Tag Archives: Brookings Institution

17 million Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that don’t require a BA

“A college grad walks into a bar….”  Well, actually, the joke should probably start “A priest walks into a bar and is served a drink by a college grad….” After all, one in six bartenders has a college degree. Order some food, and you’ll probably be served by a college grad.

In his blog over at the Chronicle of Higher Education, Richard Vedder has done some tallying up of the Bureau of Labor Statistics data and finds this little nugget:

Over 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees (over 8,000 of them have doctoral or professional degrees), along with over 80,000 bartenders, and over 18,000 parking lot attendants. All told, some 17,000,000 Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that the BLS says require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor’s degree.

Yep, you can be feel pretty good that you spent $25,000 to park that Hummer.

Of course, much of this is a result of the current recession, and some of it is the age-old result of just not being sure what you want to do with your life. But with the cost of college creeping ever upwards, and the numbers dropping out with a bill but no degree rising as well, it does raise the question: should everyone go to college?

We’ve been demanding a BA for some time now as an entree into the work world, largely because, if you ask me, it’s the lazy way of winnowing out applicants. A BA certainly doesn’t convey expertise in the subject matter, unless you’re a historian or opening a philosophy shoppe. (The exception of course is in the professional schools, like engineering, law, medicine). College was designed to teach young people how to think and how to ask good questions–as well as giving them four years to mature. (Those are important skills, don’t get me wrong. Critical thinking is absolutely king.) But over time a BA has become a commodity, in exchange for which you (hopefully) get a job. The message we tell kids is, “go to college if you want to get a good job.”

Kids have heard that message loud and clear. Most kids aspire to college. And many enroll. They do so on the wing and a prayer that if they finish, they’ll earn a lot more than would a person who goes to trade school.

And, if they’re average or above average, they’re right.  The return to college is, on average, quite large.  But there’s a distinction that is often overlooked in this assumption (myself included). The high returns we read about are average returns.  So on average a student with a BA earns much more over a lifetime than the typical person with just some college, or a certificate, or just a high school degree.

But within the folds of that typical story are stories like the bartender and janitor and the flight attendant. Perhaps the bartender wasn’t ready for college, or perhaps he just didn’t have the smarts to hack it. No shame in that. This isn’t Lake Wobegon after all where every child is above average. Yet, he went to college because he heard the message that it was the only way to earn a decent living and have a stable life (college as a commodity again). But that’s not always true. He might not be average. If he’s below average, his return might just be below average as well. He might not have a shot at the high-end job that his dorm-mate had–the straight A kid from an elite high school with well-off and highly educated parents. Instead, he might land in a middle management job. Still a decent job, but not the six-figure salary his roomie is making. And yet he doesn’t pay any less for that degree. Thus, his “return” is less.

Those are the realities of college today, and while it is true that college still pays, it is something that every parent should think about when helping to choose a college. It’s a tough call, because you don’t want to unnecessarily crimp your child’s future, and who knows, he or she may blossom in college. But if a young person has done ok but not spectacularly in high school, if she’s not that interested in Thucydides, maybe he or she could blossom just as easily at a less-expensive state school instead of a pricey private school. Or maybe he could find his happiness as a landscape designer, or a radiologist, or an EMT.

Young people today need to know the odds of their success in a four-year college. If they’re in the bottom ranks of their high school class, they need to be told they have only a 20% chance of getting a BA.  And more important–they need to have clear, viable other options. They’re out there. We just need to work harder to make those options apparent and the path to them swift and successful.

When asked in a recent Heartland Monitor Poll whether a four-year degree is a ticket to the middle class, only 46% of young people aged 18 to 29 with a BA or still in college said yes. That’s a serious crack in the dike on the education front.

We’ve been ignoring the story of those less sexy, but decent paying “middle tier” jobs. While some economists say that the workforce now looks like a barbell–with jobs concentrated at the high end, demanding a lot of cognitive skills, or the low end, with dismal pay and no job security. These economists argue then that we should be spurring kids on to four-year colleges to sharpen those cognitive skills, so they won’t end up at the other end, forever scrambling to just keep their head above water.

But Georgetown labor economist Harry Holzer and the Urban Institute’s Robert Lerman argue otherwise. In a recent Brookings Institution paper, “The Future of Middle-Skill Jobs,”  they use Bureau of Labor projections to determine where the jobs will be.

Overall, we conclude that the demand for middle-skill workers will remain quite robust relative to its supply, especially in key sectors of the economy. Accordingly, accommodating these demands will require increased U.S. investment in high-quality education and training in the middle as well as the top of the skill distribution

Indeed, of the 30 jobs projected to grow at the fastest rate in the next decade, only seven require a BA.

I’ve heard from too many young adults who struggle in college or who wonder why they are now fighting for a job as a cashier or a bartender (with a college debt hanging over their head) when they were promised better. And they were. We promised them that. So let’s change this message that college is for all, and let’s give kids real alternatives.

Should we shift some resources from the elderly to the young?

In a fit of optimism last post, I put my faith in the current generation. I continue to be impressed by their optimism, idealism, and take-charge attitudes. There’s a group of young people out there who are running circles around the rest of us, doing things we only talked about at that age. A slice of this generation has a preternatural sense of balance in life that’s leading them to shuck convention and marry much later (and better), demand some work-life balance from employers, and reframe what it means to be an activist among other things. They’re doing it their way, and more power to ‘em.

In part, my optimism was also from the wave of  warm and fuzzy after the Fourth of July. Who can resist Ray Charles singing “America the Beautiful” as the fireworks explode overhead and kids thrill to the fact that they’re up late, sitting on dad’s shoulders, peering over a sea of people.

Here in Chicago, our fireworks take place on the lakefront, where our city planners back in the 1880s made sure that the lakefront and its gorgeous parks were never ceded to the mercantile class to build high-rises that butt up against the lake, and thus ensuring that only the rich enjoy the pleasures of water. People of all stripes need a place to play, a place to cool off in the hot summer, a place to take their kids, said the urban planners. And as a result of this great urban vision, we enjoy miles of uninterrupted public space of blue water and green parks.  On the Fourth of July, those parks are filled with families and their bbqs. The result of that urban vision–a “we’re all in this together” vision–is enough to make me optimistic at least for a couple days.

But then the reality of where we stand comes hurtling back. While the ant’s view of the Fourth of July, with people coming together to hang out and put their worries aside for the day, gives me hope, the bird’s-eye view makes me worry.  It’s a case of micro optimism against macro realities. Like this macro reality from Isabel Sawhill on whether the American Dream of doing better than your parents has come to an end:

As a result of economic growth, each generation can usually count on having a higher income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the previous one. … But that kind of steady progress appears to have stalled. Today, men in their 30s earn 12 percent less than the previous generation did at the same age.

The main reason today’s families have modestly higher overall income than prior generations is simple: More members of the household are working. Women have joined the labor force in a big way, and their earnings have increased as well. But with so many families now having two earners, continued progress along this path will be difficult unless wages for both men and women rise more quickly.

This didn’t happen overnight. It’s been a long time coming as our economy shifted, global pressures kept wages low, unions were busted, and our supposed trickle down economics didn’t do much trickling. A story on Monday in the New York Times about Scott, a 24-year-old struggling to get started, managed to capture this big shift in just a few paragraphs.

Scott’s grandfather came out of WWII to a job as a stockbroker (no MBA required). He earned a modest living, and invested in some real estate on the side and made a tidy sum. The firm that hired him changed hands more than once, but he continued to work out of the same office in the town he lived with his wife. Steady job, steady wages, a few opportunities to invest (even though he grew up in modest circumstances), no college or credentials required– a simple chance to prove yourself and be rewarded. The American Dream.

When Scott’s father graduated from college in 1976, manufacturing was still breathing, and he went to work for a company that made sandpaper and other abrasives. He and his wife bought a white colonial a couple doors down from his parents. He eventually moved over to Stanley Works, and later Endeavor Tool Company as a general manager, where he still works today.  A college degree followed by a steady job in manufacturing, upward mobility with each move, a wife, a house, a family. Middle-class security.

And what about Scott? He has a college degree from Colgate, no debt, but no job either. There’s no manufacturing to fall back on, even if he wanted to. He’s living with his parents until he can get a foot on the ladder. Does he risk slipping on that ladder? Time will tell. He’s probably going to be ok, but only because his family is there to support him financially and psychologically. Yet with the erosion of the middle class, and the decimation of the working class, fewer and fewer families are poised to offer that support.

Inequality has been growing at alarming rates, and threatens to stanch any progress we make. The Millennials just now entering the workforce have an uphill climb. For every Scott, with his degree and economic safety net, there are three young people who are losing their shot at the middle class.

As Sawhill says, if you want to join the middle class today you have to complete high school (at a minimum), work full time, and marry before you have children. “If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class [$50,000 a year for a family of three] or above rise from 56 to 74 percent.”

Yet more than half the births to women under age 30 are to single mothers. That alone dramatically increases the chances of poverty. Some of those single births are to couples who are living together, so they’re only single technically. A very small slice is to women with higher education. College, after all, is the best contraception. Most of the births are to women with just a high school degree or some college.  And because the well-educated tend to marry each other, it exacerbates income disparities and life chances. “If we add to these family changes the fact that wages for low-skilled workers have stagnated or declined in recent decades,” says Sawhill, “we can explain most of the increase in poverty and much of the increase in the income gap as well.”

The other element on that list in getting to the middle class was working full-time. (one might add, at a decent wage). Young adults today often work part-time when they would prefer to work full-time.  Prior to the recession 30% of young adults age 20-24 were working part-time. With the recession that figure has no doubt climbed, since 15% of workers age 20-29 were forced by the recession to shift from a full-time job to part-time. Many feel lucky to have any job, given the sky-high unemployment rate for young adults. In June 2010, 17.8% of men age 20-24 were unemployed, and 11.5% of men age 25-34 were unemployed. For women–12.6% of those age 20-24 were unemployed, and 8.9% of those aged 25-34

So it feels like we have a long way to go to ensure that young adults have the same shot at success as we did and our parents did. While the elite young adults are more impressive than ever, a large slice of our future is struggling, and with them, we risk shrinking our middle class even further. Elites striving ahead at the top, and a big group struggling at the bottom, with no middle in between. Never good.

Sawhill says we should start redistributing the resources from the elderly–who thanks to solid policies and a strong lobby have a fairly comfy life. Medicare and Social Security are taking bigger and bigger portions of our domestic spending. As she says, “Such a shift would not only help create more opportunity, it would improve the productivity of the next generation, making its members better able to contribute to the costs of retirement – including their own.”

I have to agree, albeit reluctantly since I’m closer to recouping my Social Security than not, and I don’t have kids myself. I’ve contributed a lot to this social contract by paying taxes and not having kids. Yet it still makes sense to shift some of this support to the young, when they need it the most. Case in point: I was just home helping my aging parents recover from a health issue, and here’s what they get: free medical care (my parents are both vets too boot), prescriptions for about $10 a pop, a home health aide who comes in one or twice a week to see to their physical therapy, help bathe and dress, do some light housekeeping, and give massages. A nurse comes in once a week to make sure they’re taking their meds, takes their blood pressure and vitals, and follows up with them on other health-related needs. Meals on Wheels brings a free meal once a day. They could also get some transportation help if they needed it. Dad could get a motorized scooter to get around in if he wouldn’t be so stubborn.  They also spent a week in rehab at the local nursing home, gratis.

Now granted, they both paid their dues. My dad worked all his life and employed 10 or so men for more than 40 years. He also fought in WWII. My mom was a WAVE in WWII and a homemaker after that. They paid their taxes and contributed to their communities for their entire lives. So they deserve these perks.

But young adults could use some help as well. Some clearer paths from school to work, maybe some subsidized housing, cheaper child care, better health care, cheaper loans for college, more scholarships–we could stand to get a little creative in helping those young people who will be supporting us in our old age. If we don’t, we may never enjoy what my parents now enjoy in their old age: a solid safety net.

So just as Chicago’s city planners had the foresight to create a park for everyone to enjoy (and left an amazing legacy in the process), we too can leave a legacy and ensure that we and future generations continue to have a place in the sun, so to speak–a shot at security and a sense of comfort.

The Boomers’ path to adulthood was an anomoly

Rick (my coauthor) and I have an article in the latest issue of  Future of Children, a journal by the Brookings Institution and Princeton University. They’re devoting the journal to the transition to adulthood, and all of the authors are fellow Network members. Our article leads off with a jaunty summary of long-term trends in this slowing path to adulthood. (we’re jaunty, but the path is slow!)

I’ll crib from the press release, with some tweaks…

Despite living in an age of iPads and hybrid cars, young Americans are more like the young adults of the early 1900s than the baby boom generation: They are living at home longer, although the reasons for this prolonged journey to adulthood differ from Americans of 100 years ago.

One huge difference between 2010 and 1910: young people today are being supported financially by their parents, instead of helping to support their parents as they might have in the early 20th century.

The middle of the last century is often used as a comparison for judging young people today. But the baby boom generation is an anomaly. Young people in the early decades of the 1900s were slow to leave their family homes and start families. Becoming an adult then, as now, was a gradual process characterized by “semi-autonomy,” with young people waiting until they were self-sufficient to set up their own households, marry and have children.

In the post-World War II boom, high-paying industrial jobs were plentiful, and a prosperous economy enabled workers with high school degrees (or less) and college degrees alike to find secure employment with decent wages and benefits. Since then, wages have stagnated for many and good paying jobs have dwindled for the least educated, leading to a gradual return home while they get themselves situated.

The recession didn’t help. I mapped these trends of moving home during recessions here. (Another key reason for the return home today is the different relationships between parents and kids today, which are much closer and more “friend-like” than in the past. Parents have invested more emotionally (and financially) in their kids, and they have cultivated very close and egalitarian relationships (not the stern authoritarian, remote parent of days past).

The worry is that in a recession as strong as this one, parents are feeling strapped anyway, and then to have another mouth to feed, it becomes a burden they can’t really afford. Same goes for paying for college. New evidence by Bob Schoeni at University of Michigan (commissioned by the Network) shows that parents are spending 10 percent of their annual income to help their adult children, regardless of their income level.

In the Future of Children article, we call for better programs and supports during this prolonged transition, especially for those who have struggled to find their anchor in college and have dropped out, or attempted community college and didn’t see the connection. This group is now the first one laid off and the last one hired (young adult unemployment stands at about 19 percent as of last count). The institutions that typically support young people during this period—colleges, military, national service programs, among others—are straining as well in part because their programs haven’t quite caught up with this extended transition to adulthood.

Some key facts from their article include:

  • In 2005, even before the current recession, roughly three in 10 white men (up to age 34) with a high school degree were not in school, in the military or at work. For young black men, the numbers were even higher: More than half were not in school, in the military or at work.
  • Even those who do get an education are not as likely as their counterparts in the 1960s and 1970s to get a good paying job. Young men (25-34 years) with a high school degree or less earned about $4,000 less in 2002 than in 1975 (with earnings adjusted for inflation). Men with some college also lost ground, earning about $3,500 a year less in 2002 than in 1975.
  • Every single group, except those with graduate-level college education, had greater amounts of people earning below poverty level in 2002 than in 1975.
  • In 1969, only about 10 percent of men in their early thirties had wages that were below poverty level. By 2004, the share had more than doubled. Overall, the share of young adults in 2005 living in poverty was higher than the national average.

And in an exciting note, Delacorte Press (a division of Random House) has our book posted on their site as a “forthcoming title. woot.