As information and automation (and in general, the "IQ" type of intelligence) becomes more abundant and powerful, the less valuable it becomes.
Physical resources, which are bounded, unlike mental/computational resources, become scare and ergo more valuable (I actually disagree with this one a bit because I have faith in the power of human ingenuity to extract greater usage out of the same amount of resource).
Back-to-the-future I: Uniqueness (what Krugman calls "celebrity") is the only way to make a living. This is kind of going back to the days of craftsmen, traveling intellectuals, etc. centuries ago. Back then, nothing was mass-produced, so everyone was competing on the basis of what they produced, which would always be slightly different based on the individual. In the future, the mass-produced would be so cheap that it would have almost no value. The only way to stand out and do well is to be an artisan/celebrity again. Though with much fewer communication & transportation boundaries, the most popular will capture a disproportional share of the rewards.
Back-to-the-future II: The great elite American universities of the post-WWII 20th century and early 21st century that are now intellectual and research powerhouses and dominate global academia in many ways shrink back to what they were in the 19th century: finishing schools for the well-off.
I actually see a lot of that coming true. In fact, some of this is coming true right now. The only question is the timeframe.
@PurpleTitan, normally I wouldn’t even line a cat litter box with anything Paul Krugman writes. But because you went to the trouble to outline his argument, I did read the column. I think Krugman correctly predicted some trends, but even a broken clock is right twice a day…
The wages of numerous highly-paid white collar jobs have been savaged by technology. Witness the offshoring of legal and radiologist jobs to India. But it’s the people who have to physically process the work, (i.e. radiology technicians, plumbers) who have the job security nowadays.
Technology has unlocked massive quantities of hitherto inaccessible natural resources. Fracking technology has sparked a market-share war with Saudi Arabia, which has caused the collapse of oil prices.
Social media content going viral has made many subjects overnight celebrities with considerable income generating potential: e.g., Psy, Gammy the surrogate baby in Thailand, Derby the Dog. If you haven’t seen this video of the dog with 3D printed prosthetics, prepare to cry and want to invest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRmoowIN8aY
The elite schools are trying to expand the SES diversity of their student body to ward off the perception that they are finishing schools for the offspring of American royalty and third world dictators.
@GMTplus7, the elite privates can afford to expand SES diversity now precisely because so many people clamor for and are willing to pay up for them. If the education premium shrinks and people aren’t willing to pay up any more, they won’t have much leeway in terms of shaping the student body.
Private elites can afford to have the ENTIRE student body to go for free. 5% earnings on a $10 billion endowment is half a billon dollars per year. Half a billion divided by 10,000 students is 50k per student.
@GMTplus7, also, you have to count grad students. The PhD students, at least, already aren’t paying anything at those schools. The reality is that only HYPSM (and maybe Rice and a few others) can forgo charging any tuition.
You guys are are so excruciatingly AR sometimes. I used notional numbers to encompass a range of elite schools.
If u want exact numbers, here’s Harvard for 2014:
$36.4 billion endowment
15.4% return
21,200 total enrollment
Translates to an annual endowment income of $5.6 billion, or $264,415 per student. Harvard could easily fund $90k per student and give each student an entry-level Ferrari each year.
I agree with GMT – the truly elite schools have enough cachet and endowment to plow forward unfettered.
But this would affect the 2nd tier schools. In today’s terms, a wealthy family may send Biff to exclusive college X for $300K – and may wonder if it’s worth it. THOSE schools will have some difficulty and will find it difficult to get the “avg” SES student. The avg SES students will get great finaid by Ivies et al or will use less expensive options via the publics. The “great elite American unis” have already sailed past the dangerous waters and have achieved near-permanent relevance, IMHO. We won’t see HYPS ever creep back into double digit admit rates, ever.
“Back-to-the-future II: The great elite American universities of the post-WWII 20th century and early 21st century that are now intellectual and research powerhouses and dominate global academia in many ways shrink back to what they were in the 19th century: finishing schools for the well-off.”
-Many palces are into a “suicide” mode, killing themselves by their own hands by adding so much irrelevant stupidity to the curriculum and letting so many dangerous polititcal “interest” groups to flourish on campuses that the purpose of the institution become questionable. Some students started feeling very “insecure” and plain threatened on campuses.
@MiamiDAP: the line about unis “allowing” political interest groups. Is this a line from the essay or your comment? I’m sorry but I didn’t read the subject essay. Can you clarify?
@MiamiDAP: If it’s your thought, allow me to countermand it. Certainly intimidation has no place in a university setting (examples such as intolerant students shouting down a guest speakers on volatile subjects). But if you think it’s the uni’s place to “not allow” such groups to exist and to brandish their ideas for all to see and examine, then you’re equally guilty. Clear examination of ideas allows everyone to see the value of free speech. I WANT the Free Mumia movement and the the Anti-Vaxxers and the Impeach Obama and the Occupy whatever and the No GMF food and the anti-ACA and the Westboro Baptist folks to say their piece. I want the light of day to shine on all their versions of the truth, however they see it. Inhibiting free speech is not the solution. Granted – what’s the line of “intimidation”? I understand that it’s difficult to target to try to enforce – but the idea the universities should inhibit groups and to stop them from “flourishing” is a slippery slope.
“the value of free speech” - it only works for the benefits of the selected groups and others have to keep quet and tolerate. If you do not know what is actually going on, then, I am exercising my own “free speech” to tell you the ugly truth and I perfectly understand that the way my comments are treated is yet another example of what I was saying. One thing is militancy towards some speakers that certain group does not want on campus, another thing is threatenning the certain group of fellow students and raising compain against what this group of students stands for. It is going on on many campuses, students and parents are greatly threatenned and it is going to get much worse because it is supported by “political correctness” of the current world in general which is simply and blindly suicidal
@GMTplus7, there is exactly one university in the whole world that has an endowment the size of Harvard’s.
I still stand by what I said: only a handful of universities (HYPSM & maybe a few others) can forgo charging any tuition and manage to carry on without drastic changes. You haven’t shown anything to refute that.
“The PhD students, at least, already aren’t paying anything at those schools”
PhD students are not funded by those schools. NIH, NSF, DARPA, and the like provide grants to the research profs who use them to fund slave labor to do the work and prepare publications.
@BunsenBurner, in the sciences and engineering, they would provide some funding, but the schools with the biggest endowments tend to also fund humanities & social science PhDs. Not too many government agencies funding English PhDs, from what I understand.
@MiamiDAP Like I said, I get that groups and people cross the line. I just question your proposed solution – somehow suggesting that universities clamp down on these groups? How? Who determines this? Do colleges’ codes of conduct need revisiting? I understand the problem (I think). But many of these transgressions don’t rise to SAE-racist-chanting levels that demand university expulsion. What you’re suggesting a would bring out a very cold environment and I don’t think it’s something I care to return to…