Since it is so frequently used here, symbolism has become highly devalued in this most cynical of cities. A symbolic act is often ridiculed as being a substitute for substance. Reporters who pride themselves on chasing after substance often discover that beneath the symbolism there is, alas, more symbolism.
But someone in this capital of veneer must think it`s important, since so many people resort to it. And they are right. People do respond to symbols
(perhaps because they have little else), but they are much more perceptive about them than this city will ever know.
Trained to think symbolically by politicians, people see everything this way, including scandals large and small, partisan conflicts, the failures of programs, and the little realities of life that Washington would just as soon forget. Try as they may, they cannot manage people`s incredible capacity to absorb them.
The delightful thing about symbols is that they are translucent. People can see through them, relate them to others, compare them with the real world, and determine if they stem from reality or falsity.
For example, while President Bush stresses his devotion to fiscal austerity, his chief of staff, John Sununu, sends out a different signal by sparing no expense in flying military planes to ski resorts, political events and home in New Hampshire. Though his trips are duly authorized and he follows the rules, his reimbursement covers only a fraction of the cost. Bush`s austerity message thus loses some of its credibility.
The same thing goes for comforting, upbeat government statements about the economy. Words are mere symbols that do not live through the struggles of families trying to deal with unemployment or the lack of opportunity for their children. Optimistic visions ring false for young people who must cope with an eroding standard of living.
Government rhetoric of the 1980s stressed opportunity, jobs, low inflation and a rising standard of living. The reality, though, was quite different for a significant portion of the population-our young people.
Frank Levy, an economist at the University of Maryland, gives us the facts. Take working males, age 25 to 34. From 1979 to 1987, their median annual earnings declined by 6.6 percent in real, inflation-adjusted terms. Working women in the same age group saw their income rise by 12.1 percent in the same period, but their pay still remained significantly below that of males.
The figures show that a college education made a huge difference. Working men age 25 to 34 with only four years of high school experienced a 15.6 percent decline in income, while those with four years of college enjoyed a 10.2 percent rise.
More Top Picks Why Noise Canceling Headphones Help Autistic Kids
”We are not doing very well right now in terms of either promoting economic equality or raising the national living standard,” Levy said.
But aren`t we graduating more people from college? That`s true, but Levy points out this overlooks the fact that the number of workers with only high school degrees is rising faster. From 1979 to 1987, the number of young male workers from 25 to 34 jumped 38 percent to 7.2 million, while the number with college degrees rose 26 percent to 3.1 million.
”The 1980s were a decade where the supply of high school-educated labor grew particularly fast,” he said.
Here is the problem in human terms. In 1979, 943,000 or fully 18 percent of all men from 25 to 34 worked in factories as machine operators and assemblers. As manufacturing went through a shakeout in the 1980s, the number of workers in that group had dropped by 76,000 by 1987.
But here`s the intriguing part: The number of machine operators and assemblers would have had to increase by 355,000 in order to keep that old 18 percent ratio intact.
So where did many of these workers go? They chased after lower-paying services jobs, lower paying because of the kind of work involved and because so many of them were scrambling for the positions. Obviously a growing supply of workers seeking a finite number of jobs will lead to lower wage rates. They proved to be the front-line soliders in the fight against inflation.
This is why education has leaped to the top of the national agenda, and why the country needs to improve the skill level of its work force. It will not be easy to make a difference for a generation of high school-trained youth now approaching middle age, nor for a new generation of high school students who see eroding opportunities.
It behooves a government in this rapidly changing climate to prepare its workers for the future, to encourage them and show them the way. Though many people made light of it, it was helpful that President Bush informed the world that he now is going to take computer training. A small thing, perhaps, but symbols can be important if they reflect sincerity and presage further action.