Monetizing a Tertiary Education

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by LafayetteBis, Jul 6, 2018.

  1. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From here: The Economist, Learning and Earning

    Excerpt:
    This rather long report (in pdf) is well worth the time necessary to read. (Yes, it is a lot!)

    What struck me most is a "phenomenon" that is recurrent in America and becoming so in Europe. It is that we are creating some very intelligent children who know exactly where they want to go in life.

    And, it appears that what they want is a larger piece of the pie than their parents were able to have. Still, in a market-economy, the economics teaches us that as a science it can be (especially at a personal level) very unpredictable. Not at all like predicting the trajectory of an asteroid that might hit the earth.

    We must make do with such "unpredictability" and settle for some good guessing amongst different options that will likely take place. Because doing nothing would prove only worse.

    I teach both economics and MBA-courses. And, frankly, after much experience in business, I find the former "highly intelligent but of little hands-on usage". And the latter is not the least bit necessary - not even "to sell a hammer". Even the rudiments of Investment Finance can be picked up on-the-job.

    This report (linked above) from the Economist has assured me of only one aspect. That nothing has changed as well as this: Though its a Best Idea to obtain a tertiary-education degree, having one in baking (and opening a restaurant in the right place) will allow you about as much a chance of succeeding wildly financially; and as much as getting an MBA (and probably more). (There are a lot of MBAs walking around from job to job to job to job - ad nauseam.

    So what? So this: Whether you have Doctorate in Finance or a Skills Degree, your chances of becoming either reasonably well-paid or even mind-boggling rich are about the same.

    ABOUT TERTIARY EDUCATION

    From Wikipedia (List of countries by tertiary-education attainment), we see that in the US (and within the age-range of 25/64) only 44% obtain that key-degree of a post-secondary level degree. And it is much better than most of the predominant EU countries, with the singular exception of the UK at 42%. France is only 32% - but my French dentist tells me that his degree in Surgical Dentistry cost him 1200€ a year plus room-'n-board.)

    We in the US should be doing even better. The figure should be at the very least 75% of all students obtaining a Tertiary Level Degree - if secondary-school achievement is around 93%. And that would have happened ultimately if Hillary had become PotUS. And she did win the popular-vote election by a handsome more-than-2% margin!

    One key element of Bernie's political-promise was free Tertiary Education - which he had learned about from Europe. (The British had started theirs in the early post-war 1950s, along with the National Health Service! Whilst America was in having a Victory Conniption being the only developed country with an integral production capacity!)

    Upon winning the Dem-candidature for PotUS, one of the first things Hillary did was to invite Bernie for a chit-chat, the result of which was the inclusion of free Tertiary Education into her platform.

    So, boyz-'n-girlz, WE WAZ ROBBED of the principle ingredient for a post-secondary education - that it be as low-cost as possible. (Hillary had described hers - as I recall - as available to all families with an annual income less than US median family income of $57K.)
     
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have some serious questions whether and how much more tertiary education would add value to the overall economy.

    Remember, just because it adds more value to a person on an individual level does not automatically carry over into the economy as a whole.
    (the fallacy of composition)

    While education is important, I feel the majority of this education serves more of a screening purpose that is then used by employers to be able to better select who they should invest human capital in.

    That is, moving more money into education is just an expensive way to subsidize the employers.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2018
    roorooroo likes this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "skills" that employers most want are actual past experience in the industry.
     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, it lessens the risk of the new-hire being a disaster, and having to find a replacement. But, that never happened to me as a manager or any company in which I worked - so I think it is rather remote.

    Which is why I like very much the German apprenticement program. There the apprentices go to school but also work. So, they get theory and OJT at the same time. Of course, this works at the initial level post-secondary education, which is "vocational".

    I wonder why no school ever thought of extending it to a higher level wherever practicable. For instance, those preparing for a diploma in teaching could be teaching-assistants. And why not some taking courses in medicine. If we had a real National Healthcare System it could be done. French students do it.
     
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems to me that you are making the same mistake about education as most Americans do.

    They think education is all about income-revenue potential. No doubt that is an important element. But certainly not the most important.

    The lack of a proper civics-education is one reason the political system in America is in a shambles, and the process surrenders to spending money on boob-tube advertising. Education is more than just that. Much more.

    It defines and refines our character as human beings. Which is far more important ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2018
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a pretty poor and vague argument, but to lend credence to your argument I have heard it hypothesized that more science trained individuals may ultimately help lead to the creation of new technology companies. (Of course, that can only happen if the jobs are there, which in turn requires the money to hire those people, and good foresight on the part of those with capital to invest, so it's far from a simple "more science education = more innovation" equation.)
     
  7. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    BRAVE NEW WORLD

    That's not what I was getting at. Education is allowing people to appreciate their lot in life, and do their best with it. But depending upon Science whilst necessary is insufficient. We are not all scientists or engineers by nature.

    What we are (for the moment) is a people led by the nose by superlatives. Enough of the more, more, more ; bigger, bigger, bigger; better, better, better. Superlatives are getting America no where.

    The world has changed profoundly with the lowering of the Iron and Bamboo Curtains (in 1990s) and the US must get its proverbial act together. We are not graduating enough of our people from Tertiary Education diplomas and flipping hamburgers at Macdonald's is being automated as I write.

    Our skills-levels must go up-market and that is going to cost public-investment expenditures in education to ameliorate our workforce.

    There is no escaping that fact ... because it is happening all around us. So, either we climb the ladder along with the rest of this Brave New World, or we stagnate at the bottom.

    And Donald Dork is the harbinger of stagnation at the bottom ...
     
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Will the jobs be there if we push all these people through tertiary education?
    In the U.S. there are already signs of strain.

    The medical field is one of the very few which does not have an oversupply, but even there there are some questions about whether adequate demand is going to be there in terms of money, to justify all those degrees, on an individual level, I mean.

    There are only so many middle class consumers paying for healthcare. The profit margins are much lower providing care for those with less money. (Shrinking middle class in U.S.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a trend that started long before him. It transcends any single presidency.

    I'd say it goes as far back as Lyndon Johnson. His efforts to eradicate poverty were commendable, but some of his policies ultimated sowed the seeds for huge underlying problems decades later. Then there was Nixon devalueing the currency to fund Vietnam, Reagan spending the country into debt, and Bill Clinton signing Free Trade deals - which I might add Ross Perot in the 1992 Presidential debate pretty much predicted the Recession would happen 15 years later. (Maybe just a coincidence he got the timing so exact, some would say)

    George Bush (the younger one) added a few more trillion on to the debt for his war. (Which was good, I say bomb them to smithereens and liberate the people, but seems like the masses over there have a tendency to turn to radical Islam after being liberated from oppressive secular dictators, so much thanks we get for trying to free them). Then right before leaving office Bush blew another trillion on the bank bailout (I'm not even going to begin to go into that here, bad bad).

    As you can see, it's pretty much cumulative.

    Oh, don't forget Bush's neoliberal perspective when it came to immigration ("They're doing jobs Americans don't want to do" were his words, just get everyone else a college degree so they can do the better jobs).
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  10. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    May I be the one pointing out the obvious the typical Bell Curve there are pool of those above average in the relevant talent and aptitude to do well in something to earn a living in this can be academic, social, physical fitness, creative, artistic, musical etc. So they would benefit most from such an education and this could be anything suitable for their talents apprenticeships or other education.

    More fall to the center and are more average.

    A third are below average.

    What is the point of such an education for the third at the bottom is a waste of resources? And the center well is there any reason many couldn't learn career skills in High School just add a year, refocus education into technical areas not pre-college and offer tracking again into that or academic preparation that is what most countries do.
     
  11. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IT'S NOT THE YARDSTICK BUT ITS LENGTH

    The country had to start somewhere. But, what Johnson started was just a shot-in-the-dark. Necessary but not really enough to kill the BigBear of Income Disparity. (American presidents try to do A LOT in only four-years, and they have to do it under the threat of "if what I do is not liked, I'll never get that second term".)

    Which is why I go back to taxation and the necessity to "Transfer Wealth". Unfair Wealth accumulation today has to come back to Uncle Sam's Treasury - and it can if we adopt strict rules regarding Inheritance Taxation.

    But, to make sure we don't get in the same predicament again, we need Income Tax rules that cap Upper Income Accumulation. I see no rule better for that task than 100% taxation above a very comfortable income in the megabuck range.

    Because the fault (at the center) is the human desire to distinguish oneself (or oneselves) from all the rest. Yeah, nothing wrong with that incentivisation. Not for me, but for others ... what-the-hell.

    Until a very small percentage (10%) of families start gathering much more of wealth than ideally necessary just because they can. (I am referring to this graphic consequence.)

    Of course, what is meant here is against all present comprehension of the American dream, which goes like this: The sky's the limit!

    Too which I retort: Puerile Nonsense in an Fair Society where intelligence/ambition brings its rewards - but must do so fairly and equitably.

    Meaning further what we are discussing here is not the yardstick but its length ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  12. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course there will! The motor of an economy is Consumer Demand. Make people more intelligent and they will behave intelligently. (I promise you!) Moreover, see individual motivation as expressed by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.)

    Well, that's because healthcare in America is not funded by the Federal government.

    In France, healthcare is not expensive individually but takes up a major proportion of the National Expenditure* (because it covers 100% of the population). But then, France very intelligently DOES NOT HAVE 50% OF ITS BUDGET GOING TO THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT!

    This is a choice any country must make. Who do we take care of first: The health of our own people, or protecting the world from the BadGuys.

    We've chosen the wrong one ... !

    PS: From here, Comparative average yearly salary (GP’s)
    US - $161,000
    France - $149,000*

    *Because the salary is fixed for those working on a payscale determined by the National Healthcare Service. (So, no wonder American doctors DO NOT WANT an NHS!)
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  13. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    DOD BOONDOGGLE

    America has amply proved that too-much science is probably worse than not enough. Far too much of the DoD-budget goes to developing products of very little direct benefit. For instance, the F-35 that was a major DoD-boondoggle.

    It is now "shipping" as an export product, and when reading about it, I am soooooo pleased that Israel has found its destructive power "accurate and impressive". BFD - what Israel needs is some accurate and impressive leadership.

    The F-35 took ten years and a budget of $406B - which in my book is equivalent to allowing 20-million American children into the associate's degree program at state schools (average cost $20K per two-year degree) free, gratis and for nothing.

    Believe me, that tertiary-level degree is a far better "pay-off investment" to more American lives than all the F-35s that will be flying ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2018
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A silly comment! You can whinge about military investments, but at least pretend you know the economics (i.e. its about the extent of spin-off technologies versus spin-in).
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2018
  15. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would we believe that when F-35's secure our lives whereas college merely secures our education. Ask all the millions who have been killed because their country had no an inferior defense!
     
  16. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Education for the sake of education is a grand idea, but completely and utterly worthless in an economic context. We're moving to a post industrial world where knowledge is free, and individuals can pick and choose what relevant information they want to learn.

    Currently, right at this moment, for $50 a month I can learn anything I want, and then use it to manufacturer just about anything that I would reasonably need.

    Why is an "education" so important?
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What economics are you basing that on? Please give details!
     
  18. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The F35 is a revolutionary aircraft for reasons someone outside of the military wouldn't understand, undercut by Obama slashing relevant programs it was intended to assist.

    DARPA doesn't take on reasonable projects. They spend money on things that at their inception are literally ****ing impossible. And their track record for success is infallible.
     
  19. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book 2.

    I did not finish high school, but make a very comfortable living because I have extremely valuable skills and my profession is equally undesirable.

    My wife is extremely educated, and racked up $300,000 in student loans over 7 years, but was able to pay them off within 3 because she is even more so extremely skilled in an incredibly demanding, difficult, and understaffed field.

    Scarcity, utility, and beauty are the only things which define value, and for something to be valuable it must be at least 2 of them.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You realise this is pathetic don't you? Smith was very pro-education after all.
     
  21. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm well aware that he aggressively argued for universal education, and equally aware of the importance of education in protecting capitalism. That's why I strongly support robust educational reform in K-12.

    I do not, however, support spending tens of billions more to correct the failures of our current public system by lengthening the stay.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you're not actually pro-Smith. He acknolwedged the importance of lengthening education as a means to reduce inequalities.
     
  23. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Was this argument in a Moral Sentiment? I haven't gotten around to reading that one yet.

    In one of his later lecture publications?

    Because that argument was not made in the Wealth of Nations.
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This did make me laugh! Cheers
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  25. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm serious.

    Was my copy incomplete? Was it missing pages? Are you referring to a publication I've yet to read?
     

Share This Page