the top 15: teachers, teaching assistants, more teachers, physicians, more teachers, more nurses, more teachers, more nurses, and nursing assistants

3/ Image
Read 6 tweets
Jun 8, 2023
A thread summarizing Bill Sprigg's letter to economists. Image
Bill brings the reaction to George Floyd's murder---and the assumptions and truths it brought many to question---directly to economists, asking them to similarly question assumptions and truths.

He calls out the role of economists in perpetuating racism. Image
It starts where modern economic comes from: the American Economic Association, whose founder Richard T Ely was a committed eugenicist, and whose leaders held Black Americans as inferior race. Image
Read 26 tweets
Mar 20, 2023
New article in WSJ discussing how many workers have been left out of the pandemic recovery because they cannot afford child care.

Good chance to review the most common questions/comments I get about child care:
1/
wsj.com/articles/price…
1. This is nothing new, Child care has always been too expensive, hard to access, and in short supply.

Agreed. A great example of this comes from World War II, when the Lanham Act helped fund child care for women working in the war.

2/
Despite sky high demand, the private market didn't provide enough care, so the government stepped in.
nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/…

3/
Read 25 tweets
Jan 5, 2023
I get a lot of comments/DMs after I post about labor force issues that assert that red states work more.

The share of working age adults who have a job is nearly the same (red states had <50% Biden vote share in 2020).

Red state average: 79.64%
Blue state average: 80.09%

1/
Here are all the states lined up by the share of voters who supported Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
And here are the states *in the same order* but with their prime-age employment to population ratio instead.

There's no trend.

(States to right of Georgia were majority Biden.)
Read 5 tweets
Jan 4, 2023
This is the three-month rolling average of employed workers who are not at work due to child care issues. It spikes at the start of the pandemic, declines slowly for two years, and then starts spiking again in April 2022.

We are at levels now not seen since the fall of 2020.
The data are from the BLS, which you can find here. I put it the monthly share of the total employed workers share (both not seasonally adjusted).
beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/vie…
Getting some questions about numbers.

Yes, the shares are very low. The raw number of 'not-at-work, child care' is in the tens of thousands and, because it's a small series that's not seasonally adjusted, moves up and down every month. To make it interpretable, I do two things.
Read 11 tweets
Dec 21, 2022
The biggest argument against the expansion of the Child Tax Credit is that it creates a work disincentive: give parents money, and parents will work less.

I find it hollow and hypocritical to the point of cruelty, considering what's at stake: a reduction in child poverty.

1/
Will some parents work less?

How to answer that question has economists in bitter, debate, which the link below summarizes well.
2/
washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/…
But let's assume that it does. If the expanded child tax credit is made permanent, a million parents stop working.

The go-to interpretation: and therefore the benefit is bad.

I think this is wrong. It should be: and therefore the labor market is bad.
3/
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(