Something happened today that I knew would probably occur eventually, but now that it is here, I find it hard to accept. Here's the short version: I agree with Paul Krugman of the New York Times. I always accepted this possibility in theory, but now it is a fact and I find my hands shaking as I write this. Let me explain:
In today's paper, Krugman points out the commonly accepted view that American workers are not employed because they do not have the skills needed for the open positions is actually bogus. If there truly were certain types of jobs where there was a dearth of skilled people to hire, we would see salaries for the people with those skills soaring while salaries for other jobs stayed stagnant. It just is not happening. Krugman correctly points out that this "lack of skilled workers" idea is a zombie story, a view that will not die no matter what the facts.
The truth is that Krugman is correct. I know the old saying that even a broken clock is correct twice a day. It is, however, no consolation. I mean, this is Paul Krugman about whom we are talking. This is the man whose views on nearly every political and economic issue is best described as pure nonsense, and I am agreeing with him.
Of course, Krugman and I part company on how best to proceed once we accept that the so called skills gap is not real. My view is that we ought to get rid of some of the needless government "training" programs that are supposed to create more trained workers but which actually do nothing of the sort. Why should we spend tens of billions of dollars each year to train people when the skills involved are not needed? Why should we have 104 federal training programs, each with its own overhead, when two or three such programs would suffice? Why not get rid of the training programs and use the money for something worthwhile? (Not surprisingly, Krugman want to increase spending and taxes, something that is his prescription for everything.)
In today's paper, Krugman points out the commonly accepted view that American workers are not employed because they do not have the skills needed for the open positions is actually bogus. If there truly were certain types of jobs where there was a dearth of skilled people to hire, we would see salaries for the people with those skills soaring while salaries for other jobs stayed stagnant. It just is not happening. Krugman correctly points out that this "lack of skilled workers" idea is a zombie story, a view that will not die no matter what the facts.
The truth is that Krugman is correct. I know the old saying that even a broken clock is correct twice a day. It is, however, no consolation. I mean, this is Paul Krugman about whom we are talking. This is the man whose views on nearly every political and economic issue is best described as pure nonsense, and I am agreeing with him.
Of course, Krugman and I part company on how best to proceed once we accept that the so called skills gap is not real. My view is that we ought to get rid of some of the needless government "training" programs that are supposed to create more trained workers but which actually do nothing of the sort. Why should we spend tens of billions of dollars each year to train people when the skills involved are not needed? Why should we have 104 federal training programs, each with its own overhead, when two or three such programs would suffice? Why not get rid of the training programs and use the money for something worthwhile? (Not surprisingly, Krugman want to increase spending and taxes, something that is his prescription for everything.)
No comments:
Post a Comment