Social Workers: Over Worked and Under Compensated

As the economy continues to lag and the population continues to grow social service needs will continue to rise. Social workers play a critical role in helping people on their path to autonomy and self-sufficiency, whether it’s due to unemployment, substance abuse or a mental illness. Two prominent values of the profession are service and social justice. Social workers strive to help those in need and to address social problems including poverty, discrimination and unemployment. Despite their high need (the profession is projected grow faster than all other professions on average, which illustrates the demand for social workers), social workers continue to be compensated and recruited less than other social service professionals, such as teachers and nurses.

Even with similar education requirements and job descriptions social workers continue to be paid less than teachers and nurses. This is clearly evident when comparing registered nurses with social workers. The minimum education for registered nurses is an associate degree, while social workers must have a bachelor degree. However, many social work positions require advanced education (e.g. Master degree) and advanced licensure (e.g. Licensed Clinical Social Worker). This is most commonly found among social work positions in schools and the health sector, which are some of the highest social service need areas. Therefore, despite increased educational and competency requirements, social workers are paid approximately $5,000 less than entry-level  secondary education teachers (10 month contract) and $4,000 less than registered nurses annually in Texas. This compounds the problem because evidence indicates this results in high turnover rates, insufficient experience and dissatisfaction within the social work profession. If the profession of social work is not adequately sustained and supported by society (e.g. financially competitive) then how will the nation’s vast social service needs be met? 

What happened to personal responsibility?

The blog article “Occupy…Your Time Better” discusses the local and national Occupy Wall Street movement. The primary argument of the article is Wall Street and the banking industry should not be responsible for the escalating cost of college and graduates’ subsequent college debt. The article is appropriately critical of the Daily Texan’s article “Occupy Austin trickles down to students.” While government regulations are sometimes necessary to protect society at large, personal responsibility remains central. Furthermore, the blog article critique’s the narrowed scope of the Daily Texan’s article. The overall goal of the Occupy Wall Street movement is lost in talk about Wall Street and banks’ responsibility to essentially pay-off college graduates’ debt.

The referenced Daily Texan article makes three erroneous or unsubstantiated claims: 1) college students were forced to take out excessive loans, 2) college costs have risen due to the increased borrowing power of college students and 3) Wall Street and banks should be responsible for graduates’ college debt. No one has been forced at gunpoint to take out a student loan. Yes, college costs are exorbitant but students have the responsibility to make mature and conscious choices. It may be in students’ financial interests to attend a cheaper college, start off at community college and transfer to a university, take advantage of federal loans instead of private loans and make wise college degree choices where jobs are in high demand (e.g. nursing degree). Additionally, there is no evidence the increased availability of student loans is directly related to the cost of college. Last, Wall Street and banks are no more responsible for students’ debt than I am for my neighbor’s debt. We all make decisions and in the end we must be responsible for them.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has successfully brought attention to the inequalities in our societies. However, some of the blame seems misplaced. Government is responsible for regulating industries but this has little to do with morality. Government cannot and should not regulate morality. Moreover, government is responsible for programs that assist the poor, which are clearly failing. Why is more effort not targeted at this? Additionally, the movement has yet to hold the government accountable for it’s spending. Thus, the blog article appropriately defines the movement as a blame game in a lot of ways, which was clearly depicted in the Daily Texan article. The Occupy Wall Street movement should spend more time attempting to elicit institutional and societal changes (e.g. improved primary education systems) that create an environment for success and prosperity instead of attacking people and industries that have been fortunate enough to prosper. Regulations should be enforced and loopholes should be closed but success should not be condemned. Life is not fair.