Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | chantech's commentslogin

It seems like every other article I see talks about squeezing of the middle class, inequality, etc.

At least in my area, I don't really see it happening. The majority of the people I know went to a public state school, aren't abnormally intelligent, didn't work abnormally hard, or do particularly well in school (2.5-3.5 GPAs), and all have little problems getting jobs paying 75k+ (only 25% are in software). In fact, most of us have little problems finding jobs paying 125+ in the midwest.

Companies can't find enough qualified talent. People who are always learning and adapting. It's a supply and demand problem. If you get a degree with no demand, you shouldn't expect to find employment.

In the past, the limit to economic growth was knowledge workers and a simple college degree guaranteed a middle class lifestyle. Today, the limit is entrepreneurs and companies creating value. We need to hold up guys like Elon Musk as heroes. They're the ones creating the jobs and industries of tomorrow. The government needs to stimulate entrepreneurship - not necessarily provide more grants for college educations in useless degrees.


> In fact, most of us have little problems finding jobs paying 125+ in the midwest.

Wow. Please elaborate, with some detail.


The salaries in the oil sands in Canada are even more ridiculous. > 100k for truck drivers. Entry level engineers at 150k + 30% bonuses. > 200 + 40% on site bonuses for a manager.


I don't suppose you mean software engineers? :-)


Nope, software dev salaries around Calgary are stuck at $65-70k starting.


Harrington had explained the concept of evaluating tournament situations based on a range (although he didn't necessarily call it a range) in his Harrington on Hold 'Em books.

Galfond's gbucks article, maybe not the first mention of it, brought the concept of equity against a range into the mainstream.


We've reached a point where the limit of economic growth is no longer knowledge workers - it's entrepreneurs. After WW2, knowledge workers were the bottle neck, college degrees guaranteed jobs, and institutions, grants and MBA schools sprung up everywhere.

The key for new grads is understanding the supply and demand curve. Your career prospects are better if 1. your skills are in short supply or 2. if they're in great demand or both. When there's a glut of talent and it's cheap, form companies.


Seems like an inefficiency and a chance for a talented recruiter to get better talent.


Article took way too long to get to the crux of the problem:

1. Choose your majors carefully and plan your career early - A degree in communications doesn't really make you employable. . 2. These people aren't willing to relocate to a less than desirable area to get that first opportunity


So, let's say that you're getting poor grades in pre-med. You're already 30,000 in debt. Is it better to continue in a degree where you have no chance of further advancement (no medical school will take you), drop out and have absolutely no career leads and a pile of debt, or get a second rate degree?

This is the problem -- we've raised the bar for failure so high because of the cost of going to college. We've made it so that college degrees of any kind are a requirement to advance into white collar work. What's the solution when someone can't hack it in STEM?


Sunk costs are sunk costs. You quit and move on to something that doesn't incur more debt. One option is joining the military where you can get real-world experience and they'll pay a significant portion of future education. Another is taking base courses at a significantly cheaper community college until you understand what you want to do and whether you have the natural ability for it.

The core problem is taking on 30k of debt without the commitment and/or natural ability necessary to complete the degree.


The core problem is exploiting inelastic demand in charging 30k for something that could be provided at 2k.


You are not paying for the education, you are paying for the signalling. And the signalling is basically auction.


I 100% agree you're paying for the signalling. But it's not an auction. Unless by auction you mean "the seller gets the government to pay upfront any price the seller chooses, and the government and buyer (student) get to work it out later as they see fit".


Oh, it's an auction in the sense that the students bid for education-signalling. With their money and their (prep-) time.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: