Education Inflation, Technological Advancement, and Cognitive Surplus • Hacker News Board

Re: Education Inflation, Technological Advancement, and Cognitive Surplus

#11

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 6:34 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #10

yummyfajitas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The harm to society is also fixed, so charging a % of profits is a strange way to tax. Think of degree inflation as being a form of pollution. Now think directly about pollution taxes. Emitting 1kg of pollution to create an iPod is not a bad thing - iPods are more valuable than having 1kg less pollution in the air. Emitting 1kg of pollution to make a sandwich is bad, however, since the value of a sandwich is much low…

"The end goal is to pollute only while making iPods, not sandwiches." Actually, the end goal would be to reduce the total amount of pollution.

Why?

Pollution has a cost and production has a benefit. If $BENEFIT - $COST > 0, we want more pollution.

The problem is that since pollution is an external cost, the producer/consumer has no incentive to accurately make this calculation. As long as $BENEFIT > 0, the producer/consumer will pollute, and society will pay $COST.

The point of the Pigouvian tax is to give the producer/consumer an incentive to make this calculation correctly, and to compensate the rest of society for the costs they impose.

Re: Education Inflation, Technological Advancement, and Cognitive Surplus

#12

Post by daniel-cussen » Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 6:46 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #3

China's "education inflation" problem is not like ours. The problem in China: it's an underdeveloped economy. This may change in 20 years-- I think everyone in the world hopes it does-- but right now, there are so few middle-class jobs available in countries like China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The competition is incredibly tight and (as anywhere else) mostly on socioeconomic status and connections, not educatio…

Charging each applicant would work, and most universities do it, but I believe it's illegal for employers to do.

Re: Education Inflation, Technological Advancement, and Cognitive Surplus

#13

Post by Retric » Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 7:42 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #9

Retric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with a fixed cost is for plenty of poeple an extra 10k/year is meaningless but for others it's a huge deal. A possibly better approach would be a 1% increase in your income tax (for life) if you get a Masters/MBA/etc. The net effect is similar (3 mil lifetime earnings = 30k in extra tax). But it scales with income so it attacks the value of signaling.

The harm to society is also fixed, so charging a % of profits is a strange way to tax. Think of degree inflation as being a form of pollution. Now think directly about pollution taxes. Emitting 1kg of pollution to create an iPod is not a bad thing - iPods are more valuable than having 1kg less pollution in the air. Emitting 1kg of pollution to make a sandwich is bad, however, since the value of a sandwich is much low…

"The harm to society is also fixed". No it scales with the amount of productivity lost during that time period. A football player that get's a masters before going to the NFL has a greater cost and a lower benefit than a teacher that get's a masters before teaching high-school English.

Re: Education Inflation, Technological Advancement, and Cognitive Surplus

#14

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 3:36 PM UTC

daniel-cussen wrote: post #12

michaelochurch wrote: post #3

China's "education inflation" problem is not like ours. The problem in China: it's an underdeveloped economy. This may change in 20 years-- I think everyone in the world hopes it does-- but right now, there are so few middle-class jobs available in countries like China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The competition is incredibly tight and (as anywhere else) mostly on socioeconomic status and connections, not educatio…

Charging each applicant would work, and most universities do it, but I believe it's illegal for employers to do.

What I don't like about this idea is that, seeing as companies have scads of money and job-seekers generally don't have any, it seems unfair to put fees on job applications. Unless they were limited to a certain level (say, $5.00) I wouldn't support it.

What I would do is create a job-search site where each application costs 1 credit, and encourage employers to spend a lot of time using my well-filtered site. Each member gets 12 credits for free every year, and more credits can be purchased via a premium membership. As the site branched out into a career site, with discussion boards and networking, credits could also be given as a bonus for positive contributions. Limiting the application volume solves the spam problem, though.