4 ms·

I do _not_ have a degree in economics, and am content to admit I only understand basic principles. My implicit point is that the credential does not "make one p

I do _not_ have a degree in economics, and am content to admit I only understand basic principles. My implicit point is that the credential does not "make one productive"; it qualifies one to perform in jobs that _carry_ higher productivity in the market. Without a commensurate increase in those jobs to match the higher proportion of the population obtaining the credential, the supply and demand equilibrium point moves. By all means, if there is data or more sophisticated principles at work, please correct me.

CPLX 11y ago
Productivity is a word that has a meaning. It is a measure of the amount of economic output that can be produced with a given amount of labor, measured in time. So for example if a worker can produce 20 lunches instead of 15 lunches of equal quality an hour, his productivity is higher. I think you lost the plot by assuming the original article was implying that because of college degrees productivity must be higher. That's not what it said, it was saying that more workers have college degrees and also productivity is at record high levels. The effect of the former could be arguable, but the result of the latter should be higher wages. It's a genuine concern to try to figure out what's going on if that's not what's happening.
- lr4444lr 11y ago
  Okay, but I don't see the author's measure of productivity either. He seems to take your definition, as applied over the _entire economy_, and suggests that when applied to the individual wage level (presumably dividing by population) there is a conundrum. My suggestion is that there is a simple (if incomplete) explanation for this. An extreme example can illustrate my point well: if you took the entirety of Silicon Valley's tech workers and air-dropped them with no provisions into an aboriginal tribe in the Amazon rainforest (and they automatically knew the native language), who would be more productive in the local economy? Can you please clarify for the sake of readers (and me) how it is significantly different in the real world if the market of value-commanding labor changes under people's feet instead of transplanting them to a completely foreign environment?
  - CPLX 11y ago
    The authors definition and "my" definition and everyone's definition are the same because it's a commonly understood economics term. He's not talking about air-dropping people into the Amazon he's talking about workers productivity here in this economy and their wages in this economy, thus comparing apples to apples. And he's talking about the wages of an entire generation, not applying it down to some individual level. This shouldn't be confusing, these concepts are commonly understood by many, and are called macroeconomics. The only thing at issue here is your mischaracterization of this as somehow being opposed to "basic economics," with which further inquiry has revealed you clearly are unfamiliar.
    - lr4444lr 11y ago
      Twice now I've asked for correction, taking you at your word that you have an economics degree and that it is a good proxy for your superior knowledge to mine, clarifying myself in the process despite other commenters demonstrating they understood my original intention, and twice now you've refused to do that, and attack me instead of shedding any light. >I think you lost the plot by assuming the original article was implying that because of college degrees productivity must be higher. That's not what it said..." I cited an unbroken snippet from the article which clearly evinces a causal relationship. The context is, "should be the highest-paid ... They are, after all the most likely to hold a college degree". That's just reading comprehension, not economics. If you don't want to address that, fine, but your deliberate misreading of the author and my example is not likely fooling anybody here.
      - CPLX 11y ago
        "AND are working in a period of unsurpassed productivity" Those are two things. Having a college degree is debatable but certainly is associated with higher wages. Higher productivity is definitely correlated with higher wages. You said the opposite was the case. You're wrong, but either way the burden is on you to explain why on earth you think those two things should cause lower wages.
        11y ago

CPLX 11y ago

Productivity is a word that has a meaning. It is a measure of the amount of economic output that can be produced with a given amount of labor, measured in time. So for example if a worker can produce 20 lunches instead of 15 lunches of equal quality an hour, his productivity is higher. I think you lost the plot by assuming the original article was implying that because of college degrees productivity must be higher. That's not what it said, it was saying that more workers have college degrees and also productivity is at record high levels. The effect of the former could be arguable, but the result of the latter should be higher wages. It's a genuine concern to try to figure out what's going on if that's not what's happening.

lr4444lr 11y ago
Okay, but I don't see the author's measure of productivity either. He seems to take your definition, as applied over the _entire economy_, and suggests that when applied to the individual wage level (presumably dividing by population) there is a conundrum. My suggestion is that there is a simple (if incomplete) explanation for this. An extreme example can illustrate my point well: if you took the entirety of Silicon Valley's tech workers and air-dropped them with no provisions into an aboriginal tribe in the Amazon rainforest (and they automatically knew the native language), who would be more productive in the local economy? Can you please clarify for the sake of readers (and me) how it is significantly different in the real world if the market of value-commanding labor changes under people's feet instead of transplanting them to a completely foreign environment?
- CPLX 11y ago
  The authors definition and "my" definition and everyone's definition are the same because it's a commonly understood economics term. He's not talking about air-dropping people into the Amazon he's talking about workers productivity here in this economy and their wages in this economy, thus comparing apples to apples. And he's talking about the wages of an entire generation, not applying it down to some individual level. This shouldn't be confusing, these concepts are commonly understood by many, and are called macroeconomics. The only thing at issue here is your mischaracterization of this as somehow being opposed to "basic economics," with which further inquiry has revealed you clearly are unfamiliar.
  - lr4444lr 11y ago
    Twice now I've asked for correction, taking you at your word that you have an economics degree and that it is a good proxy for your superior knowledge to mine, clarifying myself in the process despite other commenters demonstrating they understood my original intention, and twice now you've refused to do that, and attack me instead of shedding any light. >I think you lost the plot by assuming the original article was implying that because of college degrees productivity must be higher. That's not what it said..." I cited an unbroken snippet from the article which clearly evinces a causal relationship. The context is, "should be the highest-paid ... They are, after all the most likely to hold a college degree". That's just reading comprehension, not economics. If you don't want to address that, fine, but your deliberate misreading of the author and my example is not likely fooling anybody here.
    - CPLX 11y ago
      "AND are working in a period of unsurpassed productivity" Those are two things. Having a college degree is debatable but certainly is associated with higher wages. Higher productivity is definitely correlated with higher wages. You said the opposite was the case. You're wrong, but either way the burden is on you to explain why on earth you think those two things should cause lower wages.
      - 11y ago