4 ms·

> There are plenty of folks who don't have PhD's who would be better positioned in the job market if they had the talent and opportunity to earn one. Cool ane

> There are plenty of folks who don't have PhD's who would be better positioned in the job market if they had the talent and opportunity to earn one. Cool anecdotes and all, but there's data on this question and you're wrong. PhDs do not increase lifetime earnings. This isn't a case of dueling anecdotes. It's a normal fact we can verify with data. > As for oil executives: they're not going to be the biggest winners here. Shareholders likely will be. And I suppose oil executives store their fortunes in bold bars...? > PENSION FUNDS for state employees This is such a BS excuse for favoring capital. It is, in fact, possible to write tax code that differentiates between the two. The current tax bill does not, in fact, actually do so. And worse, it even rolls back benefits that did differentiate between "filthy rich" and "working class saving for retirement"! > I wonder if you realize how much you sound like a lobbyist? Says the one conflating upper class investment income with pension funds while defending a policy that slashes retirement benefits and dismissing hard facts with personal anecdotes about how well-off people making 30k/yr are...

Nrsolis 9y ago
AHEM. https://www.wes.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/blog_20140722-02-Work-Life-Earnings.jpg https://www.wes.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/blog_20140722...
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  PhD programs are not full of modal students; what you want to do is compare the average PhD with the average person who did not get a PhD but would've been accepted into a program. On that note, compare students' industry offers after undergraduate to their post-graduate incomes, and account for opportunity cost
  - Nrsolis 9y ago
    Sounds like a great research project. Let me know what you find.
- lmeyerov 9y ago
  AHEM. As above, it takes work to be as wrong as you are, so this seems like either an amazing amount of ignorance, or deliberate deception. 1. What it shows: Students good enough to get accepted into PhD programs are good enough to get paid more in general. Good we're talking about this -- the market clearly values these people! 2. What it misses: ... But what if a PhD-capable person instead just went directly into industry? What is the opportunity cost of taking a pause of 4-7 years to do R&D for the public? 3. What economists found: By looking at students graduating from a good school and therefore PhD-capable, and then comparing the result of them doing 4-7 years of PhD vs not.. the students who took time to contribute to science lost out on a ton of money. They're quite literally donating their time to society. Phrasing it as _subsidizing_ these people to do R&D is misleading. The reality is the government is underpaying for the public service of growing the economy, especially relative to market rates for people equally qualified to make a bunch of $$$ working on social media ads and fancy juice machines. But that breaks the narrative. The actual studies show the salary sweet spot is somewhere between a BS and MS. That means federal institutions must _lure_ PhDs, not drive them away.
  - Nrsolis 9y ago
    You're making some impressive leaps of logic there. 1. If these people are so valuable then they should have no problem getting allocated more stipend money to cover the taxable tuition they receive. So, it's an accounting problem and nothing more. 2. WHAT IF INDEED. If you can point to a longitudinal study of folks that started a PhD program (or were accepted into one and didn't matriculate) but instead decided to go into private industry that's controlled for study area, I'm all ears. 3. An assertion like this without data to back it up is conjecture. I haven't seen any studies by any economists that support your argument. If you want to argue that subsidizing graduate research is in the interest of the nation, fine. There are plenty of competing priorities here and we have to choose. I can make a good argument that LOTS of individuals are underpaid relative to their contributions to the economy. We can start with primary school teachers and public safety workers. I'd like to remind you that there are lots of groups out there looking for some tax break or government funding set-aside. You'll have to get in line. The simple truth is: we're all contributing in some way to the economy and the growth of the nation. To single out one occupation or another is favoritism. I'm against using the tax code to incentivize behavior. I highly doubt most motivated individuals would forego graduate work if they're truly committed to research, no matter what the barriers. Previous generations didn't have the kinds of opportunities that students enjoy today. We somehow managed to invent the microchip and land men on the moon. I highly doubt we need a tuition subsidy to continue that record.
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please stop posting uncivilly to Hacker News? You've done it a lot, and it's destructive of the community. Also, please don't do flamewars here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Nrsolis 9y ago

AHEM. https://www.wes.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/blog_20140722-02-Work-Life-Earnings.jpg https://www.wes.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/blog_20140722...

throwawayjava 9y ago
PhD programs are not full of modal students; what you want to do is compare the average PhD with the average person who did not get a PhD but would've been accepted into a program. On that note, compare students' industry offers after undergraduate to their post-graduate incomes, and account for opportunity cost
- Nrsolis 9y ago
  Sounds like a great research project. Let me know what you find.
lmeyerov 9y ago
AHEM. As above, it takes work to be as wrong as you are, so this seems like either an amazing amount of ignorance, or deliberate deception. 1. What it shows: Students good enough to get accepted into PhD programs are good enough to get paid more in general. Good we're talking about this -- the market clearly values these people! 2. What it misses: ... But what if a PhD-capable person instead just went directly into industry? What is the opportunity cost of taking a pause of 4-7 years to do R&D for the public? 3. What economists found: By looking at students graduating from a good school and therefore PhD-capable, and then comparing the result of them doing 4-7 years of PhD vs not.. the students who took time to contribute to science lost out on a ton of money. They're quite literally donating their time to society. Phrasing it as _subsidizing_ these people to do R&D is misleading. The reality is the government is underpaying for the public service of growing the economy, especially relative to market rates for people equally qualified to make a bunch of $$$ working on social media ads and fancy juice machines. But that breaks the narrative. The actual studies show the salary sweet spot is somewhere between a BS and MS. That means federal institutions must _lure_ PhDs, not drive them away.
- Nrsolis 9y ago
  You're making some impressive leaps of logic there. 1. If these people are so valuable then they should have no problem getting allocated more stipend money to cover the taxable tuition they receive. So, it's an accounting problem and nothing more. 2. WHAT IF INDEED. If you can point to a longitudinal study of folks that started a PhD program (or were accepted into one and didn't matriculate) but instead decided to go into private industry that's controlled for study area, I'm all ears. 3. An assertion like this without data to back it up is conjecture. I haven't seen any studies by any economists that support your argument. If you want to argue that subsidizing graduate research is in the interest of the nation, fine. There are plenty of competing priorities here and we have to choose. I can make a good argument that LOTS of individuals are underpaid relative to their contributions to the economy. We can start with primary school teachers and public safety workers. I'd like to remind you that there are lots of groups out there looking for some tax break or government funding set-aside. You'll have to get in line. The simple truth is: we're all contributing in some way to the economy and the growth of the nation. To single out one occupation or another is favoritism. I'm against using the tax code to incentivize behavior. I highly doubt most motivated individuals would forego graduate work if they're truly committed to research, no matter what the barriers. Previous generations didn't have the kinds of opportunities that students enjoy today. We somehow managed to invent the microchip and land men on the moon. I highly doubt we need a tuition subsidy to continue that record.
dang 9y ago
Would you please stop posting uncivilly to Hacker News? You've done it a lot, and it's destructive of the community. Also, please don't do flamewars here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html