4 ms·

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 whe

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.
    - lr4444lr 11y ago
      I already explained this: the author's disconnect, as I see it, can be explained by challenging the assumption that the college degree inherently "creates" the increased productivity, and considering whether the market for the jobs on the higher side of the mean or median in the productivity-wage correlation is not met by the college degree. In addition, and as a related aside, doesn't automated production challenge the "definite" productivity-wage correlation even in work typically reserved for college degreed workers? (Genuinely asking here, as I haven't seen this talked about very much in the material I read, though I want to know more about it.)
      - CPLX 11y ago
        You're still misreading it. The author didn't say college degrees are creating productivity. Productivity is a metric that you can measure. You're struggling because you don't understand the meaning of the sentence you're critiquing.
        lr4444lr 11y ago
        You keep saying that, despite my quoting it twice. We made some progress when you highlighted that the second explanatory sentence contains two causes, and that at best I only addressed the first one - IF I did at all, which I agreed. Now you're back to denying what can be demonstrably seen to be so by applying very straightforward reading comprehension, and ignoring my last comment altogether, where for a 3rd time I sincerely asked you to educate us on a subject I still believed you might have some authority to speak on. Frankly, it sounds like you just want to hide behind your economics degree, and I'm beginning to doubt you have the knowledge to share.

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.
  - lr4444lr 11y ago
    I already explained this: the author's disconnect, as I see it, can be explained by challenging the assumption that the college degree inherently "creates" the increased productivity, and considering whether the market for the jobs on the higher side of the mean or median in the productivity-wage correlation is not met by the college degree. In addition, and as a related aside, doesn't automated production challenge the "definite" productivity-wage correlation even in work typically reserved for college degreed workers? (Genuinely asking here, as I haven't seen this talked about very much in the material I read, though I want to know more about it.)
    - CPLX 11y ago
      You're still misreading it. The author didn't say college degrees are creating productivity. Productivity is a metric that you can measure. You're struggling because you don't understand the meaning of the sentence you're critiquing.
      - lr4444lr 11y ago
        You keep saying that, despite my quoting it twice. We made some progress when you highlighted that the second explanatory sentence contains two causes, and that at best I only addressed the first one - IF I did at all, which I agreed. Now you're back to denying what can be demonstrably seen to be so by applying very straightforward reading comprehension, and ignoring my last comment altogether, where for a 3rd time I sincerely asked you to educate us on a subject I still believed you might have some authority to speak on. Frankly, it sounds like you just want to hide behind your economics degree, and I'm beginning to doubt you have the knowledge to share.