Child labor has been given a bad rap around the world and deservedly so. However, all child labor isn't necessarily bad. I for one have benefited greatly from my youthful work experiences and I bet you have too.
The words "child labor" evokes visions in our minds of wretched children working in filthy factories or dangerous coal mines with little to eat and even less compensation. The universally accepted definition of child labor is the "employment of children in regular and sustained labor." Most countries ban that kind of child labor, but what about other forms of labor?
I had my first paper route at 11 years old. By the following year I was also delivering Sunday papers, waking up at 4 a.m. and working until noon. By my 14th birthday, I was working at Duff's, my neighborhood drug store in Philadelphia, serving soda and making change for the neighborhood after school. During the summers, I worked even harder: cutting lawns, bagging in supermarkets and even hauling hot roofing tar up two stories on occasion. I always had money, was rarely bored, made OK grades in school and received a fabulous education that I could have never obtained in school.
In the U.S., you can legally get a job at 14 as long as you work no more than three hours a day (18 hours a week during the school year or past 7 p.m.). Youths of any age can deliver newspapers, perform in radio, television, movie or theatrical productions; and baby sit or perform other minor duties around a private home. In the agricultural sector, kids can work as young as 12 years old during non-school periods. But by the age of 16, America's youth can work without restrictions or parent's consent.
In this country, there is a long tradition of kids like me, dating back to the last century. The jobs of our youth often teach us skills that are with us our whole lives. Some of the things I learned were simple things like filling out applications and more complicated skills like interviewing, working responsibly and how to get along with co-workers and, of course, the boss. Since my father started his underage work life in the coal mines near Altoona, Pa., (until he was trapped in a cave-in), my early working career seemed comparatively easy.
My daughter, Jackie, followed in the family footsteps, first as a snowboard instructor at 13 years old (almost 14). She was the snowboard director by the age of 17, managing almost 50 instructors on the weekends at a local ski slope. She credits her early work experience for giving her confidence and independence, an MVP status among her high school peers and a developed sense of responsibility that continues to this day as a new mother and as an executive at a international public relations company.
Like me, her work life kept her on the straight and narrow in school, away from parties, drugs and poor grades. She also learned the meaning of money and had enough income to pay for her own auto insurance when she learned to drive.
Now, granted, this is all anecdotal evidence. Research indicates that those teenagers who work more than 10 to 15 hours a week do receive lower grades. Many also sacrifice extracurricular activities and friendships they would have otherwise made if they weren't working as hard.
Some teens, their pockets flush with cash, have the means to experiment with drugs and alcohol, which many obtain from older co-workers. Finally, there are many cases where overworked teens spend a lot less time with their families, eating and exercising less than those kids without onerous work schedules.
Many teens' first jobs are in the retail sector such as fast food outlets, restaurants and grocery stores. Often these entry-level jobs are routine, boring and lack positive interaction with adults. It can be tough on a young person, and that's where you can add value as a parent. Encouragement, a sympathetic ear and a little compassion can go along way to help your child through that first rough year or so.
I also advise you to monitor your child's progress. Don't simply take "OK" as an answer for how work is going. And if you don't like the thought of after-school work for your teenager, summer employment is an excellent alternative.
If for some reason your kid doesn't need to earn money, there are always non-profit alternatives to choose from, like selling Girl Scout cookies or fundraising for the Boy Scouts of America or any number of charitable organizations desperate for additional help.
The point is that child labor, American-style, is a major positive in my opinion as long as it is accomplished within the guidelines above.
Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or email him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.
The Independent Investor: Gas Prices Going Higher
By Bill Schmick On: 04:07PM / Thursday February 23, 2012
Over the last week a flurry of price forecasts for gasoline have reverberated through Wall Street. Some experts are guessing that pump prices could easily top $4 a gallon and possibly higher by Memorial Day this year.
Their forecasts are being extrapolated from the present price of gasoline which averages $3.61 per gallon. That is high for this time of year, since February is usually a period of low gasoline demand. You might think that this year is a bit different since the mild winter and absence of snow throughout much of the country might bolster driving. But demand nationwide is down to 15-year lows.
What has propped up oil prices so far this year is continued instability worldwide. The financial crisis and subsequent recession in Europe, which should have reduced energy demand has been counterbalanced by events in the Middle East. The real culprit in the oil patch appears to be Iran.
The world wants Iran to cease and desist developing nuclear weapons or else. In response, Iran has been threatening to close a key oil avenue through the Strait of Hormuz, if the U.S. and the EU deliver on their intent to apply economic sanctions to their country. As a result, the price of oil has been flirting with $100-barrel level over the last few months and is presently trading above $106.73 a barrel for West Texas crude. The threat of higher oil prices if Iran were to embargo Europe or the U.S. is real. Iran boasts the world's fourth-largest proven oil reserves and the world's second largest natural gas reserves.
Middle East tensions are nothing new. The oil market periodically moves up and down with unfolding events in that region. Spikes tend to be short-lived but everyone from the Fed on down pays attention to trends. What makes this situation a little different than usual is that the tensions are occurring just at the moment when the U.S. economy appears to be picking up some speed.
The last thing this country needs right now is for oil/gasoline prices to trend higher. I have written at length on how energy prices are another form of tax on American consumers. Although energy prices account for only 5 percent of our overall spending, it is spending that cannot easily be cut back. If the experts are right and gasoline prices move higher as a result of a stronger demand and the continuation of political tensions, then consumers might be paying a few hundred dollars more this summer for gasoline.
That is a lot of money when multiplied by the number of Americans driving cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles. If past behavior is any guide, consumers will fork over the extra money for gas but at the same time cut spending on other things like restaurants, vacations, and shopping at the mall. Higher energy prices will also take a bite out of profits in Corporate America. It will also mean higher prices from everything from diapers to tires as companies attempt to pass on the higher energy costs to consumers.
Unfortunately, higher energy prices are here to stay as long as this country fails to develop a comprehensive energy plan that will reduce our dependency on oil. Until then, we will remain hostage to every two-bit, oil-rich dictator or wanna-be nation that takes a swipe at us.
Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or email him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.
The Independent Investor: Should College be Free, Part II
By Bill Schmick On: 01:16PM / Friday February 17, 2012
"Does a high school education prepare our youth to enter the work force, escape poverty and become productive citizen of the economy?"
The answer to that question is a resounding no, in my opinion, which creates a problem since the purpose of public education, according to our founding fathers, was the accomplishment of those goals. I believe there is a consensus among Americans that a college education has supplanted high school as a requirement in accomplishing the above goals. In which case, colleges should be tuition-free just like most high schools.
Whether college really does prepare our future generations for "living the dream" is another issue, which leads me to my second question.
"Are we still in the industrial revolution or have we graduated into something more?"
The answer is more important to the future of education and America's place in the world than just about anything you can imagine. Most people would agree that the U.S. has graduated from an industrial revolution to the "information age," yet I believe our educational system, thanks to some historical detours, has failed to adjust to this new reality.
A tuition–free college education is an old concept in this country. Baruch College, now part of the City University of New York system, was founded as a free college back in 1847. In 1862, the Merrill Act established public universities through federal land grant. Most states opted to charge no tuition or a nominal tuition. California’s public university system, for example, which remains the largest in the nation, abolished tuition three months after it was founded in 1868.
When WW II ended in 1945, 16 million Americans (one out of eight) were serving their country in some capacity. With returning vets looking for work, many feared we were heading for massive unemployment and another Depression unless Washington did something about it. In 1944, the GI Bill of Rights was passed. It gave servicemen unemployment checks, low-interest housing, business loans and a free college education.
Nearly 8 million vets took advantage of that benefit and in the process drove the U.S. illiteracy rate to 3 percent, the lowest level in American history. It also transformed our economy, creating a massive Technocracy, while introducing the age of information.
But according to Walt Kelley, one of our readers who sent us his excellent book "Common Sense, A New Conversation about Public Education," it was the launch of the Russian Sputnik in October 1957, and our national response to that event, which set American education on a disastrous detour.
Prior to that period, only 18 percent of Americans went on to college. To meet the perceived Soviet nuclear threat, President Kennedy spearheaded a new educational strategy to answer the Russian menace. In addition to bomb shelters and the like, he argued that higher education would be key to saving our country. Kennedy exhorted an entire generation of high school graduates to go on to college and become professionals. It was, he said, their patriotic duty and would not only save America but the rest of the world as well.
Science and engineering were the main areas of educational pursuit as part of the "space race." Those who may have had the aptitude and interest to attend technical schools thought twice about it. After all, going on to college had become a patriotic duty. The federal government made it even easier to attend by supplying new federal and state loans. The number of colleges and students attending them exploded in the 1960s.
The advent of the unpopular Vietnam War (and the subsequent disillusion among the '60s Generation) brought on a whole new set of variables that once again stood college education on its head. The nucleus of the anti-war movement was centered in colleges, especially those colleges that charged little or no tuition. The ranks of student/teacher protestors swelled since college students were also exempted from the draft as were those graduates who decided to become teachers.
Given the strong anti-war sentiment among educators in general, less qualified high school graduates were admitted to colleges (thus escaping the draft) and many below-average college graduates opted for teaching rather than a stint in the Army. Avoiding war, rather than getting an education, became the driving force for attending college.
Politicians in Washington, miffed by the growing protests and civil disobedience of both students and faculty, realized that funding these institutions of higher education was at cross purposes with their own wartime policies. Ronald Reagan used the University of California's peace activists as a campaign issue in his 1966 election for governor and hiked tuitions shortly after being elected. The same kind of thing was happening in New York and other states.
As funding dwindled, tuition-free universities had no choice but to trim costs and begin to boost tuition. Teachers, feeling the squeeze on both their salaries and benefits, began to organize, forming labor unions to protect their jobs and livelihoods. The end result was an upward spiral of ever-increasing tuition costs that continues today.
A second unanticipated result was the decline in the perceived worth of teachers. Teacher unionization on a national scale led many Americans to unjustly compare teachers to similar blue-collar union members in the auto, teamsters and steel industries. At the same time, the quality of new teachers was thought to have declined as the result of the draft evading tactics of the Vietnam Era. This, combined with the poor results of the American educational system in general, gave teachers a bum rap that has continued to this day.
As the U.S. educational system continues to decline, despite the best efforts of both government and the private sector, I don't believe free college tuition will solve America's educational dilemma although it may help future generations make better career choices. In my next and final column on free colleges, we will address the broader issue of the future of education in this country. Stay tuned.
Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or email him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.
The Independent Investor: Should College Be Free?
By Bill Schmick On: 04:18PM / Thursday February 09, 2012
It is a debate that has occupied this country for years. Should college be free to all Americans or should we continue to pay for it? Those in favor argue it is one of our inalienable rights. Those opposed say college is a privilege to be earned and paid for in order for it to have meaning and merit.
I suspect the majority of Americans who are still paying off student loans, or are already paying for a college education (or soon will be) would vote for free tuition. Who can blame them?
My daughter was born in 1980 and graduated college in 2002. During that time period, the cost of a college education increased almost 400 percent. Looking at prices today, I would say I got off fairly cheap. Americans spent almost $100 billion last year to send over 14 million students to public colleges and universities. We all know that tuition and fees continue to skyrocket, climbing 6.6 percent annually. Yet, most of us believe that going to college is essential and the key to an economic future and the American dream.
Costs differ because not all colleges charge the same. Forty-four percent of all full-time college students attending a four-year college are paying less than $9,000 per year for tuition and fees. That’s a lot of money for a family pulling in $50,000 annually. At the other end of the spectrum, roughly 28 percent of full-time students are attending private, non-profit institutions and are paying at least $36,000 annually. Those numbers do not include the cost of living, eating, school supplies and a long list of other school expenses. All but the wealthiest American families are priced out of that market.
To be fair, most students receive some kind of financial aid, usually from the local, state or federal governments. That aid amounted to about $178 billion this year. That means the average student probably received a little over $12,500 in aid and about half of that won’t have to be repaid.
When you account for all student loan programs, grants, tax breaks and such the government is already paying for almost half the tuition, so why not the rest?
Much of the debate comes down to why the government should pay for schooling at all. Critics argue that the public school system is already a disaster. Our students’ learning abilities have already fallen way behind their peers in other countries. Our high schools are becoming a breeding ground for drugs, crime and dropouts. If we allow colleges to become part of this flawed system, critics say, then we may as well call an end to the educational system in America.
It might be helpful, therefore, to explore why a free educational system evolved in America in the first place.
It was Thomas Jefferson who first suggested creating a public school system. He and others like him argued that common education would create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. The debate raged for many years. It took until the end of the 19th century before free public education at the primary level was available to all American children.
High school was a different story. Although the first publically supported secondary school, the Boston Latin School, was founded in 1635, it was Benjamin Franklin who first saw the need for something more than a primary education. The demand for skilled workers in the middle of the 18th century led Franklin to establish a new kind of secondary school called the American Academy in Philadelphia in 1751. Once again, public secondary education was no easy sell.
It wasn't until the 20th century that high schools took off. when the majority of states extended compulsory education laws to the age of 16. From 1900 to 1996, when government began paying for secondary education, the percentage of teenagers who graduated from high school increased from 6 percent to 85 percent.
Since then the purpose of a free education has widened from Jefferson's concept of ensuring that citizens could read, write (vote) and remain law-abiding to something more. In order to escape poverty and to provide a skilled labor force for the industrial revolution, Franklin and his peers believed a secondary education was deemed to be in the national interest.
This history lesson has a point. Ask yourself two questions. Are we still in the Industrial Revolution or have we graduated into something more? And two, does a high school education prepare our youth to enter the work force, escape poverty and become a productive citizen of the economy?
For readers who answered no to the above questions, you will want to read part II of this column. Stay tuned.
Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or email him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.
The Independent Investor: U.S. Energy Production, Going the Right Way
By Bill Schmick On: 02:30PM / Friday January 27, 2012
It has been a long time since oil production in this country has been a source of growth. Between domestic regulation, depressed energy prices and off-shore projects, the action in oil has been elsewhere. Now that is beginning to change.
Over the next decade domestic crude oil production is expected to increase 20 percent or more to levels not seen in the United States since the 1990s, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. We were producing 5.5 million barrels per day (bpd) last year compared to 5.1 million bpd in 2007 and production is expected to grow by 550,000 bpd to 6.7 million bpd by 2020. Production is expected to slow after that but still maintain a healthy pace of over 6.1 million bpd through 2035.
U.S. oil production grew faster than in any other country over the last three years. Names from big oil's boom days like the Texas Panhandle, the Oklahoma Border and Granite Wash in states such as Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas have been joined by new wildcat states like the Bakken shale area of North Dakota and even Pennsylvania.
Naturally, since it is an election year, politicians are quick to take credit for oil's resurgence.
"Under my administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down," said President Obama, which is true but not because of any policies of his administration. Energy exploration and drilling decisions are made many years in advance. Decisions made 4-6 years ago are only now showing up as increased production today.
The real cause and impetus behind this energy rebound is a combination of three factors: the price of oil, an oversupply of U.S. natural gas and new technologies that make drilling and finding new oil cost effective.
Oil is hovering around $100 a barrel and has traded in a rough range of between $85-$110 most of last year. At the same time, natural gas prices are at a 10-year low so it pays for oil and gas exploration drillers to focus on finding more of the higher-priced crude oil component of the energy spectrum.
At the same time, new drilling techniques like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that contributed to the recent explosion in natural gas production are being applied to traditional oil fields. As a result of the higher prices and cost-effective technology, pools of oil and oil shale that were passed up in the past as too expensive to drill, are now profitable to extract.
All this good news still won't bring this country to its goal of "energy independence" anytime soon. The U.S. is forecasted to consume 19 million bpd of oil by 2020 versus production of only 10.2 million bpd. Of course that forecast can change depending on price, supply, demand and decisions made by both the private and public sector here.
For example, just this week the Obama administration rejected the proposed XL Keystone pipeline from Canada, a $7 billion, 1,700-mile route through the Great Plains of Texas. The decision is not final, but rather a delaying tactic to allow the pipeline's supporters to update their proposal. It is projects like this that can impact the nation's energy production in years to come. Let's hope this country and its leaders can establish a cohesive energy policy soon that will someday make us energy independent.
Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or email him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.
Bill Schmick is registered as an investment advisor representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $200 million for investors in the Berkshires. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of BMM. None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill’s insights.
.jpg)
My .jpg)
It is a debate that has occupied this country for years. Should college be free to all Americans or should we continue to pay for it? Those in favor argue it is one of our inalienable rights. Those opposed say college is a privilege to be earned and paid for in order for it to have meaning and merit.
