"A poor person never gave me a job!"

[Canuckistani]

Funny you mention them. They're finding that their system of agriculture in the Peruvian Andes is actually creating higher yields than modern agriculture. So they've embarked on a project to convert to those systems because they can actually feed more people.

I think you're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to claim that we would have anywhere near the current world population without industrialization. Not that I'm in favor of having such a high world population. If we didn't know better and all still lived as hunter gatherers, we'd all be happy as pigs in you know. But, we do know better. Even the Natives Indiginous peoples of Canada (just found that that's the current pc acceptable term) who talk about going back to traditional ways are talking about taking that road in their pickup and arriving at a nice house with central heating and a fridge.

But what made industrialization so effective is that it lifted so many people out of abject poverty. In large part by government social spending. Universal education, pensions, etc etc were brought in because it made the industrial complex more efficient. Greater income equality leads to greater productivity (within bounds). That's what the ruling class is forgetting now in their greed binge - in the end they're shooting themselves in the head, but I guess hogging out feels too good to stop, even if it kills you in the end.

[Black Dog]

What is the rate of employment of people graduating with Bachelor of Arts compared to other Bachelor degrees? What is the average wage? All the stats I have seen show that an Arts degree means one is much less likely to find employment and when does find employment your earnings will be less.

Link?

[Black Dog]

I don't doubt these stats, but I would still like to see them.

To me it seems kind of obvious that someone with a specialized degree in a in-demand field would have a better chance of finding lucrative employment in their field over someone with a general arts degree. But what I don't understand is why that means an arts degree is useless. You're still far better off with a BA than no degree at all and BAs can be important stepping stones to future educational opportunities.

[GostHacked]

Another flaw in the argument is that the rich person, who's giving out jobs apparently, didn't get rich without the poor person's labour. So in that sense, the poor person gave them their job otherwise they wouldn't have a business to run.

I have played in a few clubs myself, and I can tell you I have worked for one rich guy, and got paid peanuts. It's a hard gig being an entertainer in a club/bar. You sometimes get a flat fee + % of bar, or a flat fee plus free drinks. Bar/club owners for the most part are not rich, they are barely making by as well. Bartenders got paid more than I did at those clubs, and yet I am the person filling the dance floor and packing the whole club in general.

[blueblood]

Funny you mention them. They're finding that their system of agriculture in the Peruvian Andes is actually creating higher yields than modern agriculture. So they've embarked on a project to convert to those systems because they can actually feed more people.

Baah haaa hah hah ha ha ha ha

Thats extrapolating their minature fields and comparing it to our large fields of today. That's apples and oranges. Not only that they had scores of labour as well.

If you are suggesting that a one square mile field of wheat today with all the fertilizer and weed control would yield less today than a one square mile field grown back then?

[blueblood]

Oh, absolutely. I just get really miffed when people seem to think that the arts are somehow easier than other degrees. Most kids out of high school can drop into any program and cruise along getting "Cs for degrees." Bill is completely misunderstood about the arts, as you've pointed out, but especially when he makes a comment that you just have to memorize things and regurgitate it. You and I both know that this doesn't result in very good grades, especially when the things being regurgitated are out of context in their papers. I find it unnerving when people turn their nose up at the arts without even realizing that the vast majority of our Prime Minister, if not all of them, many CEOs, and other civic leaders have had arts degrees.

BA vs. an engineering degree?? Really?? A BA is a stepping stone, nothing more nothing less. Out on the patch they get paid the same amount as buddy fresh out of grade 12.

[cybercoma]

I think you're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to claim that we would have anywhere near the current world population without industrialization. Not that I'm in favor of having such a high world population.

That's not what I'm saying and I don't think a larger population is an argument for "we're better off." Edited September 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[TimG]

They're finding that their system of agriculture in the Peruvian Andes is actually creating higher yields than modern agriculture.

I did not mention the Inca. This particular group was the first to discover that chemical fertilizer (a.k.a. bat guano) can be used to improve yields. So you could say the Inca are the fathers of modern agriculture methods.

[cybercoma]

Baah haaa hah hah ha ha ha ha

Thats extrapolating their minature fields and comparing it to our large fields of today. That's apples and oranges. Not only that they had scores of labour as well.

If you are suggesting that a one square mile field of wheat today with all the fertilizer and weed control would yield less today than a one square mile field grown back then?

It can and it does. You should look into the raised-bed irrigation technologies of the Tiwanaku and the studies done by Alan Kolata, if you want to know more about what I'm talking about.

Edited September 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I did not mention the Inca. This particular group was the first to discover that chemical fertilizer (a.k.a. bat guano) can be used to improve yields. So you could say the Inca are the fathers of modern agriculture methods.

All without the industrial revolution. It's amazing.

[The_Squid]

poor people sometimes get out of poverty and work their way up far enough to have an employee or two, do they not? How could they do this if they were never given the opportunity to get a "hand-up" through social programs? How often have we all heard stories of people growing up with very little to become entrepreneurs/employers? Many many times....

So yes indeed.... poor people have given people jobs, once they got themselves out of being poor (often through the help of government programs)...

[TimG]

All without the industrial revolution. It's amazing.

Except the were only able to do because they had natural supply in nearby caves which meant no one but they could benefit. Replicating their innovations so the rest of the world could benefit required the industrial revolution.

The point that you seem to me missing is it is not enough to come up with an idea. To be useful to a large number of people this idea must be turned into something practical that can be produced over and over again in different places. The industrial revolution is what gave society the tools to do this replication.

Edited September 6, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Except the were only able to do because they had natural supply in nearby caves which meant no one but they could benefit. Replicating their innovations so the rest of the world could benefit required the industrial revolution.

The rest of the world had their own agricultural development at the same time i different places. They weren't uniquely surviving otherwise we would all be speaking their language right now.

[jacee]

poor people sometimes get out of poverty and work their way up far enough to have an employee or two, do they not? How could they do this if they were never given the opportunity to get a "hand-up" through social programs? How often have we all heard stories of people growing up with very little to become entrepreneurs/employers? Many many times....

So yes indeed.... poor people have given people jobs, once they got themselves out of being poor (often through the help of government programs)...

Not to forget too ... poor people give lots of people jobs by purchasing the basic necessities of life.

[TimG]

The rest of the world had their own agricultural development at the same time i different places. They weren't uniquely surviving otherwise we would all be speaking their language right now.

How does that address my point? Mass production of chemical fertilizer is one of the results of the industrial revolution. This dramatically improved crop yields and increased farm productivity. Europeans may have got the idea from the Inca who were lucky enough to be sitting on a pile of naturally created chemical fertilizer but the mass production is what led to the benefits that we enjoy today.

[Wild Bill]

Oh, absolutely. I just get really miffed when people seem to think that the arts are somehow easier than other degrees. Most kids out of high school can drop into any program and cruise along getting "Cs for degrees." Bill is completely misunderstood about the arts, as you've pointed out, but especially when he makes a comment that you just have to memorize things and regurgitate it. You and I both know that this doesn't result in very good grades, especially when the things being regurgitated are out of context in their papers. I find it unnerving when people turn their nose up at the arts without even realizing that the vast majority of our Prime Minister, if not all of them, many CEOs, and other civic leaders have had arts degrees.

Hey, I took Arts at McMaster and it worked just fine for me!

[CPCFTW]

To me it seems kind of obvious that someone with a specialized degree in a in-demand field would have a better chance of finding lucrative employment in their field over someone with a general arts degree. But what I don't understand is why that means an arts degree is useless. You're still far better off with a BA than no degree at all and BAs can be important stepping stones to future educational opportunities.

But are you better off with a BA, $20k of student debt, 3+ years of your life not working FT, and a government with $40k more student debt, or with no BA?

BAs have value, but not relative to the cost. It's like buying a $20 bill with a $100.

Edited September 8, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Bonam]

But are you better off with a BA, $20k of student debt, 3+ years of your life not working, and a government with $40k more student debt, or with no BA?

Don't forget the greatest cost: opportunity cost. 4 years spent getting a degree is a financial loss of $100-200k (assuming $25k-50k annual salary without a degree). That cost must be recouped by having the degree enable you to get a higher paying job.

[CPCFTW]

Don't forget the greatest cost: opportunity cost. 4 years spent getting a degree is a financial loss of $100-200k (assuming $25k-50k annual salary without a degree). That cost must be recouped by having the degree enable you to get a higher paying job.

I didn't forget! Must have got my edit in there just in time..

Edited September 8, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Bonam]

I didn't forget! Must have got my edit in there just in time..

Oops yeah my mistake

[Michael Hardner]

But are you better off with a BA, $20k of student debt, 3+ years of your life not working FT, and a government with $40k more student debt, or with no BA?

BAs have value, but not relative to the cost. It's like buying a $20 bill with a $100.

Sounds like about 100-150K over 30 years.

Worth it.

[Bonam]

Sounds like about 100-150K over 30 years.

Worth it.

Your numbers are a bit off, you'd have to average an extra ~$10k annually to start to come out ahead towards the end of your career. And that of course is when you just compare the arts degree to no degree at all. What about comparing it to other degrees that you could have spent the same amount of time and money getting?

[Michael Hardner]

Your numbers are a bit off, you'd have to average an extra ~$10k annually to start to come out ahead towards the end of your career. And that of course is when you just compare the arts degree to no degree at all. What about comparing it to other degrees that you could have spent the same amount of time and money getting?

Why ? I based my numbers on what was already posted.

40 years of career at 10K per year is 400K. School costs 400K ?

[Bonam]

Why ? I based my numbers on what was already posted.

40 years of career at 10K per year is 400K. School costs 400K ?

Average salary in Canada is around $50k. 4 years of school is 4 years not working = $200k (note that increasingly a large number of people take 5+ years to get their undergrad degrees). Tuition = ~$40k. If you're talking a 40 year career, that career woulda been 44 years if you didn't go to school.

44 years * 50k = 2.2 million lifetime earnings

40 years * x = 2.24 million (adding in the tuition). Solving for x = $56000.

So just to break even at the very end of your career, you'd need to be making an extra $6000 annually.

To "get ahead towards the end of your career" (my wording) you need to be making more than that. If you were making an extra 10k, you'd get:

40 years * 60k = 2.4 million. Counting tuition of 40k, you'd end up just 160k ahead after your whole life, and would only have caught up towards the end of your career.

Keep in mind that adding in interest rates, inflation, investment growth, etc, only worsens the scenario for the BA. Investing the $40k early in life instead of using it on a degree would yield huge returns which have not been considered in the above scenario. For example, if you can average returns 3% above inflation over the 40 years (extremely conservative estimate), the 40k turns into ~$130k, wiping out almost all the relative gains even if you were making $10k extra annually.

Note: you also switched from 30 years to 40 years of career between your two posts. If your career was 30 years vs 34 years instead of 40vs44, the advantage would shift even further towards the no degree case.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

Average salary in Canada is around $50k. 4 years of school is 4 years not working = $200k (note that increasingly a large number of people take 5+ years to get their undergrad degrees). Tuition = ~$40k. If you're talking a 40 year career, that career woulda been 44 years if you didn't go to school.

$50K isn't what you make when you're 18-22 years old, with zero education. Your "average" includes University Grads.

$40K is not tuition for 4 years, it's closer to $20K. statscan - average tuition fees.

Your inflation scenario is pointless, because the 'extra' money the graduate earns seems to disappear, while your 18-year old has money to invest.

Even then, you only came up with $6k per year.

Here's the result again from statscan

"a university graduate had earnings nearly double that of a high school graduate ($23,000 more)."