He Can't Work, She Can't Work

Shas, in an effort to improve employment rates and the "[lack of] parnassah" crisis in the Chareidi community, gets the government to agree to a pilot program of a call center Teleall serviced by Chareidi women. The call center serves healthcare organizations and pharmacies.

The women at the call center have received "sordid" calls related to men's (sexual) health and this has resulted in this declaration:

“Because of modesty issues rabbonim do not recommend women work outside of the home – only in cases where the financial situation is pressing and the woman needs to go out and get a job. Such cases require halachic clarification and a she’elas rov.”

The woman who received a call about virility drugs, didn't know the nature of the drugs, and hung up on the caller when he described them, was told to quit her job because of gilui arayot issues.

This isn't the first story declaring the evils of (Israeli Chareidi) women working. Personally I think the women should take on this chumrah psak of the year with great zeal and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps next time the askanim will concentrate their efforts on the men.

(Note: I do not wish to comment on the relevant halacha, just the ridiculousness of setting up women in jobs and complaining about the jobs being inappropriate).

An A for Effort?

YWN is reporting that Rabbi Genack, of the OU, put out a letter in support of Governor Corzine's bid for re-election. The goal of the letter appears to be to explain to the Orthodox community why the Governor is best for the community, but the letter is rather puzzling to say the least.

For example, the Rabbi states that the Governor does not support private school vouchers on constitutional, policy, and financial grounds, he would be willing to put together a commission to look into how to support private school students. Correct me if I am mistaken, but New Jersey provides busing to private school students and New Jersey also gives small amounts per students for textbooks and other educational resources.

I view vouchers as almost a pipe dream, despite my ideological support for vouchers (i.e. parental choice in education and competition through the private market). But, nonetheless, every Orthodox group that is politically connected wants vouchers and claims it is a major issue! Officials in both the OU and the Agudah and people who write on the tuition issue have placed their hopes in solving the "tuition crisis" on vouchers. So why, pray tell, would you throw support behind a candidate who has clearly stated that he opposes vouchers? If vouchers are a top issue, endorsing candidates who are open to and/or supportive of vouchers, or at the very least are strong supporters of parental say in education, would seem to be more logical.

Secondly, my understanding is that New Jersey property tax is a huge financial burden. I can't even imagine being faced with property tax bills that exceed the annual payments on our first mortgage. The Rabbi gives the Governor a pat on the back because property taxes haven't risen in the past year as much as previous years writing "last year, the increase in property taxes across the State was the lowest in 10 years." I don't know if this letter was proofed before sending it out to those in the New Jersey Orthodox communities, but I can't see how a lower increase of an already massive burden is of any consolation to families that have seen their property taxes skyrocket. Having to work increased property taxes into an already strained budget wouldn't give me a reason to cheer.

Interesting enough, a school I know of also pointed out the same thing to parents in regards to the last tuition increase. Know your audience! Fine, you didn't raise tuition 7% like in previous years. The parents who are paying still feel soaked!

And speaking of knowing your audience, Rabbi Genack endorses the Governor because he has "delivered nearly $7 billion in property tax relief to New Jersey families. And, this year, even while he cut the budget, he preserved rebates for seniors and those who need it most – families with incomes $75,000 and below."

Now this letter didn't go out to families in blue collar neighborhoods or upwardly mobile lower to middle income neighborhood, it was directed at modern Orthodox families. Like honestly frum who is "disturbed" by the letter, I have to ask, how many families make a combined income of "only" $75,000? Certainly some families do. But the majority of the families receiving this letter that are desperate for some tax relief likely make into the six figures. Those families already carry a high tax burden at the federal and state level, and they would like some tax relief too, not an assurance that the Governor is trying and that he deserves an "A for effort" because the percentage increase wasn't as steep as in past years.

Know your audience is a prime rule in politics and public relations. Unless I am sorely mistaken, I can't imagine that Teaneck residents are going to be terribly impressed by a commission on how to help private schools while there have already been cutbacks, increased property taxes (even if the increases are lower than in past years, and proposed tax relief for households making less than $75,000*.

Letters like this make me wonder if those representing ours interests in the halls of government actually understand the difficulties being experienced.
Comments please.

*Note: This is not to endorse not granting tax relief to families making such an income, just a note that few families reading the letter will see the potential for relief as applicable to their household.

Education and Economics: "Financial Aid"

The part in orange is outdated as the Justice Department put a stop to this practice, but I'm including it for context. While the Ivy Leagues may no longer collude, it is certainly relevant to the discussion of tuition as such a practice was just proposed by a Brooklyn school principal in the Yated who is upset that parents are "shopping around" for schools. He believes a "unified standard of tuition as well as scholarship standards" can put a stop to this awful practice. It certainly could put a stop to such a practice and destroy any semblance of a market. So take the orange notes in historical context. Additionally, even where there is not organized collusion, I have heard of certain schools that wait to see where other schools set tuition before raising their tuition.

While the parallels to our own yeshiva system are not particularly strong, I do see some parallels, most specifically that "financial aid" in the form of credit and perhaps even "subsidies" from grandparents allow (combined, of course, with pressure to stay within the system) allows for an exponential increase in tuition. Additionally, our schools know a tremendous amount about the finances of their applicants and are able to create individual tuition prices, which is probably one of the challenges that stands in the way of creating "Chevrolet Schools."

I hope that everyone has taken some new idea out of these excerpts. I feel I have more clarification over certain concepts. So, at the very least, it has been interesting to me. :)

In the ordinary transactions of the marketplace, competition from rival producers limits how much a given business can charge its customers. In the academic world, however, organized collusion among some of the most expensive colleges has stripped the students and their parents of this consumer protection. Each spring, for 35 years, the Ivy League colleges, M.I.T., Amherst, Northwestern, and a dozen other colleges and universities have met to decide how much money they would charge, as a net price, to each individual student out of more than 10,000 students who have applied to more than one institution in this cartel. The lists of students have been compiled before the annual meetings and officials from the various colleges have decided how much money could be extracted from each individual, given parental income, bank account balance, home equity, and other financial factors. Where their estimates differed, these differences were reconciled in the meetings and the student then received so-call "financial aid" offers so coordinated that the net cost of going to one college in the cartel would be the same as the net cost of going to another.

The U.S. Department of Justice began investigating these and other colleges in 1989. With a legal threat of anti-trust prosecution by the government, and a class action suit on behalf of students, handing over this group of colleges, pending the outcome of the investigation, Yale and Barnard dropped out of the meetings in 1990, and in 1991 the meetings were canceled.

A cartel or a monopoly maximizes its profits by charging not only a high price but also, if possible, a different price to different groups of customers, according to what they market will bear in each separate case. Seldom can most business cartels or monopolies carry this to the ultimate extreme of charging each individual customer what the traffic will bear, as the academic cartel did. But academic institutions are armed with more detailed financial information from financial aid forms than most credit agencies require, and for decades have been comparing notes when setting their prices, in a way that would long ago have caused a business to be prosecuted for violation of the anti-trust laws. In other respects, however, the colleges and universities use the same methods as business cartels or monopolies. Like monopolistic price discriminators in the commercial world, private colleges and universities set an unrealistically high list price and then offer varying discounts. In academia, this list price is called tuition and the discounts is called "financial aid."

The widespread availability of financial aid--often received by more than half of the students at the more expensive colleges--changes the whole nature of tuition. Back when scholarships were awarded to a needy fraction of the students, this was clearly a matter of philanthropy and reward for academic ability. Today, varying amounts of financial aid are awarded up and down the income scale, and very little of it has anything to do with the quality of the student's academic record or with philanthropy to the poor. Approximately two-thirds of the undergraduates at Harvard and four-fifths of those at Rice receive financial aid. The average family income of financial aid recipients at Harvard in academic year 1990-91 was $45,000. These financial aid recipients included more than 400 whose family incomes were above $70,000, of whom 64 came from families with incomes exceeding $100,000.

Harvard is not unique in this respect. At Marquette University, for example, out of 119 students in the class of 1989--90 who came from families with incomes of $60,000 to $70,000 and who applied for financial aid, 71 were declared eligible for it, as were 74 of 192 students from families with incomes above $70,000. Similar figures are common at other private colleges and universities. The President of M.I.T. noted that financial aid applicants at that institutions "are distributed almost uniformly across the spectrum of family income." The percentage of applicants who receive aid typically varies by income level and so does the amount of the aid received, so that the net price actually charged is adjusted to the most that can be extracted from each applicant's family.

Ordinarily, price discrimination does not work in a competitive marketplace, because those charge extortionate prices will be bid away by competitors, until the price is competed down to a level commensurate with the cost of producing whatever commodity or service is being sold. But this does not happen among high-priced colleges which engage in organized collusion. The picture is complicated somewhat by the fact that the term "financial aid" encompasses both paper discounts from tuitions listed in college catalogues and actual transfers of money--the real bulk of this money being government-provided or government-subsidized. Philanthropic aid also continues, enabling a needy fraction of students to cover their cost of living, as well as tuition. Fundamentally, however, college-provided "financial aid" is a method of producing a sliding scale of tuition charges, like ordinary price discrimination elsewhere--and like successful price discrimination elsewhere, it is a by-product of collusion.

Next up: To be determined.

The Economics of Education Continued

I have been breaking this portion down for readability. The last section was about how government subsidies, student loans, and other debt tools continue to make tuition rates rise. I believe this parallels some of the financing trends we see vis-a-vis Yeshiva tuition where families beg, borrow, and sometimes even steal to continue to pay ever increasing costs. The last section also examined the bundling of services and how tuition payers are told they are getting a good deal, and therefore shouldn't complain, when in fact there is no average cost of a joint product. At the grade school level, I believe Yeshiva tuition is mostly reflective of cost, but by the high school level there is certainly a bundle of products in some schools.

Continuing:

It may seem odd that college admissions directors are under heavy pressure to enroll more students, if the college are losing money on each student enrolled, as academic administrators so often claim. When Darmouth vice-president Robert Field announced that the college was accepting more transfer students, in order to bring in more revenue, the Dartmouth Review asked editorially: "How can Field make more money on new students when every time he raises tuition, he claims tuition pays for only half the cost of each student?" The probing question goes to the heart of the economic issue, and its answer depends upon incremental costs. Once a college is built and its dormitories and classroom buildings are in place, the additional or incremental costs of adding more students is relatively low, so long as their numbers do not exceed the existing capacity. Within those limits, adding more students may well bring in far more additional revenue than any additional costs they represent.

The claim by college administrators that tuition does not cover the average cost of a college education is both meaningless and misleading. It is meaningless because there is no such thing as the average cost of a joint product, and it is misleading because there is no more reason why tuitions should cover all the costs of a college than there is for magazine subscriptions to cover all the costs of producing a magazine. Advertisers often pay most of the costs of producing a magazine or newspaper, and advertisements, just as academic institutions produce both teaching and research. No one believes that magazine are doing a favor to their subscribers by offering subscriptions at prices which do not cover the average cost of producing the magazine. Nor do magazines make any such sanctimonious claims.

It is commonplace in the ordinary business transactions of the marketplace for joint products to be sold simultaneously to different groups, no one of whom pays enough to cover the total costs of the business. A professional baseball team not only sells tickets to those who enter its stadium; it also sells television and radio rights to broadcasters who cover the game, and rents out the stadium to others who use it for rock concerts, boxing matches, and other events while the team is on the road or during the off-season. If ticket prices for baseball games rose to exorbitant levels, it would be no answer to the fans to say that they were still not being charged enough to cover the total costs of the baseball club. Yet colleges and universities use this as an argument against students and their parents who complain about exorbitant tuition.

More to come, most importantly about how schools can maintain a monopoly while costs skyrockets. Extremely important to help understand why it is difficult to create alternatives within the market!

The Economics of Education: Average Cost

I am splitting the next series of posts into three separate posts to try to separate out some ideas on the economics of education. Thomas Sowell, a well known economist and author, in his writings is addressing College and University education. But I believe that some of the concepts contained herein are also relevant to Yeshiva Education, albeit in a less direct way perhaps. I believe this is the case most particularly in Yeshivot that host numerous functions (kollelim, post-high school Beit Midrash, high schools, adult education for the community at large and/or Beit Midrash/kollel grads, and dorming).

I am highlighting some key economic points that I do believe are extremely important and relevant and I hope this post and additional posts will bring some clarity. They certainly have help me clarity many ideas I have worked with on my blog, which is why I want to get them out of paper.

Read on:

. . . .when parents are being asked to borrow against the equity in their homes to pay rising tuition, it is not simply to cover the increased cost of educating their children, but also to help underwrite the many new boondoggles thought up by faculty and administrators, operating with little sense of financial constraints. As an official of the U.S. Department of Education put it, many college "choose to increase tuition because they can get away with it." While college claim that the increased spending is to improve education, this official saw it as going into "the swelling of the ranks of vice presidents and deans" and to other costly endeavors which make little or no contribution to the quality education, which is "not a function of money." The availability of federal grants and loans to help students meet rising tuition costs virtually ensures that those costs will rise. . . . . .

Arguments have often been made that students are getting a good deal from college, because tuition does not cover the full costs of their education. Such statements are much more difficult to check than they might seem to be. First of all, education is not the only activity going on at research universities, and even at liberal arts colleges, research is increasingly expected of the professors. This research is paid for not only by faculty grants but also by reduced teaching loads--which is to say, by hiring far more professors than were required before to teach the same number of courses. These additional costs may be carried on the books as instructional costs, but they are in fact research costs. Almost anything can be treated as a cost of education students -- on paper. At the University of Texas, for example, more than $11 million of student fee payments were applied to paying for construction of a microelectronics research facility, located more than 6 miles away from the campus.

The research imperative has spread across all kinds of institutions and down the academic pecking order. Virtually everywhere, the education of undergraduates is a joint product, along with research and other activities. As any economist knows, there is no such thing as an average cost of producing a joint product -- that is, there is no such thing as the average cost of producing pig skin, because it is produced jointly with bacon, ham, and pork chops. There is an average cost of producing a pig, but not its components, which cannot be produced separately.

Even if it were possible to separate out the cost of undergraduate education, there is no reason why tuition should cover it, since alumni and other donors contribute money for the express purpose of subsidizing education. Endowment funds often were contributed for the same purpose. When college and university administrators expand their empires by raising tuition, this is not necessarily an enhancement of education, nor something reflecting student demand through the marketplace. In the public institutions, where most students go, it is largely a matter of administrators' convincing legislators to contribute the taxpayers' money.

To be continued. . . . ..

Jews, Jobs, and Employment: A Fantastic Guest Post

With thanks to Mr. Bernstein, the author of the article I will reference below, who kindly pointed out an exchange of ideas in the Where, What, When. His response to a series of articles is a fantastic read and worthy of pointing out to friends, and perhaps most importantly, those who educate our children.

The Where, What, When in Baltimore published a series of articles under the titles "The Parnassah Dilemna." This first was titled, "The Parnassa Dilemma, The Rise of Community Colleges" which was designed to look at jobs for young people entering the job force, or more accurately, jobs that can be started without a bachelors since it is a "given" that young people are going to marry and start (large) families before finishing a degree. The meat of the article was more of was not a lot different that what I have covered lately, and while I certainly can relate to some of the negative commentary on colleges, and while I certainly believe that junior college or jumping straight to skill building is a valid path for some, I hate to see such peddled as the only valid choice. I also think the more we say out loud things like "college is no guarantee," the more we believe it. But the fact of the matter is that college and education do matter and do lead to greater success. But, of course, one has to understand the basics of statistics to understand that outliers do not destroy a strong correlation. The article was followed up by articles about job opportunities that you can get with minimal training and no degree including Bookkeeping (Quickbooks only) and Court Reporting. Perhaps I will make some comments on the Bookkeeping article at a later point, although the article below does make some excellent commentary on such.

Thankfully, Matt Bernstein responded to many of the misconceptions as well as laid out some information on how "the other half" (both employers and future employees) approach career building. After going back and forth, I have decided to print the entire article and add some highlights of my own:

Thoughts on the Parnassa Dilemma
from WhereWhatWhen

I also would like to see frum yeshiva students get good jobs. I am dealing with young people who are short on time and money. Yet I want to focus on the student who may be willing to make a handful of calculated decisions in order to set him or her self up for long-term career success.
© By Matt Bernstein

In the last issue’s article, “The Parnassa Dilemma,” Nama Schabb speaks to the individual who wants to find a job that is quickly learned, in demand, and provides a decent parnassa. Down the road, this individual may also want to work part- or full-time, with a schedule flexible enough to accommodate parenting and/or learning. Being a bookkeeper most certainly fulfills these requirements. I commend Mrs. Schabb for assessing a need within our community and for her pertinent employment suggestion.

With this said, I want to supplement Ms. Schabb’s advice by speaking to a different need within our community – and, I want to make a different suggestion about career paths. In the six years I have spent counseling yeshiva students in Silver Spring, Maryland, I have found many gaps in their understanding of career issues: what jobs are available, what jobs suit them, and how to prepare for those jobs. What is even sadder is that many of them have been led to believe that their seminary- and yeshiva-aided BAs qualify them to enter the world of work, only to find, when they apply for jobs, that they lack the qualities employers are looking for.

Like Mrs. Schabb, I would like to see frum young people get good jobs. And like her, I am dealing with young people who are short on time and money. Yet I want to focus on the student who may be willing to make a handful of calculated decisions in order to set him or her self up for long-term career success.

Let me present a scenario of how the “other half” does this. Serious public and private high school students know that getting a good education is crucial for their future. They work hard for good grades. They study for the SATs. They participate in as many extracurricular activities as they can, and they seek internships or jobs during the summer that often relate to a field of work they are considering. Then there is the long process of researching and applying to schools and searching for financial aid. Once they get into the college that will give them the best education, they work hard in school and continue to seek meaningful work experiences. During the senior year, there are job fairs, where top employers – ranging from PricewaterhouseCoopers to Procter & Gamble – come to pluck the best candidates and bring them into their companies. Most university graduates apply to other top companies and receive job offers with strong career paths from these organizations.

For the most part, our community is cut off from this process. We think of college as a means to acquire a “trade,” like an accountant or lawyer. But a whole world of jobs exists for which the job requirements are less specific. The top companies in America are not looking for a piece of paper or a cobbled-together degree. They are looking for bright, eager young people with a global “good education.” They want impressive employees who have demonstrated the ability to work hard, work smart, and behave ethically. These companies find such young people in the top universities (like Stanford and Princeton), the top small, liberal-arts colleges (like Williams and Middlebury), and at the top state schools (like the University of California-Berkeley and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill). They also find these job candidates in middle-tier colleges and universities. When they find such people, they bring them into their organizations and train and mentor them to rise within the company.

We all know that our children are smart, hardworking, socially capable, ethical, and more; they are 100 percent capable of getting and thriving within a quality job. But they don’t have access to these kinds of jobs that drive America, because we don’t participate in the process. Of course, there is good reason for rejecting attendance at residential universities, as it comes with a host of social and religious/moral problems. The question I hope to answer in this article, therefore, is can we, as frum Jews, compete for these same jobs without making sacrifices with relation to our Torah values? The answer is, most certainly, yes. With that said, there is work and real effort involved.

Taking Action

In vocational matters, as in so many things in life, decisions made early on have the potential to reap enormous benefits in the long term. Those benefits are many. Essentially, we would be opening up a source of parnassa to the members of the next generation that would allow them to more than comfortably provide for their families, reduce the daily stress in the home due to money issues, and work at jobs that are intellectually and emotionally stimulating.

It bears repeating, however, that in order to attain these desirable careers, the individual needs to take action. High school students need to make a calculated and determined decision to get a real quality education and obtain real work experience. Trying to fake an education and job experience is futile. Indeed, the most frustrating part of career counseling, for me, has to do with our shortcut mentality toward secular education and parnassa. The pervasive thinking goes like this: How do I do the least and get the most? In addition, there is an enormous amount of fear of going outside the accepted norms.

By the time I meet with kids at age 19, 20, and 21 to talk to them about their careers, it is already late in the game. They have not applied themselves to their secular studies. Typically, they were not even taught using the latest teaching methodologies or expected to achieve on a high level. They have not taken relevant summer jobs and internships. On one occasion, I was speaking with a 22-year-old boy who realized that he had not been properly advised and prepared for his impending career, and he started openly weeping. His job options were painfully limited, and, for all intents and purposes, he had to start all over again.

To change this state of affairs, we, as a community, need to guide our young people more effectively. Anyone who has been out in the world fighting the parnassa battle knows that there are better jobs and there are worse jobs. Yet, to many of the young men and women I have spoken with, most jobs “sound pretty good.” Young people are not always the best judges of what is a better and what is a worse job, especially since they are often looking at the job from a short-term perspective. That is why they definitely need guidance when selecting a career.

The key to creating a relevant career path is finding a mentor who is knowledgeable about the enormous spectrum of jobs and careers open to our frum children, as well as insightful when learning about these children. He or she should also be creative and interested in helping a young person find the career that is best suited to that unique individual. We need more such mentors in our communities. It is also very important that young people be involved in selecting their career path. The self-fulfillment they will experience, G-d willing, as they progress in their careers should be experienced at some level during these initial career discussions. Ideally, they should experience their career path as a path of self-discovery. And the first step on this path is picturing a point on the horizon that is appropriate for b’nai Torah, as well as financially viable and inspiring. We should settle for nothing less.

A Quality Education

Baltimore City Community College and the Community College of Baltimore County (Catonsville, etc.) can be strong options for getting an education both inexpensively and quickly. Similarly, young men and women can learn QuickBooks quickly and inexpensively from numerous resources. With that said, BCCC and other community colleges may not always be the best option for a young man or woman who is looking to make a strategic, long-term career move.

A well-known statistic indicates that there is a direct correlation between education level and income – that is, the more educated an individual, the more money he or she will make. It also holds true, statistically, that the Stanford University graduate will make more money than the community college graduate. The cynic may scoff and claim that the graduates of the top four-year colleges get paid more due to superficial reasons, including an overrated diploma. There may be some truth to these statements. Nonetheless, the name of a top four-year college, a graduate degree, etc. carries weight on your resume. Moreover, this weight is directly correlated to the actual quality of education at these schools. Statistically, the graduates of a top four-year college are better educated than the graduates of a community college, due primarily to the acceptance standards as well as the quality of education within the walls of the school.

The top four-year colleges are not judged as better schools because the U.S. News and World Report and the educationally elite say they are. The top four-year colleges are judged as better schools because, objectively, they are better schools. They have better facilities, better services (e.g. career development), better teachers, better students, better curriculum and coursework, better teaching methodologies, etc.

That said, a student can compensate for not going to a top four-year college. At the top, in terms of importance, is the ability to read and write critically. Knowing how to write well is crucial. A basic understanding of computers (e.g. Microsoft Office) is important. So, for that matter, are math, history, science, social sciences, and more. It certainly doesn’t hurt to take coursework that relates to one’s preferred parnassa, but the key is getting a good general education. Other factors that determine success include networking, hard work, and good mazal, but a quality education is a big piece of this parnassa puzzle.

College the Frum Way

This takes us back to our original conundrum: Not everyone can afford the time and money associated with four years of college. And again, we need to be careful about our children’s exposure to the social atmosphere that permeates most of the top four-year schools. To overcome these problems, as frum Jews, we get creative. We take AP classes in high school in order to qualify out of college courses. We take college courses in Eretz Yisrael that we transfer into four-year colleges. We go to school at night. We quickly and easily get an undergraduate degree from an online university and channel our limited time and money into a two-year master’s program.

These strategies are creative and can be effective. Again, the key is to make sure you’re really getting an education. To rationalize getting a “fake degree” – a college or university degree where you’ve received a BA, BS, and/or MA yet learned little, if anything – is a mistake. Those with yeshiva BAs will struggle to get good jobs, because they lack real work experience and a real education, which is what 90 percent of employers are looking for.

Our children need to be able to compete academically with the rest of the children in America. At the very least, they need a level of competency that is commensurate with a quality high school education. While many of our yeshivas and schools offer such an education, not always do the students get that education. Many of our students have the unfortunate attitude that secular studies don’t count. Could this be why yeshivas with “top-notch general studies programs” graduate far too many students who are reading and writing at a level that is far below the academic standards necessary to perform at a professional level? If our students cannot clear this lowest hurdle of educational competency, they will have to play catch-up, or suffer real consequences as their careers progress.

Creating Economic Value

A fundamental fact that I try to convey when counseling a young person is that most everyone works within a business. A business is any organization where money is going in and out and people are making a living. Some are standard businesses that provide goods or services, while others are not-for-profit organizations. The essence of business is the creation of economic value, or profit.

How does the creation of economic value relate to careers? With few exceptions, an employee’s salary directly correlates with the economic value that employee creates within the business. In grossly simplified terms, if I pay this new, young employee who is “learning the business” $50,000 per year for the next three years, will he or she develop into a worker who will make me $50,001 or more during that third year? Employers don’t pay employees salaries. Employers invest in employees. An employer may be patient and wait for an employee/investment to “turn around,” but, in the long term, all rational employers will seek to acquire good investments and divest themselves of bad ones.

Mrs. Schabb mentioned in her article that “doing your job is no guarantee of a professional future.” This is absolutely true. Creating economic value is the best – if not the only – guarantee of your economic future. Let me give an example: Mrs. Schabb correctly points out that accountants can’t do their job well unless a bookkeeper provides them with accurate data. However, this is much the same as CEOs who can’t do their job well unless a receptionist screens their calls. The accountant position is more than “more professional sounding”; it is qualitatively different than that of the bookkeeper, because the accountant is in a position to drive profitability, while the bookkeeper is not. In a large business, an accountant can make a suggestion that increases revenues or cuts costs – causing the business to profit by tens of millions of dollars. As a consequence, this same accountant will receive an increased salary, a bonus, or a promotion to reward the economic value he created. As proof, many senior employees are former accountants.

What about the employee who does not create value for the business? This type of employee might be called a “necessary cost.” For example, a receptionist is a necessary cost. No matter how fantastically a receptionist says, “Hello, may I help you?” when she answers the phone, she will add little, if any, economic value to the business. The $35,000 you pay this receptionist is not a good or a bad investment; it’s simply a necessary cost. The fair market price for most jobs of this ilk is not high. While employers are literally investing in some employees via business training, corporate seminars, and other educational and career growth experiences, the “necessary cost” employees are quietly doing their jobs. They receive minimal pay raises and infrequent promotions. ” Necessary cost” positions include secretaries, bookkeepers, computer programmers, network administrators, etc.

Please realize that these are not dead-end positions, nor are they bad jobs. They are merely jobs with limited salary and career growth opportunities (even if you do occasionally find an ambitious and able “necessary investment” employee leaving his or her job to become the COO of a small entrepreneurial business).

Young frum men and women should be aware that the quick, easy career that is tempting in the short term may result in the loss of innumerable long-term opportunities – opportunities for promotions, salary increases, and career growth that is commensurate with their true potential. While pursuing such careers as finance, brand management, management consulting, and a plethora of other careers may take longer and may earn less money in the short-term, the long-term possibilities are endless.

And if these careers are unfamiliar, it is because most of us have a very limited vision of what is an appropriate career for a frum Jew. Actually, the spectrum of such careers is enormous. And, there are numerous new careers being created. What’s important to recognize is that there is a plethora of great jobs in the world that are unequivocally not antithetical to our Torah values and that are ours to compete for and win. A real education and real job experience are the keys to attaining these positions.

Growth Careers

Growth careers are sometimes found in unexpected places. For example, one might say that being a teacher is a growth job. In the best high schools in America, teachers are mentored and supported. Eventually, they become chaired faculty, department heads, deans, headmasters, etc. Often, they move over into business. But, you need to be teaching in the right school. Many schools are far from a meritocracy, especially, private Jewish schools.

Law can be a growth job. A very high number of yeshiva boys are well prepared for the field. But it is competitive. If you didn’t graduate from a good law school in the top 10 percent, you’ll be a lawyer, but your first job, or jobs, will most likely not be very high paying.

Sales is a great growth job, but not a sales job that is paid by commission only. The good sales jobs are with large companies, who hire new college graduates and often train them for a full six months before they are allowed to call a single client. They are paid a substantial base salary plus commission, and they have an employer with a vested interest in preparing them to be a top-notch salesperson and sales manager. For this kind of job, you can’t fake it.

Another job that frum boys, and even girls, go into is being an entrepreneur. This is the ultimate growth job, but being an entrepreneur with limited education (and job experience) can be a bad idea. Most frum entrepreneurs are not making it big. The vast majority struggle. With a proper education, this isn’t necessary. What do they learn in business school that prevents failure? you might ask. While nothing guarantees entrepreneurial success, a good education can give you the tools to minimize the risks. Some of the subjects you study in business school are best practices within the fields of organizational behavior, marketing, operations, etc.

Science, engineering, and IT have as much potential as any career choice, although what aspect of them one chooses to pursue and how you navigate the course of the career is critical. Occupational and speech therapy, popular choices among girls, are good jobs – well-paying and flexible. They are great for women who have made a personal decision to be mothers primarily. What they are not are jobs with a “career path.”

The Hiring Process

As mentioned above, most employers are looking for “good investments” to be the future leaders and economic drivers of their business. Like any investor, the employer looks at the individual’s past performance in order to speculate about future performance. In order to accomplish this, the hiring process typically consists of a gradual weeding out process. Of the numerous resumes an employer receives, only a handful will be selected for interviews. Of that handful, one is selected for the job.

In order to move from the resume stage to the interview stage, our children need to impress potential employers with their resume. Our children don’t need a Nobel Prize in economics, as those they are competing against also don’t have a Nobel Prize in economics. But, our children do need examples, if not a track record, of past successes. Typically, these successes fall under the categories of employment history, education history, and other interests and accomplishments. Our children therefore do an enormous service to their careers by having jobs, going to schools, and being involved in extracurricular activities that demonstrate the capabilities we know they possess. Unless they have demonstrated their unique talents and abilities – and created a resume that documents them – it will be difficult for them to get an interview for a quality job.

The Parnassa Dilemma Revisited

After reading this article, as well as Mrs. Schabb’s, it will be obvious that there are different ways to approach the parnassa dilemma within the frum world. It is an important discussion for us to have. The suggestions I have made in this article speak to solving the parnassa dilemma through certain principles. Again, they are: 1) Take action early. The first few moves in a chess game seem simple enough, yet they set the tone for the entire game and, more often than not, directly lead to the final outcome of the match. 2) Get support and guidance in finding a career path that, for both the short and long term, is Torah-appropriate and career-appropriate, as well as inspiring for the individual young man or woman. 3) Be proactive while at yeshiva, during the summer, and wherever you can, in order to have a “track record of successes” for your resume. 4) While at yeshiva or college, make sure to attain both a diploma and an education. An education is not a superficial experience, and there are few better ways to sabotage a budding career than to be inadequately prepared educationally. These simple actions can reap enormous benefits. I hope the points outlined above can help interested frum men and women attain these career goals. Hatzlacha.

Public Service Annoucement: Annual Giving Program

This just in. The program is schedule for this Tuesday in the 5 Towns. Guest posters are welcome to email a summary of ideas presented.

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY EXPERTS TO OFFER PROGRAM ON
ANNUAL GIVING TO LOCAL DAY SCHOOLS

Institute for University-School Partnership Continues Programming in Far Rockaway-Five Towns on School Affordability

Yeshiva University’s Institute for University-School Partnership will hold its fifth program on school affordability in the Far Rockaway/Five Towns community with a workshop on “Maximizing Annual Giving.” The program will take place on Tuesday, October 20 at the Hebrew Academy of Long Beach’s Davis Renov Stahler High School, 700 Ibsen St. in Woodmere, NY at 8pm.
This workshop is an integral part of the Institute’s commitment to partner with schools and communities to improve the quality and value of yeshiva day school education. To promote data-driven and research-based good practices, the Institute has fielded a number of surveys in the past year, including the first-ever study of board governance practices in Jewish day schools and a just completed focused survey of fundraising practices of 15 yeshiva day schools in the Far Rockaway-Five Towns community in preparation for the October 20th program. The results of these surveys, benchmarking the practices of the participating schools, will shape the upcoming workshop agenda.
The program will be geared to executive directors, development directors, and active board members and will feature experts in annual campaign development and alumni affairs from the Institute and YU’s Department of Institutional Advancement. The presentation will focus on how to implement a well-designed annual campaign and enlist alumni and alumni families in supporting their schools.
Harry Bloom, director of planning and performance improvement at the Institute and an experienced fundraising professional, will discuss the effectiveness of alternative annual campaign strategies and define key components of the most comprehensive and effective campaigns. Barbara Birch, senior director of alumni affairs and annual giving at YU, will share strategies for successfully engaging day school alumni and for achieving broad annual campaign participation.

The presentations will be followed by individualized working sessions led by a team of Yeshiva University fundraising experts who will coach the attending schools in strategies to improve their annual campaign effectiveness.

For more information please contact the Institute of University-School Partnership’s Five Towns/Rockaways Regional Coordinator Eli Shapiro, LCSW at shapiro4@yu.edu.

Jews, Jobs, and Employment: A Response to the Guest Poster

Although I believe my guest poster is sadly mistaken, amongst the misconceptions regarding employment versus self-employment (i.e. the entrepreneur) I do believe that he has a point about developing an "entrepreneur mindset."

One of the Orthonomic issues I have noted through discussions, community involvement, and reading is that there is a quasi-socialist view on wealth production. Some examples might include the expectation that an employee of the kehilla or working for a frum-owned business be given a pay raise upon the birth of a baby. Afterall, the family now has higher expenses, right? Another item of note would be the workings of the Beis Medrash where marriage equals release from tuition as the bochur becomes a yungerman. And, I don't think there is anyone in the frum world who hasn't been approached with requests to give ploni a job.

Additionally, I don't know anyone who hasn't been informed of their (not so clear cut) "obligation" to support Jewish/frum-owned businesses. There are halachot that address when one is to patronize a Jewish owned business and when one does not have to do so. But the halacha clearly does NOT obligate us to hyper-consume. As the economy took a turn for the worse, many people made sure to remind us of our obligation to support frum-owned businesses in order to keep them afloat. And, certainly many of us have gone out of our way to patronize small-businesses in the community. But, you can't force someone to buy something they don't want, which is why it is very clear that we understand how wealth is produced.

One thing is certain, you cannot legislate the production of wealth, although you can certainly hinder the production of wealth, cripple the desire to produce income, even price workers out of the market. Sustainable, long-term wealth is not produced by giving people jobs, ordering that they be paid higher wages, or artificially bolstering markets. The Rambam certainly recognized this as he outlines the levels of tzedakah with the highest level of tzedakah being one of strengthening the one in need and making that person ultimately becomes self-sufficient.

Individuals (through the vehicle of a business entity) produce income by moving a product that has value to the consumer. They identify markets and delivers to those markets. Or sometimes they create markets from the ground up (incredible how a solid marketing campaign can create a need you didn't even know you had!). They understands basic economic concepts like supply and demand. They understand the importance of gaining and maintaining market share.

There is a classic work titled "Ideas Have Consequences." This is the phase that comes to mind when I see the constant and unrelenting marketing of certain philosophies within certain kehillot that the guest poster pushes. Ironically, the places where I have heard certain philosophies ***marketed*** with the most zeal generally are communities where income levels are lower.

Let's address a few of these philosophies:
1. "Employees only get rich on IPOs, stock options": We do ourselves and our children no favors when we create class warfare. "Working for the man" is a fantastic way to learn the ins and outs of an industry, develop marketable skills, make important contacts within the industry, develop the proper social skills for the business, and (yes) even earn an income. Ultimately, we are all entrepreneurs because we are selling our skills in the free market. No one is going to take an interest in "giving" us a job unless they believe that we can produce. And once we are in the door, if we don't take a certain level of initiative, create a niche for ourselves, and make ourselves indispensable, we won't last very long or increase income. Employees who figure out how to help their business cut cuts and increase income are routinely rewarded.

2. They are now saying the rules have changed - the formula of "get good education/grades = get a good job = get a good salary = good lifestyle & retire" is "old school"

I don't know who "they" is. But, there is a very clear correlation between education and income. Yes, there are success stories of kids who couldn't score high enough on the SAT to play college hoops going straight into the NBA, but they, like the (likely mythical) chassid who makes millions of dollars a year while signing X on the dotted line because he is illiterate, are outliers on a statistical analysis. We don't change our behavior based on miracles. And, let's not forget, the professional athlete has a very valuable education and has developed a skill set that falls nicely on the supply and demand chart.

Yes, a solid education and the development of marketable skills, combined with initiative and work ethic pays off!

And, pray tell, how many businesses are out there for which you can just open up shop with a limited education? Normally, having a developed skill set is a prereq. Oftentimes, you need a college education and a strong resume. One does need something to sell!

3. math & english can easily be made up for as an adult: I can't think of a more dangerous idea that is promoted in the frum world. Recently there was a story celebrating public funding being granted to yeshivot for remedial education. I'm not cheering. My own research on education shows that there are periods in time where a child is most ready to absorb certain skills. I think it behooves us all as parents to make sure that our children are getting a solid education in the basics early on. I'd run the other way from any educator that thinks spelling shouldn't be emphasized early on, or that a calculator can take the place of math drills. The capacity for developing a strong base in proper language and math skills is developed early on. And if you read the comments at YWN and VIN, you can see the horrendous results that follow.

And, on that note, quite frankly I'm not sure that a "Torah only" education is resulting in children who know how to think as you insinuate ("frum education teaches the linear & critical thinking skills necessary for entrepreneurship"). Perhaps the product isn't being delivered correctly, as great Rabbonim were the product of a Torah only education! (Updated: as Avi pointed out, this is perhaps more myth than fact. Certainly in Sephardi regions the greats were products of a classical education).

4. "maybe rich?" There are a lot of reasons to go into business for oneself. But, getting rich isn't one of them. You have a better chance of going broke. You also mentioned work/life balance. This is also a fallacy. If you want to succeed, you won't do so working 3 hours a week. You might not have to work set hours, but there are a lot of demands and those demands will most likely control you, especially from the get go.

That said, there are a lot of reasons to go into business for yourself! But getting rich isn't one of them.

Guest Post: Jews, Jobs, and Employment: More Entrepreneurship Needed
(by reader identified only to me)

As my regular readers know, I am open to publishing "Guest Posts" from readers, even where I don't always agree. It keeps the blog alive. I decided, "why not?" and I'm publishing this guest post although I disagree with the logic behind nearly each assertion.

I have run into this line of thinking over and over again (both inside and outside of the frum world, a la Rich Dad, Poor Dad) and figure a healthy discussion might be of use. I am saving my own commentary for an upcoming post. (Which can be hard to do because I have very strong feelings regarding the subjects at hand! But I do have a carpool line to get in soon).

Additionally, I have another guest post on the subject of Jews, Jobs, and Employment. Watch for it in the coming days!

Question: are we BTs in the corporate/professional world falling prey to the "get good education/grades = get a good job = get a good salary = good lifestyle & retire" mentality?

In other words - there is a POV which says that w/o a proper secular education, BTs aren't seeting their FFB kids up for financial success - before we get into that - look at the above equation - that is an employee mindset - what about the entrepreneur mindset?!

The question really is - do we want to raise our kids with a employee mindset? If so, then secular education is a must [although it could still be argued]. I would propose that if we really want to set our kids up for financial success - teach them an entrepreneurial mindset! Why?

#1 - it doesn't require an MBA.
requires a knack/skill for how to create & deliver value

#2 - you have the potential & more likelihood to make the actual money to live frum & be financially comfortable [maybe rich?]
employees only get rich on IPOs, stock options, etc - that died with the .com bust.
employees can be financially comfortable - but @ what cost to work/life balance?

#3 - it seems the entrepreneur path:
is most like the traditional "old world" Jewish professions: baker, blacksmith, wagon driver, farmer, etc
avoided secular education & anti-semitic issues

frum education teaches the linear & critical thinking skills necessary for entrepreneurship
math & english can easily be made up for as an adult - look at people from India, China etc who have ESL - english as a 2nd language - its true they know math & science, but I believe they are taught how to think vs the American secular system which emphasizes memorization.

the secular world advocates the advantages of entrepreneurship.
they are now saying the rules have changed - the formula of "get good education/grades = get a good job = get a good salary = good lifestyle & retire" is "old school" & has changed thanks to the advent/advancement of technology and the global economy.Back to an employee mentality - there are many skills that can be learned [programming, networking, graphic arts, plumbing, electrical engineering, etc] where the FFB could get a BA from an accredited Yeshiva - then either apprentice [plumber, electrician] or self learn [[programming, networking, graphic arts] with a sort of certification attached.

I believe the economic downfall is due to a lack of entrepreneurship - we forgot how to provide real value [another article unto itself ]. See 10 Reasons You Should Never Get a Job & How to Make Lots of Money During a Recession

in summary- our "Orthonomic" challenges would be solved if:
we taught our children how to be entrepreneurs.
taught proper saving habits, living beneath your means [get rid of keeping up with the Goldbergs mentality] & no credit cards [except for emergency [tow car example]].
reduced the costs of simchas to a set $$$ amount in a community
created virtual learning to reduce tuition costs

Jews, Jobs, and Education: A Philosophy that is Damning

Hat Tip: Rosie

I was sent a link to this article by my reader rosie last month and I didn't want to sit down and write any thoughts without taking time to digest the article. In the next week or so, I have two Guest Posts on Education and Jobs and the Orthodox community, as well as some thoughts of my own on subjects related to jobs and increasing income. I think this article gives me a nice place to start.

I think my long time readers know that I am most certainly a supporter of vocational education at the high school level. Not every child will find themselves successful in an advanced academic track, but that shouldn't preclude success. And, perhaps on a more practical level, we need to recognize that there are many families who simply need their children to graduate high school with marketable skills because it is downright necessary. Every reason why I support vocational education in public high school is equally applicable to why I (theoretically) support vocational education in Jewish high schools.

But note the word "theoretical" and read along with me as I highlight a few selections from the article:

Located in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, Ohr Chana was created as an alternative to the
traditional high school in which pressure for grades, competition, and acquisition of often irrelevant information outweigh the quest for knowledge or the thirst for Torah and spirituality.

Ohr Chana’s evolving curriculum of applied academics includes mathematics, language, history and science – with a twist. In addition to the basics, students learn how to use math as it apply in banking, budgeting and business… English used in
writing articles, letters to the editor, grant proposals and speeches …. biology as it applies to health, nutrition and self care … and psychology in the context of marriage and child rearing.

Vocational training includes cosmetology, culinary arts, computer graphics, and information technology. Among the life skills on the program are time management, sewing, money management, crafts and music, in addition to knowledge related to running a Jewish home. One parent remarked that the personal skills curriculum reads like “everything I always wanted to do but never learned how.”

I was struck by the use of the word "irrelevant" because it is a very revealing word when used in the context of education, chinuch, and even vocation. If I felt compelled to seek out an alternative educational track for a child of mine that was within the kehilla (Lubavitch not being my kehilla, but I think this philosophy can be found in plenty of corners), and the director used such a term in regards to academics (either general or Judaic) or even extracurriculars, I think I would be compelled to exit stage left (and quickly)!

The only thing that might be "irrelevant" vis a vis the vast array of knowledge to be attained is what an educator declares "irrelevant." A child might need to pursue a different educational track for academic or practical reasons or a combination thereof, but that shouldn't be a commentary on the value or relevance of a liberal/classical education, Torah or general. Where it is, I worry that the children who fall under the tutelage those espousing such a philosophy will ultimately be shortchanged, and not just academically but likely vocationally too.

Further along in the article I note that the school intends to "apply" the academics. Of area of note is the application of English. Perhaps reading and comprehension were accidentally omitted from the summary of curriculum in the article, and I hope I am not reading into the article too much, but I have read a number of fascinating books citing (largely failed) educational movements of the modern era and I believe I recognize one here. But I won't get into a dissertation about the history of education in the modern era and why most high school graduates are such abysmal writers, except to say that I worry about a language program that begins with writing a letter to the editor, a grant proposal, or giving a speech. While I do not believe every student must be subjected to writing a thesis on an obscure theme in a Shakespeare play, I do believe that before you can "apply" your writing skills, you need to have something to write about and the prerequisite for writing something of value is a healthy dose of reading.

I once was handed some papers by a high school girls for whom I was friends with the entire family. She was enrolled in a high school where I believe that many books were off-limits. But that didn't preclude the class from writing. (Anyone want to venture a guess as to the subject matter of the papers? I will give the answer in the comments section. One hint: the English program was barely supervised, the teacher was non-Jewish, and reading was not exactly the emphasis of the curriculum).

As for the vocational programming, I'm not quite sure what vocational programming is most practical in today's day and age, but I don't think cosmetology wouldn't make my top 10 list for vocational programs I'd seek out if I were enrolling my own (Orthodox) daughter in a vocational high school. Culinary arts would also not make it into my top 10.

Readers, share your thoughts!

The Age-Gap or Faulty Math?

A week or so ago, a story caused a slight stir on YWN and I also heard it being discussed amongst friends. That story was the pronoucement that shadchanim should set up singles who are within one to two years in age. Even better if the boys are set up with older 'girls.' Those who read Jewish publications, particularly the Yated are well aware of the recent push to shorten the "age-gap" in shidduchim.

The popular math blames the "shidduch crisis" on the age gap: "Since every year the community grows, bli ayin harah, there are not enough boys for the more numerous younger girls. Those extra girls are left out, Rachmana litzlan. The only way to prevent this from continuing is to have boys marry girls who are close to their age. Then, everyone will have a chance, as the number of boys and girls would be equal. (It is interesting to note that in the Chassidishe world, there seems to be no such problem of hundreds of older single girls, because their shidduchim are usually close in age, so there are enough boys available.)"

The popular math reads like this (assuming equal births of girls and boys--although scientific studies show more boys are born into this world than girls):
Year X Y
2009 1000 1000
2010 1050 1050
2011 1103 1103
2012 1158 1158
2013 1216 1216
Totals 5527 5527

As my regular readers know, it is not beyond me to question underlying premises that have been accepted as FACT and this is no different. If a believer in the "age gap" was asked what the chart above referred to, they would direct you to the age gap theory. (A non-believer like me would think I'd been handed a chart on an investment plan).

I'd be interested in a seeing an actual demographic study that shows that each year an increasing number of births in the yeshivish community in each progressing year. Chances are that there is no such study because stats is never so clean. Obviously, childbearing has its limits, so by definition the graph cannot climb upwards forever. At some point the graph must show a nearly flat line. And as long as experts are offering their conjecture, I might as well wonder out loud if there is a descent on the horizon (tuition, economic factors, the much talked about "shidduch crisis")? You can train "boys" to seek out "girls" slightly older, but if the birth rate changes and the math isn't faulty(!) you will have a reversal in the "shidduch crisis."

One would think that the focus of a pronouncement wouldn't be on birthrates but on demographics of the yeshivish community of marriageable age because that would be the demographics of interest? If the increase of each class is not mathematically significant, one has to ask why there are so many excess young ladies for the pool of men? Men marrying young ladies a few years their junior is certainly nothing new!

So either this phenomena has always been in existence to some extent and simply was not viewed as a crisis (certainly a possibility), or there are other factors that needs to be explored before declaring that the age gap between a dater and a datee be no more than 2 years (glad I'm already married! We might be modern Orthodox, but our shadchan certainly wasn't).

The factors that might be potentially interesting to those interested in a more serious study would certainly explore demographics beyond year of birth such as attrition: Do more men exit the yeshivish community than young young women? Since the community is not static, are there more women who enter the community (bt's, young ladies from modern Orthodox backgrounds) than men who enter the community? Is the definition of what constitutes a proper husband so narrow that only a small handful qualify as a "boy?"

Like I mentioned before, it is nothing new or unusual for men to marry women slightly younger than themselves. When I look at the fairly diverse group of friends I have who have married on the younger side, I don't see great age differences. Those who married right out of high school tended to marry peers, as did those who married during college and right out of college, etc. If the yeshivish world is different (as claimed), it is worth asking WHY? If the young men are not looking for a peer, why is that? I imagine that if the above question was probed further, it might leads to questions about a "maturity gap" (term coined here)! If I were to conjecture why a 25 year old yeshivish male would concentrate his dating interests around 19 and 20 year old girls instead of 23 to 25 year old young ladies, there must be a reason why as the default would be a similarly aged peer. (I certainly can't imagine calling up a very wonderful 26 year old professional modern Orthodox young man we are friends with and grabbing his attention by presenting a 20 year old).

If the problem isn't purely a math issue, I'm not quite sure how a pronouncement (with no other changes in the fabric of society) will result in more (successful) marriages.

Readers, let me know in your comments if you shrinking the age-gap is the solution or if there is something deeper going on?