Again, I don't really see the connection between my opinion on this subject and my mean-spiritedness or unpleasantness. It sounds to me like you have an emotional stake in this situation and you are letting it cloud your judgment.
She's qualified, but not for anything that anyone needs doing. Do you think a highly qualified one-foot-balancer deserves employment in that pursuit and that it's a shame if he has to wash dishes because no one will pay him $50k a year to balance on one foot all day? I don't see that as a tragedy, and it's an analogue to this situation. Admittedly it's not perfect because there are _no_ jobs in one-foot-balancing and merely few in editing, but it's the same type of thing.
Since you insulted me, I'll allow myself a stylistic criticism. The "you, sir" thing is lame. Drop it.
What you say holds in a micro sense but not in a macro sense. No individual has a right to a certain type of employment. It is no great tragedy if an individual does not find work doing what they love doing. However, if too many people are unable to find work doing what they like doing (or are content doing) then this is bad for society.
Before the present fiscal crisis a friend of mine justified the validity of liar loans on the basis that they are an agreement between two consenting parties. Of course an individual has the right to make a bad decision and of course 20 million bad decisions can affect the entire nation.
Would you make the same argument that you made if the underemployment rate for Ph.D.s in electrical engineering was 25%? There is a point where this becomes a big deal. I'm not saying we are at this point but the existence of such a point should not be denied.
It would be a very bad thing for this country if, in general, advanced degrees required too high an opportunity cost.
> if the underemployment rate for Ph.D.s in electrical engineering was 25%
Probably. I'd say that too many people were getting PhDs in electrical engineering. If possible, we should address the root cause of that.
For example, I suspect there are too many people getting Masters degrees in computer science today. It doesn't show as much because they just go back to the same jobs they had before, but I think it's a big problem that so many people are doing things that don't benefit them and I'd like to see that change. Mandatory outcome reporting in educational institutions might be a good way to combat the problem.
I know absolutely nothing about you, but embracing any political or economic ideology that allows people qualified to be editors to end up cleaning apartments qualifies as mean-spirited.
One-foot-balancing is obviously different, in that it doesn't provide anything of value to society. On the other hand, the arts and literature do. There are people who want to provide value to the world in these fields and they can't.
She's qualified, but not for anything that anyone needs doing. Do you think a highly qualified one-foot-balancer deserves employment in that pursuit and that it's a shame if he has to wash dishes because no one will pay him $50k a year to balance on one foot all day? I don't see that as a tragedy, and it's an analogue to this situation. Admittedly it's not perfect because there are _no_ jobs in one-foot-balancing and merely few in editing, but it's the same type of thing.
Since you insulted me, I'll allow myself a stylistic criticism. The "you, sir" thing is lame. Drop it.