The unemployment
rate in the United States
has been far too high for the past five years and economists and pundits continue
to offer a variety of solutions to fix the discouraging unemployment numbers. One
topic receiving attention in some circles is minimum wage law.
A recent article on the Harvard Business Review (HBR) blog noted President Obama’s State of
the Union Address and the proposal to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25
to $9. The conclusion of the article was that “the minimum wage makes
economists smile”; the author declared that economists have become “more favorably
disposed to minimum wages.” This and other such articles have generated good
discussion.
Those favoring minimum wage laws
will always have the emotional advantage. Paying hard-working people low wages
simply appears exploitive and unfair. We should all want every worker to have a
“living wage.” Most of us have likely experienced working minimum-wage jobs or
know others who do. Are not those who argue against minimum wage laws
heartless?
However, one should consider the
rest of the story. It is important to take into account the difference between
noble intentions and actual outcomes. Contrary to the thesis of the HBR article,
a majority of professional economists actually conclude that minimum wage laws have
a negative impact on young and unskilled Americans seeking employment. In Basic Economics (2011), Thomas Sowell cites
recent studies showing how the minimum wage increased unemployment among
low-skilled workers in the United
States and other countries.
Sowell
does not see minimum wage jobs as career jobs. Once workers gain experience and
acquire skills their worth becomes greater than the minimum wage. He argues
that it is a disservice to prevent young people from getting some working
experience. Moreover, the effects are far-ranging when young people lose
the opportunity to have lower wage jobs where they gain valuable on-the-job training.
Many employers eliminate jobs or fail to create new jobs rather than meet
mandated wages artificially raised.
The tradeoffs are difficult. One
wishes higher wages for everyone, but that is not realistic for those starting
out. Any job (minimum wage or not) can be in jeopardy if the wage remains
higher than the output. Sadly, the real
minimum wage for too many young Americans is zero (unemployment).
The focus of Reaganomics was
different. During Reagan’s two terms, the minimum wage remained unchanged
(thus, “it declined in real terms, adjusted for inflation”). Promoting a
growing free market economy and the existence of many employers competing for
the services of workers was the Reaganomic approach for protecting workers. From
1980 to 1988, America
witnessed the creation of 18 million new jobs.
If we dig deep into our psyche all of us have a number of lessons that have impregnated deep into our cells. Mine is the cost of disconnection. I was reflecting on this lesson I learned repeatedly in both Zimbabwe and South Africa when I heard the latest atrocity of the Boston bombings. Like everyone I was appalled at the tragedy—the loss of life, the trauma of the victims, the pain that is so intense it numbs the senses. It leaves most bewildered, trying to find an explanation for the overwhelming crime against all humanity.
It is easy to go straight to judgment because the crime was heinous, but I remember the profound words of Desmond Tutu witnessing tragedy after tragedy at the truth and reconciliation commission: “These are heinous crimes not heinous individuals.” A mere sentence, but one that rings of astonishing compassion in the wake of the murders witnessed under Apartheid. The fact that Desmond Tutu could still humanize the perpetrators was extraordinary and something that has never left me.
Dzhokar talked about “collateral damage” in the note he wrote while in hiding, and wrote that “an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all.” In no way is his act explainable, it was a heinous act, but as a group therapist of a men’s anger management group, it is my job not to be judge and jury but to seek to understand. Facilitating a healing milieu for the perpetrator to heal therefore can help prevent any further crimes from happening.
The overriding theme I heard in the anger management group over a period of nine years was the cost of disconnection to self and others. These men were numbing themselves in any way that they could, and North American society provides a smorgasbord of numbing opportunities. Whether it is a drug and alcohol filled lifestyle, busyness, speedy living, technological distractions, or overworking or some other excess activity, disconnection from self becomes a social norm. If one is disconnected from self and society one is capable—and I witnessed this first-hand from the men in the group—of hurting and harming others with little to no feeling. Clearly Dzhokar was totally disconnected from any semblance of humanity. Anyone that can socialize and carry on his life as a student after perpetrating such a horrific act, and even bragging to strangers about it, is disturbing beyond belief. So the question remains: How did these brothers learn that hate, murder of innocents, and revenge were their way forward in their lives?
The answers are so multilayered and complex, however I heard one news clip that talked about the Tzarnaev brothers not being able to relate to the norms of North American society. Their mother clearly held a great deal of anger towards the society, this makes their adaptation to a new world profoundly fraught, and this would invite her sons to step easily into Emile Durkheim’s state of anomie. The French sociologist talked eloquently about anomie which he coined as a state whereby individuals cannot find their place in society and so they step outside of the rules. This is particularly relevant in periods of social disruption (economic depression) when higher rates of anomie were seen reflected in society. Examples were higher rates of crime, suicide, and deviance. Recently I heard a news report on a US television channel talk about the all time high rates of suicide amongst men in the US in the last year.
Dzhokar will, through the legal process, be forced to confront the brutality of his heinous crime. However there will be others like him in the future. So what can we do if anything? Some individuals are already so disconnected that we have lost them in essence and so they remain a danger to us all. However there are some still on the edge of total disconnection and to those we can reach out and commit to values that humanize life for us all. In the words of Tutu and the concept of Ubuntu “a human being is a human being because of other human beings.”
Watch Kate Davies book trailer for "The Rise of the US Environmental Health Movement". You can learn more about the book by clicking the link here: https://rowman.com/ISBN/978-1-4422-2137-6
On September 12, 2012, a federal
judge issued a permanent injunction against a counterterrorism provision of the
National Defense Authorization Act (2012) that would have given the president
the authority to indefinitely detain Americans suspected of support for
terrorism. Federal district Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the
"disappearance" of Americans for political reasons violates free
speech rights under the First Amendment. Seven individuals, including
Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, and Daniel Ellsberg, had sued the government
claiming the language of the detention provision -- Section 1021 -- was overly
broad and vague. It could be used to
curtail their political activity.
The question of who is a terrorist
and what is terrorist activity goes to the heart of this matter. After
September 11, the USA Patriot Act (2001) and other security guidelines permitted
the government to misapply the terrorist label to a broad range of legitimate
dissent. In a recent example, newly declassified police and intelligence
documents have begun to suggest the Occupy Wall Street movement was smeared as
terrorist activity in order to legitimate security investigations.
What makes Section 1021 so troubling
is that detention without charge could occur against people
who “substantially supported” or “directly supported” terrorism.
These terms are not defined. It could include financial
contributions to controversial groups. Moreover, the support
provision also applies to “associational forces” of terrorists, a
term which is not defined. This could include attorney and media
organizations critical of the government.
Internment plans for political
dissidents are not entirely new. During the Cold War, the FBI
secretly assembled a list or index of “subversives” to be detained
indefinitely in the event of a national emergency. The list was
established in 1939 under the Custodial Detention Program and continued under
other names (Security Index, Administrative Index) until the late 1970s.
During the 1980s, a plan known as Rex 84 also outlined detention policies for
American radicals. At its height, the FBI put about 26,000 Americans on
the list. Fortunately, these internment plans never were put into practice.
A major difference between those
FBI efforts and the current plans is the public nature of the debate now
taking place. In the past, the general public was unaware of the
FBI's internment policy. But since Congress has taken the lead with
legislative action, legal resistance now is possible.
After Judge Forrest's ruling, the
Obama Justice Department sought an emergency appeal due to "irreparable
harm to national security." The matter will be handled by an federal
appeals court, with the prospect the U.S. Supreme Court eventually
will rule on the domestic internment of American radicals.
If you haven’t
already, you will want to read Esther Cepeda’s recent column entitled “Learning by Example: What an Idea.” Her message distributed through the Washington Post Writers Group is
that future teachers need to observe great teachers teaching. She laments that
there are not many master teachers from which to choose and cites the National
Council on Teacher Quality as reporting that only one of every 25 faculty
members is qualified and willing to mentor. This means a limited number
of placements.
While we nod in
agreement with Cepeda’s call for the observation of master teachers, we also
feel reservation about her implication that observations of great teaching will
produce great teachers. We can spend many Sunday afternoons observing the
fine-tuned swings of professional golfers, culinary-wizardry of chefs, or
renovations by skilled woodworkers, but we still slice off the tee, have better
luck by ordering take-out, and have to pay professionals for most of the
household repairs.
We
can learn valuable information through observation but more is needed from the
experts than simply viewing them at work. The same can be said for our
future teachers. We believe that there
is more to choosing quality placements for our pre-teachers than providing
observations of master instructors. Exemplary instruction is
valuable but when a placement is combined with a classroom teacher who also possesses effective supervisory skills then the
pre-teacher’s chances of professional growth soar.
We have
witnessed very effective classroom teachers who were poor cooperating
teachers. Some did not have the analytical ability to dissect and explain
the events of effective instructional success. Others did not have skills
for sharing knowledge or providing quality feedback, much
less possess time, patience, or nurturing
qualities. In contrast, we have witnessed average and even mediocre
classroom teachers who were effective as cooperating teachers. They
provided a nurturing yet challenging environment and understood the
developmental stages of a student teacher as they facilitated professional
growth on a daily basis. Yes, it’s dynamite when both teaching skills and
supervisory skills are exemplary in the cooperating teacher, but in the end, it
is the supervisory element that is highly important to advancing the
career-lasting development of our future teachers.
Those of you in
education know that there is also a college supervisor that bridges the gap
between college course work and the school experiences. However, budget
constraints are now limiting their travel time for supervisory observations of
the student teacher and guidance for the cooperating teacher. Additionally our society continues to loudly
beg for effective classroom teachers. Indeed, cooperating teachers with
supervisory training seems even more imperative to address these
concerns.
Supervisory skills can be learned. Several
college programs now offer on-campus professional development for their
cooperating teachers, but there are far more cooperating teachers who still
operate without supervisory training.
The advent of the internet and subsequent courses developed for online
study have further created manageable opportunities for the preparation of
cooperating teachers.
We have been advocating for years that
teachers need professional development if they are assuming the important role
of a cooperating teacher. We are as perplexed about the lack of action in
the supervisory qualification for our cooperating teachers as Cepeda is about
finding placements with teachers who are great at teaching. If the school
experience is the capstone of the undergraduate education program then surely
the cooperating teacher, who is a part of the college program, should be fully
prepared to supervise.
We are
appreciative of the dialogue that Cepeda’s column is initiating and of you who
are accepting her challenge of finding great teaching, yet we now nudge, beg,
and implore you to expand your definition of quality experiences for our future
teachers as ones that include exemplary instructional teachers with
effective supervisory skills.
When I was in primary school, we discussed the four-stroke engine with my dad. He explained to me how intake, compression, power and exhaust strokes are made possible by the action of the cam and valves. This knowledge made me feel at home in the world: I understood what kind of principles enabled our holiday trips by car. The computer with which I work daily, however, doesn’t reveal itself to me in a similar manner. The device, operating system, programs and network connections are mostly mysteries to me. I have little experience from programming, only superficial knowledge concerning semiconductors and binary numbers. For the most part computer presents itself to me as a convenient, readily available interface—when it’s functioning well.
Due to living abroad our family has to fly over the Atlantic at least once a year. It’s baffling to think about all the technical arrangements that make an intercontinental flight possible. I don’t believe there is one single person who knew all the information that underlies an international flight.
With nature the situation is almost the opposite. For early humans many natural phenomena were mysteries. Thunder and lightning, human fertilization, fire and burning, the motions of the moon and planets, heaviness that takes things down, as well as blood circulation and respiration have challenged human understanding for millennia. Thunder might first have been the most terrifying and fascinating natural phenomenon, since many mythologies perceive it as the work of the highest god. Still in Aeschylus’s Oresteia Athena gets the Furies under control by threatening them with his father’s thunderbolts.
Step by step countless phenomena have been taken out of the unruly divine fate and brought within the realm of rational explanations. Hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and droughts still terrify us, but mostly because of the human suffering and uncertainty that are involved—not because we wouldn’t understand natural laws related to them. After the last two disastrous tsunamis newspapers have immediately offered knowledgeable accounts of the physics involved.
In a sense, nature and human-made technology have changed places: wonders of nature have become prosaic, technology has become miraculous. For the most part we are happy users of the miracle but many of us also go to work inside the miracle: to take care of a part of an international flight or programming a new operating system.
This somewhat paradoxical situation makes one wonder how best to orient oneself in this human-made world. How to be an informed citizen in a society that relies on complex structures on all its levels? How to conceive a good life, or excellence, in this situation? Answering these questions seems to require understanding both the contemporary situation and thinking in ethics and politics. But to what extent are traditional moral philosophical stances applicable amongst intensive expert knowledge and life-enhancing devices? And what exactly are the criteria for good, right, and reasonable necessarily involved in these questions?
