If Hillary Clinton loses the 2016 election, it could well be because she defines “good paying jobs” differently than a significant chunk of the electorate.
Last night as I watched as Clinton accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, I was struck by her implied definition of the term “good paying jobs.”
She never defined the term, but it was clear from the context in which she used it—”clean energy jobs” and “advanced manufacturing” for example—that she was talking about jobs that didn’t exist last century, jobs that were just getting a good foothold when the economy plunged into recession in 2008.
I don’t believe the angry, white American males who support Donald Trump (or their female counterparts) would consider those “good paying jobs.”
Clinton’s “good paying jobs” require people to acquire new skills and to keep updating their skills routinely.
I suspect the angry, white males think of “good paying jobs” as those a high school graduate can walk in off the street and learn to do in a couple of weeks—and keep doing for the next half century with regular, substantial pay raises.
Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, you ought to think what “good paying jobs” means in your students’ communities.
If the definition favors those who stop learning at the end of formal schooling, you have some educating to do.