3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou'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 agoYou 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.