5 ms·

> to fund sufficient education for the masses to so they can have a chance of participating in any meaningful work Is there actual evidence that (public spendi

> to fund sufficient education for the masses to so they can have a chance of participating in any meaningful work Is there actual evidence that (public spending on) education leads to productivity? Because it doesn't seem that way[1], or at least it doesn't scale beyond some (relatively low) point. [1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha....

runako 14y ago
My goodness that chart is misleading. The x-axis measures number of years of increase in schooling. Put another way, the x-axis will roughly be the inverse of development at the beginning of the period. This is because nations that were highly developed at the start of the period wouldn't have reasonably been able to add an additional 8 years of schooling on average. Nations adding 8 years will overwhelmingly have been starting from low bases. So the chart essentially says that adding education is more valuable in developed economies. Which is good to demonstrate empirically, but is hardly shocking. The other major flaw in this study is that the timeframe is short. Again, consider the x-axis. Adding 8 years of schooling on average to even the least developed nation takes the first cohort out to ~15 years of age. By the time that first cohort hits age 47, the study period is over. This is measuring improvement without capturing the a full decade or more of the first cohort (and even less for subsequent cohorts). And obviously the first highly educated cohort wouldn't have had time to mentor a productive generation yet (or completely infiltrate the political infrastructure, etc.). Perhaps there's more useful data in the linked papers, but the data in TFA is unconvincing. Finally, on the larger point of the correlation between education and productivity/wealth creation, there are ample empirical correlations. Obviously these do not imply causation, but the onus is certainly to show why this is not the case given that the correlation of education and wealth exists in roughly 100% of developed economies. If a country could become developed without spending on education, why has nobody done it?
- iroy 14y ago
  Saudi Arabia.
  - simonh 14y ago
    An exception that proves the rule?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
PakG1 14y ago
Although that's probably a good counterpoint, it doesn't provide any solutions. I'd say the fear about automation is real. I think we all know that. Especially in enterprise, pretty much the sole purpose of coding is to automate people's jobs. I experienced it firsthand. I was so happy seeing my finished product in use, then kind of sick when I met the people I had automated in new jobs, with them telling me how they loved their new opportunities and how they loved to learn. Except their voices sounded falsely happy, and their new jobs were also targeted for automation. These people were the breadwinners of their families, and I wasn't doing anything to really help them be better off. They lacked good skills to really do something special. Was that their fault? Should they be punished for it? They worked hard, cared for their kids, put in the hours for their dreams. The subject is a bit personal for me, and I agree that simply education isn't a 100% correct answer, but I'd wager that it must be part of the answer. The worrisome question is what is the whole complete answer?
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  The only whole and complete answer is the end of capitalism as we know it. Not, that is, the end of market economies as we know them, but the end of capitalism in the sense of dividing the population into those who own the means of production and a broad mass who must sell labor to survive. Labor is becoming an unsaleable commodity.
  - PakG1 14y ago
    If you want market economies to stay, market economies will figure out whether or not labor is a saleable commodity, no? I don't understand your point?
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Unsaleable here was not supposed to mean illegal or literally impossible to sell. I meant it as "very/increasingly difficult to sell at a profit". Selling labor at a profit is becoming a problem, since it has those irritating built-in costs of food, shelter and health-care.

runako 14y ago

My goodness that chart is misleading. The x-axis measures number of years of increase in schooling. Put another way, the x-axis will roughly be the inverse of development at the beginning of the period. This is because nations that were highly developed at the start of the period wouldn't have reasonably been able to add an additional 8 years of schooling on average. Nations adding 8 years will overwhelmingly have been starting from low bases. So the chart essentially says that adding education is more valuable in developed economies. Which is good to demonstrate empirically, but is hardly shocking. The other major flaw in this study is that the timeframe is short. Again, consider the x-axis. Adding 8 years of schooling on average to even the least developed nation takes the first cohort out to ~15 years of age. By the time that first cohort hits age 47, the study period is over. This is measuring improvement without capturing the a full decade or more of the first cohort (and even less for subsequent cohorts). And obviously the first highly educated cohort wouldn't have had time to mentor a productive generation yet (or completely infiltrate the political infrastructure, etc.). Perhaps there's more useful data in the linked papers, but the data in TFA is unconvincing. Finally, on the larger point of the correlation between education and productivity/wealth creation, there are ample empirical correlations. Obviously these do not imply causation, but the onus is certainly to show why this is not the case given that the correlation of education and wealth exists in roughly 100% of developed economies. If a country could become developed without spending on education, why has nobody done it?

iroy 14y ago
Saudi Arabia.
- simonh 14y ago
  An exception that proves the rule?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

PakG1 14y ago

Although that's probably a good counterpoint, it doesn't provide any solutions. I'd say the fear about automation is real. I think we all know that. Especially in enterprise, pretty much the sole purpose of coding is to automate people's jobs. I experienced it firsthand. I was so happy seeing my finished product in use, then kind of sick when I met the people I had automated in new jobs, with them telling me how they loved their new opportunities and how they loved to learn. Except their voices sounded falsely happy, and their new jobs were also targeted for automation. These people were the breadwinners of their families, and I wasn't doing anything to really help them be better off. They lacked good skills to really do something special. Was that their fault? Should they be punished for it? They worked hard, cared for their kids, put in the hours for their dreams. The subject is a bit personal for me, and I agree that simply education isn't a 100% correct answer, but I'd wager that it must be part of the answer. The worrisome question is what is the whole complete answer?

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
The only whole and complete answer is the end of capitalism as we know it. Not, that is, the end of market economies as we know them, but the end of capitalism in the sense of dividing the population into those who own the means of production and a broad mass who must sell labor to survive. Labor is becoming an unsaleable commodity.
- PakG1 14y ago
  If you want market economies to stay, market economies will figure out whether or not labor is a saleable commodity, no? I don't understand your point?
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Unsaleable here was not supposed to mean illegal or literally impossible to sell. I meant it as "very/increasingly difficult to sell at a profit". Selling labor at a profit is becoming a problem, since it has those irritating built-in costs of food, shelter and health-care.