Digital skills mean premium pay across the board the level of education

Spence purnell for the reason foundation: as 2017 came to a close and the stock market soared to record highs, job growth remained consistent, and unemployment dropped, many remained perplexed and frustrated by the lack of growth in real wages.

There have been various policy responses to this problem — minimum wage increases, tax credits for businesses, tax credits for workers, more investment in education, etc. But is it possible that studying average wages leads to asking the wrong questions? Perhaps one way to think about the problem is to cross-examine real-world employment skills with real wage growth.

A new brookings institution study uses the O*NET digital skills survey (2000-2016) to explore the relationship between digital skills, education, and real wages by quantifying digital skills as an equal combination of “knowledge of computers and electronics” and “work activity interacting with computers.” …Real wages

Its analysis shows that real wages have grown tremendously over the last 15 years for those who are strong in digital skills. It is important to understand that this is happening for workers across all educational levels, meaning even jobs that don’t require a post-secondary degree are paying a premium for workers with digital skills, and that premium is growing over time.

For example, even learning a basic technology skill such as using microsoft excel, which has been around for 30 years, can help earn more money. The point is that the world has gone nearly completely digital, and everyone from janitors to lawyers needs to learn how to use digital technology to remain valuable in the workplace.

By myacah sampson for new america: eight years ago, I stood in the checkout line of a walmart in rural new mexico with my mother. As she swiped her scratched debit card for the third time, a white woman behind us sneered.Debit card

The woman had assumed that my mother was using an electronic benefits transfer card — the debit card on which welfare recipients receive cash assistance, or the supplemental nutrition assistance program, formerly known as food stamps. Introduced in the 1990s, when credit and debit card use picked up, lawmakers hoped that the EBT card would help recipients of food stamps avoid the derision and outright refusal of service they often faced over attempts to purchase groceries with easily identifiable coupons. As well-intentioned as it was, the introduction of this new technology didn’t end the racialized stigma frequently associated with welfare use. Who would’ve thought?

Virginia eubanks, probably. Her new book, automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor, is the culmination of years of work examining the ways in which the digital age has shaped social control of the poor.Debit card through three case studies … Eubanks, who’s also a new america national fellow, demonstrates how introducing new technologies to social assistance programs can disrupt the lives of the poor. Or, put another way, eubanks investigates how this technology can disconnect the poor from vital social services and undermine their right to self-determination at unprecedented scales and speeds. …

Try as we might, the conditions that allowed my mother and me to be harassed for being poor and brown in public can’t be automated out of american society. Technology can only map itself over prevailing social conditions. Until we’re ready to address the historically embedded reasons the poor are all too often met with disdain and blame, the dystopia will code itself.

Erica york for the tax foundation: in 2002, the george W. Bush administration placed tariffs on imports of certain steel products in an attempt to protect the domestic steel industry from foreign dumping.Debit card the failure of these tariffs to work as designed and the economic harm they caused provide a foreboding tale of what we should expect to see result from the trump administration’s new tariffs on steel and aluminum….

Bush imposed tariffs on a variety of steel products beginning in march 2002 and lasting for three years and one day. The rates ranged from 8 percent to 30 percent on certain steel product imports from all countries except canada, israel, jordan, and mexico. These tariffs affected products used by U.S. Steel-consuming manufacturers, including: producers of fabricated metal, machinery, equipment, transportation equipment, and parts; chemical manufacturers; petroleum refiners and contractors; tire manufacturers; and nonresidential construction companies.

The vast majority of the manufacturers that use steel in their business processes are small businesses.Real wages ninety-eight percent of the 193,000 U.S. Firms in steel-consuming sectors, at the time of the bush steel tariffs, employed fewer than 500 workers. The economic implication of such small firm sizes meant that these businesses were “price takers.” in other words, the firms were too small to have the power to influence prices and had to accept the higher costs caused by tariffs.

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time.