My Vulcan friend Jim Sheehan reads the December 5 press release from the Board of Regents and finds it illogical:
...[T]he South Dakota Board of Regents... predicts a shortage of home grown college graduates to meet a projected demand from the state job market over the next two decades.... The idea that more South Dakota graduates are needed to meet upcoming labor demands is an unconnected argument at best, and far more likely to be a biased political ploy by the Board of Regents to secure a larger portion of the state budget [Jim Sheehan, "Bored of Regents," Republican Territory, 2013.12.08].
I won't ascribe any deep conspiracy to our noble Regents (I save that for the Attorney General, right, Jonathan Ellis?). But I will agree with the somewhat vague logic of the press release. Regents exec Jack Warner trumpets the Regental system's graduate in-state placement rates, then turns to demographics:
The supply of jobs in the state is growing, with more than 41,000 new jobs expected to be created in South Dakota between 2008 and 2018. However, the next generation of South Dakota’s homegrown workforce will almost certainly be smaller than its current working population. Census Bureau projections show South Dakota’s population in the 14 to 44 age range will either remain flat or fall modestly by 2030, while the number of South Dakotans age 65 or older will climb by a staggering 61.7 percent. From 2000 to 2030, South Dakota’s median age will rise from 35.6 to 41.5 [South Dakota Board of Regents, press release, 2013.12.05].
Warner's statement says we will have no increase of prime working-age folks to keep up with the increasing needs of an increasing sector of older folks. But nothing in the release establishes that...
- the productivity of that prime working-age group will not keep up with demands for goods and services;
- more of those folks in the 65-and-older category won't remain in the workforce to meet market needs;
- meeting the demands of that older population will require "more South Dakotans with postsecondary degrees."
Perhaps the actual Regents' study connects those dots, but the Regents fail to include a link to the study, leaving us to imagine the dot connections ourselves as we mull over this rather vague policy directive. [Update 14:30 CST: An eager and well-placed reader provides a link to the study in last week's Regents packet! More analysis will follow!]
Doing my heart good, Sheehan points us back toward free market fundamentals:
No real deterrent exists for a company in finding a skilled workforce if the need arises. Migration to our state will occur if jobs with reasonable compensation, through salary and benefits, are offered. We have a competitive edge over many other states through our reasonable state tax system that attract both businesses wishing to setup on South Dakota soil and also potential out-of-state job seekers considering relocating to our state [Sheehan, 2013.12.08].
Sheehan's exhortation to faith in the free market rings with extra sharpness alongside the announcement that Governor Daugaard's workforce recruitment program has flopped. Recruiting workers doesn't require innovative experimental policies. It requires paying them well and not treating them like dogs (and more of the former will often make up for latter).
Unlike Sheehan, I'm willing to support more funding for education in the Regental system. A dollar invested in education should always produce more benefits for society than a dollar invested in crap-shoot marketing or "workforce recruitment". But increasing the Regents' budget and the number of students graduating from South Dakota's universities won't make a dent in our workforce needs if South Dakota employers don't offer those graduates good wages.
I keep thinking of the time when a slogan-obsessed college president at Northern State chose "the gateway institution" to describe the college. Some regents and politicians went ballistic over the implication that the mission of the college was to intellectually qualify students to leave the state.
Two events were behind the motive of that slogan. South Dakota decided to compete as the site for a proposed super-conductor-super-collider (that is now located in Berne, Switzerland) and put forth a proposal that was met with derision from the people involved in its development. When someone made the point that South Dakota universities had no programs in advanced physics that were commensurate with the level of research to be done with a collider, a sage from Brookings opined that our vocational schools could put in place programs to supply the needed personnel. Aside from the contemptuous guffawing that comment produced, it produced a statement from the development committee that South Dakota simply did not possess the cultural and educational opportunities that high-level researchers would want and need for their families. They pointed out that while South Dakota claimed tax advantages for related businesses, it did not possess the "intellectual and cultural infrastructure" that could attract and support the personnel needed to run those businesses. These matters have been raised around the Sanford Lab, also.
Another incident behind that slogan was when some of the more prominent high-tech firms decided not to send representatives to the college's annual job fair. One firm said it was limiting its recruiting to institutions whose graduates fit their requirements more closely.
The brain-drain was the issue behind the that the slogan prompted. A majority of the highest-scoring students on the ACT went to college out of state. In state students who did well academically followed them soon after, either transferring or moving after graduation.
While South Dakota has jobs it claims it can't fill, no one addresses the actual pay levels of those jobs and just what skills and opportunities they entail. Aberdeen claims it has 1,000 job openings, but most of the jobs listed do not provide subsistence level incomes, or are bridge jobs of the kind people take while looking for something better, and are simply dead-end jobs. Add to that the attitude that the political and economic establishment has toward workers, and one finds that while there may be jobs, there is nothing to aspire to.
South Dakota is not a conservative state. It is a regressive state whose dominant faction defines itself on maligning and discouraging the 99 percent while the political majority thinks it is allied with the one percent. When I first came to this state, a professor of labor relations who was here for a very short time said that the state's idea of economic development would be the repeal of the 13th Amendment. What was intended as a wisecrack seems to have become a rule.
Well done Mr. Newquist, well done. I dusted off the old Constitution to see the Article XIII, you appear to be spot on with that as well. Even Manpower could make our plantation work. It is clear that we need new direction in our government here to just achieve the basic things that will be needed to continue.
It seems that the only economic growth has been in the factory corn production and the pollution of water and lands, what a proud legacy.
Oh here we go again. Before you call the Regents crazy or conspiracy you may want to read up on the talent shortage that isn't just local. It is a global problem that is not going to get any better. Nevermind the unemployment rate. No one seems ready to understand what is happening in the work force. All each of you do is complain and mock. You mock the Governor for trying a program for recruiting.
Learn what is happening or shut up.
James, your attitude is always provocative. Note I'm not citing any crazy conspiracy here. I'm saying real economic development doesn't come from some crazy sweetheart deal to promote a recruitment scheme that doesn't address labor market fundamentals. I'm not sure the Regents are offering a clear roadmap to filling the job openings they see coming, and I think viewing education merely as workforce training is a miserly view of the real value of expanding human knowledge, but investment in education will produce more direct advantages than hiring a recruiter to subsidize private sector hiring efforts. Tell me what's uninformed about that opinion, or about Dr. Newquist's assessment of South Dakota's regressive attitude toward economic development.
(And don't tell me to shut up. I won't.)
An eager reader provides a link to the BOR study! Read, analyze, and comment! http://www.sdbor.edu/theboard/agenda/2013/December/20.pdf
Cory,
Don't silence yourself to comfort James ignorance.
Silence, comfort, and ignorance appear nowhere in the Madville Times mission statement.
The flaw in the Regent's report occurs in the opening statement: "The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that between 2008 and 2018, more than 41,000 new jobs will be created in South Dakota.1 This amounts to an increase of approximately 8.8% in the number of jobs available in the state. Nationally, the pool of new jobs created over this period will be dominated by those requiring a postsecondary degree." After citing the projection of increased demand for South Dakota, it switches to the national projection for what educational level will be required for the jobs. Given the fact that South Dakota is very short on jobs that require and utilize post-secondary degrees, there is no basis for projecting that it will share in the national trend.
Going further into the report, the statistics on placements of graduates is suspect. For NSU, they indicate a 75 percent placement rate. However, in Aberdeen, many NSU graduates take interim jobs that do not utilize their educations while they search for jobs and try to save up some money so that they can do so elsewhere. If the office tracked where students actually go when they are "placed," the Regents might get a more realistic perspective on the job outlook within the state.
David says, "...a statement from the development committee that South Dakota simply did not possess the cultural and educational opportunities that high-level researchers would want and need for their families. They pointed out that while South Dakota claimed tax advantages for related businesses, it did not possess the "intellectual and cultural infrastructure" that could attract and support the personnel needed to run those businesses. These matters have been raised around the Sanford Lab, also."
That's right. That is the biggest barrier. James is wrong about a worldwide shortage of skilled workers. In MN the joke is about people with a minimum of a Master's degree working at McDonald's while searching for work using their education.
The workers do exist to fill advanced technical positions. I know some of them. They make lattes at Caribou and Dunn Brothers. These people would rather flip burgers than move to SD, AL, SC, etc. What an indictment of SD!
They won't live in SD for exactly the reasons I have expressed several times previously and David wrote today.
Regressive states do not draw well-educated, creative types. Yes, there are a few exceptions, not nearly enough to serve as a draw to others.
As Cory, David, me and others have said ad nauseum, mistreatment of workers and regressive politics and culture are proven failures. Failures. Failures. Thus, SD is a failure. And, it doesn't have to stay that way. This is Chosen Failure.
There are some in SD who don't want those people to move here, Ms. Geelsdottir.
And we should not be raising wages or hiring recruiting firms to encourage more crowding.
Dennis: are you still an employer or just blowing smoke?
Customer service in South Dakota is horrific: surly cashiers, sloppy workmanship, more jobs than workers, and brutal weather. Why anyone still lives in the state is mystifying.
Do you want SD to stay exactly as it is right now?
I know some people who don't want SD to change either. You are in a small minority. You know that, don't you?
The rich want to get richer - mostly at your expense, as they have been doing. Those on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder want an opportunity to climb up. Both require more people and more fair opportunity.
Looking at footnote 1 from the BOR report, the top ten worker increases by straight numbers between now and 2020 for South Dakota are:
Registered Nurses, Retail Salespersons, Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Customer Service Representatives, Childcare Workers, Cashiers, Receptionists and Information Clerks, Bookkeeping, Accounting and Auditing Clerks, Personal Care Aides, Laborers and Freight, Stock and Material Movers
That's a really good point, de. Would you agree that only the first job on that list requires higher education?
Cory, read that list again... I assume you want the people keeping the books, doing audits, etc. to have advanced degrees.
I wondered about that one: is the clerk the one doing the audit, or is that simply someone recording the information?
Based on how this study was done, the bookkeeper category does not require a degree. The categories (which may be done slightly differently than described in the study) may be found at http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_112.htm
Looking at the report, it seems the BOR conclusions are deceptive.
BOR-->Nationally, the pool of new jobs created over this period will be dominated by those requiring a postsecondary degree.
Examining the actual report cited, the authors conclude about half of new jobs will come from this category. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/11/art5full.pdf The BOR definition of 'dominated' seems generous. But it is worse. Using South Dakota numbers (http://dlr.sd.gov/lmic/occupation_projections.aspx) and the education categories link cited earlier I ran some numbers. They should be pretty close (the BOR seems to be missing a few categories)
Post-secondary degrees come out to about 26% of the new jobs created. Seems to indicate the kinds of jobs requiring college education will continue to lag in this state.
BOR-->the number of positions requiring an associate’s degree will climb by 19.1%.
My numbers-->~8%
BOR--> Similar increases are expected for jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree (16.6%), master’s degree (18.3%), doc
toral degree (16.6%), and professional degree (17.6%).
My numbers-->bachelor's (13%), master's (1%), doctoral and professional (3%).
Having said all this, the BOR could still argue 700 new jobs yearly to be filled with college graduates. I'm not sure if increasing college graduate numbers solves this. I would rather SD focused on creating significantly more jobs for the educated in order to keep graduates in state.
Where is the growth for jobs requiring college degrees? My analysis of new jobs/year--Nursing (215; includes associate's degrees), elementary teachers (51), accountants/auditors (41). Everything else in the top 30 don't require terminal degrees.