Those who have followed my posts for years know all of what I speak during the election I was shouting several years ago----I knew in 2009 when Obama and Congressional pols started pushing the Bush policies on No Child Left Behind----Race to the Top was written in the Bush Administration by global technology and education corporations----where all this led. If you understand all of the networks they are building in the US today are attached to existing global corporations ready to come and take those non-profit structures in US International Economic Zones like Baltimore---then you know where education policies lead. I pointed to the wage of teachers in China----$320 after 20 years----to show how low wages can go in a Baltimore International Economic Zone in schools tied to global corporate campuses. They are bringing immigrant workers from around the world in BUILDING CAPACITY----DENSITY as we are hearing in Baltimore but citizens are thinking this means bringing citizens from around the nation---they don't understand it is citizens from around the world. This capacity building is tied to filling global corporate campuses and factories with developing nation workers already used to working for $160 a month and then saying to Baltimore citizens----IF YOU WANT A JOB YOU WILL WORK AS THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES WANT YOU TO WORK.
This is why I say today's immigrant in Baltimore----we have a big South Pacific Island community-----are building density being paid that poverty wage for teaching while US teachers earn $60,000====what these immigrant teachers don't know ----if this Trans Pacific Trade Pact and International Economic Zone policy continues-----they will no longer earn that US poverty wage---they will be brought to wage conditions in their developing nation----as if they never needed to leave their nation. This deception has occurred for decades as Clinton and Bush funded overseas International Eco nomic Zones and built global job training and distribution networks for what they call HUMAN CAPITAL.....those immigrant workers. For decades they educated people in Africa or South Pacific to be teachers or health care workers and then transported then across the global to International Economic Zones to work for largely US global corporations for these slave wages. Many were not able to return home---being caught in this huge movement of people globally as cheap labor.
Those brought to the US over these few decades did get to experience a developed world wage---even if it was the poverty wage. That will end if we do not stop this global corporate campus structure. This effects all US workers and those Latino immigrants having worked for decades in the US will be drawn into working as Asian workers and that is lower wages by far then what Latino immigrants are getting today. This is why as well O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake advertised across the nation for Latino families to come to Maryland and Baltimore----building density for those global corporate FOXCONN factories.
'Teachers from Yilan had posted a letter online that said educators who have worked for 20 years make just over $320 per month, and new teachers make $160 — “even more pathetic,” according to the letter'.
WHO WE ARE
Global Human Capital (GHC) was founded in Dec 2011 with vision and structure aimed at achieving our clients’ interest. Our clients need professional consulting and advice with regard to human resource issues, labor problems and start-ups in ASEAN and other area. GHC creates value for our clients through our profession, global integrity network and strategic partners.
GHC, We value on not only skill but also network and passion. we are creating such kind of network for global business sustainability
We believe that the key to business success is to ensure that employees are correctly motivated, rewarded and clearly aware of their contribution and the part it plays in business strategy.
Our clients come to us for comprehensive services and support critical to their maximizing the performance of their people and turning their strategy into reality.
Medical human resource service
*************************************************************
Those not knowing Johns Hopkins has been a global corporation in several areas including this job training and global distribution of human capital-----it led the way decades ago. This is why Baltimore is a GATEWAY for bringing immigrant and foreign global corporations into the US and Baltimore. This is the structure Cindy Walsh will dismantle!
This is also why Hopkins is working as hard as it can to claim access and control of all of Baltimore's technology capability---from infrastructure, to controlling access, to connecting all Baltimore City agencies and citizens' personal data to their systems.
My platform dismantles all these global corporate structures tied to creating Baltimore as an International Economic Zone and making sure to secure vital public infrastructure to all citizens in Baltimore.
Saudi Aramco and Johns Hopkins Medicine Announce the Establishment of a Healthcare Joint Venture
New Provider to Advance World-Class Clinical Care, Research and Education
Release Date: June 24, 2013
Saudi Aramco and Johns Hopkins Medicine International, L.L.C. (JHI), the international arm of Johns Hopkins Medicine, have signed a joint venture agreement to establish a new health care provider for Saudi Aramco.
The agreement was signed on June 23, 2013, in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, by Saudi Aramco Senior Vice President Abdulaziz F. Al-Khayyal and Paul B. Rothman, M.D., dean of the medical faculty, CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine. The new company will focus on providing high-quality health care services to Saudi Aramco’s employees, dependents and annuitants that make up their eligible medical recipients.
“This joint venture brings together two global leaders who share a strong commitment to improve access to world-class health care services,” Mr. Al-Khayyal said. “Over the last 80 years, Saudi Aramco doctors and nurses have served the medical needs of employees and family members. Now, with Johns Hopkins Medicine International as a joint venture partner, we will set an even higher standard for future generations. This is a logical step in our company’s transformation and demonstrates our ongoing commitment to our people.”
“For more than 120 years, Johns Hopkins has been recognized as a national and global leader in patient care, research and education,” said Dr. Rothman. “We are pleased to have the opportunity to share our innovations and best practices with our colleagues at Saudi Aramco and to assist them with further strengthening health care services the company offers to its employees, retirees and their families.”
The new venture will assume the responsibilities of Saudi Aramco Medical Services Organization (SAMSO), which manages the health-related services for approximately 350,000 members of the Saudi Aramco community.
Under the terms of the agreement, Saudi Aramco and JHI will each hold an ownership stake in the new Saudi company. JHI, drawing upon the vast expertise of The Johns Hopkins University and The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System, will provide comprehensive clinical services, research, education and management expertise to the joint venture.
“Johns Hopkins Medicine has more than a decade of experience in assisting health care organizations and governments around the world as they strive to elevate the standard of health care in their countries and regions,” said Steven J. Thompson, CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine International. “Our international work now spans more than a dozen countries on four continents. It is a privilege for us to collaborate with Saudi Aramco to carry forth its commitment to improving the health of its employees. We are especially energized by the patient safety, nursing, research and medical training initiatives that will be at the core of this work, and we believe this new joint venture will allow us to advance Johns Hopkins’ vital mission of improving the health of the world.”
“This agreement marks the first step in the long-term process of creating a new medical center of excellence in Saudi Arabia,” Dr. Saeed Mughram, SAMSO executive director, said. “Building on the strong, well-established health care system at Saudi Aramco and the proven expertise of Johns Hopkins Medicine, the joint venture will provide enhanced services, including new clinical programs, and in the future, centers of excellence in clinical research and education, to address some of our most significant health issues, including diabetes and heart disease.”
Today’s signing marks the beginning of a multi-year, phased integration plan for the joint venture. The new company is expected to commence operations in the early part of 2014.
About Saudi Aramco
Owned by the Saudi Arabian Government, Saudi Aramco is a fully integrated, global petroleum enterprise and a world leader in exploration and producing, refining, distribution, marketing and petrochemicals manufacturing. In addition to its headquarters in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Aramco, through its affiliates, has joint ventures and subsidiary offices in China, Japan, India, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States. For more information, please go to www.saudiaramco.com.
About Johns Hopkins Medicine
Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM), headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, is a $6.7 billion integrated global health enterprise and one of the leading health care systems in the United States. JHM unites physicians and scientists of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine with the organizations, health professionals and facilities of The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System. JHM's mission is to improve the health of the community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in medical education, research and clinical care. Diverse and inclusive, JHM educates medical students, scientists, health care professionals and the public; conducts biomedical research; and provides patient-centered medicine to prevent, diagnose and treat human illness. JHM operates six academic and community hospitals, four suburban health care and surgery centers, more than 38 primary health care outpatient sites and other businesses that care for national and international patients and activities. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, opened in 1889, was ranked number one in the nation for 21 years by U.S. News & World Report.
About Johns Hopkins Medicine International (JHI)
Johns Hopkins Medicine International (JHI) facilitates the global expansion of the Johns Hopkins Medicine mission: to improve the health of the community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in medical education, research and clinical care. JHI provides personalized, culturally appropriate care for patients traveling to Johns Hopkins from outside Maryland and the United States, and for local patients with limited English proficiency. JHI also leverages Johns Hopkins’ extensive knowledge base in medicine, nursing, public health, medical education, research and health care administration to improve health and health care delivery through sustainable, high-impact collaborations throughout the world.
_________________________________________
What global pols are bringing to US International Economic Zones are no longer US corporations---as above Hopkins created a partnership with this foreign corporation and will bring them to Baltimore to operate as they do in that nation. Baltimore will fill with these multinational corporations and International Economic Zone and Trans Pacific Trade Pact PRETENDS to allow them to ignore all US laws and US Constitutional rights inside these zones. Remember, all of the region around these economic zones will draw workers from as far away as PA, WVA, and all over Maryland into these global corporate campus/global FOXCONN factories.
The partnership above opens the door for this foreign corporation to come to the US, bring its workers, and expand health industry across the US in partnership with Johns Hopkins.
'This is a logical step in our company’s transformation and demonstrates our ongoing commitment to our people.”'
Multinational corporation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA multinational corporation or worldwide enterprise[1] is an organization that owns or controls production of goods or services in one or more countries other than their home country.[2] It can also be referred as an international corporation, a "transnational corporation", or a stateless corporation.[3]
The article above makes one believe this partnership is about bringing better health care to citizens in that nation. As with educating and training in vocation citizens in developing nations and then simply sending them around the world leaving those developing communties with no educators or health care workers----so to is this arrangement. It will simply be used to disguise Johns Hopkins connection in the expansion across the US while this global corporation operates in US International Economic Zones just as they do overseas.
Keep in mind-----these all include the job training network for all these professions----health care and educators are tops right now----but all professions are now captured to this global corporate HUMAN CAPITAL system they are now bringing to the US----and Baltimore is filled with it-----AS JOB TRAINING NON-PROFITS.
Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 03:00 PM EST
Healthcare’s foreign invasion
Obama risked a trade war with China about manufacturing -- so why isn't he outraged about medical jobs? Kate Tulenko
This article was adapted from the new book, "Insourced", available May 8 from Dartmouth College Press.Approximately 15 percent of all healthcare workers and 25 percent of all physicians in the United States were born and educated elsewhere. This means that 1.5 million healthcare jobs are “insourced,” occupied by foreign-born, foreign-trained workers brought into the United States on special visas earmarked for healthcare jobs. This number is 50 percent greater than the total number of jobs in the U.S. auto-manufacturing industry. It’s amazing to consider that in 2008 and 2009, the auto industry, which makes up just 3.6 percent of the U.S. economy, received a $97 billion bailout. If we estimate that each of these 1.5 million insourced healthcare jobs has an average wage of $60,000, that’s $90 billion a year in wages going to people brought into the United States to work rather than training Americans to do the same jobs.
The healthcare industry makes up 16 percent of our economy. Yet even in these days of close to 10 percent unemployment, we do not invest enough money in our young people to train them for jobs in healthcare — an already understaffed industry that will have to serve an additional 32 million people once the provisions of the 2010 health-reform law take full effect. Instead, when faced with pressure from hospitals and nursing homes for more healthcare workers, the federal government grants visas to import nurses, physicians, pharmacists, physical therapists, and many other types of healthcare workers from countries that can ill afford to lose them.
In some U.S. industries, the outcome of globalization is positive or neutral. Take the sugar industry. Due to lower labor and land costs and better weather conditions, it’s far cheaper to grow sugar cane in the Caribbean than sugar beets in North Dakota. As import taxes fall, global transportation improves, and the number of sugar beet farms in the United States declines, more Americans are sweetening their cereal with sugar from Jamaican sugar cane. Americans save money buying cheaper sugar; the economy of the poorer sugar-growing countries improves, lifting thousands of people out of poverty; and the few displaced American sugar beet farmers generally find other work. But sugar is not a strategic commodity. If CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, were to halt sugar exports to the United States, we would experience no crisis. Sugar is not essential to our diet or life, and we have plenty of substitutes, from honey and corn syrup to NutraSweet. If necessary, within a year we could again be producing sugar in the United States.
The U.S. healthcare industry is 200 times larger than the U.S. tire-manufacturing industry, yet President Obama risked a trade war with China, our biggest trade partner, over tires. He was understandably trying to protect well-paying manufacturing jobs for American workers. Yet each year, we bring thousands of nurses from China to work in even better-paying jobs rather than train young people in this country to become nurses. The irony is that the economic costs of “insourcing” healthcare workers, including the loss of jobs no longer available to Americans, are far greater than the costs when we import Chinese tires. In 2003 the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS), a U.S.-based nongovernmental organization that administers the U.S. nursing licensing exam for foreign-trained nurses, opened a testing center in Beijing. The opening of this center initiated a “mushrooming” of new nursing schools in China and led to credible predictions that China will soon surpass the Philippines as the number one source of foreign-trained nurses imported to the United States.
Given the publicity and furor over the loss of manufacturing jobs, the lack of protest over healthcare-worker insourcing is surprising. Congress passed legislation and President George W. Bush signed a law in 2007 to protect the American sock industry from the rival Honduran sock industry. Yes, that’s right: socks. Protecting a few hundred $15-an-hour sock-manufacturing jobs based solely in the small town of Fort Payne, Ala., was worth acting on. Yet insourcing hundreds of thousands of $60-an-hour healthcare jobs has prompted no such similarly high-level response from our leaders.
Instead, on a regular basis, Congress approves and presidents from both political parties sign legislation to enable the legal entry of an ever-increasing number of foreign healthcare workers. Each year, about 20,000 new healthcare-specific visas are issued for these workers.
The United States has traditionally not allowed strategic industries to be outsourced. That’s why the U.S. steel industry and the U.S. car industry have received bailout after bailout. Access to enough steel and automobiles is essential to our economy; without a sufficient supply of each, our economy would be severely damaged. It’s time we acknowledged that the health of the population is just as important as steel and autos in keeping our economy strong. Healthcare is too important to risk continuing to insource it.
It’s not just a matter of protecting and expanding jobs for American workers. Every year, thousands of Americans die, and the health of thousands more is compromised, because of the shortage of healthcare workers in every one of the healthcare professions.
On the surface, insourcing may appear to be a harmless or even win-win solution to the country’s healthcare-worker shortage. The hospital receives a much-needed worker, and the worker escapes life in a struggling country for a better life here. But we should be training more people in this country to work in those professions, especially people from poor and minority communities. Rather than investing in our own people and communities, however, the U.S. government has decided to take the best and brightest workers from struggling countries.
Many foreign-trained healthcare workers, no matter how smart, are not adequately prepared for practice in the fast-paced, high-tech world of U.S. medicine. Whether in operating rooms, hospital wards, or nursing homes, inadequately qualified and poorly oriented foreign healthcare workers endanger the lives of their patients, as well as the lives and careers of their American-trained colleagues.
But the main reason for this country’s rise in unnecessary deaths and delayed care is understaffing — a result of the failure to train and place enough healthcare workers, especially in rural and underserved communities. Americans who live in rural areas make fewer visits to healthcare providers and are less likely to receive preventive care. The infant-mortality rate for African-Americans is twice that for the average American; Latinos are twice as likely as white Americans to die from diabetes. These health disparities are due in large part to a lack of healthcare workers, especially primary-care workers, in their communities. The quick fix has been importing foreign healthcare workers for these unfilled positions. Unfortunately, once these workers fulfill their initial contracts, most move to communities without healthcare-worker shortages; in fact, foreign-trained healthcare workers are more likely to practice in the well-served, major metropolitan areas than their American-trained counterparts.
Even if good foreign-trained healthcare workers were here in numbers adequate to meet our needs, the U.S. healthcare system is about encounter a tidal wave of demand as 78 million baby boomers approach their 60s. Older people make, on average, six visits to a healthcare provider a year, compared with two visits per year for people under 60. The healthcare workforce is aging, too: More than 50 percent of practicing healthcare workers are eligible to retire during the next 10 years, which will leave us with fewer workers to treat more and sicker patients.
In the eyes of employers, of course, insourcing healthcare workers appears to offer many benefits. Most doctors and nurses in developing countries earn a fraction of what American doctors and nurses earn: A Caribbean nurse makes around $1,000 a month; an Ethiopian physician, about $100 a month. Not only are many foreign-trained healthcare workers accustomed to lower salaries and quality of life, but they also carry little or no education debt, while their American-trained colleagues typically graduate with five- and six-figure debt burdens. With average student debt burdens of $155,00011 for newly graduated physicians and $30,375 for nurses, American-trained health workers require a higher salary just to help pay for their education. Trained in a much more hierarchical environment, foreign workers are much less likely to unionize, or even express dissatisfaction with their work. As the percentage of imported healthcare workers increases, their attitudes toward salary and terms of employment undermine the bargaining power of U.S. workers, and even affect the important feedback loop between employees and management.
Polls indicate that 70 to 80 percent of Americans want to reduce the rate of immigration into the United States. Yet the American public is not aware of our policy of using healthcare-worker-specific visas to solve the healthcare-worker shortage.
Some legislators who publicly support stabilizing immigration consistently vote to increase the number of healthcare-worker-specific visas granted each year. It’s not that American citizens don’t want to become healthcare workers and fill these jobs. This distinction is critical, because every industry that has brought in foreign workers has argued that American workers won’t do the work for the prevailing wage, or won’t do the work no matter how high the pay is. In the healthcare industry, this argument does not apply. U.S. citizens want the jobs. They just can’t access the training. The United States does not have enough positions in health-professional schools to meet industry demands.
The tens of thousands of qualified nursing school and medical school applicants who are denied entry to school each year permanently lose out on their chosen careers, work that is consistently ranked in the top tier of salaries, with excellent benefits and almost guaranteed job security. This loss of career opportunity is even greater for rural and minority young people, who are grossly underrepresented in the higher-level health professions, such as physicians and nurses, and overrepresented in the lower-level professions, such as technicians and home health assistants. Something is wrong when so many young Americans are forced to pursue other, lower-paying careers at a time when we desperately need more healthcare providers. In exchange we get foreign healthcare workers who are less well trained (they consistently score lower on licensing exams than U.S.-trained healthcare workers) and far less culturally competent than native-born Americans.
The most tragic and most preventable effect of our hiring so many healthcare workers from other countries is the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in developing countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year more than 10 million people die needlessly, from easily treatable maladies such as diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, tuberculosis, vaccine-preventable diseases, and complications of childbirth. The WHO Global Health Workforce Alliance estimates that there are a billion people alive today who will never see a health worker in their lives. In Ethiopia, one in 10 Ethiopian children will die before his or her fifth birthday — yet there are more Ethiopian physicians in the Chicago area than in all of Ethiopia, which, with 80 million people, is the second most populous country in Africa. As their most skilled nurses emigrate to work in U.S. nursing homes, middle-income countries such as Jamaica and Trinidad have nurse-vacancy rates of 60 percent or higher.
Throughout the developing world, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, and many other types of healthcare workers are being approached and offered 10 times their salaries to practice in modern U.S. healthcare facilities with state-of-the-art technologies. Even the most dedicated, socially conscious worker would be tempted by such an offer. A colleague of mine relayed a conversation he’d had with the head of the Nursing Council of Kenya, who told him about the damage the exodus of senior nurses was doing to her country’s healthcare system. In the next breath, she confessed that the next time he visited Kenya, she might not be there. She was thinking about emigrating herself.
Our unofficial policy of relying on the world’s poorest countries to pay for the training of workers whom we then entice and bring to this country is devastating healthcare systems around the world. The loss to a developing country when a single physician, representing what may be a significant portion of their total number of physicians, emigrates is far greater than our gain. Our failure to provide education for our own citizens and to better plan for healthcare staffing and distribution does not justify poaching nurses and physicians from the countries that can least afford to lose them. How many additional deaths, how much more needless disability and suffering, will we allow this misguided policy to cause?
And consider American competitiveness. Certain industries are vital to U.S. global leadership. Recognizing their importance, we protect those industries. We don’t allow them to move overseas and make the United States vulnerable to the actions of other countries. Poor farmers in the developing world can certainly grow food staples more cheaply than American farmers do. But because of the strategic importance of the U.S. food supply, we subsidize some basic food crops, such as corn and soybeans.
And yet we are overreliant on foreign healthcare workers to meet our most basic health needs. This is particularly dangerous because many countries, almost completely drained of healthcare workers and tired of subsidizing the U.S. healthcare system, are trying to slam the door shut for emigrating healthcare workers. Meantime, of the world’s wealthiest nations, the United States has the worst health outcomes, with lower life expectancies and higher rates of deaths from preventable causes. In infant mortality, for instance, we rank 27th, behind Poland and Hungary. Our disability levels are higher than in most former Soviet countries.
If the United States is to remain competitive in the global economy, we need a healthy workforce. In order to achieve that, we need a healthcare workforce made up of adequate numbers of properly trained physicians, nurses, pharmacists, community-health workers, and other healthcare providers.
______________________________________________
Below we see occurring in JOB TRAINING----just what captured Baltimore with other public sector agencies being dismantled and outsourced-----there are tons of job training programs all getting funding with no network of oversight and accountability and Baltimore citizens are being loaded with so many job training certificates-----as CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR WARNOCK LOVES TO SAY------and no jobs. Why has Baltimore become the hub of all job training with funding that we all know is not reaching many of these programs. Again, some individuals and non-profits are doing good---but most involve misappropriating large amount of Federal and State revenue from actually helping citizens to building structures for these global job training and HUMAN CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION NETWORK to be installed in Maryland and Baltimore.
THE FEW MILLIONS BEING SENT TO THESE SMALL JOB TRAINING VENUES MASK THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEING SENT TO BUILD THE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY NETWORK -----THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO FOLD ALL THESE JOB TRAINING NON-PROFITS INTO EXISTING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
Remember when we simply looked at the Department of Labor ---DLLR listing for all job openings and that agency had all the connections to job training---usually community colleges and our labor union apprenticeship programs? DLLR does not exist in Maryland and has been dismantled at the Federal level all being outsourced to this global job training corporation network that will also move US citizens around the world as was done to citizens these few decades in the developing nations.
Do you want a better job, but need more training? Train Baltimore is your one-stop shop for information on job training and career advancement.
About Train Baltimore
On the Training section of the website, you can search hundreds of local job training programs to find one that’s right for you. The search results will give you detailed information on each program, so you know what to expect before you enroll. All of the programs listed here are either free or low-cost. To get more information or to enroll, please contact the program directly.
On the Resources section of the website, you can find a variety of other useful tools and links, including:
About the Job Opportunities Task Force
Train Baltimore is developed and managed by the Job Opportunities Task Force (JOTF). JOTF is an independent nonprofit based in Baltimore, Maryland, with a mission to develop and advocate policies and programs to increase the skills, job opportunities, and incomes of low-skill, low-income workers and job seekers. JOTF thanks the Surdna Foundation for their support in developing this website.
Ready to search for training? Use the search options below to find a program that’s right for you. Click on the name of a program for details on eligibility, enrollment, and what happens after training. All program information is self-reported. Contact the training provider to learn more or to enroll.*
Not sure how to choose the right training? Click here for tips on making the best choice.
Need help paying for training? Click here to apply for a grant through the Central Scholarship program
*********************************************************************
Baltimore opens free job training hubs
People can learn basic to advanced courseworkPublished 1:23 PM EST Nov 28, 2012
BALTIMORE --The job search for anyone looking to work in Baltimore City just got easier.
People can now get professional training for modern jobs at multiple new locations throughout the metro area as part of the Community Job Hubs program launched Wednesday by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.
There are four hubs that are now open or about to open set up throughout the city. At each location, professionals will be on hand teaching classes that prepare people for 21st century jobs that are all technology-based.
All of the classes offer professional coursework at basic to advanced levels for free.
"Everybody continues to call for the need for job skill development. Even the employed need new skills, so this is the right direction," said program CEO Benjamin Barmin.
***********************************************************
The entire job training structure that was centralized and easy to provide oversight and accountability is gone-----Catholic Charities is even doing job training for auto mechanics.
This is always the first step----deregulate and dismantle the public structure and move all Federal and state funds that would have come to that government structure out into the community where most of it finds its way to building structures for global corporations.
JOB TRAINING FORMAT
Service Members,
Veterans & Their Families
This is again a Republican think tank that exposed this breakdown in our job training structures amidst hundreds of billions of dollars in spending but notice this-----it does not tell you all these billions were building that global job training and HUMAN CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION and not making it to US communities as is happening now. Bush and neo-conservatives are tied to this human trafficing---providing the International Economic Zones built by Wall Street and Clinton Foundation/Initiative structures with global militarized policing and security ----and these systems of moving human capital.
So, Bush sent hundreds of billions of Federal funding to grow corporations like Johns Hopkins into global job training and distribution-----and now Obama and Congressional neo-liberals are again sending hundreds of billions of dollars to bring this global system to the US ---spending it on building that global job training structure in our US cities.
ALL OF THIS IS VERY, VERY , VERY FAR-RIGHT WING AND THIS REPUBLICAN THINK TANK IS SIMPLY TRYING TO MAKE A FEDERAL AGENCY LOOK INEFFICIENT.
Congress Spends Billions on Ineffective Job-Training Programs
By David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
About the AuthorDavid B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis
Center for Data Analysis
President George W. Bush's proposed U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) budget for fiscal year (FY) 2003 is intended to promote effective programs while reducing or eliminating programs that are unproven or duplicative.[1] The Administration proposes $4.975 billion for job-training programs authorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA)--a $505 million reduction when compared to FY 2002.[2] The budget also proposes decreasing funding for Youth Formula Funds, Youth Opportunity Grants, and Adult Employment and Training Activities.[3]
Given the absence of empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of these programs, the Administration's request for decreases in funding for WIA programs is a move in the right direction. However, the Administration's budget still requests nearly $5 billion in funding for questionable DOL job-training programs,[4] including $1.54 billion for the Job Corps (which it has deemed a "highly successful" program[5] despite evidence to the contrary.[6] Job Corps program has failed to increase participants' wages to any substantial degree or to move participants into full-time employment.[7]
The President's goal of linking funding to program effectiveness has been further compromised by the U.S. Senate's Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Bill (S. 2766). This bill continues the federal government's long history of funding job-training programs without regard to effectiveness.
The Senate intends to spend over $5.6 billion on Labor Department job-training programs--a 13.2 percent increase over the Administration's request.[8] Rather than continuing to spend tax dollars on job-training programs that are unproven or have negligible positive effects on participants, the funding could be more effectively allocated to reduce the federal government's budget deficit (which is projected to be $145 billion for FY 2003[9] ) or to support vital homeland security efforts.
In crafting their version of the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill for FY 2003, Members of the House now have an opportunity to rectify the failure of both the Administration and the Senate to curb wasteful spending. The call for reduced funding for federal job-training programs is justified by the inability of these programs to bring about substantial increases in the incomes of participants and move participants into full-time employment. While WIA programs have yet to be rigorously evaluated, similar programs that were funded under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 were found to be largely ineffective.[10]
With the return of budget deficits and the high cost of combating terrorism, Congress should reaffirm its commitment to de-fund ineffective programs by:
Federal programs that were intended to improve the lives of the economically disadvantaged[11] through work initiatives, including the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), were originally created during the 1930s.[12] Despite the fact that civilian unemployment just prior to World War II was about the same as it was when the WPA and CCC were created, support for job programs continued to build after the war.[13]
During the 1960s, the federal government established job-training programs for the unemployed and economically disadvantaged. These programs provided a combination of remedial education, vocational training, on-the-job training, subsidized work experience, basic life-skills training, and job search assistance. Programs funded under the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) of 1962 were originally intended to re-train workers dislocated by technological advances, but MDTA was converted into a job-training program for economically disadvantaged persons.[14]
In 1973, MDTA programs were superseded by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), which was designed to decentralize control of federally sponsored job-training programs.[15] Nearly a decade later, charges of corruption and mismanagement contributed to Congress's decision to replace CETA with the JTPA.[16]
In 1998, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which superseded the JTPA, was signed into law. WIA emphasized a "one-stop" approach in which an array of job-training, education, and employment services were provided to communities.[17] In contrast to the JTPA, state and local governments were given authority to tailor the content of job-training programs to meet their specific needs.
Measuring the Impact of Job Training
There is still no consensus regarding the ability of MDTA programs to increase the incomes of the economically disadvantaged. Some evaluations of MDTA have found that the program increased incomes,[18] while other studies reported a combination of outcomes--including positive, negative, and/or no effect on income.[19]
The lack of consensus over the effectiveness of job-training programs continued with regard to CETA, where evaluations again indicated mixed results. Some studies found that CETA programs raised incomes in some cases, while, in other cases, the programs had no effect on participants' income.[20] Other studies found that the incomes of some CETA participants actually declined.[21]
While the evaluations of major job-training legislation such as MTDA and CETA have reported mixed results, all of these studies suffered from methodical flaws that reduced their ability to measure the impact of the programs they researched. All of the studies cited above were quasi-experimental in design[22] and, as such, were likely to exhibit selection bias. Selection bias occurs when there are pre-existing differences between the intervention and control groups that affect outcome measures.[23] The evaluations of MTDA and CETA were not rigorous enough to inform policymakers adequately about the effectiveness of job training for the disadvantaged.
Determining the impact of social programs requires comparing the conditions of those who had received assistance with the conditions of an equivalent group that did not experience the intervention. Experimental studies in which eligible participants are randomly assigned either to intervention or to control groups represent the "gold standard" of evaluation designs. Random assignment allows the evaluator to test for differences between the experimental and control groups that are due to the intervention and not to pre-intervention discrepancies between the groups.
The federal government has sponsored experimental evaluations of at least two major federal programs--JTPA and the Job Corps.[24]
The National JTPA Study
The JTPA evaluation tracked program effects for adult men and women, and male and female out-of-school youths, over the course of 30 months.[25] Three types of job-training activities were examined. The first, classroom training, consisted mainly of occupational skills instruction and basic education.[26] The second intervention was a combination of on-the-job training and job-search assistance.[27] The third type of training, "other services," offered different services to participants on the basis of their age.
Adults mainly received job-search assistance, customized occupational-skills training, and on-the-job training.[28] Youths were enrolled in basic education courses along with "tryout employment," where participants were hired on a probationary status to learn the job, and "job shadowing," where they observed regular employees during the workday.[29]
Effect on Income. Members of the intervention and control groups were tracked over 30 months, and results were reported for three periods: months 1-6, months 7-18, and months 19-30.[30] Classroom training for adult men and women failed to raise the incomes of participants over the course of 30 months,[31] and the other JTPA interventions--on-the-job training and "other services"--failed to raise the incomes of adult male participants.[32]
Although, initially, the incomes of adult women participating in on-the-job training/job search assistance increased by an average of $484 (about $81 per month), this impact was fleeting.[33] During the subsequent measurement periods of months 7-18 and 19-30, the incomes of the women who received training did not differ from the incomes of the women in the control group.[34] Only the effect on the income of women in the "other services" category was positive and lasting. Women participants earned, on average, $478 more than non-participants during the first six months, while the impact increased to over $1,700 during the two subsequent time periods.[35]
In general, JTPA training had no significant positive impact on the incomes of female and male youths. Of the three intervention types, only female youths participating in on-the-job training/job search assistance experienced an income increase during the first six months.[36] The average income increases of $762 during the first time period faded away during the remaining 24-month follow-up period.[37] For male youths, the three types of intervention had no impact on income.[38]
In sum, JTPA programs were ineffective in raising the incomes of adult males or male and female youths, while only the "other services" elements appear to have had a sustainable impact on adult women.
JTPA's Effect on Hourly Wages.
A program's effect on participants' hourly wages is an important indicator in any evaluation of job-training programs. Human capital theory suggests that if job-training programs do, in fact, increase the skills of participants, then employers would be willing to pay program graduates higher hourly wages in return for increased productivity. The JTPA programs did not have a statistically measurable effect on the wages of adult men and women (hourly wages of youths were not measured).[39] This indicates that, in the opinion of employers, JTPA did not increase the skills of participants.
A question may arise regarding how the incomes of some adult women in certain programs increased in comparison to the control group if their wages did not increase. This contradiction may be explained by the fact that adult women participants worked more hours than adult women in the control group.[40] For adult women and men, JTPA appears to be ineffective in boosting the skills of participants to a level that would allow them to secure higher-paying jobs.
The National Job Corps Study
Created in 1964, the Job Corps is a residential job-training program that serves disadvantaged youths aged 16-24 in more than 100 sites across the nation. In 2001, the National Job Corps Study was published. Its primary hypothesis relating to employment and earnings is that "youth who obtain Job Corps education and training will become more productive and, hence, will have greater employment opportunities and higher earnings than those who do not."[41]
THIS AGENCY USED TO WORK AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN ITS MISSION UNDER SOCIAL DEMOCRATS UNTIL ALL FUNDING WAS MISAPPROPRIATED TO THESE GLOBAL HUMAN CAPITAL JOB TRAINING AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATIONS.
While the Job Corps was founded to raise the incomes of participants, its limited impact has not justified the Administration's declaration that the program is effective. The estimated average increase in the weekly incomes of participants was never more than $25.20.[42]
Participants responded to the Job Corps differently by age, race, and ethnicity. The Job Corps did not increase the earnings of 18 and 19-year-olds, who represent 32 percent of the population served by the program.[43] During the fourth year of the follow-up period, whites and blacks experienced small increases in average earnings per week, while the Job Corps had no impact on income for Hispanics and other minorities.[44] These findings are alarming, given that Hispanics comprise 18 percent of all youths served by the program.[45]
Over the course of the 48-month study period, Job Corps participants actually worked less than the control group. Measured in the number of weeks employed over the course of the study, Job Corps participants were employed 45.2 percent of the time, while non-participants were employed 46.9 percent of the time--a difference of 1.7 percent.[46] Despite being enrolled in the Job Corps, participants failed even to put in a full year's worth of work.
Impact of Job Corps on Hourly Wages. Again, the best way to determine whether the Job Corps raises the skills of its participants is to look at the hourly wage of its graduates. If the Job Corps is effective in improving the skills of its participants, then it should have substantially raised the hourly wages they received. The National Job Corps Study measured hourly wages during two time periods. During the 10th quarter, Job Corps participants earned $0.24 more per hour than non-participants.[47] By the 16th quarter, this difference had decreased to $0.22 per hour.[48]
The study revealed that the Job Corps also had little impact on increasing the number of hours worked per week. During the course of the study, the average time participants spent working each week never rose above 28.1 hours.[49] Participants never averaged working more than two hours per week more than the control group.[50]
Those who did benefit from the Job Corps experienced only slight gains in income. The Job Corps appears to be incapable of providing the skills and training needed to bring about substantial increases in the wages of participants. Despite costing the taxpayer $16,500 per participant over an average of eight months, the program has failed to move a significant number of participants into full-time employment.[51]
Conclusion
To enhance the impact of every taxpayer dollar spent on job-training programs, Congress and the Administration should continually review programs and reduce funding for those that are ineffective. Especially at a time when the budget is strained and the need for security heightened, Congress should redirect the funding of any program that has been unproductive (i.e., has not achieved its stated or implied goals). Research indicates that this will mean reducing funding for a number of job-training programs.
To date, no evaluations of the effectiveness of WIA programs in improving the lives of participants have been conducted. Given the history of federally funded job-training programs, it would be unwise to increase funding for these programs as the Senate has recommended until credible evaluations of WIA have been conducted. Congress should reduce funding for WIA programs beyond the Administration's request.
Given the poor performance of the Job Corps, the spending recommendations of both the Administration and the Senate seem unreasonable. The Job Corps is not performing as the "highly successful" program it is touted to be. Congress should move to eliminate this wasteful and unproductive program.
THERE YOU SEE THE MOTIVE OF THIS REPUBLICAN THINK TANK WHO KNOWS ALL FUNDING THE USED TO GO TO THIS PROGRESSIVE AGENCY NEVER MADE IT AND THAT IS WHY RESULTS ARE BAD-----THEY KNOW THIS----BUT THEY ARE BUILDING THE CASE FOR ELIMINATING WHAT WAS A STRONG, SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRAM.
This is why I say today's immigrant in Baltimore----we have a big South Pacific Island community-----are building density being paid that poverty wage for teaching while US teachers earn $60,000====what these immigrant teachers don't know ----if this Trans Pacific Trade Pact and International Economic Zone policy continues-----they will no longer earn that US poverty wage---they will be brought to wage conditions in their developing nation----as if they never needed to leave their nation. This deception has occurred for decades as Clinton and Bush funded overseas International Eco nomic Zones and built global job training and distribution networks for what they call HUMAN CAPITAL.....those immigrant workers. For decades they educated people in Africa or South Pacific to be teachers or health care workers and then transported then across the global to International Economic Zones to work for largely US global corporations for these slave wages. Many were not able to return home---being caught in this huge movement of people globally as cheap labor.
Those brought to the US over these few decades did get to experience a developed world wage---even if it was the poverty wage. That will end if we do not stop this global corporate campus structure. This effects all US workers and those Latino immigrants having worked for decades in the US will be drawn into working as Asian workers and that is lower wages by far then what Latino immigrants are getting today. This is why as well O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake advertised across the nation for Latino families to come to Maryland and Baltimore----building density for those global corporate FOXCONN factories.
'Teachers from Yilan had posted a letter online that said educators who have worked for 20 years make just over $320 per month, and new teachers make $160 — “even more pathetic,” according to the letter'.
WHO WE ARE
Global Human Capital (GHC) was founded in Dec 2011 with vision and structure aimed at achieving our clients’ interest. Our clients need professional consulting and advice with regard to human resource issues, labor problems and start-ups in ASEAN and other area. GHC creates value for our clients through our profession, global integrity network and strategic partners.
GHC, We value on not only skill but also network and passion. we are creating such kind of network for global business sustainability
We believe that the key to business success is to ensure that employees are correctly motivated, rewarded and clearly aware of their contribution and the part it plays in business strategy.
Our clients come to us for comprehensive services and support critical to their maximizing the performance of their people and turning their strategy into reality.
Medical human resource service
*************************************************************
Those not knowing Johns Hopkins has been a global corporation in several areas including this job training and global distribution of human capital-----it led the way decades ago. This is why Baltimore is a GATEWAY for bringing immigrant and foreign global corporations into the US and Baltimore. This is the structure Cindy Walsh will dismantle!
This is also why Hopkins is working as hard as it can to claim access and control of all of Baltimore's technology capability---from infrastructure, to controlling access, to connecting all Baltimore City agencies and citizens' personal data to their systems.
My platform dismantles all these global corporate structures tied to creating Baltimore as an International Economic Zone and making sure to secure vital public infrastructure to all citizens in Baltimore.
Saudi Aramco and Johns Hopkins Medicine Announce the Establishment of a Healthcare Joint Venture
New Provider to Advance World-Class Clinical Care, Research and Education
Release Date: June 24, 2013
Saudi Aramco and Johns Hopkins Medicine International, L.L.C. (JHI), the international arm of Johns Hopkins Medicine, have signed a joint venture agreement to establish a new health care provider for Saudi Aramco.
The agreement was signed on June 23, 2013, in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, by Saudi Aramco Senior Vice President Abdulaziz F. Al-Khayyal and Paul B. Rothman, M.D., dean of the medical faculty, CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine. The new company will focus on providing high-quality health care services to Saudi Aramco’s employees, dependents and annuitants that make up their eligible medical recipients.
“This joint venture brings together two global leaders who share a strong commitment to improve access to world-class health care services,” Mr. Al-Khayyal said. “Over the last 80 years, Saudi Aramco doctors and nurses have served the medical needs of employees and family members. Now, with Johns Hopkins Medicine International as a joint venture partner, we will set an even higher standard for future generations. This is a logical step in our company’s transformation and demonstrates our ongoing commitment to our people.”
“For more than 120 years, Johns Hopkins has been recognized as a national and global leader in patient care, research and education,” said Dr. Rothman. “We are pleased to have the opportunity to share our innovations and best practices with our colleagues at Saudi Aramco and to assist them with further strengthening health care services the company offers to its employees, retirees and their families.”
The new venture will assume the responsibilities of Saudi Aramco Medical Services Organization (SAMSO), which manages the health-related services for approximately 350,000 members of the Saudi Aramco community.
Under the terms of the agreement, Saudi Aramco and JHI will each hold an ownership stake in the new Saudi company. JHI, drawing upon the vast expertise of The Johns Hopkins University and The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System, will provide comprehensive clinical services, research, education and management expertise to the joint venture.
“Johns Hopkins Medicine has more than a decade of experience in assisting health care organizations and governments around the world as they strive to elevate the standard of health care in their countries and regions,” said Steven J. Thompson, CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine International. “Our international work now spans more than a dozen countries on four continents. It is a privilege for us to collaborate with Saudi Aramco to carry forth its commitment to improving the health of its employees. We are especially energized by the patient safety, nursing, research and medical training initiatives that will be at the core of this work, and we believe this new joint venture will allow us to advance Johns Hopkins’ vital mission of improving the health of the world.”
“This agreement marks the first step in the long-term process of creating a new medical center of excellence in Saudi Arabia,” Dr. Saeed Mughram, SAMSO executive director, said. “Building on the strong, well-established health care system at Saudi Aramco and the proven expertise of Johns Hopkins Medicine, the joint venture will provide enhanced services, including new clinical programs, and in the future, centers of excellence in clinical research and education, to address some of our most significant health issues, including diabetes and heart disease.”
Today’s signing marks the beginning of a multi-year, phased integration plan for the joint venture. The new company is expected to commence operations in the early part of 2014.
About Saudi Aramco
Owned by the Saudi Arabian Government, Saudi Aramco is a fully integrated, global petroleum enterprise and a world leader in exploration and producing, refining, distribution, marketing and petrochemicals manufacturing. In addition to its headquarters in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Aramco, through its affiliates, has joint ventures and subsidiary offices in China, Japan, India, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States. For more information, please go to www.saudiaramco.com.
About Johns Hopkins Medicine
Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM), headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, is a $6.7 billion integrated global health enterprise and one of the leading health care systems in the United States. JHM unites physicians and scientists of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine with the organizations, health professionals and facilities of The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System. JHM's mission is to improve the health of the community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in medical education, research and clinical care. Diverse and inclusive, JHM educates medical students, scientists, health care professionals and the public; conducts biomedical research; and provides patient-centered medicine to prevent, diagnose and treat human illness. JHM operates six academic and community hospitals, four suburban health care and surgery centers, more than 38 primary health care outpatient sites and other businesses that care for national and international patients and activities. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, opened in 1889, was ranked number one in the nation for 21 years by U.S. News & World Report.
About Johns Hopkins Medicine International (JHI)
Johns Hopkins Medicine International (JHI) facilitates the global expansion of the Johns Hopkins Medicine mission: to improve the health of the community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in medical education, research and clinical care. JHI provides personalized, culturally appropriate care for patients traveling to Johns Hopkins from outside Maryland and the United States, and for local patients with limited English proficiency. JHI also leverages Johns Hopkins’ extensive knowledge base in medicine, nursing, public health, medical education, research and health care administration to improve health and health care delivery through sustainable, high-impact collaborations throughout the world.
_________________________________________
What global pols are bringing to US International Economic Zones are no longer US corporations---as above Hopkins created a partnership with this foreign corporation and will bring them to Baltimore to operate as they do in that nation. Baltimore will fill with these multinational corporations and International Economic Zone and Trans Pacific Trade Pact PRETENDS to allow them to ignore all US laws and US Constitutional rights inside these zones. Remember, all of the region around these economic zones will draw workers from as far away as PA, WVA, and all over Maryland into these global corporate campus/global FOXCONN factories.
The partnership above opens the door for this foreign corporation to come to the US, bring its workers, and expand health industry across the US in partnership with Johns Hopkins.
'This is a logical step in our company’s transformation and demonstrates our ongoing commitment to our people.”'
Multinational corporation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA multinational corporation or worldwide enterprise[1] is an organization that owns or controls production of goods or services in one or more countries other than their home country.[2] It can also be referred as an international corporation, a "transnational corporation", or a stateless corporation.[3]
The article above makes one believe this partnership is about bringing better health care to citizens in that nation. As with educating and training in vocation citizens in developing nations and then simply sending them around the world leaving those developing communties with no educators or health care workers----so to is this arrangement. It will simply be used to disguise Johns Hopkins connection in the expansion across the US while this global corporation operates in US International Economic Zones just as they do overseas.
Keep in mind-----these all include the job training network for all these professions----health care and educators are tops right now----but all professions are now captured to this global corporate HUMAN CAPITAL system they are now bringing to the US----and Baltimore is filled with it-----AS JOB TRAINING NON-PROFITS.
Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 03:00 PM EST
Healthcare’s foreign invasion
Obama risked a trade war with China about manufacturing -- so why isn't he outraged about medical jobs? Kate Tulenko
This article was adapted from the new book, "Insourced", available May 8 from Dartmouth College Press.Approximately 15 percent of all healthcare workers and 25 percent of all physicians in the United States were born and educated elsewhere. This means that 1.5 million healthcare jobs are “insourced,” occupied by foreign-born, foreign-trained workers brought into the United States on special visas earmarked for healthcare jobs. This number is 50 percent greater than the total number of jobs in the U.S. auto-manufacturing industry. It’s amazing to consider that in 2008 and 2009, the auto industry, which makes up just 3.6 percent of the U.S. economy, received a $97 billion bailout. If we estimate that each of these 1.5 million insourced healthcare jobs has an average wage of $60,000, that’s $90 billion a year in wages going to people brought into the United States to work rather than training Americans to do the same jobs.
The healthcare industry makes up 16 percent of our economy. Yet even in these days of close to 10 percent unemployment, we do not invest enough money in our young people to train them for jobs in healthcare — an already understaffed industry that will have to serve an additional 32 million people once the provisions of the 2010 health-reform law take full effect. Instead, when faced with pressure from hospitals and nursing homes for more healthcare workers, the federal government grants visas to import nurses, physicians, pharmacists, physical therapists, and many other types of healthcare workers from countries that can ill afford to lose them.
In some U.S. industries, the outcome of globalization is positive or neutral. Take the sugar industry. Due to lower labor and land costs and better weather conditions, it’s far cheaper to grow sugar cane in the Caribbean than sugar beets in North Dakota. As import taxes fall, global transportation improves, and the number of sugar beet farms in the United States declines, more Americans are sweetening their cereal with sugar from Jamaican sugar cane. Americans save money buying cheaper sugar; the economy of the poorer sugar-growing countries improves, lifting thousands of people out of poverty; and the few displaced American sugar beet farmers generally find other work. But sugar is not a strategic commodity. If CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, were to halt sugar exports to the United States, we would experience no crisis. Sugar is not essential to our diet or life, and we have plenty of substitutes, from honey and corn syrup to NutraSweet. If necessary, within a year we could again be producing sugar in the United States.
The U.S. healthcare industry is 200 times larger than the U.S. tire-manufacturing industry, yet President Obama risked a trade war with China, our biggest trade partner, over tires. He was understandably trying to protect well-paying manufacturing jobs for American workers. Yet each year, we bring thousands of nurses from China to work in even better-paying jobs rather than train young people in this country to become nurses. The irony is that the economic costs of “insourcing” healthcare workers, including the loss of jobs no longer available to Americans, are far greater than the costs when we import Chinese tires. In 2003 the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS), a U.S.-based nongovernmental organization that administers the U.S. nursing licensing exam for foreign-trained nurses, opened a testing center in Beijing. The opening of this center initiated a “mushrooming” of new nursing schools in China and led to credible predictions that China will soon surpass the Philippines as the number one source of foreign-trained nurses imported to the United States.
Given the publicity and furor over the loss of manufacturing jobs, the lack of protest over healthcare-worker insourcing is surprising. Congress passed legislation and President George W. Bush signed a law in 2007 to protect the American sock industry from the rival Honduran sock industry. Yes, that’s right: socks. Protecting a few hundred $15-an-hour sock-manufacturing jobs based solely in the small town of Fort Payne, Ala., was worth acting on. Yet insourcing hundreds of thousands of $60-an-hour healthcare jobs has prompted no such similarly high-level response from our leaders.
Instead, on a regular basis, Congress approves and presidents from both political parties sign legislation to enable the legal entry of an ever-increasing number of foreign healthcare workers. Each year, about 20,000 new healthcare-specific visas are issued for these workers.
The United States has traditionally not allowed strategic industries to be outsourced. That’s why the U.S. steel industry and the U.S. car industry have received bailout after bailout. Access to enough steel and automobiles is essential to our economy; without a sufficient supply of each, our economy would be severely damaged. It’s time we acknowledged that the health of the population is just as important as steel and autos in keeping our economy strong. Healthcare is too important to risk continuing to insource it.
It’s not just a matter of protecting and expanding jobs for American workers. Every year, thousands of Americans die, and the health of thousands more is compromised, because of the shortage of healthcare workers in every one of the healthcare professions.
On the surface, insourcing may appear to be a harmless or even win-win solution to the country’s healthcare-worker shortage. The hospital receives a much-needed worker, and the worker escapes life in a struggling country for a better life here. But we should be training more people in this country to work in those professions, especially people from poor and minority communities. Rather than investing in our own people and communities, however, the U.S. government has decided to take the best and brightest workers from struggling countries.
Many foreign-trained healthcare workers, no matter how smart, are not adequately prepared for practice in the fast-paced, high-tech world of U.S. medicine. Whether in operating rooms, hospital wards, or nursing homes, inadequately qualified and poorly oriented foreign healthcare workers endanger the lives of their patients, as well as the lives and careers of their American-trained colleagues.
But the main reason for this country’s rise in unnecessary deaths and delayed care is understaffing — a result of the failure to train and place enough healthcare workers, especially in rural and underserved communities. Americans who live in rural areas make fewer visits to healthcare providers and are less likely to receive preventive care. The infant-mortality rate for African-Americans is twice that for the average American; Latinos are twice as likely as white Americans to die from diabetes. These health disparities are due in large part to a lack of healthcare workers, especially primary-care workers, in their communities. The quick fix has been importing foreign healthcare workers for these unfilled positions. Unfortunately, once these workers fulfill their initial contracts, most move to communities without healthcare-worker shortages; in fact, foreign-trained healthcare workers are more likely to practice in the well-served, major metropolitan areas than their American-trained counterparts.
Even if good foreign-trained healthcare workers were here in numbers adequate to meet our needs, the U.S. healthcare system is about encounter a tidal wave of demand as 78 million baby boomers approach their 60s. Older people make, on average, six visits to a healthcare provider a year, compared with two visits per year for people under 60. The healthcare workforce is aging, too: More than 50 percent of practicing healthcare workers are eligible to retire during the next 10 years, which will leave us with fewer workers to treat more and sicker patients.
In the eyes of employers, of course, insourcing healthcare workers appears to offer many benefits. Most doctors and nurses in developing countries earn a fraction of what American doctors and nurses earn: A Caribbean nurse makes around $1,000 a month; an Ethiopian physician, about $100 a month. Not only are many foreign-trained healthcare workers accustomed to lower salaries and quality of life, but they also carry little or no education debt, while their American-trained colleagues typically graduate with five- and six-figure debt burdens. With average student debt burdens of $155,00011 for newly graduated physicians and $30,375 for nurses, American-trained health workers require a higher salary just to help pay for their education. Trained in a much more hierarchical environment, foreign workers are much less likely to unionize, or even express dissatisfaction with their work. As the percentage of imported healthcare workers increases, their attitudes toward salary and terms of employment undermine the bargaining power of U.S. workers, and even affect the important feedback loop between employees and management.
Polls indicate that 70 to 80 percent of Americans want to reduce the rate of immigration into the United States. Yet the American public is not aware of our policy of using healthcare-worker-specific visas to solve the healthcare-worker shortage.
Some legislators who publicly support stabilizing immigration consistently vote to increase the number of healthcare-worker-specific visas granted each year. It’s not that American citizens don’t want to become healthcare workers and fill these jobs. This distinction is critical, because every industry that has brought in foreign workers has argued that American workers won’t do the work for the prevailing wage, or won’t do the work no matter how high the pay is. In the healthcare industry, this argument does not apply. U.S. citizens want the jobs. They just can’t access the training. The United States does not have enough positions in health-professional schools to meet industry demands.
The tens of thousands of qualified nursing school and medical school applicants who are denied entry to school each year permanently lose out on their chosen careers, work that is consistently ranked in the top tier of salaries, with excellent benefits and almost guaranteed job security. This loss of career opportunity is even greater for rural and minority young people, who are grossly underrepresented in the higher-level health professions, such as physicians and nurses, and overrepresented in the lower-level professions, such as technicians and home health assistants. Something is wrong when so many young Americans are forced to pursue other, lower-paying careers at a time when we desperately need more healthcare providers. In exchange we get foreign healthcare workers who are less well trained (they consistently score lower on licensing exams than U.S.-trained healthcare workers) and far less culturally competent than native-born Americans.
The most tragic and most preventable effect of our hiring so many healthcare workers from other countries is the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in developing countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year more than 10 million people die needlessly, from easily treatable maladies such as diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, tuberculosis, vaccine-preventable diseases, and complications of childbirth. The WHO Global Health Workforce Alliance estimates that there are a billion people alive today who will never see a health worker in their lives. In Ethiopia, one in 10 Ethiopian children will die before his or her fifth birthday — yet there are more Ethiopian physicians in the Chicago area than in all of Ethiopia, which, with 80 million people, is the second most populous country in Africa. As their most skilled nurses emigrate to work in U.S. nursing homes, middle-income countries such as Jamaica and Trinidad have nurse-vacancy rates of 60 percent or higher.
Throughout the developing world, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, and many other types of healthcare workers are being approached and offered 10 times their salaries to practice in modern U.S. healthcare facilities with state-of-the-art technologies. Even the most dedicated, socially conscious worker would be tempted by such an offer. A colleague of mine relayed a conversation he’d had with the head of the Nursing Council of Kenya, who told him about the damage the exodus of senior nurses was doing to her country’s healthcare system. In the next breath, she confessed that the next time he visited Kenya, she might not be there. She was thinking about emigrating herself.
Our unofficial policy of relying on the world’s poorest countries to pay for the training of workers whom we then entice and bring to this country is devastating healthcare systems around the world. The loss to a developing country when a single physician, representing what may be a significant portion of their total number of physicians, emigrates is far greater than our gain. Our failure to provide education for our own citizens and to better plan for healthcare staffing and distribution does not justify poaching nurses and physicians from the countries that can least afford to lose them. How many additional deaths, how much more needless disability and suffering, will we allow this misguided policy to cause?
And consider American competitiveness. Certain industries are vital to U.S. global leadership. Recognizing their importance, we protect those industries. We don’t allow them to move overseas and make the United States vulnerable to the actions of other countries. Poor farmers in the developing world can certainly grow food staples more cheaply than American farmers do. But because of the strategic importance of the U.S. food supply, we subsidize some basic food crops, such as corn and soybeans.
And yet we are overreliant on foreign healthcare workers to meet our most basic health needs. This is particularly dangerous because many countries, almost completely drained of healthcare workers and tired of subsidizing the U.S. healthcare system, are trying to slam the door shut for emigrating healthcare workers. Meantime, of the world’s wealthiest nations, the United States has the worst health outcomes, with lower life expectancies and higher rates of deaths from preventable causes. In infant mortality, for instance, we rank 27th, behind Poland and Hungary. Our disability levels are higher than in most former Soviet countries.
If the United States is to remain competitive in the global economy, we need a healthy workforce. In order to achieve that, we need a healthcare workforce made up of adequate numbers of properly trained physicians, nurses, pharmacists, community-health workers, and other healthcare providers.
______________________________________________
Below we see occurring in JOB TRAINING----just what captured Baltimore with other public sector agencies being dismantled and outsourced-----there are tons of job training programs all getting funding with no network of oversight and accountability and Baltimore citizens are being loaded with so many job training certificates-----as CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR WARNOCK LOVES TO SAY------and no jobs. Why has Baltimore become the hub of all job training with funding that we all know is not reaching many of these programs. Again, some individuals and non-profits are doing good---but most involve misappropriating large amount of Federal and State revenue from actually helping citizens to building structures for these global job training and HUMAN CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION NETWORK to be installed in Maryland and Baltimore.
THE FEW MILLIONS BEING SENT TO THESE SMALL JOB TRAINING VENUES MASK THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEING SENT TO BUILD THE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY NETWORK -----THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO FOLD ALL THESE JOB TRAINING NON-PROFITS INTO EXISTING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
Remember when we simply looked at the Department of Labor ---DLLR listing for all job openings and that agency had all the connections to job training---usually community colleges and our labor union apprenticeship programs? DLLR does not exist in Maryland and has been dismantled at the Federal level all being outsourced to this global job training corporation network that will also move US citizens around the world as was done to citizens these few decades in the developing nations.
Do you want a better job, but need more training? Train Baltimore is your one-stop shop for information on job training and career advancement.
About Train Baltimore
On the Training section of the website, you can search hundreds of local job training programs to find one that’s right for you. The search results will give you detailed information on each program, so you know what to expect before you enroll. All of the programs listed here are either free or low-cost. To get more information or to enroll, please contact the program directly.
On the Resources section of the website, you can find a variety of other useful tools and links, including:
- Links to career exploration resources to help you find the right job
- Information on GED classes and English language classes
- Links to local colleges if you’re ready for a degree
- Information on community resources and services
- Job search and job placement help
About the Job Opportunities Task Force
Train Baltimore is developed and managed by the Job Opportunities Task Force (JOTF). JOTF is an independent nonprofit based in Baltimore, Maryland, with a mission to develop and advocate policies and programs to increase the skills, job opportunities, and incomes of low-skill, low-income workers and job seekers. JOTF thanks the Surdna Foundation for their support in developing this website.
Ready to search for training? Use the search options below to find a program that’s right for you. Click on the name of a program for details on eligibility, enrollment, and what happens after training. All program information is self-reported. Contact the training provider to learn more or to enroll.*
Not sure how to choose the right training? Click here for tips on making the best choice.
Need help paying for training? Click here to apply for a grant through the Central Scholarship program
*********************************************************************
Baltimore opens free job training hubs
People can learn basic to advanced courseworkPublished 1:23 PM EST Nov 28, 2012
BALTIMORE --The job search for anyone looking to work in Baltimore City just got easier.
People can now get professional training for modern jobs at multiple new locations throughout the metro area as part of the Community Job Hubs program launched Wednesday by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.
There are four hubs that are now open or about to open set up throughout the city. At each location, professionals will be on hand teaching classes that prepare people for 21st century jobs that are all technology-based.
All of the classes offer professional coursework at basic to advanced levels for free.
"Everybody continues to call for the need for job skill development. Even the employed need new skills, so this is the right direction," said program CEO Benjamin Barmin.
***********************************************************
The entire job training structure that was centralized and easy to provide oversight and accountability is gone-----Catholic Charities is even doing job training for auto mechanics.
This is always the first step----deregulate and dismantle the public structure and move all Federal and state funds that would have come to that government structure out into the community where most of it finds its way to building structures for global corporations.
JOB TRAINING FORMAT
Service Members,
Veterans & Their Families
- Baltimore Housing: Community Action Partnership: Human Services Division
Phone: (410) 396-3228
Address: 417 E. Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21202 view map
The division serves as the local advocate and agent in working to eliminate poverty in Baltimore City. Programs include: Emergency Services; Employment; Energy/utility bills; Health Care; Housing; Income Management; Social Services; Special programs for youth and senior citizens; and Tax Preparation... - Baltimore Urban League Career Center: Mondawmin Mall
Phone: (410) 523-1060
Address: 2401 Liberty Heights Avenue Baltimore, MD 21215 view map
The Greater Baltimore Urban League is committed to diversity and is dedicated to increasing opportunities for African Americans and other people of color. As part of the nationwide Urban League Employment Network, the Greater Baltimore Urban League career center is your gateway for maximum exposure ... - Career Development (Youth)
Phone: (410) 396-6722
Address: 101 W. 24th Street Baltimore, MD 21218 view map
Provides vocational education for at-risk youth... - Damascus Career Center (ACC)
Phone: (410) 354-7507
Address: 806 Cherry Hill Road Baltimore, MD 21225 view map
Damascus Career Center (ACC) provides transitional housing and support services for the homeless, including job training and placement, counseling, and Headstart programs.... - Eastside Career Center
Phone: (410) 396-9044
Address: 3001 E. Madison Street Baltimore, MD 21205 view map
The Eastside Career Center is a comprehensive, one-stop career center. Veterans reps, employment reps, phones, free internet & resume writer access computers are on site. Representatives are available with an appointment. They offer a full range of jobseeker and employer services.... - Jobs, Housing & Recovery, Inc
Phone: (410) 522-2232
Address: 2113 E. Oliver Street Baltimore, MD 21213 view map
Provides assistance and substance abuse counseling to homeless men.... - Learning Bank of COIL
Phone: (410) 659-5452
Address: 1200 W. Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21223 view map
The Learning Bank of COIL offers Adult Basic Education classes from beginning literacy through GED throughout the year. Other available choices include WorkSmart, a Job Readiness program, resume writing, job placement and follow-up program through Goodwill Industries of Central Maryland. We also hav... - Maryland Center for Veterans
Phone: (410) 576-9626
Address: Education and Training Baltimore, MD 21202 view map
The Center provides a range of services for veterans, including: A day drop-in facility with the capacity for 50 veterans ,An emergency shelter with 50 beds, Transitional housing for up to two years for 120 residents who have successfully completed a transition from the emergency shelter into the pr... - Mission Possible Ministries
Phone: (410) 728-0353
Address: 1932 W. North Avenue Baltimore, MD 21203 view map
Provides shelter for men, job training, and counseling.... - New Beginning Outreach Mission
Phone: (410) 664-1602
Address: 3734 Reisterstown Road Baltimore, MD 21215 view map
Provides services for youth including: food assistance, Job Training/Coaching/Job Placement, Counseling, Financial Literacy, Educational Assistance, Youth Mentor Program, Housing Placement.... - Northeast Career Center
Phone: (410) 396-6580
Address: 100 W. 23rd Street Baltimore, MD 21218 view map
Provides career services for the homeless... - Office of Employment: Development Career Center Network AFL-CIO & Baltimore Works Career Center
Phone: (410) 646-7070
Address: 1100 N. Eutaw Street Baltimore, MD 21201 view map
Provides job search and placement services... - People Encouraging People (PEP, Inc.)
Phone: (410) 366-4299
Address: 2002 Clipper Park Rd. Baltimore, MD 21211 view map
Provides outpatient mental health and substance abuse services. Licensed staff includes LCPC, LCSW-C, Psy.D., Nurses and CAC... - Southwest Career Center
Phone: (410) 396-3670
Address: 201 S. Arlington Avenue Baltimore, MD 21223 view map
Provides career services... - St. Vincent de Paul Society of Baltimore
Phone: 410-662-0500
Address: 2305 N. Charles Street, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD 21201 view map
St. Vincent de Paul of Baltimore helps low-income persons meet basic needs and achieve self-sufficiency by providing food, clothing, housing, education, employment and other services.... - St. Vincent de Paul: Beans & Bread
Phone: 410-662-0500
Address: 2305 N. Charles Street, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD 21231 view map
St. Vincent de Paul of Baltimore Bread & Beans Program is a homeless day resource center which helps low-income persons meet basic needs and achieve self-sufficiency by providing food, clothing, housing, education, employment and other services.... - The Baltimore Station
Phone: (410) 752-4454
Address: 140 W. West Street Baltimore, MD 21230 view map
The Baltimore Station, Inc. operates two unique transitional stations for homeless men recovering from addiction. Using innovative strategies to restore quality of life and productivity to the homeless, job training, employment counseling, medical and legal assistance are provided in a safe and supp... - Women's Housing Coalition
Phone: (410) 235-5782
Address: 119 E. 25th Street Baltimore, MD 21218 view map
Provides services for homeless women including permanent housing, educational programming and job readiness, HIV/AIDS, domestic violence counseling, support for veterans, and intake assessment referral....
This is again a Republican think tank that exposed this breakdown in our job training structures amidst hundreds of billions of dollars in spending but notice this-----it does not tell you all these billions were building that global job training and HUMAN CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION and not making it to US communities as is happening now. Bush and neo-conservatives are tied to this human trafficing---providing the International Economic Zones built by Wall Street and Clinton Foundation/Initiative structures with global militarized policing and security ----and these systems of moving human capital.
So, Bush sent hundreds of billions of Federal funding to grow corporations like Johns Hopkins into global job training and distribution-----and now Obama and Congressional neo-liberals are again sending hundreds of billions of dollars to bring this global system to the US ---spending it on building that global job training structure in our US cities.
ALL OF THIS IS VERY, VERY , VERY FAR-RIGHT WING AND THIS REPUBLICAN THINK TANK IS SIMPLY TRYING TO MAKE A FEDERAL AGENCY LOOK INEFFICIENT.
Congress Spends Billions on Ineffective Job-Training Programs
By David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
About the AuthorDavid B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis
Center for Data Analysis
President George W. Bush's proposed U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) budget for fiscal year (FY) 2003 is intended to promote effective programs while reducing or eliminating programs that are unproven or duplicative.[1] The Administration proposes $4.975 billion for job-training programs authorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA)--a $505 million reduction when compared to FY 2002.[2] The budget also proposes decreasing funding for Youth Formula Funds, Youth Opportunity Grants, and Adult Employment and Training Activities.[3]
Given the absence of empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of these programs, the Administration's request for decreases in funding for WIA programs is a move in the right direction. However, the Administration's budget still requests nearly $5 billion in funding for questionable DOL job-training programs,[4] including $1.54 billion for the Job Corps (which it has deemed a "highly successful" program[5] despite evidence to the contrary.[6] Job Corps program has failed to increase participants' wages to any substantial degree or to move participants into full-time employment.[7]
The President's goal of linking funding to program effectiveness has been further compromised by the U.S. Senate's Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Bill (S. 2766). This bill continues the federal government's long history of funding job-training programs without regard to effectiveness.
The Senate intends to spend over $5.6 billion on Labor Department job-training programs--a 13.2 percent increase over the Administration's request.[8] Rather than continuing to spend tax dollars on job-training programs that are unproven or have negligible positive effects on participants, the funding could be more effectively allocated to reduce the federal government's budget deficit (which is projected to be $145 billion for FY 2003[9] ) or to support vital homeland security efforts.
In crafting their version of the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill for FY 2003, Members of the House now have an opportunity to rectify the failure of both the Administration and the Senate to curb wasteful spending. The call for reduced funding for federal job-training programs is justified by the inability of these programs to bring about substantial increases in the incomes of participants and move participants into full-time employment. While WIA programs have yet to be rigorously evaluated, similar programs that were funded under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 were found to be largely ineffective.[10]
With the return of budget deficits and the high cost of combating terrorism, Congress should reaffirm its commitment to de-fund ineffective programs by:
- Further reducing funding for WIA programs beyond the Administration's request, and
- Eliminating funding for the Job Corps.
Federal programs that were intended to improve the lives of the economically disadvantaged[11] through work initiatives, including the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), were originally created during the 1930s.[12] Despite the fact that civilian unemployment just prior to World War II was about the same as it was when the WPA and CCC were created, support for job programs continued to build after the war.[13]
During the 1960s, the federal government established job-training programs for the unemployed and economically disadvantaged. These programs provided a combination of remedial education, vocational training, on-the-job training, subsidized work experience, basic life-skills training, and job search assistance. Programs funded under the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) of 1962 were originally intended to re-train workers dislocated by technological advances, but MDTA was converted into a job-training program for economically disadvantaged persons.[14]
In 1973, MDTA programs were superseded by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), which was designed to decentralize control of federally sponsored job-training programs.[15] Nearly a decade later, charges of corruption and mismanagement contributed to Congress's decision to replace CETA with the JTPA.[16]
In 1998, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which superseded the JTPA, was signed into law. WIA emphasized a "one-stop" approach in which an array of job-training, education, and employment services were provided to communities.[17] In contrast to the JTPA, state and local governments were given authority to tailor the content of job-training programs to meet their specific needs.
Measuring the Impact of Job Training
There is still no consensus regarding the ability of MDTA programs to increase the incomes of the economically disadvantaged. Some evaluations of MDTA have found that the program increased incomes,[18] while other studies reported a combination of outcomes--including positive, negative, and/or no effect on income.[19]
The lack of consensus over the effectiveness of job-training programs continued with regard to CETA, where evaluations again indicated mixed results. Some studies found that CETA programs raised incomes in some cases, while, in other cases, the programs had no effect on participants' income.[20] Other studies found that the incomes of some CETA participants actually declined.[21]
While the evaluations of major job-training legislation such as MTDA and CETA have reported mixed results, all of these studies suffered from methodical flaws that reduced their ability to measure the impact of the programs they researched. All of the studies cited above were quasi-experimental in design[22] and, as such, were likely to exhibit selection bias. Selection bias occurs when there are pre-existing differences between the intervention and control groups that affect outcome measures.[23] The evaluations of MTDA and CETA were not rigorous enough to inform policymakers adequately about the effectiveness of job training for the disadvantaged.
Determining the impact of social programs requires comparing the conditions of those who had received assistance with the conditions of an equivalent group that did not experience the intervention. Experimental studies in which eligible participants are randomly assigned either to intervention or to control groups represent the "gold standard" of evaluation designs. Random assignment allows the evaluator to test for differences between the experimental and control groups that are due to the intervention and not to pre-intervention discrepancies between the groups.
The federal government has sponsored experimental evaluations of at least two major federal programs--JTPA and the Job Corps.[24]
The National JTPA Study
The JTPA evaluation tracked program effects for adult men and women, and male and female out-of-school youths, over the course of 30 months.[25] Three types of job-training activities were examined. The first, classroom training, consisted mainly of occupational skills instruction and basic education.[26] The second intervention was a combination of on-the-job training and job-search assistance.[27] The third type of training, "other services," offered different services to participants on the basis of their age.
Adults mainly received job-search assistance, customized occupational-skills training, and on-the-job training.[28] Youths were enrolled in basic education courses along with "tryout employment," where participants were hired on a probationary status to learn the job, and "job shadowing," where they observed regular employees during the workday.[29]
Effect on Income. Members of the intervention and control groups were tracked over 30 months, and results were reported for three periods: months 1-6, months 7-18, and months 19-30.[30] Classroom training for adult men and women failed to raise the incomes of participants over the course of 30 months,[31] and the other JTPA interventions--on-the-job training and "other services"--failed to raise the incomes of adult male participants.[32]
Although, initially, the incomes of adult women participating in on-the-job training/job search assistance increased by an average of $484 (about $81 per month), this impact was fleeting.[33] During the subsequent measurement periods of months 7-18 and 19-30, the incomes of the women who received training did not differ from the incomes of the women in the control group.[34] Only the effect on the income of women in the "other services" category was positive and lasting. Women participants earned, on average, $478 more than non-participants during the first six months, while the impact increased to over $1,700 during the two subsequent time periods.[35]
In general, JTPA training had no significant positive impact on the incomes of female and male youths. Of the three intervention types, only female youths participating in on-the-job training/job search assistance experienced an income increase during the first six months.[36] The average income increases of $762 during the first time period faded away during the remaining 24-month follow-up period.[37] For male youths, the three types of intervention had no impact on income.[38]
In sum, JTPA programs were ineffective in raising the incomes of adult males or male and female youths, while only the "other services" elements appear to have had a sustainable impact on adult women.
JTPA's Effect on Hourly Wages.
A program's effect on participants' hourly wages is an important indicator in any evaluation of job-training programs. Human capital theory suggests that if job-training programs do, in fact, increase the skills of participants, then employers would be willing to pay program graduates higher hourly wages in return for increased productivity. The JTPA programs did not have a statistically measurable effect on the wages of adult men and women (hourly wages of youths were not measured).[39] This indicates that, in the opinion of employers, JTPA did not increase the skills of participants.
A question may arise regarding how the incomes of some adult women in certain programs increased in comparison to the control group if their wages did not increase. This contradiction may be explained by the fact that adult women participants worked more hours than adult women in the control group.[40] For adult women and men, JTPA appears to be ineffective in boosting the skills of participants to a level that would allow them to secure higher-paying jobs.
The National Job Corps Study
Created in 1964, the Job Corps is a residential job-training program that serves disadvantaged youths aged 16-24 in more than 100 sites across the nation. In 2001, the National Job Corps Study was published. Its primary hypothesis relating to employment and earnings is that "youth who obtain Job Corps education and training will become more productive and, hence, will have greater employment opportunities and higher earnings than those who do not."[41]
THIS AGENCY USED TO WORK AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN ITS MISSION UNDER SOCIAL DEMOCRATS UNTIL ALL FUNDING WAS MISAPPROPRIATED TO THESE GLOBAL HUMAN CAPITAL JOB TRAINING AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATIONS.
While the Job Corps was founded to raise the incomes of participants, its limited impact has not justified the Administration's declaration that the program is effective. The estimated average increase in the weekly incomes of participants was never more than $25.20.[42]
Participants responded to the Job Corps differently by age, race, and ethnicity. The Job Corps did not increase the earnings of 18 and 19-year-olds, who represent 32 percent of the population served by the program.[43] During the fourth year of the follow-up period, whites and blacks experienced small increases in average earnings per week, while the Job Corps had no impact on income for Hispanics and other minorities.[44] These findings are alarming, given that Hispanics comprise 18 percent of all youths served by the program.[45]
Over the course of the 48-month study period, Job Corps participants actually worked less than the control group. Measured in the number of weeks employed over the course of the study, Job Corps participants were employed 45.2 percent of the time, while non-participants were employed 46.9 percent of the time--a difference of 1.7 percent.[46] Despite being enrolled in the Job Corps, participants failed even to put in a full year's worth of work.
Impact of Job Corps on Hourly Wages. Again, the best way to determine whether the Job Corps raises the skills of its participants is to look at the hourly wage of its graduates. If the Job Corps is effective in improving the skills of its participants, then it should have substantially raised the hourly wages they received. The National Job Corps Study measured hourly wages during two time periods. During the 10th quarter, Job Corps participants earned $0.24 more per hour than non-participants.[47] By the 16th quarter, this difference had decreased to $0.22 per hour.[48]
The study revealed that the Job Corps also had little impact on increasing the number of hours worked per week. During the course of the study, the average time participants spent working each week never rose above 28.1 hours.[49] Participants never averaged working more than two hours per week more than the control group.[50]
Those who did benefit from the Job Corps experienced only slight gains in income. The Job Corps appears to be incapable of providing the skills and training needed to bring about substantial increases in the wages of participants. Despite costing the taxpayer $16,500 per participant over an average of eight months, the program has failed to move a significant number of participants into full-time employment.[51]
Conclusion
To enhance the impact of every taxpayer dollar spent on job-training programs, Congress and the Administration should continually review programs and reduce funding for those that are ineffective. Especially at a time when the budget is strained and the need for security heightened, Congress should redirect the funding of any program that has been unproductive (i.e., has not achieved its stated or implied goals). Research indicates that this will mean reducing funding for a number of job-training programs.
To date, no evaluations of the effectiveness of WIA programs in improving the lives of participants have been conducted. Given the history of federally funded job-training programs, it would be unwise to increase funding for these programs as the Senate has recommended until credible evaluations of WIA have been conducted. Congress should reduce funding for WIA programs beyond the Administration's request.
Given the poor performance of the Job Corps, the spending recommendations of both the Administration and the Senate seem unreasonable. The Job Corps is not performing as the "highly successful" program it is touted to be. Congress should move to eliminate this wasteful and unproductive program.
THERE YOU SEE THE MOTIVE OF THIS REPUBLICAN THINK TANK WHO KNOWS ALL FUNDING THE USED TO GO TO THIS PROGRESSIVE AGENCY NEVER MADE IT AND THAT IS WHY RESULTS ARE BAD-----THEY KNOW THIS----BUT THEY ARE BUILDING THE CASE FOR ELIMINATING WHAT WAS A STRONG, SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRAM.
RSS Feed