8 ms·

"Do we slow the 0.01 percent or lift the 99.99 percent, which could be a heavier and more complex assignment?" I always find it odd that these articles pretend

"Do we slow the 0.01 percent or lift the 99.99 percent, which could be a heavier and more complex assignment?" I always find it odd that these articles pretend that you can educate everyone well enough to earn a middle-class job. I believe it's more like a Red Queen race, meaning that as soon as you increase the average education of potential employees, companies will equally raise their requirements.

missedthecue 5y ago
In the US at least, there is more that needs to be done than getting greater numbers of people through the degree mill. Some examples - - 50% of inner city school kids will not graduate high school. - 2/3 of the prison population is functionally illiterate. - 75% of the prison population did not finish high school. - 19% of the US population cannot read a newspaper. Nearly all of them earn incomes at or below the poverty level. The situation is the same in European countries as well. Italy has an extremely high rate of functional illiteracy. (Some estimates peg it at 47%) How can people be expected to live healthy productive lives when they cannot effectively communicate in written language?
- psychlops 5y ago
  50% of the population in the US is below average.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    And you're happy with average being 'just barely literate'?
    - psychlops 5y ago
      Not sure what 'just barely literate' means. The literacy rate in the the US is greater than 96% and is comparable to other first world countries. None of the statistical numbers above are surprising and, call me cynical but, I don't think there will be much change coming. I'd love to be proven wrong.
      - HarryHirsch 5y ago
        * The literacy rate in the the US is greater than 96%* Even the government would disagree with you: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69
        rkk3 5y ago
        > Even the government would disagree with you Actually, like the OP said it depends on how you define literacy. Using the definition of <3 on NCES it would be around 50% but if they were using a more liberal definition like CIA world factbook it would be almost 100%.
        unishark 5y ago
        If someone is referring to that rating system they should use its definitions. Below level 1 is functionally illiterate. Levels 1 and 2 are not functionally illiterate, they are low literacy.
        ABCLAW 5y ago
        In case readers are interested in what the levels mean: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/litproficiencylevel.asp https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/litproficiencylevel.asp
      - OJFord 5y ago
        In the UK I believe it's defined in terms of 'reading age' (12?) which, if you don't have that either, is a sort of expected standard of reading ability at certain ages; so teachers can say at parents' evenings 'oh little five year old Bobby already has a reading age of 14, doing really well', or 'I'm afraid 10yo Sam needs some extra help, with a reading age of six currently...' etc. So, in short, I think literacy level is reasonably quantifiable, and by 'just barely literate' I meant 'sufficient to be called literate but no higher', right on that boundary. I don't know and wasn't suggesting anything about the current actual make up of literacy in the US; I was just replying to '50% are below average' which is of course always going to be true in a relative sense, but you can shift the absolute values up; it doesn't mean 50% must be illiterate or anywhere close, or any at all even. (Unless you define it as less lettered than average I suppose!)
  - syspec 5y ago
    Always has been
- goostavos 5y ago
  Source for those numbers? They're terrible if true.
burkaman 5y ago
Also seems to ignore the fact that the simplest way to lift the 99.99 percent is just to give them some of the 0.01 percent's money.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > the simplest way to lift the 99.99 percent is just to give them some of the 0.01 percent's money No, the simplest way is for the 0.01 percent to pay them to do things, not give them money.
  - zorpner 5y ago
    That is trivially not simpler.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      Sure it is. People pay other people for goods and services all the time; it happens naturally and is simple. Forcibly taking money away from some people and giving it to others is not natural or simple: it takes a huge, bloated government bureaucracy, which does a terrible job at it anyway.
      - ajmadesc 5y ago
        This is just plain false. The mechanism / organization of taxing and distributing _can_ be very simple.
        pdonis 5y ago
        > The mechanism / organization of taxing and distributing _can_ be very simple. In theory, sure. But as the saying goes, in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they aren't. No such "simple" system of taxing and redistributing has ever actually existed. The incentives to complicate and manipulate it are too strong.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
psychlops 5y ago
This is the correct observation, although the education is only one small part of the article (and sometimes even useful for jobs). Wealth redistribution would work the same way.
AussieWog93 5y ago
You don't need everyone to have a middle class job if working class jobs pay well enough that children don't grow up in poverty.
casualrandomcom 5y ago
One point that is often missing from this discussion is that we should take away money from the super-rich because they will use it against us. In two regards: - They use it in political activities to maintain their status also by fighting against social liquidity, or against laws that let the externalities of their businesses emerge as costs. - Even when they have goodwill, they don't know what is good for us and how to achieve it, simply because success in business does not prove they are good at this.
unishark 5y ago
> I believe it's more like a Red Queen race, meaning that as soon as you increase the average education of potential employees, companies will equally raise their requirements. Competition is always the way these things get tied to absolute metrics and not relative ones. If people can be made more productive by giving them skills, they would be worth paying more. If you underpay employees and pocket too much of the value they produce, then a competitor can come along underpay a bit less but still make a profit, and hire away your employees.
thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
As soon as you increase the average education of potential employees, you increase the average value of potential employees. Which means your business is better at creating value? Where do you get better educated people mean everything else stays the same?

missedthecue 5y ago

In the US at least, there is more that needs to be done than getting greater numbers of people through the degree mill. Some examples - - 50% of inner city school kids will not graduate high school. - 2/3 of the prison population is functionally illiterate. - 75% of the prison population did not finish high school. - 19% of the US population cannot read a newspaper. Nearly all of them earn incomes at or below the poverty level. The situation is the same in European countries as well. Italy has an extremely high rate of functional illiteracy. (Some estimates peg it at 47%) How can people be expected to live healthy productive lives when they cannot effectively communicate in written language?

psychlops 5y ago
50% of the population in the US is below average.
- OJFord 5y ago
  And you're happy with average being 'just barely literate'?
  - psychlops 5y ago
    Not sure what 'just barely literate' means. The literacy rate in the the US is greater than 96% and is comparable to other first world countries. None of the statistical numbers above are surprising and, call me cynical but, I don't think there will be much change coming. I'd love to be proven wrong.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      * The literacy rate in the the US is greater than 96%* Even the government would disagree with you: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69
      - rkk3 5y ago
        > Even the government would disagree with you Actually, like the OP said it depends on how you define literacy. Using the definition of <3 on NCES it would be around 50% but if they were using a more liberal definition like CIA world factbook it would be almost 100%.
        unishark 5y ago
        If someone is referring to that rating system they should use its definitions. Below level 1 is functionally illiterate. Levels 1 and 2 are not functionally illiterate, they are low literacy.
      - ABCLAW 5y ago
        In case readers are interested in what the levels mean: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/litproficiencylevel.asp https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/litproficiencylevel.asp
    - OJFord 5y ago
      In the UK I believe it's defined in terms of 'reading age' (12?) which, if you don't have that either, is a sort of expected standard of reading ability at certain ages; so teachers can say at parents' evenings 'oh little five year old Bobby already has a reading age of 14, doing really well', or 'I'm afraid 10yo Sam needs some extra help, with a reading age of six currently...' etc. So, in short, I think literacy level is reasonably quantifiable, and by 'just barely literate' I meant 'sufficient to be called literate but no higher', right on that boundary. I don't know and wasn't suggesting anything about the current actual make up of literacy in the US; I was just replying to '50% are below average' which is of course always going to be true in a relative sense, but you can shift the absolute values up; it doesn't mean 50% must be illiterate or anywhere close, or any at all even. (Unless you define it as less lettered than average I suppose!)
- syspec 5y ago
  Always has been
goostavos 5y ago
Source for those numbers? They're terrible if true.

burkaman 5y ago

Also seems to ignore the fact that the simplest way to lift the 99.99 percent is just to give them some of the 0.01 percent's money.

pdonis 5y ago
> the simplest way to lift the 99.99 percent is just to give them some of the 0.01 percent's money No, the simplest way is for the 0.01 percent to pay them to do things, not give them money.
- zorpner 5y ago
  That is trivially not simpler.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    Sure it is. People pay other people for goods and services all the time; it happens naturally and is simple. Forcibly taking money away from some people and giving it to others is not natural or simple: it takes a huge, bloated government bureaucracy, which does a terrible job at it anyway.
    - ajmadesc 5y ago
      This is just plain false. The mechanism / organization of taxing and distributing _can_ be very simple.
      - pdonis 5y ago
        > The mechanism / organization of taxing and distributing _can_ be very simple. In theory, sure. But as the saying goes, in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they aren't. No such "simple" system of taxing and redistributing has ever actually existed. The incentives to complicate and manipulate it are too strong.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

psychlops 5y ago

This is the correct observation, although the education is only one small part of the article (and sometimes even useful for jobs). Wealth redistribution would work the same way.

AussieWog93 5y ago

You don't need everyone to have a middle class job if working class jobs pay well enough that children don't grow up in poverty.

casualrandomcom 5y ago

One point that is often missing from this discussion is that we should take away money from the super-rich because they will use it against us. In two regards: - They use it in political activities to maintain their status also by fighting against social liquidity, or against laws that let the externalities of their businesses emerge as costs. - Even when they have goodwill, they don't know what is good for us and how to achieve it, simply because success in business does not prove they are good at this.

unishark 5y ago

> I believe it's more like a Red Queen race, meaning that as soon as you increase the average education of potential employees, companies will equally raise their requirements. Competition is always the way these things get tied to absolute metrics and not relative ones. If people can be made more productive by giving them skills, they would be worth paying more. If you underpay employees and pocket too much of the value they produce, then a competitor can come along underpay a bit less but still make a profit, and hire away your employees.

thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago

As soon as you increase the average education of potential employees, you increase the average value of potential employees. Which means your business is better at creating value? Where do you get better educated people mean everything else stays the same?