Jump to content

The value of going to college at different times


Altherion

Recommended Posts

Academia, the media and politicians (even relatively decent ones such as Bernie Sanders) have been harping on the importance of a college education. It certainly worked out for me personally, but I always wondered: how much of the perceived value is a result of looking at times gone by when a college degree was relatively rare and close to a ticket into the upper middle class or higher? The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recently published a trio of blog posts detailing their study on this subject:

Grads Still Do Better Than Nongrads Financially

Is the Return on a Degree Fading?

Why Are Wealth Returns from a Degree Falling?

The meat of the study is in the second post where they split people by race and decade of birth and then compared how college educated people did relative to people without a college degree from the same cohort. The first set is the change in the expected income and it behaves about as one would expect: people who were born in the 1930s (and thus went to college in the 1950s) gain more from going to college, but there is still a college boost (small for white people, larger for black people) for those born as late as the 1980s. However, the gains in wealth are really surprising given the income results: they've fallen by an order of magnitude and:

Quote

The picture is similar for black postgrads, although the decline in the wealth boost starts among postgrads born in the ‘60s. Black postgrads born in the ‘50s accumulated 332 percent more than their nongrad peers. Postgrads born in the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s accumulated only 18 percent, 16 percent and 8 percent, respectively, more than their nongrad peers.

All of those estimates were sufficiently noisy that we can’t rule out that they could be zero or even negative. The implication is shocking: Black postgrads born in the 1960s, ‘70 or ‘80s do not have statistically higher wealth than blacks who didn’t graduate from college.

Note that there is some measure of sleight of hand regarding people born in the 1980s with a post-graduate education: they would typically go to college in the 2000s and if you add on another 4-7 years for a PhD or MD + residency, there is not much time left to build wealth (i.e. they will most likely catch up to their contemporary college graduates in another decade or two). However, people from the 1960s don't have this excuse...

The third post postulates various causes for why the correlation of college with wealth dramatically decreases with time while the correlation with income persists. Here's the conclusion:

Quote

Is college still worth it? To answer this question as posed by our recent symposium: Yes, a college degree remains a valuable investment for many. As in the past, it is associated with significantly higher earnings in the job market. However, the wealth accumulation of today’s graduates looks meaningfully lower than graduates of yesteryear.

It’s not entirely clear what’s driving this development, but the much higher price tag attached to a degree seems obvious. These results suggest that pursuing a college degree is a riskier decision for many more prospective students than it was in the past. Consequently, oversimplifying the financial benefits of college by looking solely at the aggregate return obscures an alarming trend in higher education.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Majority of wealth in developed countries is created by highly educated and specialized personnel - managers, scientists, engineers, architects, etc. It makes sense to a society to cast a net as wide as possible and provide college education to anyone who wants one. Even if you get ten mediocrities for each prodigy, it is still worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some western countries that have made good experiences with a dual education system, notably Austria, Switzerland and Germany. But there are some arguments why this cannot be copied easily (Link) and some are rather critical of the dual education system (Link).

But the huge cost of college education without a viable alternative way to enter the jobmarket for decent middle-class jobs, is problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that there are many poor engineers, computer programmers, doctors, accountants, pharmacists, finance experts etc.

I’m sure there are many poor graduates in areas such as social studies, media studies, political science, modern art, music, etc.

Point is - a college degree in itself is worthless. Having a skill that is in demand, on the other hand, is very worthwhile.

So go study stuff that is actually in demand and can earn you lots of money. Else you only have yourself to blame.

Self actualization is a luxury only achievable once the lower levels of Maslow’s pyramid are achieved. That is the hard lesson to be learnt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Loge said:

If you went to college in the 1950s you were from a wealthy, well-connected family to begin with. That probably helped more than the degree as such.

I don't think this was true after the GI bill in the US. I might have been largely true in the UK in the 1950s or in the US in the 1920s-30s but stipends and grants for poor but brilliant students have been around for decades or even centuries when university was still a rather elite affair. (AFAIR Kant was from a rather poor family and went to Latin school and university on some stipend in the 1730s.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the increase in debt recent college graduates have may be combined with the increase in housing costs in explaining this result.

The traditional American pattern is for young persons just starting in their careers to rent while they are saving money to buy a house. Relative to income, rents have increased amazingly over the last couple of generations, with the % of people being excessively burdened by rent costs now being around 50%:

https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rent-growth-since-1960/

Meanwhile the trend of people in their 20s living with parents has increased, but it has gone up more among blue collar young people than among those with college educations. I think that psychologically it's harder for those with college degrees to want to live with parents while they are starting out -- plus geographically more of them simply wouldn't have found jobs in the city or town their parents live in than those without college educations.  

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/05/a-record-64-million-americans-live-in-multigenerational-households/

Living with one's parents (even if one pays them some rent) undoubtedly allows for more savings and wealth accumulation than living on one's own and paying rent to a landlord. So the combination of college debt and high rent would make wealth accumulation more difficult for college grads relative to their blue collar age mates than it would in the past. 

As someone who is now 67, I am appalled by both the levels of college debt and by the rent situation. I live in Omaha, where housing costs are supposedly more reasonable than they are in most other metro areas. Yet it seems that almost all the new apartment complexes being built here are "luxury" ones where the rents for efficiency apartments are $950 a month and of course those for larger apartments well over a thousand dollars a month. I do not see how most young people starting out can afford those rents, pay down their college debt, and save for the future effectively all at the same time. Certainly there would have to be two people with two good incomes, either spouses or roommates, sharing the rent on the average two bedroom apartment for this to even begin to be affordable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ormond

I completely agree, and that’s why two years ago I bit the bullet and moved back in with my parents. I make about $40k after taxes and excluding benefits, and I couldn’t save more than $100 a month when I was living on my own. That made it impossible to either save up enough to buy a house or go back to grad/law school. The current structure traps most young people, regardless if you go to college or not. And frankly I don’t think you can even compare the value of getting a degree in the 50’s, 80’s and today. There are too many variables, but as you correctly identified, cost of living and education are major drivers.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So go study stuff that is actually in demand and can earn you lots of money. Else you only have yourself to blame.

You do realize that a lot of people don't go to college just to make a lot of money. Many just want to learn about something that interests them and/or go into a field where they can help people rather than seeking financial gain. Do my buddies with  engineering degrees make more than me? Yes, for the most part. Do any of them have the same level of critical thinking skills as me? Not even close. Do they know anywhere near as much about the world as me? Ha! Most of them can’t even name all fifty states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One additional thing. One of the major problems is the qualifications companies want these days. I just saw a job posting that paid $35k a year with no benefits. The minimum qualifications were a four year degree and five years of experience working in an office setting. The preferred qualifications were a master’s degree and eight years of experience. FOR A $35K A YEAR JOB. You see examples of this everywhere. A friend found one the other day where a job that paid $12 a hour had a minimum qualification of a four year degree and two years of sales experience. Most people I graduated with just went from part-time to full-time at their college jobs. That combined with college debt and high rent results in a soul crushing post-college experience for a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ormond said:

I think the increase in debt recent college graduates have may be combined with the increase in housing costs in explaining this result.

Indeed. What makes it worse is that to make the most out of a college education, you generally have to live in a city and the more high-paying jobs a city has, the more expensive the rent.

11 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

You do realize that a lot of people don't go to college just to make a lot of money. Many just want to learn about something that interests them and/or go into a field where they can help people rather than seeking financial gain.

College has become a rather expensive way to learn about something that one finds interesting -- in some cases, arguably among the most expensive (including even hiring a private tutor). And yes, the credential creep is a problem, but it's caused mainly by an overabundance of college graduates. When there are enough of them that somebody with a masters would accept a $35K job, why would an employer settle for less?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2018 at 12:28 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

I doubt that there are many poor engineers, computer programmers, doctors, accountants, pharmacists, finance experts etc.

I’m sure there are many poor graduates in areas such as social studies, media studies, political science, modern art, music, etc.

Point is - a college degree in itself is worthless. Having a skill that is in demand, on the other hand, is very worthwhile.

So go study stuff that is actually in demand and can earn you lots of money. Else you only have yourself to blame.

Self actualization is a luxury only achievable once the lower levels of Maslow’s pyramid are achieved. That is the hard lesson to be learnt. 

100%   this common knowledge that university degree=$$$ easy job is just not true .

A university education is a product up for sale (at exorbitant prices these days) and you're the customer, it's your job to do the research and find out what you're getting yourself into and if this investment will pay for itself in the future or hinder your progress in life . For some people university is not a good option and they'd be better off at a trade school and that's fine . People need to do their research and do some self reflection before making life altering decisions that come with a massive price tag 

On 7/20/2018 at 5:28 PM, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

 

You do realize that a lot of people don't go to college just to make a lot of money. Many just want to learn about something that interests them and/or go into a field where they can help people rather than seeking financial gain. Do my buddies with  engineering degrees make more than me? Yes, for the most part. Do any of them have the same level of critical thinking skills as me? Not even close. Do they know anywhere near as much about the world as me? Ha! Most of them can’t even name all fifty states.

And these people who don't go to university to make money shouldn't be surprised when they don't make big money after university. Studying something you're interested in or have a passion for is fine and dandy but it also comes with natural consequences. People need to take responsibility for their decisions and actions . No one is hiding the data on major wages . For the most part people know what they're getting if they go into STEM fields versus going into humanities . 

I don't get this "I'm smarter and better than engineers " part you just played . You didn't make a "nobler" choice than them , you just chose differently and got different results which is normal really . It is logical that people who make sure that the system is running, who make sure you have electricity, who design planes ...etc. are more highly valued than people who can tell you that Willy Shakespeare had some epic rhymes . 

 

A small foot note : people should be aware that wide scale automation is coming and job opportunities for the average Joe are gonna decrease even more so investing in highly specialized technical education is the way unless you think you're talented enough to be a Rock star or actor ... chances are you're not .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Vin said:

100%   this common knowledge that university degree=$$$ easy job is just not true .

A university education is a product up for sale (at exorbitant prices these days) and you're the customer, it's your job to do the research and find out what you're getting yourself into and if this investment will pay for itself in the future or hinder your progress in life . For some people university is not a good option and they'd be better off at a trade school and that's fine . People need to do their research and do some self reflection before making life altering decisions that come with a massive price tag 

And these people who don't go to university to make money shouldn't be surprised when they don't make big money after university. Studying something you're interested in or have a passion for is fine and dandy but it also comes with natural consequences. People need to take responsibility for their decisions and actions . No one is hiding the data on major wages . For the most part people know what they're getting if they go into STEM fields versus going into humanities . 

I don't get this "I'm smarter and better than engineers " part you just played . You didn't make a "nobler" choice than them , you just chose differently and got different results which is normal really . It is logical that people who make sure that the system is running, who make sure you have electricity, who design planes ...etc. are more highly valued than people who can tell you that Willy Shakespeare had some epic rhymes . 

 

A small foot note : people should be aware that wide scale automation is coming and job opportunities for the average Joe are gonna decrease even more so investing in highly specialized technical education is the way unless you think you're talented enough to be a Rock star or actor ... chances are you're not .

Wide scale automation will do a lot more damage to those with degrees or certificates in technical fields than those with arts degrees. Take programming or integrated circuit design. AI taking over these jobs is so much easier to implement than having AIs building a house or doing childcare. If your job involves paperwork, then someone is creating an AI to do that job, especially if it involves scanning files for keywords or phrases, or doing anything requiring computation. 

Teaching Shakespeare or any of the other classics of literature seems to be a lot harder to automate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Teaching Shakespeare or any of the other classics of literature seems to be a lot harder to automate. 

without a doubt, if you understand automation as sort-of-antropomorphic AI doing the same job as one human, the tasks that are deterministic, with no creativity involved, will be the first to go. Some programming will go away, no doubt.

But the new world of communication will probably shake the way you teach Shakespeare, too. Why focus on AI when MOOCs, speech recognition and youtube exist? Think that teacher in a small class is protected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, maarsen said:

Wide scale automation will do a lot more damage to those with degrees or certificates in technical fields than those with arts degrees. Take programming or integrated circuit design. AI taking over these jobs is so much easier to implement than having AIs building a house or doing childcare. If your job involves paperwork, then someone is creating an AI to do that job, especially if it involves scanning files for keywords or phrases, or doing anything requiring computation. 

Teaching Shakespeare or any of the other classics of literature seems to be a lot harder to automate. 

 

3 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

without a doubt, if you understand automation as sort-of-antropomorphic AI doing the same job as one human, the tasks that are deterministic, with no creativity involved, will be the first to go. Some programming will go away, no doubt.

But the new world of communication will probably shake the way you teach Shakespeare, too. Why focus on AI when MOOCs, speech recognition and youtube exist? Think that teacher in a small class is protected?

This is only true if as errant bard said you understand an engineer's job as only a+b=c and that you can implement the entire scope of an engineer's capabilities into software which is simply not true . Science is where true creativity lies because while the SVM I'm using(and programmed myself, can't do that with rudimentary AI can ya ?) can sift through data , it needs me to set it's parameters and features and even then it can't make the analysis and connections from the classified data , only I can . The convolutional neural networks I'm using give me certain results but they don't understand what those results mean or how to use them to further research and development. It's the engineers and scientists who have to come with the leaps of scientific intuition and imagination to make progress . AI can't do that , or at least not nearly well enough . 

Eh ,it's actually really easy to create a pseudo AI that can teach Shakespeare , off the top of my head ,get a data set of all the best professors analysis and explanations of Shakespeare , run the data set on a reward/punishment classifier according to public opinion per demographic, can run this over the internet like google does with captcha (notice how they've been filling it with car related stuff ? They're using US to improve their self driving car data set to better train their AI . It's brilliantly cost effective) or have a large set of betas , keep tuning and adjusting with time until everyone starts to consistently get what they consider a good analysis of Shakespeare . Of course we can run the professors papers through summarise software or just rehash it . 

I know it's not the romantic future everyone wants but we're not going to be a society of artists , it's just not conducive to a better quality of life .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vin said:

 

This is only true if as errant bard said you understand an engineer's job as only a+b=c and that you can implement the entire scope of an engineer's capabilities into software which is simply not true . Science is where true creativity lies because while the SVM I'm using(and programmed myself, can't do that with rudimentary AI can ya ?) can sift through data , it needs me to set it's parameters and features and even then it can't make the analysis and connections from the classified data , only I can . The convolutional neural networks I'm using give me certain results but they don't understand what those results mean or how to use them to further research and development. It's the engineers and scientists who have to come with the leaps of scientific intuition and imagination to make progress . AI can't do that , or at least not nearly well enough . 

Eh ,it's actually really easy to create a pseudo AI that can teach Shakespeare , off the top of my head ,get a data set of all the best professors analysis and explanations of Shakespeare , run the data set on a reward/punishment classifier according to public opinion per demographic, can run this over the internet like google does with captcha (notice how they've been filling it with car related stuff ? They're using US to improve their self driving car data set to better train their AI . It's brilliantly cost effective) or have a large set of betas , keep tuning and adjusting with time until everyone starts to consistently get what they consider a good analysis of Shakespeare . Of course we can run the professors papers through summarise software or just rehash it . 

I know it's not the romantic future everyone wants but we're not going to be a society of artists , it's just not conducive to a better quality of life .

If what you are doing can be written out as a set of rules that need to be followed, such as designing a bridge or searching a database for relevant precedents or creating a computer program then an AI such as the one that had the rules of a game such as Go programmed into it will be able to not only replicate what you do but improve on what you do to such an extent that you will be unemployable. 

Any behaviour that does not easily lend itself to following an algorithm is behaviour that cannot be easily done by a AI. Being peripatetic in your job, unless it involves driving, is also a good way to be insulated from the effects of AI as they tend to be somewhat immovable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We’re not going to be a society of artists it doesn’t lead to a better quality of life” gonna have to just 100% disagree with you there, buddy. I think engineers are awesome, I do. But just because you value STEM, doesn’t mean you have to de-value the arts. You need a 50-50 in my opinion otherwise what the, excuse me, fuck is the point in living? If we are all workers working away towards some technologically advanced Dream. Jesus Christ - I love science fiction but you know I love the little moments of enjoyment in life too. And where can you often get this? The arts. 

I’m working on a masters degree, I work minimum wage in a shitty job. I don’t feel much entitled to anything else until I’ve been working in the right direction a bit longer. Am a history grad, working on a second specialised history degree. INCREDIBLY niche and not likely to offer a job straight away but because it’s so niche not everyone will be doing it and every bit of my volunteering in museum hours and working on my own history/folklore podcast in my free time will help me towards my goal. 

Yes college degrees have almost become meaningless and most people have them and I totally admire the physical workers who have skills. Unskilled labour my arse -  the men and women performing physical labour - blacksmiths, electricians, carpenters and builders are awesome. 

Im not physically strong, I’m easily distracted when it comes to physical work - but I’m good at research, am passionate about my subject and people often like to hear me talk about it so I’m fine with my choice. 

Life isn’t all about making the most money - my best friend earns a lot in STEM and shes going to do a masters in artificial intelligence - she’s freakin awesome but not everyone can study stuff like that. 

I don’t think it’s helpful or necessary to ridicule or look down on people just because you want to ‘big up’ others. 

I wish everything didn’t need a college degree - but am actually using mine. Kinda. Least I’m working on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think AI will hit both those with a college degree and those without, but it will not do so uniformly or even aligned along major divisions such as STEM vs. humanities. For an example among professions which don't require a degree, it's hard to see how plumbers will be replaced in the near future, but easy to do so for truck drivers. For an example in the humanities, I recently met somebody working at a startup aiming to use speech recognition to analyze contracts. It won't do what lawyers do, but it can replace a lot of the auxiliary staff and, in the slightly longer term, a lot of work with texts can be similarly replaced.

54 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I love science fiction but you know I love the little moments of enjoyment in life too. And where can you often get this? The arts.

While this is true, the amount of art (speaking broadly enough to include literature, music, etc.) an individual can interact over any time period is finite and large numbers of individuals prefer to spend their time on the same exact art (e.g. ASOIAF) so opportunities here -- not to make money, but simply to have one's art appreciated -- are rather limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

If what you are doing can be written out as a set of rules that need to be followed, such as designing a bridge or searching a database for relevant precedents or creating a computer program then an AI such as the one that had the rules of a game such as Go programmed into it will be able to not only replicate what you do but improve on what you do to such an extent that you will be unemployable. 

Any behaviour that does not easily lend itself to following an algorithm is behaviour that cannot be easily done by a AI. Being peripatetic in your job, unless it involves driving, is also a good way to be insulated from the effects of AI as they tend to be somewhat immovable. 

I agree , that's my point . Grunt work will go away , specialists and people who work on the AI and other research won't .what I refer to is the higher levels not someone soldering a PCB . for example one of the projects I'm working on right now is to analyze brain wave signals when moving in order to create better prosthetic limbs that respond to mental stimuli accurately and be dexterous . AI can help me but it can't do it for me .

1 hour ago, Theda Baratheon said:

“We’re not going to be a society of artists it doesn’t lead to a better quality of life” gonna have to just 100% disagree with you there, buddy. I think engineers are awesome, I do. But just because you value STEM, doesn’t mean you have to de-value the arts. You need a 50-50 in my opinion otherwise what the, excuse me, fuck is the point in living? If we are all workers working away towards some technologically advanced Dream. Jesus Christ - I love science fiction but you know I love the little moments of enjoyment in life too. And where can you often get this? The arts. 

I’m working on a masters degree, I work minimum wage in a shitty job. I don’t feel much entitled to anything else until I’ve been working in the right direction a bit longer. Am a history grad, working on a second specialised history degree. INCREDIBLY niche and not likely to offer a job straight away but because it’s so niche not everyone will be doing it and every bit of my volunteering in museum hours and working on my own history/folklore podcast in my free time will help me towards my goal. 

Yes college degrees have almost become meaningless and most people have them and I totally admire the physical workers who have skills. Unskilled labour my arse -  the men and women performing physical labour - blacksmiths, electricians, carpenters and builders are awesome. 

Im not physically strong, I’m easily distracted when it comes to physical work - but I’m good at research, am passionate about my subject and people often like to hear me talk about it so I’m fine with my choice. 

Life isn’t all about making the most money - my best friend earns a lot in STEM and shes going to do a masters in artificial intelligence - she’s freakin awesome but not everyone can study stuff like that. 

I don’t think it’s helpful or necessary to ridicule or look down on people just because you want to ‘big up’ others. 

I wish everything didn’t need a college degree - but am actually using mine. Kinda. Least I’m working on it. 

Well obviously being an engineer I am biased but I think your 50-50 ratio is somewhat far fetched , I'd say it's much more likely to be 70-30 . Also , I'm not really devaluing arts morally , only in monetary value as a career option which is simple fact , art degrees are a bad investment if you want to be paid well . It's perfectly fine fore people to pursue these lower paying majors as long as they understand that they are lower paying . Nothing wrong with following your passions . I happened to get Lucky and the thing I'm passionate about is highly lucrative. This also where I disagree with your statement of why bother living without art , science is a passion for me , I find it invigorating , it makes me feel alive , I have a bed (a flip on sofa but still lol) in my lab because of how much time I spend there . Finding the solution to a problem through sheer innovation , brainstorming with colleagues and expanding my methodology ... scientific innovation is fascinating to me . So I proudly challenge the claim that arts are the reason we live . They're nice and all and I'd gladly participate but no , they're not my biggest passion . Relevant to the monetary discussion , I always liked physics , I could've majored in it and became a teacher or a got a PhD and became a professor but I knew the monetary compensation was not good for the major and I knew I didn't wanna teach so I did a double major in electrical and telecommunications engineering instead because they had better monetary prospects as well as being something I like , did a couple of masters but again never bothered with the PhD because I don't wanna teach . University is about choices imo. 

 

I didn't ridicule or look down upon anyone . I resent the implication. I stated that certain fields pay more and that people should be aware of their hierarchy of priorities before choosing a major . If monetary compensation is high on that hierarchy then they should choose accordingly. If not then they should either accept that their work in said field will be modestly paid or have plans for  secondary streams of income .  

Looking back it was quite the opposite, I was replying to someone who was somewhat looking down on and ridiculing engineers 

Quote

 Do my buddies with  engineering degrees make more than me? Yes, for the most part. Do any of them have the same level of critical thinking skills as me? Not even close. Do they know anywhere near as much about the world as me? Ha! Most of them can’t even name all fifty states.

 

In general all I'm saying is that people should do their research  figure out what's important to them , set goals and plans and work towards them .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2018 at 4:28 PM, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Do my buddies with  engineering degrees make more than me? Yes, for the most part. Do any of them have the same level of critical thinking skills as me? Not even close. Do they know anywhere near as much about the world as me? Ha! Most of them can’t even name all fifty states.

Well, I don't know exactly what makes a person have more critical thinking than another,  first of all we should define what critical thinking is, and well, the academical background could certainly help on that regard, especially humanities, but saying that engineers don't know as much because they happened to study engineering is just a fallacy.  

First of all, as an engineer, I'd answer undoubtedly yes if I was asked if engineering studies provides you with "critical thinking" background.  Like, a lot, actually. I might be not the best example of a person excelling in engineering, but I for one can say that my degrees have shaped my way of thinking, in a positive way, and yes, critically speaking as well.

Secondly, many engineers have interests that go beyond their fields; for instance, the Arts. and they can also be good at them because they are willing to learn about that as well, or they are also their passions. 

Last but not least, it is also true that a lot of people from non scientific or engineering backgrounds not only have interest in those two, but they can also can bring their knowledge into practice so as to work with engineers and scientists and show them tools and ways of approaching things that the former ones might not have thought of. Many of them work with them, and they are good at that as well. And maybe they will not be able to understand some things are easily as engineers do bc they have not undertook technical subjects, but the "critical thinking" part of their degrees and, more importantly, as themselves as people who happen to be willing to learn from their experiences constantly (that applies to any person actually), plays an important part there.

Professionals only interested in their field but that excel on that are also really important to make each and every part of our lives function.

Sometimes different backgrounds put together make the best of people. And everyone can learn from the other. That's what we should aspire to as humans. To learn and to respect each other. Bring the best of ourselves, and learn about the others.

And there is a lot of people who have not studied at universities who also show that are really good critical thinkers, too. So then, here we are.

4 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

“We’re not going to be a society of artists it doesn’t lead to a better quality of life” gonna have to just 100% disagree with you there, buddy. I think engineers are awesome, I do. But just because you value STEM, doesn’t mean you have to de-value the arts. You need a 50-50 in my opinion otherwise what the, excuse me, fuck is the point in living? If we are all workers working away towards some technologically advanced Dream. Jesus Christ - I love science fiction but you know I love the little moments of enjoyment in life too. And where can you often get this? The arts. 

I completely agree with that.

4 hours ago, maarsen said:

If what you are doing can be written out as a set of rules that need to be followed, such as designing a bridge or searching a database for relevant precedents or creating a computer program then an AI such as the one that had the rules of a game such as Go programmed into it will be able to not only replicate what you do but improve on what you do to such an extent that you will be unemployable. 

Any behaviour that does not easily lend itself to following an algorithm is behaviour that cannot be easily done by a AI. Being peripatetic in your job, unless it involves driving, is also a good way to be insulated from the effects of AI as they tend to be somewhat immovable. 

Yes, but it's not as simple as that, the ·"default" job of engineers can't be reduced to that.  Who is gonna be the main responsible of the control of that system? Who is going to understand why it is not working when errors occur? More likely, engineers. Will we simply believe in the replication of that system without questioning us if it's doing it in the best(or most suitable and possible way) ? I'd really hope that there's people behind all this, passionate engineers and hopefully, professionals of other backgrounds as well. And such a complex system to exist would need supercomputers, that on their turn would need to have maintenance, and electricity supply, etc. Maybe in the future if the world doens't fall apart before, but certainly not today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Altherion thanks for posting this topic, it’s a useful discussion.  

So the basic conclusions were: income advantage from education has persisted* for several decades but the wealth advantage has declined. 

*The cohort born in 1980s are the exception but most likely they are just too young to have yet reached the higher income levels that experience adds to education.  It’s very likely that another decade or two will show they got a similar income advantage. 

So the real question posed here is why does an income advantage not accrue as much wealth advantage as before?  To which the only answer is: they save less and spend relatively more (than less educated people) than before and/or their assets grow slower.  That’s a pretty simple accounting identity.  Asset growth rate has remained high, aside from cash, so it’s mostly down to spending.

The higher cost of education is an obvious starting point.  If the state offers less subsidy for education and the recipient pays more, what does that imply?  First it’s a wealth transfer from young to old (who received their subsidy and did not return the favor), second it’s a wealth transfer from educated to uneducated (a progressive taxation indirectly), third it’s a wealth transfer from low paid education (e.g. the arts) to high paid education (e.g. STEM and professions) which is a relatively new market judgment by society on the usefulness of each education.

The next most obvious difference in spending is the cost of housing, which has been a long time transfer of wealth from young to old.  And this time it’s compounded by the emergence of knowledge clusters in major cities, narrowing and concentrating this transfer of wealth among the NIMBYs.  Education benefits are most realized among other educated people, so accelerating demand for real estate has become another indirect progressive taxation.  Unfortunately it is not redistributed very well because the govt does not receive it: capital gains on personal residences are mostly tax free.  The NIMBY’s capture this benefit. 

Similarly health insurance costs a lot more now, which is a transfer from well educated (generally very healthy) to low educated.  Another indirect progressive taxation. 

So far these are all falling into the category of (1) indirect progressive taxation or (2) transfer of wealth from young to old.  The only one that is different is the transfer from low paid education to high paid education but that’s a transfer of wealth within the recent cohort and so was not even part of the original problem between cohorts.  

The only antidote to either is at the polling booth.  I’d prefer to fight #2 than #1, but that’s nowhere in any political agenda.  The people who demand free college education also demand more health subsidies for the uneducated, more subsidy of elder care and tend to be the NIMBYist of all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...