America's skills crisis carries lessons for Britain

There are few US ills that don't owe something to its faltering educational attainment.

Yesterday's FT contained one of those ominous stories that only grow in significance over time - the findings of a survey by Nielsen that reveals a huge, looming skills shortage in the US as the baby boomer generation retires.

In the next five years, America's top 100 industrial companies face an average training bill of $100m to fill the gap between these older, retiring workers and the younger, less educated cohort coming through to replace them. It's payday - in a very real sense - for an economy that has long been under-investing in its people. And it's a warning sign to economies like the UK that, when it comes to investing in skills, you can't afford to take your eye off the ball.

Despite their modest place on page 22 of the paper, it's hard to overstate the long-term significance of findings like these. The killer reading on the topic is the excellent book by Harvard economists, Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz, The Race Between Education and Technology, which tells the story of America's relationship with education throughout the 20th century.

The authors recall the country's early lead in education, achieved by building one of the world's first universal systems of free primary schooling. And they set out how, since the 1970s, that lead has been squandered: the quality of teaching in the country's school system has decayed, high school graduation rates have flat-lined, and too many students - even among those who make it to college - have failed to reach the end of four year degrees.

There are few American ills that don't owe something to this faltering of educational attainment. But perhaps the most dramatic consequence has been for the living standards of ordinary American workers. The supply of skilled labour may have slowed, but new technologies wait for no man: advances in computing have only accelerated, making education ever more important in the jobs market.

As a result, the returns to skills, at all levels, but particularly at the top, have increased sharply since the 1980s. This increase explains much of the rise in American income inequality in the past 30 years. And even for average workers the results have been dramatic; astonishingly, the real value of wages for the median American worker has barely increased in 30 years.

In America's race between education and technology, then, technology has taken a commanding lead. But what does this mean for the UK? For one thing, it means that the jobs package announced yesterday by President Obama carries a lesson for the Chancellor George Osborne. Around 15 per cent of the proposed new spending is to go into education: $25 billion to modernise 35,000 crumbling schools, alongside $35 billion to prevent the layoff of up to 280,000 teachers. Obama has found an approach that targets both the current and future needs of the American workforce.

None of this is to say that the Chancellor should be finding new money for our schools, above existing budgets. Happily, the UK school system is in nowhere near the same crumbling state as that in the US. But it does remind us that, when it comes to the supply of skills, we have little room to be complacent.

Returns to skills in the UK have continued to rise in the past ten years, both in terms of wage advantages and upward mobility, even while graduate numbers have increased dramatically. Any slowing of educational expansion will likely feed through into higher wage premiums for skills and, from there, into higher income inequality. That matters not just for our long-term economic health but also for the fairness of any eventual recovery.

James Plunkett leads the Resolution Foundation's Commission on Living standards.

James Plunkett is director of policy and development at the Resolution Foundation

Show Hide image

With Boris gone, the next Tory PM will be dangerously tough on immigration

Talking tough on immigration is good for your leadership chances, but not for future trade deals. 

On 24 June, Boris Johnson had just pulled off the gamble of his life. The blonde pretender's decision to back Leave had helped bring an insurgent campaign to victory and force the Prime Minister's resignation. The political establishment was in smoking ruins, but the path to No 10 was clear.

Less than a week later, though, everything had changed. Johnson was forced to tell journalists at his campaign launch that he was pulling out. It seems the issue that scuppered him was immigration.

Johnson has never been a convincing border patrol guard. As the country digested Brexit, he wrote in The Telegraph that: "It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so."

His fellow Leave campaigner Michael Gove seems to have thought differently. A leaked email from his wife discussed the need for "specifics" on what many believe to be immigration controls. 

Announcing his campaign launch on Thursday morning - minutes after alerting Johnson to the fact - Gove declared that voters "told us to restore democratic control of immigration policy".

Of course, Gove is not alone in the contest to be PM of Brexit Britain. But with the Classics scholar Johnson out of the way, a consensus on a tougher immigration policy looks likely. 

A relaxed Theresa May (pictured) laid out her arguments on Thursday morning as well, and although she backtracked from earlier calls to quit the European Convention on Human Rights, she  is clearly playing to the audience when it comes to immigration. 

During the EU referendum campaign, she quietly backed Remain but nevertheless called for "more control" over EU citizens working in the UK.

At her leadership launch, she expressed a desire to cut net migration by tens of thousands each year. "Any attempt to wriggle out" of regaining control "will be unacceptable to the public", she said. 

Stephen Crabb, another contender, has already described ending free movement as a "red line", while Liam Fox wants an Australian-style points based system to apply to EU migrants. 

Of course, condemning "uncontrolled" EU immigration is one thing. Agreeing on whether immigration per se is too high is another. Some Leave campaigners argued they only wanted a level playing field for EU or non-EU migrants. 

But the Tory candidates face a bigger risk. The public may lap up anti-immigration rhetoric, the party members might vote accordingly, but it leaves little room to manoevre when it comes to negotiating trade deals with the European Union. Even the cool-headed German chancellor Angela Merkel has made it clear access to the single market is reserved for those who accept the free movement of people, as well as capital and goods.

If the successful candidate also wants to be successful in government, they will have to find a way of redefining the debate, quickly.