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
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/
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
A thread summarizing Bill Sprigg's letter to economists.
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.
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.
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.
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/