4 ms·

> 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.

> 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.
  - tptacek 2mo ago
    I'm so confused by what you think the "median" means here. Take the set "1 5 9". "1" goes to college and gets a 60% income improvement; generously, round that up to 2. What's the before/after median?
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - win311fwg 2mo ago
      You seem to be missing the part about assuming college graduates are given a premium above those who are not college graduates, which was seemingly what the discussion was about earlier. So what you are saying is that someone who is the lowest paid person can remain the lowest paid person by going to college? We'll take your word for it since that has never been considered interesting enough for anyone else to study — remaining the lowest paid person isn't usually a goal one strives for — but what's the significance of that to have mentioned it earlier?

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.
- tptacek 2mo ago
  I'm so confused by what you think the "median" means here. Take the set "1 5 9". "1" goes to college and gets a 60% income improvement; generously, round that up to 2. What's the before/after median?
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - win311fwg 2mo ago
    You seem to be missing the part about assuming college graduates are given a premium above those who are not college graduates, which was seemingly what the discussion was about earlier. So what you are saying is that someone who is the lowest paid person can remain the lowest paid person by going to college? We'll take your word for it since that has never been considered interesting enough for anyone else to study — remaining the lowest paid person isn't usually a goal one strives for — but what's the significance of that to have mentioned it earlier?