3 ms·
The decades of data only make sense when you consider that a very small percentage of the population was attending college. Of course they were highly paid; the
by jbob2000 8y ago
The decades of data only make sense when you consider that a very small percentage of the population was attending college. Of course they were highly paid; they were rare.
If everybody has a college degree, then those skills aren’t rare and you won’t get paid highly for them. Salary is about how hard you are to replace, not how good/qualified you are.
The problem definitely is that we push people to college. You don’t need a college degree for 90% of the jobs out there and we’ve completely watered down what a college degree is because we wanted everyone to have one.
- mywittyname 8y ago> If everybody has a college degree, then those skills aren’t rare and you won’t get paid highly for them. Salary is about how hard you are to replace, not how good/qualified you are. I disagree. Your model only works under the assumption that the economy can only have so many jobs. If the US graduated 10x as many engineers from 1990 until now, the economy would be much larger than it is today. Which means that salaries may even be higher because despite a 10x increase in workforce, the demand for them may have increase by 15x. This is an easily observable situation. Regions with concentrations of talent tend to have much higher salaries for such people than regions where that talent is scarce.
- injb 8y ago> Your model only works under the assumption that the economy can only have so many jobs No, the argument only assumes that the number of jobs won't increase in proportion to the number of college degrees, which is obviously true.