First up, this post is based on an article published 19 September 2010 in the NYTimes written by Motoko Rich. You can read the original here.
Here we see an interesting paradox. Individuals with education and / or years of experience are having at least as hard of a time finding a job (usually after a layoff or some other corporate misfortune) as those lacking an education and similar experience. Why is it so hard for these individuals to find gainful employment?
One theory i would posit is that employers simply do not want to invest the recruitment / training costs into individuals who will likely retire in less than a decade. But, given the counter point to this that most Gen-Y'ers do not see employment in the same manner as their baby-boomer parents / grandparents and are more comfortable changing jobs frequently and rarely view an employer / employee relationship as a lifetime commitment - this argument seems unlikely to hold water.
Perhaps older job seekers are seen as less technologically adapt? As the article states: "Others discover that their job-seeking skills — as well as some technical skills sought by employers — are rusty after years of working for the same company". Many individuals are trying to stave off both of those effects by attending workshops and classes to learn how to use specific software or equipment, but even with this effort, it seems as though they are still being passed over.
Another problem is that many of these job seekers are shackled to an anchor, figuratively, of course. Homeownership is a huge correlate with unemployment (I've spent the past 2hrs searching for the article I was thinking of for this, if I come across it, I'll post it later - in the meantime, here's a renting vs. buying article I like). But basically, the theory here is that individuals get saddled into a 30yr commitment to pay for a house, but thanks to the the current housing market, they can't get rid of their houses to move to a locale where there are jobs, or they will lose a ton of money because the house is now worth less than they owe.
Perhaps the cold hard fact is that employers want someone with as little previous experience / training as possible so they can train the new employees exactly as they want them & just think that these older candidates come with too much "baggage" to untrain and retrain...
Regardless of the reasons that the older unemployed job seekers cannot obtain new, meaningful employment, the sheer number of boomers that are in this age bracket, getting laid off and cannot find new jobs presents a huge problem. These individuals are unable to draw on their retirement accounts without huge penalties, they're too young to collect social security and they're unable to find gainful employment to prevent foreclosure, loss of residence, pay other bills and even eat (in some cases). This will likely lead to an increased reliance on welfare programs requiring payment from those who are employed - further reducing their real income.
This is a complicated situation, one that I freely admit that I don't know what the appropriate solution is. But as a recent grad school graduate trying to find meaningful employment in my field - I feel their pain and hope that a solution is on the horizon for these workers who are desirous of employment for the twilight of their careers.
Until next time, my dear readers - what solutions would you suggest for these older unemployed job seekers? Post your ideas in the comment section below & be sure to follow this blog if you like reading it!
24 September 2010
20 September 2010
Interim Update
Hello my dear readers! I have a treat for you. Today, I stumbled upon a variety of articles that I'm really looking forward to commenting on. Topics range from what Gen-Y means for the Mo'Town 3 to the DREAM Act (immigration) to the economy & unemployment stories.
My hope is to publish commentary on 1-2 stories per day for the remainder of the week - make sure September goes out with a bang.
While you're waiting for the posts - why not become a follower and subscribe to this blog?
My hope is to publish commentary on 1-2 stories per day for the remainder of the week - make sure September goes out with a bang.
While you're waiting for the posts - why not become a follower and subscribe to this blog?
09 September 2010
Representation vs. Stewardship (Post 4)
This post should be a short one, as it only serves to wrap up the preceding 3 posts. In those posts I discussed the difference between Representation and Stewardship - the first indicates a philosophy of acting as a proxy for the populous one represents and serving merely to voice the opinions of that populous in the government, while the second posits the role of the official to act in the best interest of the greater good, regardless of the voiced opinions of the populous.
Those in lower levels of government seem to be better served by acting more as Representatives than Stewards. As their "greater good" is smaller it is more likely that their constituents are better attuned to what is in their best interest. In the process of moving to the national level, elected officials should start to lean closer to the Steward end of the continuum, as the greater good they are responsible for is one far beyond the locality that elects them.
Appointed officials should serve their constituency through closer adherence to the Steward end of the continuum as they are not elected to voice the will of the people, they are professional bureaucrats charged with enacting the will of the Legislature. These administrators are at least one level removed from the constituency, so acting with deference to the greater good of society should be seen as preferable to representing the views of a more vocal minority of the population (usually the same individuals clamoring for the attention of their elected officials).
And here ends my discussion on the rolls of Representation vs. Stewardship, as I see it, based on the factors surrounding the official's place in government. The two reside on a continuum and it is unlikely that any official - elected or appointed, local or national - will rest at one end or the other; but rather, will be closer to one end than the other. Some look out for the greater good while others serve to voice the opinions of their constituency - virtually all do both, it's merely a matter of degree of each.
Moving on from here, I hope to post at least once per week. This past month has been a trial to make sure I can keep (pretty close) on a schedule. Some weeks I may post more, based on how many interesting articles / issues I come across. In the meantime, if you like this blog - bookmark it, add it to your RSS feeds, become a follower & pass it on to your friends!
Until next time, my dear readers, take care!
Those in lower levels of government seem to be better served by acting more as Representatives than Stewards. As their "greater good" is smaller it is more likely that their constituents are better attuned to what is in their best interest. In the process of moving to the national level, elected officials should start to lean closer to the Steward end of the continuum, as the greater good they are responsible for is one far beyond the locality that elects them.
Appointed officials should serve their constituency through closer adherence to the Steward end of the continuum as they are not elected to voice the will of the people, they are professional bureaucrats charged with enacting the will of the Legislature. These administrators are at least one level removed from the constituency, so acting with deference to the greater good of society should be seen as preferable to representing the views of a more vocal minority of the population (usually the same individuals clamoring for the attention of their elected officials).
And here ends my discussion on the rolls of Representation vs. Stewardship, as I see it, based on the factors surrounding the official's place in government. The two reside on a continuum and it is unlikely that any official - elected or appointed, local or national - will rest at one end or the other; but rather, will be closer to one end than the other. Some look out for the greater good while others serve to voice the opinions of their constituency - virtually all do both, it's merely a matter of degree of each.
Moving on from here, I hope to post at least once per week. This past month has been a trial to make sure I can keep (pretty close) on a schedule. Some weeks I may post more, based on how many interesting articles / issues I come across. In the meantime, if you like this blog - bookmark it, add it to your RSS feeds, become a follower & pass it on to your friends!
Until next time, my dear readers, take care!
01 September 2010
Representation vs. Stewardship (Part 3)
Thus far, we've defined representation and stewardship (Post 1 on the topic) & taken a look at how those two items relate to elected officials at multiple levels of government (Post 2 on the topic). For Part 3, we're going to quickly look at this continuum and apply it to appointed officials.
Appointed officials fulfill a variety of functions, from Presidential Cabinet-level Secretaries to town / village administrators and all levels in between. These individuals are often holden to the political whims of those who appoint them, as they also often have the authority to remove these individuals from their appointed position.
Accountability to the general public is at least one degree removed for these appointed officials. The citizens elect the individuals who appoint them, if the citizenry is dissatisfied they must lobby their elected officials, they cannot directly vote the appointee out or recall them. Likewise, the appointed officials represent by one degree of removal (that is to say, since they were appointed by individuals who were elected, in fulfilling their will, they are also fulfilling the will of the citizenry in a roundabout way).
Interjecting my opinion, since there is this level of removal from the will of the citizenry, stewardship takes on a greater level of importance. The appointed official must take into account the good of an entire agency / populous, direct representation of the will of an individual or a sub-group should take a back seat to the larger good, as that is the good they have been entrusted with.
One could argue that this level of removal is necessary for the appointed official to maintain a higher level of objectivity, in this manner, they are not constantly thinking about the next election with every decision they make - it allows them an opportunity to consider the good of the whole, not just the voter before them that they might upset with their decisions.
Finally, elected officials should take into consideration the ability of the appointee to maintain objectivity with regards to the rule of law above all else. The ability to be fair in their interpretation & application of the rules / laws they are being appointed to uphold should be the defining characteristic of an appointee - something one could argue is the very definition of stewardship. Though, as we discussed in the last post, stewardship and representation rarely exist exclusive of the other, just opposite ends of the same continuum. In this case - the slider on that scale rests closer to stewardship than representation.
Next week, the 4th and final post in this series - a quick summation of these 3 posts and my final thoughts on stewardship & representation.
Appointed officials fulfill a variety of functions, from Presidential Cabinet-level Secretaries to town / village administrators and all levels in between. These individuals are often holden to the political whims of those who appoint them, as they also often have the authority to remove these individuals from their appointed position.
Accountability to the general public is at least one degree removed for these appointed officials. The citizens elect the individuals who appoint them, if the citizenry is dissatisfied they must lobby their elected officials, they cannot directly vote the appointee out or recall them. Likewise, the appointed officials represent by one degree of removal (that is to say, since they were appointed by individuals who were elected, in fulfilling their will, they are also fulfilling the will of the citizenry in a roundabout way).
Interjecting my opinion, since there is this level of removal from the will of the citizenry, stewardship takes on a greater level of importance. The appointed official must take into account the good of an entire agency / populous, direct representation of the will of an individual or a sub-group should take a back seat to the larger good, as that is the good they have been entrusted with.
One could argue that this level of removal is necessary for the appointed official to maintain a higher level of objectivity, in this manner, they are not constantly thinking about the next election with every decision they make - it allows them an opportunity to consider the good of the whole, not just the voter before them that they might upset with their decisions.
Finally, elected officials should take into consideration the ability of the appointee to maintain objectivity with regards to the rule of law above all else. The ability to be fair in their interpretation & application of the rules / laws they are being appointed to uphold should be the defining characteristic of an appointee - something one could argue is the very definition of stewardship. Though, as we discussed in the last post, stewardship and representation rarely exist exclusive of the other, just opposite ends of the same continuum. In this case - the slider on that scale rests closer to stewardship than representation.
Next week, the 4th and final post in this series - a quick summation of these 3 posts and my final thoughts on stewardship & representation.
25 August 2010
Representation vs. Stewardship (Part 2)
Currently, we have a rough understanding of the difference between a 'representative' & a 'steward', so let's delve a bit deeper into this discussion.
Most government can be divided into layers (e.g. "local", state & federal), each of which serves a vastly different constituency.
With this said, it appears as though a trend is developing. At more local levels of government, representation seems to play a more noticable role, but as the officials become holden to a larger constituency - not just those who elected them - stewardship seems to become more prominent. This is not to say that one ever truly eliminates the other. Rather, they sit at opposite ends of a continuum & are blended together in a ratio that best serves the largest population they are responsible for.
On the local levels, with a smaller "greater good" to consider, it seems as though it would be easier to do as the constituents want - as their views should be more in tune with what is in the best interest of the total area represented by their officials. However, as the constituency becomes broader, stewardship seems to play a greater role.
The Distinguished Gentleman from Ohio may be well aware of his constituents' view that XYZ Missile Defense Site should be located in their district, as it would bring them an influx of new (much needed) jobs. However, the Gentleman is aware of the maximum effective range of said Missile Defense System and that if situated in Ohio, it cannot provide the same level of protection to the nation as if it were located further north in say, North Dakota. While his constituents expect him to represent their view and bring them needed jobs, the nation as a whole is dependent on his ability to act in her (the nation's) best interest.
At this point, I merely hope to present the view that Representation & Stewardship are not exactly mutually exclusive, but rather opposite ends on a continuum. As such, each plays a role in the decisions made by the official, but the relative value of each changes based on the level of government that the official operates in.
Next week, Part 3 in this series will look at the differences between those who are elected to their position and those who are appointed or employed as career bureaucrats and whether or not there is a difference in their ratio of Representation to Stewardship.
Most government can be divided into layers (e.g. "local", state & federal), each of which serves a vastly different constituency.
- Members of my city council serve within a very limited jurisdiction (even though it is ~213 square miles in size) and are expected to adequately represent my interests within that jurisdiction. Comparatively, they are not holden to a very large constituency and they need only concern themselves with what is in the best interest of the city in the eyes of its citizenry.
- On the state level of government, we vote for a number of individuals. State Senators & State Representatives represent a certain geographic area, often based on population, within a larger sphere of policy making. Other elected officials such as the governor, attorney general & secretary of state may come from a certain area, but they are expected to act in the best interest of the state - not just the area they hail from (as opposed to State Senators / Representatives).
- Finally, in the Federal Government, we see a pattern similar to that of the state, but on a far larger scale. U.S. Senators are chosen from the state as a whole to represent their views on the national stage. While they are expected to represent the views of their constituents, they are responsible for the running of the nation as a whole - a fact they should never lose sight of. U.S. Representatives, similar to Senators, are chosen to represent their constituents (from a smaller, defined region than that of the entire state) on the national stage, but again, they should be cognizant of the fact that they too are responsible for the well being of the nation as a whole. Mirroring the role of the governor, the President comes from one particular area, but is expected to act in the best interest of the whole - not just their home area.
With this said, it appears as though a trend is developing. At more local levels of government, representation seems to play a more noticable role, but as the officials become holden to a larger constituency - not just those who elected them - stewardship seems to become more prominent. This is not to say that one ever truly eliminates the other. Rather, they sit at opposite ends of a continuum & are blended together in a ratio that best serves the largest population they are responsible for.
On the local levels, with a smaller "greater good" to consider, it seems as though it would be easier to do as the constituents want - as their views should be more in tune with what is in the best interest of the total area represented by their officials. However, as the constituency becomes broader, stewardship seems to play a greater role.
The Distinguished Gentleman from Ohio may be well aware of his constituents' view that XYZ Missile Defense Site should be located in their district, as it would bring them an influx of new (much needed) jobs. However, the Gentleman is aware of the maximum effective range of said Missile Defense System and that if situated in Ohio, it cannot provide the same level of protection to the nation as if it were located further north in say, North Dakota. While his constituents expect him to represent their view and bring them needed jobs, the nation as a whole is dependent on his ability to act in her (the nation's) best interest.
At this point, I merely hope to present the view that Representation & Stewardship are not exactly mutually exclusive, but rather opposite ends on a continuum. As such, each plays a role in the decisions made by the official, but the relative value of each changes based on the level of government that the official operates in.
Next week, Part 3 in this series will look at the differences between those who are elected to their position and those who are appointed or employed as career bureaucrats and whether or not there is a difference in their ratio of Representation to Stewardship.
17 August 2010
Representation vs. Stewardship (Part 1)
A question we should ask ourselves before creating our political ideologies is one of our fundamental ideology. Our elected and appointed officials are there for a reason - arguably to run the government that we don't have time to participate directly in. Since they're there to work for us, we should ask - do we expect them to be "representatives" or should they be "stewards".
First, let's roughly define each term (as they are often used in this line of study):
Coming soon: Part 2 - continuing to explore this topic.
First, let's roughly define each term (as they are often used in this line of study):
- Representative: an individual who acts as an intermediary, conveying the wishes of those they were elected by to the larger body of governance with little to no interference (consideration of anything other than what the people who elected say them want).
- Steward: an individual who acts in the stead of those who elected them, striving to do what is in the "public interest" / "public good" for those who elected them, even though it may go against the espoused opinions of those who elected them.
Coming soon: Part 2 - continuing to explore this topic.
04 December 2008
Obama the Prankster???
Retrieved on 04 December 2008 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081203/pl_politico/26780_1
I had to post this - just for the humour factor! Republican Member of Congress Ileana Ros-Lehtinen hung up on President Elect Obama twice because she thought he was a radio station trying to prank her. The first time she hung up on Mr. Obama directly and the second time hung up on him via Rahm Emanuel's attempt to connect them. *sigh* how will our executive and legislators ever talk if they think each is just some joker from a radio station... :-/
Ros-Lehtinen hangs up on Obama. Twice. - Yahoo! News
I had to post this - just for the humour factor! Republican Member of Congress Ileana Ros-Lehtinen hung up on President Elect Obama twice because she thought he was a radio station trying to prank her. The first time she hung up on Mr. Obama directly and the second time hung up on him via Rahm Emanuel's attempt to connect them. *sigh* how will our executive and legislators ever talk if they think each is just some joker from a radio station... :-/
Ros-Lehtinen hangs up on Obama. Twice. - Yahoo! News
California Gay Marriage Poll
Retrieved on 04 December 2008 at 0942 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_poll
Just because I'm kind of into stats and polling and data that pretty much confirms preconceptions. The Religion part was not at all surprising but many people fail to consider that the lower educated and lower income groups (for some reason) tend to be more conservative than their better educated and middle income counterparts... The strong support of the ban from the Latino population shouldn't come as much of a surprise - just considering how many hold strong Christian views.
Yahoo! also posts this link:
The poll: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i860
Poll: Calif. gay marriage ban driven by religion - Yahoo! News
Just because I'm kind of into stats and polling and data that pretty much confirms preconceptions. The Religion part was not at all surprising but many people fail to consider that the lower educated and lower income groups (for some reason) tend to be more conservative than their better educated and middle income counterparts... The strong support of the ban from the Latino population shouldn't come as much of a surprise - just considering how many hold strong Christian views.
Yahoo! also posts this link:
The poll: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i860
Poll: Calif. gay marriage ban driven by religion - Yahoo! News
03 December 2008
ODOT plans for SR315 /SR750 Interchange
Retrieved on 04 December 2008 from http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-12-03-0030.html at 0010.
Shoring up an eroding river bank, adding in turn lanes where 2 very busy State Routes (at 1 lane in each direction each) cross... not a bad idea! Here's hoping ODOT doesn't mess this up and make things worse than they are now. The jury's still out on how helpful the new light is with the turn arrow on SR750 WestBound at that intersection. I guess we'll see what we see after they design this thing once the input period is over...
ODOT Plans To Fix SR 315 - News - nbc4i.com -
Shoring up an eroding river bank, adding in turn lanes where 2 very busy State Routes (at 1 lane in each direction each) cross... not a bad idea! Here's hoping ODOT doesn't mess this up and make things worse than they are now. The jury's still out on how helpful the new light is with the turn arrow on SR750 WestBound at that intersection. I guess we'll see what we see after they design this thing once the input period is over...
ODOT Plans To Fix SR 315 - News - nbc4i.com -
04 November 2008
Ohio nabs attention of the BBC
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7686438.stm at 1510 on 04 November 2008.
It's nice to see that Ohio managed to get the attention of the BBC and get a nod to the efforts the state has made to try to eliminate the problems of 2000 & 2004 while still recognizing that a projected 80% turnout is huge...
Unfortunately, the article highlights the fact that the Secretary of State is a partisan position and Secretary Brunner is a Democrat. I recall a certain Secretary Blackwell (Brunner's predecessor) as being one of the most hated men in Ohio (at least among Democrats) because of decisions made that ended up benefiting President Bush - I have a sneaking suspicion that Ms. Brunner will be the Democrat equivilant of that scenario with Republicans blaming her for a loss by Senator McCain.
This is evidenced in the BBC article by the statement that Ms. Brunner's office has been deluged with threatening emails and phone calls...
My radical suggestion - the Secretary of State should be non partisan or the role of heading all elections in the state should be spun off from the Secretary and given to a non-partisan administrator. Ta-daaah!
And that my friends, is my blinding flash of the obvious for today!
BBC NEWS | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Will US voters face poll chaos?
It's nice to see that Ohio managed to get the attention of the BBC and get a nod to the efforts the state has made to try to eliminate the problems of 2000 & 2004 while still recognizing that a projected 80% turnout is huge...
Unfortunately, the article highlights the fact that the Secretary of State is a partisan position and Secretary Brunner is a Democrat. I recall a certain Secretary Blackwell (Brunner's predecessor) as being one of the most hated men in Ohio (at least among Democrats) because of decisions made that ended up benefiting President Bush - I have a sneaking suspicion that Ms. Brunner will be the Democrat equivilant of that scenario with Republicans blaming her for a loss by Senator McCain.
This is evidenced in the BBC article by the statement that Ms. Brunner's office has been deluged with threatening emails and phone calls...
My radical suggestion - the Secretary of State should be non partisan or the role of heading all elections in the state should be spun off from the Secretary and given to a non-partisan administrator. Ta-daaah!
And that my friends, is my blinding flash of the obvious for today!
BBC NEWS | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Will US voters face poll chaos?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)