Hey, Congress! You Are Asking the Wrong Question!

The brinksmanship in Washington has a lot of people upset (including me).  But the reasons differ depending upon where you sit and what relationships you have with the federal government.  Indeed, not everyone is upset.  A client told me he was in the middle of an IRS audit when the government shut down.  He wasn’t upset when the auditors vanished. 

A conservative friend of mine is upset with the direction of the Republican Party.  He quoted Napoleon over lunch.  In his view, Obamacare will collapse of its own weight and Republicans would be wise to let it.  “Never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake. That's bad manners,” quipped Napoleon.

However, Wall Street Journal economics editor David Wessel extols the virtues of Obamacare in an Op-Ed piece called “Obamacare – A Game Changer in the Making?” 

The Economist tries to elevate the debate a bit, pointing out “when you are brawling on the edge of a cliff the big question is not ‘Who is right?’ but ‘What the hell are you doing on the edge of a cliff?’ ” 

Meanwhile, Joshua Green asserts that “Republicans Are No Longer the Party of Business” in Bloomberg Businessweek.  Green starts with an anecdote about a Tennessee businessman whose company makes furniture.  He says, “It’s as if House Republicans are playing suicide bomber with the U.S. economy.”  People who make furniture are affected by a slow down in government-funded mortgages. 

None of them are asking the right question. 

Why is the government in the mortgage business?  For that matter, why are they in any business?

One could challenge a lot of things our government does.  The government is the largest landowner in the nation.  By some estimates it owns approximately $128 Trillion of real estate and mineral rights. 

Sell 10% of it and our debt problem vanishes.  Sell another 10% and no one pays taxes for the next three years.

The federal government also distributes between $10 Billion and $30 Billion in farm subsidies each year.  Originally intended to provide support to poor farmers who might again suffer the trials of the Great Depression and the Dustbowl, it now provides support to absentee landowners who are millionaires many times over.  The bottom 80% of recipients gets an average of $587 per year. 

Try to eliminate the subsidies and you’ll run into a buzz saw of mostly Republican congressmen who fight to protect the economic interests who send them back to Washington every two years.

Changing this paradigm doesn’t help to resolve the current budget and debt ceiling crisis.  However, it does go to the core of some foundational principles.

Americans take a lot for granted.  We expect the water from our faucets to be potable, the electric power grid to be reliable and the transportation systems to be safe.  We expect our military to be strong, our economy to be prosperous and our institutions to protect us from ourselves.

We have the luxury of those expectations because of the last 150 years of prosperity.  Yet, we have lost track of what got us here. 

The principles of economic freedom – predictable policy, rule of law, strong incentives, reliance on markets, limited role of government – are no longer on the minds of those who govern.  So, corporate interests have adapted.  In a world where lobbying for favorable tax and regulatory treatment can have a dramatic effect on your bottom line, big businesses benefit by focusing on Washington.  Interrupt that activity and the muddle that is the media somehow draws the conclusion that “Republicans Are No Longer the Party of Business”.

In the lingua franca of today’s political environment, the term economic freedom sounds conservative and Republican.  However, since WW II, the violators have come from both parties.  Starting in the 1960s, Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter approved a succession of laws, regulations and restrictions that violated the core values of the economic system that underpins our economic strength.  Perhaps no violation was more egregious than Nixon’s imposition of wage and price controls in 1971. 

An America that transforms itself from a free market juggernaut to a government that funds its favored interests will not maintain its economic leadership.  Instead, we will continue to be mired in the current slog of low economic growth rates and expansionist monetary policy. 

A reversal of that course will tread on the entrenched interests of big corporations who have benefited from the results of their influence on electoral outcomes.  Yet, that is what’s necessary to restore economic growth, the strength of the middle class and continued American hegemony.  The only question is…

WHO WILL LEAD?

Is the Education We Want, the Education We Need?

German apprentice steelmaker

My Dad never went to college. He was about four months into a six month hitch in the Army on December 7, 1941 -- that day of infamy. When he returned from the war four years later, one thing led to another and… well, he never went to college.


Perhaps for that reason, I was programmed to go to college from an age earlier than I can remember. It was a matter of faith. I never questioned it -- never felt the need to. So, it seems odd to me that some people are questioning the value of a college degree.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an article (Education Slowdown Threatens U.S. ) summarizing the studies of two Harvard economists. Professors Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz have calculated the average years of schooling for native born Americans since 1876. Today, the average 30 year old has only 8 months more education than their parents. This contrasts to 1980 when the gap was about 2 years. The Journal posits that this factoid does not bode well for our nation. After all, college grads have fared pretty well during this extended down turn with an unemployment rate of 4.2%, about half of the rate for those with only a High School diploma.

From the Wall Street Journal

The article included a graphic comparing the percentage of the US population that has attained a college degree to other countries. The US was 14th on a list that was led by S. Korea, Canada and Japan. What struck me, however, was that Germany – that’s right, Germany – was 25th on the list.

We all know about Germany, right? It is the economic engine of Europe. It is highly industrialized, produces great manufactured products and runs a trade surplus of about 15 Billion Euros per year. So, if a college degree is so important, how does Germany do it?

Perhaps part of the answer lies in Germany’s apprenticeship program. The tradition of apprenticeship in Europe goes back to the Middle Ages. It is embedded in German society, driven by industry demand and put to good use by high tech manufacturers. The “dual education” system combines on the job training with classroom vocational instruction. Young Germans can choose among 356 occupations including medical assistant, industrial management or optician. It is also a government program.

In this country, ‘A’ students go to Harvard, MIT or Stanford if they can afford it. If not, they may have the opportunity to attend great public universities like the University of Michigan, Indiana University or the University of California at Berkeley.

But, what about the ‘B’ students and ‘C’ students? Many are getting business degrees at lesser schools. Is there value to that approach?

Early in my career, I worked at Citicorp and Goldman Sachs. We hired the best and brightest from the top business schools including those mentioned above. They were management trainees and were paid very well. Smaller businesses couldn’t compete with those compensation packages.

In a small company, you need people with experience, not trainees. So, who will hire the ‘B’ and ‘C’ students? What value is there in a business school degree from No Name University?

Here in Florida, the Dean of the business school at Nova Southeastern University, Dr. Michael Fields, created an innovative program – a Sales Institute -- requiring every business school student to attend at least four courses in sales and sales management. Dr. Fields met resistance from his most important constituents – the faculty and the students.

However, there was one group that loved the program – business owners. The idea that they might be able to hire people who were ready to produce revenue was very appealing. Faculty and students don’t see the value in the less intellectual skill base of the sales profession. Employers see dollar signs.

But you don’t go for an MBA to end up as an apprentice. And, that was the perception of Nova’s program.

But, what’s wrong with apprenticeships? What if we had an education system that provided the real world skills that industry demands?

In Albany, NY, the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering was started with $1B provided by the state of NY and an additional $13B from industry. The college is educating Americans in nanotechnology used in the manufacture of computer chips and other miniaturized electronic devices. The college has created over 13,000 jobs in that rust belt city and promises to produce graduates with world class skills.

The US Department of Labor has created a program to support structured apprenticeships through the office of Education and Training. Reflecting the political reality of this country, the DOL uses funds that have been reallocated from other projects to support industry led efforts to create apprenticeships.

One example is the National Information Technology Apprenticeship System created by the Computer Technology Industry Association (CompTIA). NITAS took two years to develop and has a goal of training at least 7 million workers in the IT trades. The structure is noteworthy. The government sponsors the program but does not fully fund it, regulate it or make it mandatory. The industry set standards and participates voluntarily because it sees benefit in hiring workers who are more productive on Day One of employment.

The net is this. A better trained, more productive workforce will make it more attractive for free enterprise corporations to invest and create jobs in this country. These jobs will have higher wages than low skill service jobs. Higher wages increase demand for goods and services and grow the economy.

There has been much written about our broken public education system. And, indeed I agree with most of the criticisms. But, if you could fix the problem tomorrow for, say, all the third graders in America, we would still be 20 years away from feeling the economic impact. Apprenticeships can have an almost immediate impact and don’t require tax dollars to develop.

The ultimate question is whether initiatives that take us in this direction will encounter the same resistance that Dr. Fields encountered. Are Americans ready to have their children become apprentices rather than college grads?

Or, to put it another way, would my Dad have approved? Or, your Dad?