
Overeducated and underemployed - sonabinu
http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/01/28/overeducated-and-underemployed/?iid=Lead
======
betterunix
"Overeducated" implies that there is some upper-bound on the appropriate
education a person should receive if they have a particular career. It is the
sort of elitist, aristocracy-favoring view of the world that we should be
trying to discourage.

Of course, when going to college means taking on mountains of inescapable
debt, not getting a high-paying job afterwards is problematic. That's why we
need to change the way we pay for college education, so that we can have a
society of well-educated independent thinkers, rather than one where people
start out in life just a millimeter away from indentured servitude.

~~~
jeffdavis
I would add to that: being a cab driver out of college doesn't mean you are
making a career out of it. It's called an "entry-level" job for a reason.

~~~
danilocampos
Taking a data entry gig at a large firm is entry-level. You can grow into
bigger things there. Driving taxis is a dead-end job. There's nowhere to go
once you achieve mastery.

~~~
Turing_Machine
If you really paid attention and grokked the problems with the taxi business
on a fundamental level, you might be in a position to launch a competitor for
Uber.

But yeah, unlikely.

------
justin_vanw
This has the usual journalist bias of putting all graduates in the same
bucket. I would like to see the same statistic, but with Mathematics, Physics,
Chemistry, EE, Mechanical Eng., etc all in their own buckets.

There seems to be some kind of outrage that you can go to a good school and
get a 4 year degree and end up working with people who just graduated high-
school. New grads were probably led up the garden path and not given realistic
expectations. On the other hand everybody knows there are no jobs for English,
Communications, Journalism, or any of the various 'Unemployment Studies'
programs. Everyone knows this, it's past common knowledge and well on it's way
to becoming a cliche.

Basically, I guess you can boil down what I'm saying as, "If you partied in
college, and didn't take classes that were hard: you didn't learn anything,
and that is why nobody will pay you for access to your training."

It used to be that certain kinds of jobs were reserved for a 'college man',
but that was because that was synonymous with white and upper middle to upper
class. The great liar, statistics, said that a college degree was highly
correlated with lots of great outcomes, higher income, better employment, etc.
The government started laying lots of money into getting everyone to go to
college, without realizing that people weren't paying for the college part of
college grads, they were paying for the stuff that college was correlated
with. Like if the British started sending more people to Eton because they
wanted to increase the size of the royal family.

These days who you know matters as much as ever. However, and this is kind of
new, since the 20th century (or post Edison anyway), you can have a very
comfortable and low risk life regardless of where you started, if you can
learn enough technical stuff. Rich people and companies will pay to rent your
brain all day. They will only pay, though, if your brain can do things that
most brains can't, it's like anything else, value comes from scarcity.

So, if you are going to Harvard and your dad went to Harvard and your parents
friends are as rich as they are, study whatever, you'll be fine. If your
parents had to show up to work and had a boss, or worse if you are on
scholarship, for the love of god study something with some cash value.

“I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order
to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture,
tapestry, and porcelain.” - John Adams

~~~
xijuan
I don't like what you said. You made it sound like that English and Journalism
are easy majors. Even though it is harder to find jobs with those majors right
now, they are not necessarily easy majors. In fact, depending on your
talents,these majors can be very hard. Taking me as an example, I can never
imagine myself majoring in English or Journalism because I dislike writing and
I have never done too well in my English courses. To me these two majors would
be harder than Math and Chemistry. On the other hand, my friend who is a
history major is naturally good at writing but has very difficult times
understanding Math related materials. I always admire her for her writing
skills and always ask her for help when it comes to writing application and
essays. She always wishes that she could be good at Math. Also what majors
make good money also depends on the time we are living in. I don't know about
American history but I know in Chinese history during the 1910s,people with
arts majors would make more money. At that times, China was going through an
intellectual revolution in which Western ideas were being introduced. At that
times, many scholars would abandon their engineering, economic and medicine
degrees and become writers or journalists.

Edit: I don't live in China....

~~~
politician
The idea that we should be rewarded for doing something hard, regardless of
its value, is a consequence of a nation weaned on video games. Navigating a
maze may be hard, and you might have a natural talent about it, but the real
question is whether that's a skill other people consider worth paying enough
for to cover your overhead. The market is voting against History, Journalism,
etc. Learn a skill (or build a product) valuable to other people and you'll do
fine.

Downvoters: I like video games, I just don't expect to payed for my RTS
skills.

------
rayiner
I'm not sure what's so surprising about this. Cab drivers aren't exactly the
bottom rung of the economic ladder. Cab companies don't rent out expensive
cabs to just anyone, and driving involves capital costs (either buying your
own taxi, or paying the rental, which can run $150+ per day).

Right after the financial crisis, I had a cab driver who managed mortgage
representatives at Countrywide before it went under. At the time there were
zero jobs for people in the mortgage industry, and he was doing it to bring in
some cash while working on starting a business.

Employers don't treat foreign degrees equally with American degrees, so it's
very common for engineers or even doctors with foreign credentials to work
service jobs like driving cabs while they "launder" their foreign degree with
U.S. schooling. My uncle was a doctor in Bangladesh and then emigrated to
Australia. He worked as a bell hop, among other things, while he went through
Australian medical school. He owns a private practice now in some resort town.

------
motters
The whole concept of overeducation seems foreign to me. Surely people should
strive to be as educated as they can or want to be.

The background assumption is that education isn't really about education, and
is instead merely about training people for jobs. If people were being trained
for work which didn't exist then that would certainly be a problem, but as I
understand it that's not really what universities are for.

~~~
fennecfoxen
"Surely people should strive to be as educated as they can or want to be."

No one will argue that, all else being equal, more education is better.
Education's nice. So are lots of other things that people want from life, e.g.
leisure, money, exercise, real-world job experience, entertainment,
participation in the arts, family time, spirituality, world travel, what-have-
you.

But we make trade-offs in life, and getting a big fat expensive degree and
making very little use of it is quite possibly too much "education" at the
cost of "money" and other valuable things. It's perfectly meaningful to
consider that "overeducation".

------
patja
This reminds me of an EconTalk podcast from about 6 months ago where the
assertion was made that college has become an extension of adolescence, as
opposed to a direct path to a middle class career. Given that the ability to
write and reason well are foundational to success in many careers, I am all
for the benefits of a classical liberal arts course of study, but how many
psychology and visual arts BA's can the economy reasonably reward with good
paying jobs?
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/12/tabarrok_on_inn.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/12/tabarrok_on_inn.html)

~~~
betterunix
Education is not just about jobs. The better educated people are, the harder
it is to take advantage of them regardless of what sort of job they have.
Communities benefit from having educated people living in them -- people who
can solve problems, mediate disputes, and organize to improve the community's
situation. A democracy requires an educated populace in order to ensure that
rights are not violated, that bad laws are repealed, and that an aristocracy
cannot hijack the system at everyone's expense (bonus points if you can name a
major world power that has that problem).

At the end of the day, that is what this is really about: not having a society
ruled by an aristocracy. Public education is meant to ensure that poor people
can receive a decent education, to ensure that society does not fall into a
pattern where only rich people are educated enough to run the show.

~~~
nickpinkston
This is a good defense of a true purpose of education - no doubt. However, I'd
say that if we measured and ranked schools' impacts the number one would be in
worker productivity: i.e. better jobs / wages + more positioned filled.

The protection from aristocracy is part of it, but I'd bet it's not the
biggest part.

------
cafard
It can be an immigrant's first job in the US. I remember years ago a cabbie
from west Africa who had a Ph.D. in urban planning or some such field. He had
left his country because he was on the outs with the regime there.

As for bartenders, I'm surprised it's that few. Washington may be an outlier.

~~~
evoxed
On the one hand, there's a lot of unique things you could learn as an urban
planner by spending all of your working days driving a cab. On the other,
that's not really a field you want to get behind in (unless you want to teach,
I guess).

------
jetti
Being a taxi driver has some advantages (especially if you are an O/O), with
the big one being you get to set your own schedule. On top of that, it can
generate quite a decent amount of money. I had a friend in college who drove a
cab in Chicago on the weekends and he would make at least a grand during his
12 hour shift. I didn't pry too much, so I don't know if that was usual or
that semester was out of the ordinary. But I would imagine that it pays better
than many of the other "low skill" jobs and can offer much more variety.

~~~
groby_b
_At least_ a grand? In 12 hours?

Quick reality check: LAX has more expensive cabs than Chicago, but let's
assume they're equal. A ~30 minute ride to the airport costs me, including
tip, ~$40.

A quick verify shows that Chicago is actually $41 for a 31 minute ride, no
tip.
([http://www.taxifarefinder.com/main.php?city=Chicago&from...](http://www.taxifarefinder.com/main.php?city=Chicago&from=Navy+Pier%2C+Inc%2C+East+Grand+Avenue%2C+Chicago%2C+IL&to=ORD))

Given that people need to get in/out of the cab, etc, I think we can stay with
$40/30 minutes. That's $80 per hour. $960 if the 12 hours are _completely_
booked solid and people tip well.

And unless he's an independent operator with his own license (which would run
him $300K -
[http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/pub...](http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/publicvehicleinfo/medallionowners/2013mintaximedtransferfees.pdf)),
he doesn't get to keep all that.

I'd think your buddy was maybe telling a slightly tall tale based on that one
night where he ended up with almost a grand in cash at the end of the shift.
:)

~~~
jetti
"I'd think your buddy was maybe telling a slightly tall tale based on that one
night where he ended up with almost a grand in cash at the end of the shift.
:)"

Could be. I could be remembering it wrong too, it was 6 or so years ago :)

------
randomdata
1 in 5 of the general population have a bachelor's degree, so 1 in 7 seems
expected, if not on the low side.

~~~
drcube
Not if the reason people get those degrees is to get better jobs. If the
proportion of degree holders is the same across all jobs, why should someone
pay tens of thousands in tuition, plus the opportunity cost in lost wages, for
that degree?

~~~
randomdata
I don't really think that is a realistic reason to pursue higher education.
Without even getting into some of the deeper conversations, there are only so
many "better" jobs to go around. 80% of the jobs out there pay less than $50K
per year, and just $45K per year for 75% of the jobs. Meanwhile, if you are
aged 25-29, 30% of your peers have a degree. Therefore, 33% of college
graduates in that age group are basically guaranteed to make less than $50K
per year and many of them will fail to even make the $45K threshold. Not to
mention that in reality, percentage is even larger than that as a significant
number of non-college graduates live in the top 25% of earners.

Furthermore, 18% of university graduates fail to even earn $20K per year and
just 24% of the top 1% have a non-graduate degree as their highest level of
education attainment. I see no compelling reason to even begin to think you
would go to college to get a better job, unless that job is in a specific
field where the law requires (doctor, lawyer, etc.) Someone still has to drive
the taxis. Having a degree doesn't put you above such work and the more people
obtain their degrees, the greater chance someone with a degree will take on
such work.

With that said, college still has merit and should not be discounted. Finding
a job at the end should be one of the last reasons you consider attending.

~~~
drcube
> Finding a job at the end should be one of the last reasons you consider
> attending.

I agree with this if you're rich, or else qualify for a free education like a
scholarship or the GI Bill. But for most people, college is a significant
investment and should be treated like one. Why should someone take out
mortgage sized amounts of debt for no other reason than to learn something
interesting? Is that a responsible use of borrowed money?

~~~
randomdata
With such overwhelming evidence that a degree does not make for a good
investment in most cases, and enrolment rates only increasing, there must be
something else attracting people. My hunch is that people want to look
important. Similarly, taking out a massive loan to drive a brand new BMW
doesn't make financial sense either, but lots of people still do it because it
shapes their image.

------
greghinch
"Overeducated" is probably not the correct term here. Maybe something like
"mis-educated" would be more suitable. There's nothing wrong with wanting to
learn and study interesting subjects. Gone are the times when a college degree
alone will land you a job. You need employable skills if you want to be paid
these days, and things like History, English, and most of the Liberal Arts
degrees don't equate to that.

~~~
numeromancer
How about “overschooled”.

------
zeffr
I think it's a bit more important to look at _which_ degree was obtained, not
just that _a_ degree was obtained.

I don't seem to be having any issues here with a CS degree.

~~~
philjohn
And from where.

~~~
logn
This has got to be another one of the biggest fallacies. Yes, I would love to
see from where as well, and I guarantee it's a minor factor in income. After
equalizing for grades, experience, connections, charisma, IQ, motivation, and
career goals, I doubt the institution matters much. As a hiring manager, I
place little value on the school. It's usually just a function of income,
race, personal preference, and legacy status.

------
sonabinu
more here
[http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies/un...](http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies/underemployment-
of-college-graduates)

------
jcburnham
Too bad those jobs are going to be replaced by machines.

~~~
carlob
I sure hope my bartender doesn't get replaced by a machine.

~~~
jcburnham
It'll happen.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hJIkJ9x0-JQ)

~~~
carlob
While making that might have been a fun project, that's not where I see myself
spending my next night out. :)

On a more serious note, the reason I go to a specific bar instead of another
is often the fact that the bartender is a nice guy and I enjoy chatting with
them. That's why I don't see some of these job replaced by machines anytime
soo.

Another example would be telemarketing: robocalling existed more or less since
the phone itself, but people still find pushy telemarketers to be more
effective than a machine. For starters it's far easier to hang up on a machine
than on a person.

And that's also why retail clerks are more effective than pop-up ads even if
they serve more or less the same purpose: "I see you're looking at x would you
be interested in y as well?".

------
michaelochurch
The Left wants everyone to go to college because if you educate the proles,
they get pissed off about their situation and the waste of their life at the
hands of an entrenched elite, and you get a violent revolution (in theory).

The Center wants everyone to go to college because it's an easy way to throw
money at deep social problems under the pretenses of improving equality (in
theory).

The Corporate Right likes this whole mess because it's a sorting mechanism
paid-for by the people being sorted.

I won't even pretend to know what the Radical Right wants. Religious
indoctrination, perhaps? They aren't much of a player in the higher-ed
debates.

The Corporate Right is the only party that is actually getting what it wants.

