3 ms·
Personally I think looking at higher ed is looking at the wrong side of the equation. We're not in an education bubble, but a "bunge"[1] if you will - the oppos
by sprout 16y ago
Personally I think looking at higher ed is looking at the wrong side of the equation. We're not in an education bubble, but a "bunge"[1] if you will - the opposite of a bubble - with regard to labor prices.
In other words, people aren't overpaying for education, businesses are underpaying for human talent.
[1] http://www.johnkay.com/2008/07/02/metaphors-in-free-fall-the-anti-bubble-named/ http://www.johnkay.com/2008/07/02/metaphors-in-free-fall-the...
- yummyfajitas 16y agoWhy do you believe talent is underpaid?
- sprout 16y agoThe top 10% of Americans hold an ever-increasing share of American GDP. So I suppose to be a little finer-grained, upper echelons of society overpay themselves and underpay the majority of the labor market, even as they benefit from the fruits of a highly educated labor market.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoHow does the top 10% receiving an increasing share of GDP imply that the bottom 90% are underpaid? If the top 10% are also creating an increasing share of GDP, then that would imply that everyone is being properly valued.
- sprout 16y agoThat's a tautology though. You're using the method of apportioning contribution to GDP (wages) to prove that GDP is being properly apportioned. There's evidence of your position, but it's hardly obvious. Personally I believe it to be incorrect.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoI'm not asserting that wages are being properly apportioned - I'm just pointing out that the fact that the top x% get a greater portion of GDP is not evidence that talent is underpaid. It could easily be the case that the top 10% is the most talented, and the talent gap/rewards for talent have increased. Income inequality is simply not evidence either for (or against) the claim that talent is underpaid, at least not without information on the distribution of talent.