The Long Depression is here. We’re tapped out. Public services will suffer and there has to be a process defined that will get us from some A to some B. And it had better be in education, because our current generation is bagging fries and swatting flies down at the McDonalds on Main Street. We do not have a society for them.
No one wants to call our economic downturn a Long Depression. Politicians do not want to be perceived as negative, and economists won’t hold their jobs for long if they can’t tease out some new market for some new product. Many companies will survive, of course, but they won’t look the same. Family structure will remain popular, although to a lesser degree, and more as a goal than an actuality.
Why would the moniker Long Depression be appropriate? Because it is going to last a long time. Because the world that emerges from it will look very different than today’s world, and change is accepted slowly by most people.
Economists who crank numbers and don’t write for big name publications or politicians are bandying about a number, and that number is 40 years. If that sounds a bit frightening, talk to one in an off moment, and off the record, and he or she will admit that they can’t see beyond 40 years. Technology will have changed so much. And those affording the technology will gather wealth, which in itself may look quite different than a stack of bills in a bank here and there. They say that something like “normalcy” may take 100 years. And they’ll tell you something else. There won’t be nearly as many people on the planet as there now are. Social programs will ensure that only enough people survive to depress the cost of labor. No more entrenched West Virginia small towns claiming benefits that, after all, only the rich could pay for in tomorrow’s terror towns.
Well, that’s a strong statement. I don’t mean that we all have to stand up at the P.T.A. meetings and kill and burn animals in the name of the Almighty. Here, sacrifice means that we all have to give a little and perhaps not even money, but merely to surrender views we have held that now no longer serve us. The questions that follow on are: why do we have to sacrifice, how much do we have to sacrifice, and how will society benefit from our sacrifice. And, if the sacrifices work, are we likely to see a society more to our liking or less?
So lets look at this word “sacrifice.” One on-line dictionary calls it a loss incurred in selling something below its value. So teachers, say, are not sacrificing. They are trying to find good jobs that will help them to build a “normal life.” A family and a couple of children. No deep burden of debt. After all the education they’ve received and are paying for, that should be a straightforward path. But it’s not. Towns have no money. States have no money. And our dear Uncle is worrying about other things like China, Which is increasing its population even as it pursues plans to reduce our own.
So this new crop of teachers, nd some older ones, too, are not pulling out their purses and wallets and donating to a cause. Quite the reverse. Their expected standard of living is being lowered, against their will, and this will be done by making sure that the crushing debt they graduate with consumes their discressionary income, and that the numbers of people looking to teach is far too many to allow for a general rise in wages.
So if you think that Washington is all twisted up in confusion and mismanagement, think again. When a bubble in employment does rise, as in nursing, H1Bs go flying out the doors of congress and immigration requirements are waved. Why? To satisfy a need? We could do the same with our own kids, give them tuition incentives and rebates. But we don’t. Because we do not want a highly paid sector of the economy to demonstrate what life in this country could be like.
These are deep subjects on which to write, and certainly other aspects of a reasoned discourse could have and probably will be chosen as paths to explore which may give valuable insights.
A very long time ago, when I went to work on Wall Street, an old trader gave me a bit of advice. “Never like a stock,” he said. By this he meant that if you had some sort of emotional attachment to a business or a type of business, you started out behind the pack. Because you would accept losses that others would not, and be encouraged by an uptick to buy more shares, even if the signs of a peak were strongly showing. Thereafter, a stock’s slide would become a temporary correction, a really severe drop in share price would be seen as a bargain. Stocks should be seen for what they are; a temporary hold of equity taken in the hopes of turning a profit.
Well, what does this have to do with “education?” Some of us are, or once were, teachers or professors or guest lecturers, all in someway connected with education in a way that goes beyond once having been students. Some of us have won grants for important(to us) research projects. All of these experiences, and too many more to list, provide us with an anchor point. That is, we view education from a private vantage, from having successfully defended our doctoral dissertation, or from having failed to gain entry into a prestigious business school. These experiences tend to color our views of what education should be. It becomes the equivalent of liking a stock, or hating the stock that cost us our savings.
So each of us involved in any personally meaningful way in education has an anchor point. We have views of how our society would look if only we could get education, that earliest and most meaningful of social and educational interaction, back on track. However, there is an excellent chance that my most meaningful educational memories and yours are quite different. And when the plurality of these views is recognized, and one thinks about the difficulty of persuading even one person that your view is superior to hers or his, it becomes obvious that we have to abandon these basic views, individual views, and explore first principles. These are much fewer and so easier to deal with. If we attain agreement on but a few, they will possess a scope that will attract others who may be interested merely for pocketbook interests.
So let us consider the following proposal, parphrasing the Constitution of the United States.
All men are create equal.
And since the ladies have long since governed and litigated and taught law and so forth, let’s phrase it this way.
All Citizens of the United States are Entitled to an Equal Start in Life.
I believe that this would be a goal worth proclaiming and working toward.