For some people a college degree can lead to a crippling level of entitlement, and unwillingness to do the kind of work they hoped to escape by attending college. A college degree doesn't preclude someone from waiting tables, cleaning up messes and answering phones. Though many graduates seem to be confused about this.
For unemployed colleges grads -- here's a rudimentary formula for success. Start a free website with Weebly and call it IWillMopItUp.com. And let people know that you will mop up their mess for $20 and hour. Pretty crappy right? Yes, but it epitomizes the can do attitude and whatever it takes mentality that matters in this difficult economy. The bottom line is that very hard working smart college grads still have opportunities, but the first step is them getting over the fact they went to college.
You know close to 50% of new grads are unemployed right? This is millions of kids a year who were told to get educated and now have no job waiting for them when they do. Acting like millions of kids should just get a job mopping floors and drop the entitlement is super ignorant and borders on dangerous.
I would put a lot of this blame on the fact that tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to "raise demand for workers" have just transferred money from consumers to corporations. We ignored that the lower and middle class constitute the VAST majority of consumption (which actually does create jobs, unlike some rich guy just having more money) and now the upper class has such an imbalance of wealth there are millions less people who can afford to buy their product.
Deciding that millions of new graduates aren't getting jobs because they are lazy is one of the more ignorant and lazy arguments I've ever seen.
"You know close to 50% of new grads are unemployed right?"
No, I didn't know that, but the statistic itself is largely unhelpful without a demographic breakdown. I would be curious as to the distribution itself by degree. I would additionally hypothesize that degrees that are more "geared" towards entering the workforce (Engineering) would have significantly lower unemployment numbers than degrees that are primarily designed as an intellectual pursuit. While there is nothing wrong with intellectual pursuits, obtaining such as degree without the desire to ultimately enter academia is a strategically poor decision to make.
I imagine that re-stating this metric by degree will tell a very different story.
Because I suspect that presenting the data this way masks the reality of why there are sheer number of people who can't find work. But even without major (which I was simply curious about), the data set is suspiciously aggregated.
For example, what if we were to drill down into the data and discover that in the metric "Some college or degree" that 99% of the individuals who could not find work were in the "some college" category and only 1% were in the "degree" category. That would paint an entirely different picture: having a college degree is incredibly useful, but attending college without completing the degree is not very useful in terms of being employable.
I think the OP's comment held a seed of wisdom, even though it wasn't properly expressed.
The point I got from his post was that recently graduated and unemployed kids should stop waiting to be offered jobs that obviously don't exist anymore, and bring out the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great (a long time ago).
The point is not to mop floors for $20, but to create a website (essentially a business) that solves somebody else's pain. That is the essential idea. Find a pain, fix it, charge enough to make a profit and move on to the next pain point that needs fixing.
This is a correct interpretation, and better expression of what I was trying to say -- essentially, there are still lots of basic problems that need fixing. A college graduate is well prepared to market themselves intelligently, in a trustworthy manner that can win confidence and work, even if the work is somewhat undesirable.
What's the success rate among entrepreneurs? Don't most small businesses tank within the first three years? Does this really help if "millions of kids a year" are entering the workforce?
That said, looking at my (much) younger cousins and their friends, it strikes me that the latest generation of 20-somethings are already impressively entrepreneurial. However, I don't see many of their businesses scaling enough to support a family, much less employ scads of others.
Most successful entrepreneurs failed at least once until they made it. I can only speak from experience, the startup founder that I worked for had three failed attempts before he made it (relatively) big.
My other point was exactly that. Most small businesses will fail, but the ones that succeed will be the job creators (I hate that buzzword!) and hire the ones that didn't make it.
After having worked for a startup myself for a while, I am now ready to try it on my own. If I fail, there's always other successful startups I could work for. If I succeed, I'll need good employees, and someone who tried and failed (but learned from the experience) would be a prime candidate.
Less capital now than ever. Local service businesses like "Mop It Up" would cost almost nothing to operate. The barrier to entry is simply that the work is undesirable. This makes it valuable.
I don't think your conclusion at the end is true. Most undesirable work is in fact not valuable, in the sense of being paid well or easy to get, because, at least if it's also unskilled, there is a large supply of labor relative to demand. Stuff like janitorial work does not pay well and has no shortage. Similarly with McDonald's: they typically get many more applications than open positions, and not because they're paying $20/hr.
There was a story (I think it was on reddit, not HN) of an entrepreneur who bootstrapped a local cleaning business in something like three months, by hiring his maid as his first employee. The guy does not mop up himself, but runs an incredibly successful business with a web-based reservation system. The rest of his job is people and asset management.
So even with janitorial work, an educated graduate can turn it into a profitable business, without actually doing the cleaning himself.
Edit: his site is http://www.maidsinblack.com/ and he does a great job of documenting his startup experience step by step on reddit. If I find the thread, I'll post it here.
Well, I certainly hope you're right, but I have my reservations about small businesses, particularly those run by young, inexperienced people, scaling in order to employ others. I do think that the recent trend of staying "at home" longer may help with this. Also, if we can get more affordable housing in areas populated enough to support commerce, things might improve a lot.
>Deciding that millions of new graduates aren't getting jobs because they are lazy is one of the more ignorant and lazy arguments I've ever seen.
How do you interpret the linked article then? "Mopping floors" doesn't literally mean mopping floors, it means settling for the jobs that are available, not the jobs you want.
Your presumption is that there are jobs available; according to the bureau of labor statistics, as of March 2012 there were 3.4 unemployed people for every job opening (roughly double the ratio at the start of the recession back in December 2007).
I don't know what the overall employment rate has to do with this.
The article looks at the relative employment rate of people who have attended college vs those who haven't. People who have attended college should be more qualified for more jobs than those who haven't. They should be more employed, but they aren't. The simplest explanation(and the one that matches what I've seen/experienced) is that people who have more education are too picky about the jobs and careers they are willing to consider and are therefore finding it harder to get a job.
People who have attended college should be more qualified for more jobs than those who haven't. They should be more employed, but they aren't.
In fact they are more employed, according to the article, if they actually graduated (as opposed to merely attending). The article gives, for people 25 and up, the following unemployment rates:
Overall: 6.6% unemployed
High school, no college: 7.7% unemployed
Some college, no degree: 8% unemployed
2-year college degree: 6.2% unemployed
4-year college degree: 4% unemployed
So clearly the two "have degree" categories have lower unemployment rates than the no-degree categories do. The article seems to want to conflate people who did and didn't graduate into one "attended college" category.
That, and new Scooba models from iRobot (makers of Roomba), who mop the floor with efficiency similar to those Anthropology majors at fraction of the cost.
iRobots consumer products are kind of a joke. I got a "Looj" http://www.irobot.com/en/us/robots/home/looj.aspx gutter cleaning robot for my parents once; it was totally useless. An unemployed college graduate would have done a much better job in the sense that the robot didn't do the job at all.
There are many things to blame for a lack of jobs. But the jobs are gone, many to other countries, and are not coming back soon. College graduates are facing a different reality than existed even 10 years ago. College experience counts for less now than possibly ever before. That's the new reality, and only way to live with that is get creative, determined and ready to go to work whatever is required.
> Start a free website with Weebly and call it IWillMopItUp.com. And let people know that you will mop up their mess for $20 and hour.
Hahaha, where do you come from that you think a janitor gets payed $20/hr? And college grads are waiting tables everywhere; I know dozens doing just that. You are clueless.
Maybe you live in a place that has a huge undersupply of janitorial labor, but most people do not and it has nothing to do with whether or not they went to college.
To some extent, a college degree can preclude you from doing that kind of work. A BA in English won't stop you from working as a barista, but a PhD in it can actually hurt your job prospects. Even for service work where employees are pretty interchangeable, a lot of employers don't want to hire someone that they think (probably correctly) will jump ship at the first chance they get in the field they studied for.
The book doesn't say how to provide jobs for everyone, for someone who needs a nudge in the right direction it could be very helpful, likely the same sort that would create a site like "IWillMopItUp.com".
Pace comments that STEM majors are not part of the trend, consider this: I started my undergrad education following the dot com bubble years and was dissuaded to pursue compsci. I went into civil (structural) engineering instead. Over half of my civeng classmates would go to postgrad education -- in engineering, law, whatever -- precisely because of the inability to find a job in civil engineering. About a third of my Master's class (structural engineering @ Berkeley, a top school in the field) couldn't find a job upon graduation. I landed a job purely by accident (with a 3.75 GPA), where a better qualified classmate of mine took another year to find one. I haven't kept track of what happened to the rest.
Exactly. The STEM vs. liberal arts distinction is overgeneralized and divisive; there are definitely STEM majors out there who are having job issues as well. Not all STEM fields have the same employment opportunities.
My cousin is one. Studied Chemistry at his state flagship, internships, leadership positions at clubs, high gpa. Graduated in '11 and took him months to finally get a job as a lab tech. Doesn't have much room for growth and people he talked to tell him to avoid the PhD for numerous reasons.
This is hugely important, and seems to have been glossed over. "attending college" != "graduating from college". College is, for better or worse, a binary signal. You either graduated or you didn't.
When you apply for an Engineering license, the Engineering board doesn't care that you completed 100% of your Engineering courses but never received a degree because you forgot to take History 101.
Because of this, it's even worse in that it's a sunk cost. Better to go ahead and drop out earlier rather than later, because not only will you not have a degree, you'll have wasted that many years for no measurable improvement in hiring potential.
This should be the top comment. This article seems to be playing games with the numbers. Why do they choose to focus on the fraction of the unemployed? This trend could just be explained by greater numbers of people attending some amount of college relative to the past. They should really show the fraction of college educated unemployed, vs fraction without college educated unemployed, but that wouldn't fit their narrative.
Another demographic variable mentioned in the article is that the older end of the unemployed cohort had much lower rates of "attended college" and rises are expected as they age leave the workforce. At first my concern seeing that chart was "OMG why didn't anyone see this trend over the last 20 years and why hasn't it been part of the public discussion", but given at least that confound is not factored into the data display, my feeling is now that it's more of a meaningless fished graphic/statistic for effect/pageviews.
Education bubble is slowly deflating. Drawing analogies to housing bubble:
People would "flip" their college education for a high-paying job
Easy loans made it possible for everyone to participate
Education prices inflated faster than core inflation, setting a higher hurdle for students
There are fewer jobs at palatable salaries (various reasons)
Now we have boatloads of students saddled with an education that they can't pay off
You can be as nuanced as you wish (e.g. english major as subprime loan) but the aforementioned discussion is sufficient. I expect to see a sharp correction soon.
The worst part is that just like in the housing bubble, where lenders went into strawberry fields and offered home loans for 300k houses in california to undocumented immigrants making 10/hr and then asked for everyone else to bail them out because they are shocked the person wasn't able to afford the loan.
Same thing applies here. You recruit a bunch of people who have no business being at college and certainly can't afford it, convince them that they NEED college and should take on student loans, they struggle, graduate and have no real marketable skills. Bank that made the loan hassles the student and when millions can't pay them back, I'm guessing we have another bailout on our hands. Glad we learn our lesson last time!
This hypothetical situation would work fine for you, but the guy applying for a loan next year would need to put a down payment for 2 years and have parents co-sign their house as collateral, as risk profile for student loans has changed.
Student debt is impossible to discharge even through bankruptcy. There is zero risk to these loans because they are federally guaranteed loans. When the student defaults, the government repays the note holder as a matter of course, then the government goes after the student. The bailout is already guaranteed. The students will not be discharged of their debt anymore than the homeowners got their mortgages paid. What happened is the feds bailed out the bank losses, AND allowed the banks to evict the homeowners AND allowed the banks to keep the houses and resell them. But all this was only a tiny amount of the cost. On top of this were the CDOs and CDSs totalling, according to one estimate, one quadrillion dollars, more than all the assets in the world. The banks/investors/speculators are still being bailed out of these "losses" which were never real losses and only represented losses to unearned and absurd gains they hoped to make as part of a pyramid scheme.
The people stuck with the debt at the bottom of the pile don't get bailouts.
It's a little different, in that as far as I know, no one is trying to flog off CDSs or other swaps on Student Loan Asset Backed Securities. So it will come as a shock to the higher education industry, but may not have the broad impact that the housing and tech bubbles did.
Give it time. It took entire lifetimes of tradition and "conventional wisdom" (house prices never go down!) to make the housing bubble possible. By the time the higher education bubble bursts, there may very well be the derivatives. Remember that while housing debt was secured by the value of the real estate itself, student debt is secured by the fact that it's impossible to discharge, even in bankruptcy.
I'm not sure how college debt works in the USA but in the UK you don't have to payback the debt unless you are earning over a certain paycheck (£15k p/a or so I believe).
So if you end up unemployed you don't have to worry about it.
Also the debt is written off after a certain number of years and the monthly payment is always calculated at a relatively modest amount compared to your earnings and deducted straight from your paycheck.
It's not counted as debt for the purposes of getting a loan or mortgage either, so essentially it's not something you really have to worry about as you will never get getting a court summons or baliffs through your door unless you have deliberately defrauded them.
How is it in the USA? Are you constantly chased for the debt regardless of your circumstances?
How is it in the USA? Are you constantly chased for the debt regardless of your circumstances?
There are some exceptions, but generally student loans are something that you're stuck with. That's to say, you can't just shed them in bankruptcy proceedings.
I think it's the same in the UK regards bankruptcy but what happens if you become temporarily unemployed or can only get employment that is very low paid? Is it basically "fuck you, pay me"?
On paper yes, but you can't draw blood from a stone. Loans can be adjusted if you can't make payments like any other loan, but your credit will be duly impacted by your inability to meet your obligations. The US doesn't have anything like what you mentioned the UK having for students in general. I think there exist some similar setups for people in particular professions, like teaching, for example, but even then I don't think their benefits are as good as the ones you laid out, but I'm no expert on how all of that works.
When you don't pay student loans, depending on where you live, you can have your drivers license and any employment or professional licenses revoked. There is also talk of revoking passports.
Perhaps it needs to be made very clear, in case there are some that still are confused about why many people (who study non-technical subjects) choose to go to college (aside from many of the well-known ones like the promises of how it would lead to a 1950s style middle-class lifestyle; because their parents made them; because it's rite-of-passage; or because their friends are there), for /whatever/ major they choose (or are able to handle): it feels like they have to in order to even be in the running for jobs, because HR uses the presence of a degree, _any_ degree as a first-line FILTERING mechanism. In down economic times especially, when you're getting 200 resumes for a job that could be done by someone with a 4th grade education, you need some way to cut down that pile and that is one of the easiest ways to do it.
Viewed in that light, you can see why so many people are very, very upset by all this. Politicians, the media, their parents, their friends have all told them "get a degree or you'll be a [metaphorical] fry cook" and now it's "get a degree if you want to be able to even get a job as a fry cook." Rephrased, it's "a bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma", and so it becomes about the fact that you got the degree at all that matters. If you don't, there are 199 people (who have the same (lack of) experience you do), but do have the degree. Theirs goes in the "scan again to filter for some other reason" pile, yours goes in the trash.
As far as the the ones who racked up debt AND didn't finish: they've got the worst of both worlds.
Forget about majors, forget about "putting in dues", and start thinking about a country and society (I'm talking about the US here) that tells you that you MUST go to college in order to get a job, forces you into debt to do so (not everyone is grant material - the recent stats say 90% of grads take on debt) and then tells you there aren't enough jobs for everyone (for the well known reasons, but I'd put automation at the top of the list these days. Recent stats say 3+ people are available for work for each job opening) and you'll understand why these people are mortified.
It's also clear where all this leads, to the dismay of many: a guaranteed income society. We'll be forced to accept that many, perhaps even MOST people will not be needed for work. There will be nothing for them to do, and nothing we can do about it. The people that do work will be the robot designers, maintainers, politicians, managers, personal service people, and some miscellaneous workers. Everyone else will be part of a "sports, arts, and leisure" society. That might be 50-100 years out, but it's coming, and no one should have any illusions about what that means. Our conception of our societies as defined by work will need to change, and we'll need to accept that people who do not work are not lazy, ne'er do wells or parasites, but that they are the result of the transition to post-work (and hopefully post-scarcity) societies. The calls for bringing back factory jobs, re-empowering unions, etc. are short-sighted and misguided; there's no turning back the tide, and we should adjust our thinking accordingly.
Finally, it should be clear that many right here on this site, and those that they work with are the ones helping to create this new world. An automated one, an easier one, and hopefully, a better one.
I used to think on similar lines, that at some point there wouldn't be enough work to do. But it's absolutely Utopian horseshit.
There is ALWAYS useful work to do sometimes there's just of shortage of funds or skilled workers to do it. Look at our aging infrastructure, fix our bridges, tunnels, roads, buildings, houses, etc. Care for our old and sick, learn art and design and make the world more beautiful, engineer spaceships, create amazing entertainment, etc. etc.
Don't confuse market inefficiency with a lack of useful things to do.
There's always work to do exactly because there are always people looking for work. It's not the other way around. Most jobs aren't necessary for our survival, so people who don't want to work shouldn't be forced to work.
It's not Utopian horseshit. Please be less dismissive of ideas.
If the whole human race sat down and wrote up a list of things we all wanted done, it would probably be even more than we could ever accomplish. Chances are, if you're a human being, you have something on that list, and you have the ability to help complete a task that's on that list as well.
Most jobs aren't necessary for our survival. OK, maybe people shouldn't be forced to work for their survival. But if they want much more than survival, they should do their fair share. And since I want much more than survival, I'd rather more people could pitch in and help out with that.
People would still want to work. But they'll start working on things they actually care about, because they won't be enslaved by their fear that if they quit their jobs they'll end up homeless or without health insurance. Right now so few startups dare to actually imagine new things because investors must be pleased and profit must be made. Plus, if we escaped the job-for-survival mindset, we would actually start focusing on automation. It's a mistake to think that automation hasn't come at the scale we expected because of unprecedented technical challenges. It hasn't come because the government has stopped throwing money on basic research. We need to focus on wild, idealistic, big-scale projects. And admit that the private sector isn't good at radically innovating, because, to radically innovate, you need to have been failing for many, many years, and have someone sustain you throughout those years. The best the private sector can do is catch up and minimize costs, like SpaceX does.
It's utter first-world utopian horseshit to propose this kind of thinking, of all things, as a response to today's unemployment problems. It's like you don't even realize that there are third world migrant workers picking our fruit because every single one of those unemployed college graduates is, to put it bluntly, too spoiled and decadent to do the work. Or that the lifestyle of those unemployed college graduates is made possible by armies of Chinese factory workers.
I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone. Frankly, I'm probably too spoiled and decadent to pick fruit all day too. But I'm willing to admit that's a weakness on my part, and I'm uncomfortable living in a world where I have to rest my weight on the backs of those who will gladly and happily do what I'm either incapable of or unwilling to do.
The one saving grace for us is that if we depend on people who do things we can't or won't do, then we can climb up the value chain and make them depend on us doing things they can't or won't do. Decadent as it may be to sit in an air-conditioned office and make stupid iPhone games for other spoiled, decadent first worlders to play, at least that guy living in the Foxconn dormitory and assembling iPhones all day might be grateful to us for making sure he still has work. I'm sure the guys who made "Angry Birds" boosted demand just enough to buy a few weeks breakfast, lunch, and dinner for maybe a couple thousand Chinese factory workers.
Pretending there isn't enough work out there and hence we should pay people to do nothing is just an excuse for cultural laziness. I can't imagine any social justice in subsidizing first-world people to contribute nothing and continue to live off the backs of third-world workers. Once those Chinese factory workers and Mexican fruit pickers are out of work because we can replace them with robots, then we can talk.
I bet the migrant workers you romanticise have a different
view than being "stronger" than you and hence doing underpaid back-breaking work in bad conditions and no health coverage...
Romanticize? Not at all, I think they have a right to be outraged that they're practically supporting an idle class on their backs already. Nonetheless it's something I can't or won't do, and that's a flaw on my part.
It's not a flaw on your part. Stop being so moralistic. That kind of job is something that NOBODY needs to do. If we really tried, we could automate those jobs within a couple of decades or less. But we won't because those workers are possibly even cheaper than the maintenance of a potential automation solution, not to mention the R&D that would be needed to arrive there.
> That kind of job is something that NOBODY needs to do. If we really tried, we could automate those jobs within a couple of decades or less.
OK, so let's all go without fruit for 20 years? No, that kind of job is something that SOMEBODY needs to do for as long as a couple more decades, and it's something that SOMEBODY has needed to do for the entire history of the human race. If somebody needs to do it, why can't you or I? Because we're so fucking spoiled and lazy that we get worked up over having to work in cubicles?
I get your argument. I think any good programmer is insulted by the notion of doing something a machine could do. And if it was between me and a machine, I'd happily sit on my ass and not worry about it, just like I happily sit on my ass and don't worry about calculating square roots. But it's not between me and a machine, it's between me and another human being who was born in less fortunate circumstances and goes out of his way for opportunities that I feel are below me. For someone in our position to sit around blithely talking about how automation can solve the problem "within a couple of decades", as if that's a solution to labor rights and unemployment today, is like one of America's founding fathers writing about the inalienable rights and freedoms of man while owning slaves.
Who is going to pay for that? The broke US government? If 1/3 of the US pop was given $25k/year, it would amount to 1/4 of our GDP.
Until we have ubiquitous power sources, food replicators, cheap teleportation, solved all health problems and sturdy insta-houses, its just a pipe-dream.
The social implications would be even worse. You would have about 10% of society supporting about 50% of society, which would easily create the biggest class divide the US has ever seen. The bottom would ask for more, the top would own the government (because government that size would be corrupt to the core, theres no way it wouldnt).
It would ultimately lead back to a feudalistic society.
Milton Friedman (of all people!) had a pretty worked-out proposal for it, though he was going more for a poverty-line basic income. Basically, everyone (rich and poor) would get a refundable tax credit roughly equal to the poverty line (something like $11k), rather than having a specific cutoff or phase-out. It would implicitly phase out for richer people because a flat $11k credit just doesn't equal too much if you're making a lot of money.
At the time, at least, he argued that it could almost entirely be paid for just by rolling all our current welfare programs into it: instead of this patchwork of welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing assistance, etc., just have one refundable tax credit, thereby massively reducing both the bureaucracy and the market distortions while still providing a social safety net.
In Australia, we almost match this by (a) having a "Low Income Tax Offset" (being fazed out in favour of an $18k tax free bracket) and (b) having a wide-reaching 'Centrelink' social security scheme. One of our greatest worries as a nation is that we're very dependent on such structural measures, but that we're using a medium-term cyclical benefit (the mining boom) to pay for it.
Not that I necessarily agree with the views of the parent post (I don't know them well enough), but I think you're looking at "now" to argue the impossibility of "then". In other words, I don't think our current society really reflects much of what society will have to become in the fairly near-term future.
We already have effectively unlimited energy in the form of the sun (we currently collect only a tiny, tiny fraction of its full output), I don't see how teleportation factors into it, food production seems likely to become almost entirely robot-driven within, say, a 50 year time-frame (by competitive influence), we're progressing by leaps and bounds in the area of human health, and population management will obviously be necessary to balance quality-of-life and resource concerns.
You can't anticipate anything though. Perhaps someday we will have a bucolic utopian society, but we can't make current decisions based on those assumptions.
You can't anticipate anything? I think you need to expand on that.
I don't think I saw anyone advocating making decisions now based on assumptions of a Utopian society. Personally, I advocate making decisions now that increase the odds of said Utopian society.
You're actually just repeating what he said: you're talking about guaranteed income. Public works projects are very close to guaranteed work (and will never get funding in our current system). 'Care for our old and sick' is a $5/hour job. But they will get paid 4-5 times that. Again, its guaranteed income.
>>learn art and design and make the world more beautiful, engineer spaceships, create amazing entertainment
Lets not pretend that every human is capable of doing any of this if they only had the time. The people who are capable will do it, the rest won't.
Lets not pretend that every human is capable of doing any of this if they only had the time. The people who are capable will do it, the rest won't.
It seems unlikely to me with advances in genetics (and 'consumer' demand) that future generations will reflect the intelligence and talent distribution of current generations.
Yep, the only problem is the amount of this work. Fixing or building a road or a bridge takes a lot less people than it used to. Trends in other fields are similar. You can argue that this can be compensated for by building more or better bridges, but at some point the society's appetite for useful bridges will hit a cost barrier.
> start thinking about a country and society (I'm talking
> about the US here) that tells you that you MUST go to
> college in order to get a job, forces you into debt to do so
This is an old game played by most societies known as the 'Debtors Game' (see the book Games People Play). It's a way to force younger people to work, which is ironic today, given there is no work to have so it's just creating a new lower class of those in servitude. It's the new serfdom.
This sounds like Star Trek where money is abolished and everyone just simply lives. I've always wondered why anyone would want to join Starfleet? It seems like they went out into space and weren't really compensated in any manner.
I'd say the people working on robots and stuff would have no incentive to work. They would simply become part of the 'non-working' class.
> I've always wondered why anyone would want to join Starfleet?
Boredom. Hooking up with aliens. To get away from disliked family and hometown. Status. Desire for structure and order in their lives. Patriotism. Family tradition. Basically the reasons people join the military today.
> Everyone else will be part of a "sports, arts, and leisure" society
It can't work. Leisured aristocracies become decadent, dysfunctional, hedonists. People on reservations with free food become violent drug addicts. The human animal can't cope with a struggle-less existence.
If automation leads to a society as you've described then automation will be stopped.
Ugh, so depressing... go to college, rack up enormous amounts of debt, and hope to find a job so that you can start paying off the monthly minimums for the seemingly the rest of your life.
In certain fields the "go into debt to pay for an education which will help you get a good job" strategy works well. Unfortunately, governments and educational institutions have taken "college graduates earn X% more and have a Y% lower unemployment rate" statistics and pretended that they apply to all college graduates, regardless of their field.
Only a fool would think that a degree in underwater basket weaving would provide the same employment prospects as a degree in any of the STEM fields, but fools are precisely the target market for institutions providing such courses.
It hasn't been too long since I was starting college. For freshman (in the US at least), colleges encourage students to try lots of classes and take their time picking a major. Many schools don't require students to declare a track until they are in their sophomore year -- halfway through a four-year program! Many can be completed in 2-3 years (even "hard" majors, like physics), and the schools design the degree programs with this buffer so students can wait to make a decision. Of course, the schools don't mind recieving four years of tuition for an education that could be completed in three.
But it's easy to blame the schools. In my experience, students don't really make career choices (like picking a major) by weighing the economic costs and benefits. Our current culture in college encourages students to take on massive amounts of debt regardless of their field. For many liberal arts degrees, this is probably a foolish financial decision. But for many college freshman, the apparent difficulty of a subject is considered thoroughly, while the job prospects of a career path are a secondary consideration.
for many college freshman, the apparent difficulty of a subject is considered thoroughly, while the job prospects of a career path are a secondary consideration.
Right. My point was that this is partly because of the educational culture which promotes "getting a degree will make you earn more" rather than "getting a degree in subject X, Y, or Z will make you earn more". Students who enter college intending to study science but can't hack it would probably be better off dropping out; instead, most end up in liberal arts and are surprised when their degree turns out to be useless because all the advertising they ever saw promoted "having a degree" as the only relevant flag.
But you can be smart about this by hedging your bets and still achieving the same effect. A degree in basket weaving and a degree in Engineering will both serve to expand your abilities by teaching you critical-thinking skills, teaching you how to communicate more effectively, and, in short, providing you with a framework for "learning how to learn". But one will make it far easier to get a job than the other.
My rule of thumb has always been this: Write down all of the things that you're interested in and would enjoy spending four years or so learning about. Then, from that list, pick the ones that are also employable to some extent. At the same time, don't simply pick a degree solely because of employment prospects, since markets are cyclical, even in classical STEM fields.
Except Chemistry, biology, and biochemistry (massive R&D cuts by the pharmaceutical industry has flooded the market with experienced scientists).
Except CivEng (oops, not much new construction).
STEM degrees are often considered harder by employers, so for many jobs that don't strictly require them, they're used as signalling mechanisms in exactly the way that having a degree at all used to be a signal. That means there's a problem with encouraging more people to get such degrees because you flood the market with STEM degrees and repeat the process of devaluing the signal.
What does that leave? CS degrees are currently very much in demand, but will that remain the case for the next 10-20 years? Will it even be true next year? There were a lot of people who had employment trouble after the first bubble burst, I would hate to see that happen again. Not to mention that this is hardly a solution that will work on a large scale. The industry does not require a million new software engineers every year.
Would anyone have predicted ten years ago that going to law school would be a disastrous financial and career decision for many thousands of people? That was supposed to be one of those "safe" direct-to-career educations. Hasn't worked out that way.
The average debt of college graduates for the class of 2010 is $25,000, and is estimated to be $27,000 for the class of 2011 [1]. Compared to housing, this is not a lot of debt. Many people these days will even buy a car on credit, which can be a comparable amount of debt, of course depending on the car.
I know education is a common theme here on HN, and I always read articles like this. I still think education (esp. in US and UK) is ripe for entrepreneurial disruption, and I enjoy seeing what investors are doing in this space. The system is clearly broken, because incentives are out of proportion to costs.
Alas, entrepreneurial disruption in this field is made near impossible by the need for governmental oversight of all things related to education.
Until "official" degrees stop being an unspoken requirement when considering job applicants, startups such as Khan Academy will remain useful, but ultimately powerless to truly disrupt education.
I wouldn't be surprised if the system operated in the system's best interest, and not the student's. I only have anecdotal evidence, but from my own experience, the whole system was designed to keep you in the system for as long as possible.
This may have been exacerbated by stupid government targets to get, say, at least 50% of all pupils into university. And in at least some of those cases, you're only going because you're brainwashed into it.
Yep. Incentives always get out of whack when the government gets involved. It's what's happened to health care, retirement funding, mortgage financing, on and on and on.
When incentives aren't aligned with human nature, inefficiencies amplify and eventually break whichever system the government stepped in to fix.
English Canadians do not understand why young Quebecois are rioting over tuition price increases despite enjoying some of the cheapest tuitions in North America, even after the proposed increases.
This article helps explain why young people should be upset.
I'll just briefly hit the major points of what I think is "wrong with the system" since this is obviously a huge topic.
First, public educations are a crap shoot. A high school diploma is a joke, it doesn't even guarantee basic literacy or numeracy. This is a big reason why white collar jobs have increasingly been forced to rely on other credentials. Despite vastly increasing per student spending over the years the quality of education hasn't improved at all and by some measures has gotten worse.
Second, student loan debt is out of control. It's too easy for people to sign themselves up for huge amounts of debt regardless of their future job opportunities. This distorts the market and creates an education bubble.
Third, society has turned its back on "dirty jobs". It's becoming less and less common for folks, especially middle and upper middle class young adults, to aspire toward jobs that involve manual labor. There's nothing wrong with construction, welding, automotive repair, culinary arts, etc. Trade schools are faster and cheaper than a 4 year college, and they typically leave a graduate with very solid prospects at gaining a fairly well paying job just out of school. If more people made that choice unemployment would be a lot lower.
Fourth, "vanity degrees" are far too common these days, partly for the reasons listed above. If you need higher education to further your career then if you pursue a degree with very shaky career prospects and you go into massive debt to do so then quite frankly you made a very bad life choice, and all of the people who helped you do it (your family and friends, your counselors, your loan officers, etc.) are partly to blame as well. Yes there is value to studying history, or English literature, but you should never for even a single moment fool yourself into believing that you are doing anything other than digging your own financial grave when you are indulging in those majors.
Unfortunately for a lot of middle and upper middle class 18-25 year olds there has come to be a great deal of pressure behind taking the same "acceptable" educational and career track. High school -> 4 year arts & science degree at a prestigious school -> white collar job. If you are in high school or college right now I urge you to challenge this. Look at your career prospects and finances seriously. Consider becoming a STEM major if possible. If that's not feasible consider switching to a trade school. And try to get yourself into the job market early even while you are in school to build up your resume and your skills. It's far, far easier to study history and English lit as a hobby in your free time than it is to build a well paying career on such things.
Unemployment rates for blue-collar workers are pretty high too, so I'm not sure that's a good solution---or necessarily a good career bet, unless you carefully target a subset of blue-collar work that you're pretty sure will continue to be in high demand.
Construction jobs, for example, are pretty much none to be had at the moment, and wages have been significantly falling in real terms for some decades. My grandfather made a middle-class wage as a carpenter working on house construction in the 1950s, but the crew that built my parents' recent-ish suburban home were all making minimum wage assembling factory-cut materials (and there's oversubscribed demand even for those jobs). Auto mechanic is not a particularly good job market at the moment, either. Skilled welding is indeed in demand, but it takes a substantial amount of time to build up the level of skill that's currently in demand (with the prevalence of machine welds, there's no longer a smooth on-the-job skills progression).
I'm not sure it's actually a better bet than getting an English BA and looking for an office job, though. Both have high unemployment rates currently, but blue-collar-worker unemployment rates are even higher than English-major unemployment rates.
Upper middle class people have never aspired towards such jobs, that is not "becoming less common". That's practically what it means to be upper middle class.
It's also nonsense that unemployment would be lower if more people went to trade schools. That may be a solid choice for an individual to make, but if an extra 30,000 Americans a year chose to become licensed plumbers it would completely wash out the market. Unemployment is high in the US at the moment for demand side reasons.
Finally, trades jobs are cyclical with the construction industry and many tradespeople have spent the last 4-5 years underemployed because of the very sluggish construction industry.
I feel really lucky that I dropped out of college without accumulating any debt, and that I was never unemployed during the recession. I wish that gave me some ability to advise other people on how to escape the debt+unemployment trap, but other than "be smart and tenacious and lucky", I don't actually know what to say.
You should get a degree if you can, period. Whether you work as a fry cook or not. Education is worth it. It has value, to you and to society, apart from its utility as a factor infiltering people for job positions.
No one wants to see the US become even more uneducated.If you want to get cynical about the job market (and young people dohave a right to be cynical about it), try thinking of it this way. Nodoubt most have heard the old adage, "You need to sell yourself." Anotherway to think of this is that "jobs" are really a question of convincingsomeone else (not necessarily an employer, but maybe a client) to pay you.That is always what it comes down to. This could be an elaborate processinvolving educational degrees, past accomplishments, recommendations,etc. or, in today's world, it might be something like the startupsdiscussed here on HN: You announce a bit of software and a website,and the thundering herd starts clicking. Some of the herd is willingto pay. If that percentage is large enough, you have a runaway success,something like Dropbox.Those who are paying you are not asking to see your resume. The onlypeople who cared that you graduated from MIT were the VC and their clientswho funded you. That is, if you were funded. Don't kid yourself. The mostimportant people you convinced to pay you werenot the investors. Theywere the customers. In the end what mattered is whether customers wereconvinced to pay you. How they arrived at that decision might actuallybe quite simple (and quite arbitrary).
Now, maybe using the web as your medium you manange to become wealthyovernight. But that does not reduce the long term value of your degreefrom MIT. The degree is not necessarily the cause of your success(e.g. maybe you cannot prove that it was). Wealth can be made withor without education. (That has always been true, otherwise smallbusiness, which is the majority of business in the US, would cease toexist.) Technology allows this to happen now in a way never before seenin history.
But...
Education has value to you and to society because education will makeyour life more interesting and an educated society is better than anuneducated one.These are tough times. But things go in cycles. If you skip education,and then years from now things get better, you may regret it. Get aneducation as early as possible (i.e. if you have the money, do it). Itwill benefit everyone in the long term.
Things go in cycles. It's hard to see this when you are young. This is because you have not yet lived through an economic cycle as a person of working age.
it is not necessarily a bad thing that our general populous is more educated. What I am appalled at is the cost of higher level education and those who willingly choose private schools and copious amounts of debt.
"Ask them for work. If they deny you work, ask for bread. If they deny you bread, take it." - Emma Goldman
I fall into the "some college" category. I have no issue with mopping floors, unloading trucks, waiting tables, etc. What I have an issue with is the number of applications I've filled out without getting so much as an interview. Here's my view in a nutshell: I am not above being a dishwasher. I am, however, above begging to be a dishwasher. You can only fill out so many applications for employment at literally the lowest level before you start to wonder when stealing becomes justified.
For unemployed colleges grads -- here's a rudimentary formula for success. Start a free website with Weebly and call it IWillMopItUp.com. And let people know that you will mop up their mess for $20 and hour. Pretty crappy right? Yes, but it epitomizes the can do attitude and whatever it takes mentality that matters in this difficult economy. The bottom line is that very hard working smart college grads still have opportunities, but the first step is them getting over the fact they went to college.