School daze

I recently "pondered" the high unemployment rate in youths, worldwide, but here's an interesting and complementary graph… College enrollment is higher than ever, verging on 70 percent. The numbers have been trending upward for years anyway, but some experts posit the plummeting job opportunities may have something to do with the renewed quest for higher education.

UPDATE, 5/2/2010: On the other hand, it seems college students are working less hard than they used to. An excellent message as we head into finals period.

Young, restless and ... unemployed?

New studies indicate the in the developed world, individuals under 25 are more likely to be unemployed than their older counterparts. Three times as likely, when the numbers are examined as an aggregate.

Youth who are full-time students are not counted in these numbers, meaning that countless young adults (well, not entirely countless - some reports say up to 15 million) who reside in relatively affluent countries are without a job or education. In Spain, which suffers from high unemployment across the board, nearly 40 percent of the youth is unemployed.

One reader of the Times' report on these numbers made an astute observation:

Basically all this is measuring is the effects of education on employment status. Those who are 15 to 24 are either full time students (and thus not counted in employment statistics at all), or are high school dropouts and/or those with only high school educations. It shouldn't be surprising that they find themselves unemployed at higher rates than those who graduate from college and/or have more experience in the workforce.

The value of a college education is a rarely disputed fact. But in the current economic climate, the normal laws of education and job possibilities do not necessarily apply. In countries around the world, college graduates are forced to take jobs for which they are overqualified because there is nothing else available. Consequently, those who have no college education at all -but in a vacuum would be qualified for these entry-level positions - are left without employment. This is the case in Spain, where "the risk of overeducation" has become a conscious phenomenon. Youth are opting out of college because the rewards of attending are no longer worth the time and cost. In effect, the opportunity cost of a college education has become too high - especially if unemployment is the result nonetheless.

For those with money to spare, unpaid internships have become the option. But for those without a college education or a fallback option, what do these facts mean? Is an entire generation, worldwide, being crippled by the economic crisis? If youth are unemployable and therefore unable to gain beginner experiences, how will they ever rise up? Though the numbers do not appear to exist, statistics on the employment of those aged 25-30 would be helpful for understanding the implications of this mass unemployment.

For more: a video by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on what these statistics mean.

She works hard for the money

Today was Equal Pay Day, a holiday many assumed would be obsolete by 2010. Women still earn only 77 cents to every dollar men earn. Some argue skill, some argue education, some argue lifestyle choice, but at the end of the day — women now comprise 2/5 of the nation's primary breadwinners. So does that mean that 40 percent of households should suffer the consequences?

Equal Pay Day marks the point in 2010 where women who began working on January 1, 2009 will match their male counterpart's 2009 income.

Countless laws have been put into place — and even more have been proposed — that theoretically would eradicate the disparity. But is bridging the 23 cent divide possible overnight through legislation? Does society require a cultural shift? Can we ever expect the two genders to be treated equally in the workplace?

There is a gap everywhere. This is not just an American problem (if we think it is a problem). The 23 cent difference boils down to about 19 percent; in Belgium, the difference hovers at about 9 percent, while South Korea and Japan are flirting with a 30 percent difference. But is the middle of the heap the best we can hope for?

In countries like Sweden, government policies are put in place to work toward better income equality. State-sponsored leave (föräldraledighet) entitles every family to 480 days of parental leave — but only if both partners split the time. If only the mother takes leave, she can only have up to 420 days off, depriving the family of 60 days that could have been spent with the child. Most couples actually do split the time, fairly dividing the work and childcare responsibilities. Does a policy like this ensure greater income equality? Hard to say, but it is worth noting that Scandinavian countries, which do all have policies like this, have greater income equality between men and women.

An interesting detail of the inequality is that the gap is widest at the top — in sectors that pay the most, the disparity is greatest. It is impossible to pinpoint why this occurs. Is it because women are less likely to be promoted, or because they choose not to be for lifestyle reasons? Is leadership an inherently gender-based quality? Is society biased or are we carrying out self-fulfilling prophecies? Women are scientifically less aggressive, so does this translate to mean that they are less go-getter professionally?

As elite universities like Brown begin to tip in the other direction when it comes to gender balance, enrolling more women and fighting for male applicants, one has to wonder if our generation will be the one to turn things around. Will we prove, once and for all, that men and women are capable of reaching the same level of prosperity? Or will we serve as the ultimate validation for the gap, proving that there are just some inequalities that will never be solved for variables outside of our control?

A coffee or a child?

Today's lecture was a bit of a deja vu moment for me. As Professor Brennan questioned why students would purchase a Starbucks beverage rather than donate $2.50 to a child in need, I was reminded of a similar discussion I had in high school. I was required to take a course called "Poverty" (the class now has the more politically correct title of "Community Service"). The class touched on many of the issues examined in "Prosperity" — inequality, how inequality arises, how it is corrected, how societies are designed and with a hint of moral compulsion, what we are responsible to do to ensure equality for all.

We read an article that I have tried to relocate (unsuccessfully) that determined what the baseline level of income necessary to live comfortably was. Let's say it was $50,000. The author stated that anyone who kept money about that amount, rather than donate it to a worthy cause, was not just neglecting the dying children of the world, but in effect, granting them a death sentence. The degree of responsibility citizens of the world hold for each other is enhanced exponentially; it is the embodiment of the drowning child analogy.

For a classroom of teenagers who have been well-taken care of up until this point in life, this can be a hard argument to stomach. Does neglecting our job as "our brother's keeper" really make us his killer? Singer writes that if there is pain and suffering in Bengal and we can do something about it, we are obligated to do so. (1) But how much does "obligation" obligate us to do? What are the limits? Or rather, what is the minimum we can do in order to sleep consciously at night knowing we have done the morally correct thing?

This question of responsibility and obligation is heart-wrenching on the level of a single child, or even when examining an entire impoverished nation, but what about so-called obligation in the developed world? For months, Greece has been falling faster and faster, and newspaper headlines have questioned endlessly what this means for the European Union. How far does responsibility go when there are existing ties? Is Germany morally bound because of a promise they made? (Let's suspend all economic realities for a quick second.)

This graphic from the New York Times illustrates the circular web of European debt and it is baffling. The arrows, pretty little graphics on my computer, represent billions and billions of dollars, circulating back-and-forth.

It's a different image than the one usually accompanying this kind of debate. (That one being the skeletal child, left to fend for itself while an animal lurks nearby.) But it illustrates responsibility of a larger scale nonetheless. Where does the obligation start, and how does it end? Do we only give to those, like big European nations, who we know will pay us back? Must a country like Germany put its own citizens in danger because of a promise it made, or is that the wrong lens with which to examine this entire debacle?

Singer, in a lengthy article, concludes by saying that we must not take ourselves — and the argument — too seriously, because morals never play out exactly as intended. So perhaps the debate is fruitless, because in the end, we will buy a Starbucks mocha latte, even though we are entitled to Ratty coffee. Perhaps Europe will circulate funds amongst its own, rather than divert them to other nations. And perhaps Europe won't — and they'll make Greece learn a lesson. The question is just where we draw our lines. And here's hoping those moral lines are made of more than just sand.

_____

(1) Singer, "Famine, Affluence and Morality"

The short of it

After Thursday's lecture on exploitation, we delved into the topic further during section. We inadvertently spent nearly the entire time on one discussion, trying to unpack the facets of a … unique case. In China, an amusement park has opened that is entirely staffed by dwarves. People come to the park simply just for the sights. Is this exploitation?

Some points to consider:

— Without the park, many of these individuals might be unemployable, particularly because of the discrimination that still exists in China. Said one of the dwarves working at the park: "Before coming here, most of us faced discrimination. But here, we are equal and respected. We have our dignity."

— A community has developed among the individuals working at the park. ("We are all very happy.")

— For better or for worse, there are no other options. Though this is a negative reflection on the level of positive liberty within China, at least the dwarves are being given an opportunity of some sort. ("I feel this is our destiny.")

— The owner of the amusement park is just respecting societal norms.

— The business is extraordinarily profitable.

The amusement park garnered international attention after a New York Times article highlighted American criticism of the park, citing a disrespect for basic human rights. But is this a case where the influence of cultural context makes or breaks the argument? Though the "Kingdom of the Little People" would be deemed inappropriate on multiple levels in the United States, it is an economic boon for all involved in China. And what's more, it is not limiting freedom — it's providing a freedom that never existed before, the opportunity for gainful employment.

So are the employees of the amusement park being exploited? Yes and no. While they are being hired simply because of a trait they cannot control, they are being adequately compensated. The Kingdom pays more than many stateside entertainment businesses (which, as another example of questionable exploitation, rent dwarves as leprechauns for St. Patrick's Day). The lifestyle is, in a way, optimal for the employees — they are able to live in a community of people just like them. Though Americans might deem this segregation, for the Chinese, it is an opportunity. Americans look at this example and are appalled, but the context of Chinese societal norms must be taken into account and in this situation, define the case as acceptable. The idealistic voice within us says that such a place as the Kingdom should not exist, but until further opportunities exist for dwarves in China, in a way, it must.

T-T-T-Telephone

To keep up the fascination with cell phones in the developing world…

A UN report released this week finds that people in India have greater access to cell phones than toilets. International aid organizations have been pushing for greater technological access everywhere from Africa to Southeast Asia, heralding the societal advances that come from communication and access. But in the process, has the international community failed to keep up with basic necessities? Though prosperity and growth are being achieved in these now connected nations, does jumping a step on Maslow's pyramid come with consequences?

Girl power

Within the economics blogosphere, a debate has arisen as to whether women have more libertarian freedom now than they did in 1880. The argument originated because one argued that yes, women were freer more than a century ago. This, not surprisingly, launched a spree of reactions.

There are the obvious social comments and disputes to be made: the ability now held to cohabitate outside of marriage, more freedom to choose marriage and the elimination of arcane laws that limited women's lifestyles. There is also the question of liberty as imposed by society or as imposed by law.

So the debate becomes, is the degree of libertarian freedom across historical eras quantifiable or does it fall into the category of grass-is-always-greener nostalgia? But to even ask this question, a more basic dilemma needs to be solved: what is freedom?

Is freedom based on wealth or is freedom based on rights? Brennan and Schmidtz wrote their book, attempting to define liberty in a way that would allow them to examine "when a society is moving toward liberty or away from it, and so that we can proceed to ask a straightforward question: 'Was that move a good one?' "

If that is the lens through which we view the level of freedom in a society, then the measure immediately becomes subjective. Is it a "good" move if everyone has economic choice, or if everyone is guaranteed the same level of economic possession? The argument becomes circular because it is heavily disputed as to which theories support the greatest level of freedom, particularly when negative and positive liberties must be balanced. Is forcing someone to be free, as Berlin might suggest, a valid construct, or is it simply an oxymoron? Can we argue that women are less free now because more is expected of them? Or are they more free because so many societal barriers have been taken down?

Regardless, in some ways women are definitely more free. Though liberty is a contentious topic, I don't think anyone will argue against the constrictive nature of a corset.

No pay, no gain?

A recent New York Times article surrounding the legality of unpaid internship unleashed a flurry of responses, all debating whether ambitious college kids are being cheated of their time and money by working for free.

But the legal question is not the only facet of the debate over internships. Do unpaid internships increase or decrease prosperity in the long term? Do they stratify socioeconomic divides? Do they perpetuate an advantage already held by those who can afford to work for free?

Most argue, yes — "the less fortunate were missing out on a large swath of internship opportunities … (because of) the disparity between those who have the means to work for free and those who don’t."

The legal question rarely reaches the table because the conversation is "discussed in terms of the potential exclusion of students who don’t have rich parents from opportunities."

Nearly all internships in the federal government are unpaid, as well as those in countless industries, and the numbers are only growing as the economy worsens. It is a known fact that college internships often lead to jobs. And so a larger question that must be asked is, if unpaid internships determine the barrier to entry in certain fields, will these arenas become economically homogeneous? Are we taking a giant step backward in regard to financial opportunity?

An argument in favor of unpaid internships can just as easily be made. College students are awarded the opportunity to look inside an industry that they might not otherwise have been able to gain exposure to. The classic argument is that internships offer a "foot in the door."

In the case of government or nonprofit internships, students are helping to further a cause and work for the public good. And internships are not, by necessity, exclusionary. Many national and university-based grants exist for students with unpaid internships, with preference given to those who might not otherwise be able to afford it.

Do unpaid internships qualify under Rawls's "justice as fairness" provision?

According to one summarization, Rawls's proposal can be boiled down to the following two points:

1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Unpaid internships clearly fail the test when the second point is brought into the conversation. Though there are no explicit barriers to the positions, opportunity cost keeps the jobs from being open to all members of society. And unpaid internships clearly are not to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. But does that mean they should be dismissed altogether?

While all students may not have the economic liberty to engage in a job where they will receive no payment, internships provide undeniable levels of opportunity. According to welfare-based principles, "material goods and services have no intrinsic value and are valuable only in so far as they increase welfare." Though there is no immediate monetary value that results from an unpaid internship, the long-term benefits in experience and networking ultimately do increase welfare. And when an intern is serving a nonprofit or the public sector, welfare for all theoretically increases as well.

So while it probably should not be legal for a for-profit company to shirk their interns — a matter the Department of Labor is already looking into — unpaid internships all across the board should not be dismissed out of hand. As long as opportunities are made available to all students, through counseling from universities, grants and stipends, unpaid internships do have the potential to further societal and personal welfare.

The games we play (and the consequences they hold) — part III

The classic game Monopoly has spawned countless variations — everything from children's versions to commemorative boards. The origins of the game may have been economic, but it and its copycats have become an American pastime, played around the fireplace or at family events.

One such spin-off, released in 2003, generated a fair share of controversy. Titled "Ghettopoly," the game is intended to show the same economic mechanisms at work — but in a caricature of the American ghetto. Properties for sale include liquor stores, a peep show and a pawn shop. Property owners can build projects and crack houses. Players navigate the board as a basketball, a machine gun, a marijuana leaf, a 40 oz. beer, a crack rock, a pimp or a "ho."

The original game box read:

Buying stolen properties, pimpin hoes, building crack houses and projects, paying protection fees and getting car jacked are some of the elements of the game. Not dope enough?...If you don't have the money that you owe to the loan shark you might just land yourself in da Emergency Room.

The game immediately incited backlash upon its release. Hasbro was upset because their copyright was being violated. Others, including the NAACP, were outraged at the racist implications of the game.

David Chang, the game's creator, argued that "It draws on stereotypes not as a means to degrade, but as a medium to bring together in laughter. If we can't laugh at ourselves ... we'll continue to live in blame and bitterness."

It was hard for activists to see his point of view. From their perspective, the game was only serving to perpetuate stereotypes about the lifestyle and economic activities of an entire race. The game's objective was explained as "become the richest playa through stealing, cheating and fencing stolen properties." Doesn't exactly sound like an ethically sound way to go, now does it?

Urban Outfitters, the retailer responsible for selling the game, immediately pulled it from its shelves. But the debate didn't end just because explicit sales did. It was clearly established that young children playing the game would be given the wrong message about how to achieve success in life, but what about the message the game conveyed about society? It seemed to say that certain economic truths were inevitable; that certain groups would never rise above the pawn shops or peep shows, and thus, were destined to live the life so crudely depicted.

In psychology, the concept of self-fullfilling prophecies has been proven true time and time again. Ghettopoly surfaces that type of worry, that children will see this game and assume that the world can be no different than it is. That change is not only difficult, but impossible.

So while Ghettopoly does not necessarily bring up the same concerns about economic legitimacy and capitalistic take-over as regular Monopoly, it generates worries of its own. Can we as a society change and grow to benefit all involved? Or is the future of our country like the toy aisle, with some destined to play the prestigious game of Monopoly and others confined to the game of Ghettopoly? Both games preserve economic liberties: players are granted property rights for the goods they attain. But that does not mean both games are fair in the sense of their implications.