Which way?
I recently saw a poll on cnn.com asking something to the effect of, "If you were laid off, would you try to change careers?" I think somewhere around 80% of respondents chose yes. Last week I found out that things were a bit more up in the air with my job than I had thought (nothing definitively negative, just up in the air), so naturally I wonder what I would do. I've been a bit anxious about everything, but I'm realizing that it's more over wanting to know what will happen than worry over my family's security (we've got a pretty good savings and with this special USDA mortgage our home is pretty safe).I viewed moving to Fernley as the last move for quite some time, an opportunity to put down some roots, build a physics program, put in a yard, etc. I like having a clear plan before me so I can put my head down and get working, but now I'm not sure in what direction to run. Even if the RIF (reduction in force - education lingo for getting laid off) doesn't come, having the opportunity to build the program that I envision will likely be delayed at best.
I have a pretty idealistic educational philosophy, so I wonder if I need to look at charter/private schools if I am ever to actualize my ideals. I've always felt that if I'm not excited about and innovative with what I'm doing in the classroom, that it would be time to move on. I also miss doing physics, and part of me would be excited to pursue a career in science. But I think if I quit now I would have too many unresolved ambitions in education, so I will first look to continue teaching.
What does it mean that most people would look elsewhere for work if laid off? It's probably mostly just a 'grass is greener' reaction, thinking either that another industry might not be as hard hit by the recession or that one might simply be happier in another line of work.
PS - This blog is getting to be too much like a blog (i.e. me talking about myself). Other posters welcome.
Comments
Your post, however, reminds me of one point that Prof. Kearl used to always make. No one wants to be X profession just because they want to have that profession. We're all doing what we do because that's what makes us the most money.
Of course that's an oversimplification. In broad outline, however, it holds true. 100 years ago 90 percent of people were farms. Today nobody is a farmer (and there would be even fewer farmers still if it weren't for farm subsidies). People didn't work as farmers because they viewed it as their calling in life; they did it because that's how you made ends meet back in the day. The fact that people are willing to abandon their careers, I think, is a good thing. It shows that people are willing to let the market guide them to the job where they have a comparative advantage.
-rdh
I agree that a willingness to change professions is a plus as it gives the labor market more flexibility, but Dr. Kearl is going to have to do some work to convince me on the point of doing the profession that makes us the most money.
I can see how that might work 1. in a global sense 2. for unskilled workers. There have certainly been cases of single farmers who were capable to making more money in other professions (blacksmithing, carpentry, etc), but who liked the lifestyle of working the land and thus chose to be farmers.
When it comes to college educated individuals, I can't see how one could possibly claim that the only reason people don't go to medical school (or whatever profession is the highest paid) is simply because they aren't capable. Not to get too personal, but I'm quite confident that I could've been successful in numerous other careers that paid more than teaching. In fact, around the time I accepted my first teaching job I had a request for an interview with a lab who told me right out that they would pay more.
I could buy the argument that we do whatever brings us the most utility, but definitely not the most money (though the two might have a strong correlation for some).
However, your last qualifier about money being correlated with utility is exactly my point with one correction: money isn't just strongly correlated with utility--it is the primary source of job-related utility for most workers.
For example, it's not just that people like to be doctors because it's a cool job, and the fact that doctors happen to make a lot of money is a nice side benefit. People who become doctors want to make money.
Brett, your individual example of choosing a career in teaching despite higher-paying alternatives is the exception that proves the rule. (I should say Teacher get compensation in other forms that is quite nice, like big vacations, etc.) How many other people passed up research jobs to make considerably less money as a teacher? Also, why are there so many more qualified history teachers than science teachers? Teaching science is obviously harder, so that's one reason. But it probably also has a lot to do with the fact that people who are good at science have good-paying alternatives to teaching.
Lets think of this another way. What if CCHS paid $100,000 annual salary to new science teachers. Do you not think that kind of money could tempt an established scientist to pursue a teacher carrier?
I realize there are other factors going into the position, which is why I qualified the statement some. But consider you had one of the following jobs: restaurant owner, barber, insurance salesman, realtor, nurse, insurance adjuster, librarian, dentist, mechanic, paralegal, contractor, developer, researcher, etc.
Supposing you were qualified for all those jobs, is there any one of those jobs you wouldn't leave for another one on the list, if the latter guaranteed you $20,000 more a year?
-rdh
Taking our good friends the doctors again, I think that the status that comes with the profession might be a greater enticement for aspiring pre-meds than simply the salary, otherwise there would be more pre-investment bankers clubs on college campuses.
Back to academia, I just don't see college freshmen looking at a list of top salaried professions when choosing a major. The career counseling I received centered around evaluating aptitudes and interests. The 'interests' part shows that we also care about what we like doing, not just what we're capable of.
Once a general field is chosen, then I can see money playing a significant role in selecting a specific job, but before that I think we largely gravitate towards those things that we find interesting.
In another direction, what about working mothers? Would they not be more likely to take a job that allows them to do more work at home over one that pays more money?
In short, I think that money is a large factor in job selection, but it is far from the sole factor.
There is some evidence indicating factors other than money are given considerable weight by women. A book called "Why Men Earn More" explores that exact question. Initially the author looks at discrimination as the cause of pay inequality, but he discovers that women who work for themselves actually earn less than women that work for an employer. After pouring over the statistics, eventually the Author/economist concludes that women earn less because they value flexibility and environment more and pay less than men do. A woman would rather make $35,000 as a librarian than $50,000 as a garbageman. Men, or course, tend to prefer money more than women, and so would prefer to be garbage men. This result explains your point about working mothers and supports your side of the argument (to the extent there are sides).
But on the other hand, fertility rates have gone way down in western countries, where presumably we can afford to raise children. At the same time those rates remain high in poor countries, where there is less money to take care of children. Why? Because women in western countries forgo children to have a career and earn money. In poor countries, the opportunity cost of having children is much lower, and so women choose to have more children. So while a woman may choose flexibility once she has children, she may be choosing not to have children to begin with.
I'm also going to take issue with your doctor example. I think you are right that Doctors like the status of being a doctor. But that status is probably partially because they tend to get paid well. (Similarly, people always assume I'm paid well because I'm a lawyer. If only they knew the truth!)Doctor are also part of an elite club that is controlled by the board.(Which is another reason they are paid well).
But what if becoming a doctor was just a difficult, but all doctors salaries were caped at $60,000? I think we would see a lot fewer students interested in becoming doctors.
In fact, this is the case in Britain where doctors are paid by the government. There are so few native doctors that a bunch of the doctors are imported from foreign countries. In effect, the doctors there must be compensated with money and immigration status because money alone is not enough to induce natives to go through the trouble.
Moreover, I do think students take money into consideration when choosing a major and career. I don't think students need to do a lot of research to find out what jobs pays what. We all have an idea through our life experience. I took a career discovery type class at BYU, and a career counselor came in and said that all BYU students want to be doctors and lawyers, but that not all of them have those skills.(I think he was exaggerating, but still.) That has to be mostly because of the money.
So yeah, interests and aptitudes are considered in choosing a job on the margins, but money is king.
-rdh
Yes I know we must work and plan for events in our lives, and lots of times we receive help and ideas through friends, acquaintences, and family. I believe this is the Spirit working through these people for our edification. I also know and testify that mixed with all our efforts at living the Gospel, striving to attend the Temple in our busy lives can help
us to receive promptings of the Spirit.
Love, Dad