"A poor person never gave me a job!"

Michael Hardner · September 8, 2012

1. Please note my username is "Bonam" not "Bonham"

2. There are other fields that are not as mathematical as engineering that still pay much better than art history. It doesn't take a "mental behemoth" to look at that salary list.

3. People are free to choose whatever path they want in life, but they should understand and accept the financial consequences

Oh and to throw one other point out there:

A significant fraction of post-secondary costs is paid for by governments (taxpayers). These costs, on a per student basis, are often much higher than the tuition that students pay. If the economic benefit of certain degrees is insufficient to recoup those costs, or even simply a worse investment than other fields which could also use more investment, why should the government be spending money investing in education in these fields?

The govt shouldn't subsidize arts degrees for 18-24 year olds, but should pay you $45k to drive a bus?

This reminds me of the Tea Party types who attend rallies in Medicare-funded wheeled carts.

TimG · September 8, 2012

The govt shouldn't subsidize arts degrees for 18-24 year olds, but should pay you $45k to drive a bus?

Nonsense.

1) Bonam did not argue that bus drivers *should* be paid 45K. He simply stated the fact that they were paid that.

2) The problems with the no-questions asked approach to subsidizing university is most obvious in the US were the ready availability of student loans has led to massive university tuition inflation (we don't see this in Canada because governments regulate tuition). The result is a trillion dollar student loan bubble which which leaves grads with 6 figure debts that they will never be able to pay off with the jobs they are likely to get.

If governments are going to subsidize tuition they need to be intelligent about how they spend them money because there will never be enough money to fund everything. It makes more sense to focus the funding on programs that deliver the best ROI to the economy.

Edited September 8, 2012 by TimG

jacee · September 8, 2012

. It makes more sense to focus the funding on programs that deliver the best ROI to the economy.

Yes it does, in theory. Unfortunately educators aren't in a position to predict what that's going to be.

And business/industry hasn't been able to either: All they can tell us is what they need RIGHT NOW! and scream at us because it takes a few years to educate and train for those immediate needs ... and by then those needs ... and jobs ... are gone.

Besides, what Alberta (for example) is looking for is not fresh graduates but experienced workers.

In most of the rest of the world, especially Europe and Germany in particular, a lot of private sector money goes into predicting future needs, recruiting educating and training future employees. For some reason that doesn't happen in Canada: Very little private sector money is spent on education. Instead, a lot of time and money is wasted whining at governments.

I guess you get what you pay for.

Another sad fact ... Alberta (for example) has extremely high drop out rates. There's a huge pool of wasted potential right there. Again, the key is identifying future needs and putting programs in place to educate the workforce for those future needs.

My take on it is that Canadian employers tend to fly by the seat of their pants and blame everyone else for not knowing what they don't take the time to figure out themselves.

Bonam · September 8, 2012

Nonsense.

1) Bonam did not argue that bus drivers *should* be paid 45K. He simply stated the fact that they were paid that.

Thanks. I was wondering where MH got that.

2) The problems with the no-questions asked approach to subsidizing university is most obvious in the US were the ready availability of student loans has led to massive university tuition inflation (we don't see this in Canada because governments regulate tuition). The result is a trillion dollar student loan bubble which which leaves grads with 6 figure debts that they will never be able to pay off with the jobs they are likely to get.

If governments are going to subsidize tuition they need to be intelligent about how they spend them money because there will never be enough money to fund everything. It makes more sense to focus the funding on programs that deliver the best ROI to the economy.

Indeed, this is what I was alluding to in my earlier post. On the other hand, do we really want the government taking it upon itself to pick winning and losing degrees/professions and having the power to shape society by subsidizing some degrees and not others, thus to a large extent controlling how many people get a given type of degree? I don't think I have a good answer here.

Michael Hardner · September 8, 2012

Nonsense.

1) Bonam did not argue that bus drivers *should* be paid 45K. He simply stated the fact that they were paid that.

Didn't he say that he himself did these jobs ? Didn't he put this forward as an alternative to getting a post-secondary education ?

2) The problems with the no-questions asked approach to subsidizing university is most obvious in the US were the ready availability of student loans has led to massive university tuition inflation (we don't see this in Canada because governments regulate tuition). The result is a trillion dollar student loan bubble which which leaves grads with 6 figure debts that they will never be able to pay off with the jobs they are likely to get.

If governments are going to subsidize tuition they need to be intelligent about how they spend them money because there will never be enough money to fund everything. It makes more sense to focus the funding on programs that deliver the best ROI to the economy.

ROI doesn't tell the whole story. We need graduates from all disciplines, and we need them in all walks of life - business, education, healthcare...

Bonam · September 8, 2012

Didn't he say that he himself did these jobs ?

No, I did not. Read again. I did one of the jobs I mentioned in that list, and indicated which one it was. I also stated that I knew people that did all of the listed jobs besides bus driver and garbage man.

Didn't he put this forward as an alternative to getting a post-secondary education ?

No, I put this forward to answer cybercoma's question of what kind of jobs someone without anything more than a high school education could have that would provide ~$50k salary.

ROI doesn't tell the whole story. We need graduates from all disciplines, and we need them in all walks of life - business, education, healthcare...

But how many do we need, and why should the government not preferentially fund a degree that is likely to prepare someone for a job which pays 5x more lifetime taxes (for example)? Should the government not care about ROI when deciding how to spend money in education? The return on the investment is very important when we talk about other government expenditures, such as infrastructure, research, etc; why not in education?

cybercoma · September 8, 2012

$50k was an example scenario, and if you'd care to read the exchange between myself and Michael Hardner, you would see that I already conceded the point that $50k is not an average salary for an 18-22 year old with a high school degree.

My bad. In the interest of time, I must have skipped it.

cybercoma · September 8, 2012

.

Edited September 8, 2012 by cybercoma

cybercoma · September 8, 2012

They have to make up 4 years of lost income.

This isn't entirely true either. Plenty of students, especially the good ones, end up with scholarships, bursaries, and awards that are a sort of income. Many also work part-time jobs while going to college, sometimes on campus even. Graduate students at my university were unionized. I think nowadays they make nearly $23/hr as research asssistants and teaching assistants. Graduates aside, students rarely make $0 income.

dre · September 8, 2012

Didn't he say that he himself did these jobs ? Didn't he put this forward as an alternative to getting a post-secondary education ?

ROI doesn't tell the whole story. We need graduates from all disciplines, and we need them in all walks of life - business, education, healthcare...

True but I think we need some good analysis around the job market as well. The problem is you have to try to predict demand about 10-15 years in advance. For example, today we have a shortage of manufacturing engineers, which is a driving factor in both the outsourcing of production and visa programs to bring engineers and other skilled workers to Canada. It might make sense to try to encourage more engineering students, but the problem is we dont know what that market will look like in 10 or 15 years.

Personally I think trade certifications are the new university degrees. Most trades cant be easily offshored and money is pretty good. I know a lot of boiler makers, pipe fitters, welders etc that are making well over 100K per year to work two weeks on and two weeks off, and theres a shitload of demand. A plumber or electrician with a busy sole proprietorship can also make well over 100K.

Bonam · September 8, 2012

True but I think we need some good analysis around the job market as well. The problem is you have to try to predict demand about 10-15 years in advance. For example, today we have a shortage of manufacturing engineers, which is a driving factor in both the outsourcing of production and visa programs to bring engineers and other skilled workers to Canada. It might make sense to try to encourage more engineering students, but the problem is we dont know what that market will look like in 10 or 15 years.

Why 10-15 years?

dre · September 8, 2012

Why 10-15 years?

Thats just a guess... That would be the time between when the government began implementing some sort of program, and the time when a significant ammount of graduates were out working in these fields as a result of that program.

Bonam · September 8, 2012

Thats just a guess... That would be the time between when the government began implementing some sort of program, and the time when a significant ammount of graduates were out working in these fields as a result of that program.

I dunno, a dynamic program could be implemented that incentivizes certain degrees right away based on market conditions, modifying graduation numbers within as little as 4-6 years. It'd have to be automatic, with the funding for these incentives already in place, and universities automatically looking at job data and responding at the start of each school year. 4-6 years out is a lot more possible to predict.

Pliny · September 8, 2012

I dunno, a dynamic program could be implemented that incentivizes certain degrees right away based on market conditions, modifying graduation numbers within as little as 4-6 years. It'd have to be automatic, with the funding for these incentives already in place, and universities automatically looking at job data and responding at the start of each school year. 4-6 years out is a lot more possible to predict.

Who better predicts the demands for labour? The market or government?

In my view government tends to manipulate supply rather than try and predict market demand. They will stream certain areas where they perceive growth but it is already too late by then and the market becomes saturated by the time their programs come to fruition. And in certain professions they set quotas that are restrictive and protect the income interests of the industry resulting in creating shortages.

It seems the intervention of government into this area contributes more to unpredictability in the labour market than true demand or long term economic stability that provides jobs. In the short term there may be some benefit but in the overall economy those benefits are generally short lived and lead to further government corrective intervention rather than allowing market self-correction.

blueblood · September 8, 2012

Actually the question is if blueblood is as wealthy as Bill Gates, and if not, what's wrong with his work ethic and smarts?

Not as smart as bill gates I suppose...

blueblood · September 8, 2012

Nobody said it was, but you're saying someone going to university is foregoing a $50k/year job and that's just wrong. Very few people from 18-22 make that kind of money. Hell, some people out of university don't make that kind of money. You need to look at the national statistics, not just anecdotal cases if you want to make general statements about what people are giving up by going to university.

Maybe out east, but out west...

If your willing to work out west and make sacrifices, there are jobs a plenty. Farm laborers start at 20/hr, then there's the mines, oil patch, equipment operators, etc. That's not even uni educated.

cybercoma · September 8, 2012

Maybe out east, but out west...

If your willing to work out west and make sacrifices, there are jobs a plenty. Farm laborers start at 20/hr, then there's the mines, oil patch, equipment operators, etc. That's not even uni educated.

We're talking national employment figures. You know exactly what will happen if everyone out east packed up and moved west.

blueblood · September 8, 2012

We're talking national employment figures. You know exactly what will happen if everyone out east packed up and moved west.

The west would be more booming?

We are in a far different industrial situation than you guys are. Many many many people want what we have.

cybercoma · September 8, 2012

That's right. Flood the market with labour and the west would be more booming. Everyone would be getting paid even more too. :rolleyes:

CPCFTW · September 8, 2012

If we're also going to consider the benefit to the economy, then that opens a whole new can of worms.

I don't have any source for this, but I would bet dollars to donuts that arts grads are significantly more likely to be working in the public sector vs private sector than are graduates of other disciplines.

So we subsidize these degrees so that we can then pay them more taxpayer money to push papers around and play office.

Arts degrees are a huge drain on the economy IMO.

CPCFTW · September 8, 2012

I wonder how many arts grads are employed by the companies in the TSX 60..

cybercoma · September 8, 2012

A country with no art & culture. What a wonderful world.

jacee · September 8, 2012

Thanks. I was wondering where MH got that.

Indeed, this is what I was alluding to in my earlier post. On the other hand, do we really want the government taking it upon itself to pick winning and losing degrees/professions and having the power to shape society by subsidizing some degrees and not others, thus to a large extent controlling how many people get a given type of degree? I don't think I have a good answer here.

The government doesn't have the answers, except for the public service. It's up to business/indtry to provide their own projections, and to get involved in educating the work force they need.