3 ms·

We're probably talking past each other then because I read you the other way. Either way: in 2026 there is still a striking college income premium, statisticall

by tptacek 2mo ago

We're probably talking past each other then because I read you the other way. Either way: in 2026 there is still a striking college income premium, statistically (it's over 50%). It's presumably much lower than it was before (more people go to college and also the labor market changed; it will change even more sharply in the coming years due to automation). If we're both arguing that economic outcomes are messily related to lots of different causes, we're saying the same thing.

win311fwg 2mo ago
> in 2026 there is still a striking college income premium, statistically (it's over 50%). We can make this real simple: 64% of the population have a degree. The median income is unchanged since before <50% of the population had a degree. If individuals gained a premium, we'd have to have seen an increase in the median income after >50% of the population attained a degree. That is a mathematical necessity. But it didn't happen... There is no college premium, plain and simple. While incomes are stagnant for nearly all individuals, college degree or not, I suspect what you are trying to point out is that the so-called top 1% has seen a dramatic rise in income and that most in the top 1% have a degree. Therefore, the combined income of all degree holders has risen at a rate faster than the remainder of the population, even if most degree holders have seen no change. That is definitely true, but a long way from your claim that education influences lifetime earnings. Given that only a small subset of all degree holders have found what could be called a premium, it is unlikely that the premium is influenced by college; at least not in a consistent or reproducible way to make it a useful claim.
- tptacek 2mo ago
  Wait, what? I don't want to get pulled into an argument about college that I'm not invested in, but how is this even arithmetically true? I can bestow a lifetime increase on two people in the bottom half cohort without changing the median at all. Like, I'd need us to share premises about what the term "median" means before talking about anything else in this argument.
  - win311fwg 2mo ago
    It's curious that you find it necessary for us to share what "median" means, but then not share, but I guess you must have accidentally pressed the "Reply" button before you were finished? We can do a simple thought experiment here. If 0% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does not have a degree? If 100% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does have a degree? So when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? My definition says yes. And since the degree brings a premium, how do you explain the median income not rising? Maybe the premium you are imagining is just hugs and kisses? I know, you think the median income has somehow always been filled by a degree holder, even when only a small segment of the population had a degree. But how is that possible when education influences lifetime earnings? Shouldn't those with education be making more than the median when those with education are a small segment of the population?
    - defrost 2mo ago
      Not whom you questioned, but ... > We can do a simple thought experiment here. Yes, and Yes. > when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? No. I don't even agree that there is necessarily a single median income holder - there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not.
      - win311fwg 2mo ago
        I don't question anyone in particular. This is a discussion forum, not a private one-on-one conversation. > there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. So what you are suggesting is that attaining a degree lowers your earnings and then gives you back a commensurate premium, thus restoring you back to the same level as those without a degree? That's a take, I guess, but premium usually comes with certain connotations that isn't that. > Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not. Again, where is the premium? If the only person without a degree isn't the lowest earner then we know that the person with the least earnings has a degree, but it was asserted that the person with the least earnings is given a premium over those without a degree, so... Are your numbers omitting a space alien or fairy without a degree where we earlier considered them to be people? It's not clear how to resolve this discrepancy.

by tptacek 2mo ago

win311fwg 2mo ago

> in 2026 there is still a striking college income premium, statistically (it's over 50%). We can make this real simple: 64% of the population have a degree. The median income is unchanged since before <50% of the population had a degree. If individuals gained a premium, we'd have to have seen an increase in the median income after >50% of the population attained a degree. That is a mathematical necessity. But it didn't happen... There is no college premium, plain and simple. While incomes are stagnant for nearly all individuals, college degree or not, I suspect what you are trying to point out is that the so-called top 1% has seen a dramatic rise in income and that most in the top 1% have a degree. Therefore, the combined income of all degree holders has risen at a rate faster than the remainder of the population, even if most degree holders have seen no change. That is definitely true, but a long way from your claim that education influences lifetime earnings. Given that only a small subset of all degree holders have found what could be called a premium, it is unlikely that the premium is influenced by college; at least not in a consistent or reproducible way to make it a useful claim.

tptacek 2mo ago
Wait, what? I don't want to get pulled into an argument about college that I'm not invested in, but how is this even arithmetically true? I can bestow a lifetime increase on two people in the bottom half cohort without changing the median at all. Like, I'd need us to share premises about what the term "median" means before talking about anything else in this argument.
- win311fwg 2mo ago
  It's curious that you find it necessary for us to share what "median" means, but then not share, but I guess you must have accidentally pressed the "Reply" button before you were finished? We can do a simple thought experiment here. If 0% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does not have a degree? If 100% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does have a degree? So when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? My definition says yes. And since the degree brings a premium, how do you explain the median income not rising? Maybe the premium you are imagining is just hugs and kisses? I know, you think the median income has somehow always been filled by a degree holder, even when only a small segment of the population had a degree. But how is that possible when education influences lifetime earnings? Shouldn't those with education be making more than the median when those with education are a small segment of the population?
  - defrost 2mo ago
    Not whom you questioned, but ... > We can do a simple thought experiment here. Yes, and Yes. > when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? No. I don't even agree that there is necessarily a single median income holder - there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not.
    - win311fwg 2mo ago
      I don't question anyone in particular. This is a discussion forum, not a private one-on-one conversation. > there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. So what you are suggesting is that attaining a degree lowers your earnings and then gives you back a commensurate premium, thus restoring you back to the same level as those without a degree? That's a take, I guess, but premium usually comes with certain connotations that isn't that. > Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not. Again, where is the premium? If the only person without a degree isn't the lowest earner then we know that the person with the least earnings has a degree, but it was asserted that the person with the least earnings is given a premium over those without a degree, so... Are your numbers omitting a space alien or fairy without a degree where we earlier considered them to be people? It's not clear how to resolve this discrepancy.