Saturday, June 02, 2012

GDP Yield Per Dollar in Education Spending

Permit me a chart that will probably go down in Cappy Cap history as one of my more important ones:


Now lend me your ears, especially you "the children are our future" hypocrites who have no shame in abusing the children when it comes time to protecting your overpaid jobs.  I want to make sure your ear drums burst.

WE SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY ON EDUCATION!!!!!!

Period.

End of discussion.

Truth as truth can only be told.

Of course, I can't assume that everybody reading this post is a regular Cappy Cap reader and therefore doesn't need a hand-holding explanation of the chart above, so let me explain to you in simple terms the wonderful economics lesson the above chart tells us all and the ramifications of it.

The above chart is quite simple.  It shows us "GDP Yielded per Dollar in Education Spending."  Or, in other words, "How much GDP is produced for every dollar we spend on education."

It is a measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of our education system in that it essentially shows us our return on investment in education.

Notice in the olden days we could expect that for every dollar we "invested" in the precious little children, we could expect about $32 in economic production in return.  It peaked during WWII where we almost doubled that rate of return, and even during the great depression it had a trough of $21.  But still the average was reasonably high.

In the 50's our ROI for education averaged in the upper $20's, but then in the 60's it started a very measured and deliberate decline.  This decline continues today where we get LESS THAN HALF OUR OLD SCHOOL RETURN - $14.52.  The cause of this decline I presume was that blessed, wonderful and highly ineffective "Great Society."

Whatever the cause, the fact still remains that education has been suffering a phenomenon economists like to call "Diminishing Marginal Utility" or "Diminishing Returns."

Or in English - "We ain't getting our bang for our buck."

It is here, no doubt, liberals, leftists, socialists, communists and other economic parasites will try to change reality, redefine words, and tender touchy feely arguments that are not based in reality or logic.  However, for those people, allow me to do you the favor of tendering your arguments for you because I know you so well because I know your ulterior goals and motives:

1.  "Well education isn't all about the money.  It's about becoming a well-rounded person.  It's an experience" etc. etc. touchyfeelygarbage, touchyfeelygarbage.


2.  "People don't get an education just so they can go and work.  They do it so they can enhance their intellect and lives.  You don't want a bunch of dumb people running around the country, do you?  You want a place where everybody is smart like us in San Francisco or New York."

But, if you can stand to be as open-mined and as intelligent as you hypocrites all claim you are, permit me not a counter-argument, but reality.

1.  BS.  The amount of money students, their parents and taxpayers spend on education, you damn well better believe money matters.  When people blow $100,000 on a college degree, unless you're some spoiled pampered brat whose parent can afford it, you are CRIPPLING YOUR ECONOMIC FUTURE.  Liberal or conservative.  Capitalist or parasite. Your political ideology and naivete does not matter as that $100,000 in student debt will destroy you and your future regardless.

2.  The government (which means me and the dwindling percent of the population who actually produce something on value in this country) pay for 75% of all educational spending.  That's right, other people are paying for the majority of your education.

READ

WE HAVE EVERY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DEMAND A RATE OF RETURN

AND

WE HAVE EVERY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT OUR MONEY IS SPENT WISELY ON DEGREES AND EDUCATION THAT LEADS TO GENUINE ECONOMIC PRODUCTION AND NOT FINANCE SOME BLEEPING HOBBY DEGREE LIKE SOCIOLOGY, WOMEN'S STUDIES AND WHATEVER OTHER DEGREES YOU LEFTISTS PURSUE THAT ARE VOID OF MATH, RIGOR AND PURPOSE.

Of course, ultimately, I know this is not a debate.  I know that this is falling on deaf ears which relegates this post for posterity.  Debates require both sides to have theories, but no proof or evidence, which results in speculation, logic, thought and an attempt to convince the other person to see it their way.  Debate also requires intellectual honesty of both parties.  This is instead one of two things:

A psychological problem in which people who "argue" otherwise simply are psychologically impaired and cannot accept fact, data, statistics or truth (aka-ignorance, delusional).

Or

A problem of evil.  Where people who "argue" otherwise know full well I, and millions of others are right, but know to indignantly feign disagreement so they can continue to unfairly milk the system for their advantage at our expense.

And so for those of you who are evil, know that you're not fooling any one.

And for those of you who are ignorant, know that we no longer care to discern between the two because the costs to us are the same.

15 comments:

sisterbrat said...

I say if they do make student debt dischargeable, make the school responsible for making the debt whole to the govt. I bet they get very particular about who is admitted and also very particular about what programs.

I was a dumb young'un too, but nowhere near these sums of money.

Anonymous said...

>WE SPEND TO MUCH MONEY ON EDUCATION!!!!!!

Ahem, "too".

Sonny Ortega said...

OT: You're going to absolutely love this, Cap.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/

Captain Capitalism said...

Thank you anon.

Anonymous said...

Very few schools truly cost 100k; those colleges discount like furniture stores unless you're crazy rich.

What is most tragic is that the most serious students, who take on the hardest classes, don't have time to work a part time job. They're the ones with 100k in total expenses, because they will have to study all day.

The vicious truth is that there is no shortage of engineers or scientists. They are average careers at best, when one looks at time value and discounting the right way.

The stupid goofy majors at least leave time for a part time job, and maybe even a weekend job too. They are also much better at transferring than the serious classes. They are worthless, granted, but crashing and burning in a serious major is worse than worthless.

Look at law school these days. Law school scam: google it. The party animal idiots aren't the ones to feel sorry for.

Anonymous said...

Following this whole "Worthless" topic here has been fascinating. Some random thoughts.

1) I have always kind of thought of an "Elementary Education" as sort of like Vo-Tech as compared to Sociology-etc-at least it leads to job. But, a friend's daughter just interviewed for 1 of 3 jobs in a town outside Fargo(in MN)-there were 80 Applicants. She got 1 slot and her boyfriend got another.

2)I have been struck by the often wasted adult years to the mid-twenties with school and so forth. I am reading "Three Roads to the Alamo" about Crockett, Bowie and Travis and by about age 24-Jim Bowie was on his 3rd or 4th large business venture (granted that one involved slave smuggling, but the point still stands). I fear that a society that routinely treats mid-20's adults as children (see OBAMACARE) is not long for this world.

3) I live in a rural area and it would be interesting to compare total outcomes of rural males to suburban males. I don't know a lot of rural males who end up as baristas at Starbucks or living in their parent's basement. I think rural kids are more likely to head to the oilfields etc.

Anonymous said...

Following this whole "Worthless" topic here has been fascinating. Some random thoughts.

1) I have always kind of thought of an "Elementary Education" as sort of like Vo-Tech as compared to Sociology-etc-at least it leads to job. But, a friend's daughter just interviewed for 1 of 3 jobs in a town outside Fargo(in MN)-there were 80 Applicants. She got 1 slot and her boyfriend got another.

2)I have been struck by the often wasted adult years to the mid-twenties with school and so forth. I am reading "Three Roads to the Alamo" about Crockett, Bowie and Travis and by about age 24-Jim Bowie was on his 3rd or 4th large business venture (granted that one involved slave smuggling, but the point still stands). I fear that a society that routinely treats mid-20's adults as children (see OBAMACARE) is not long for this world.

3) I live in a rural area and it would be interesting to compare total outcomes of rural males to suburban males. I don't know a lot of rural males who end up as baristas at Starbucks or living in their parent's basement. I think rural kids are more likely to head to the oilfields etc.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 5:36. I know a few people in law school right now and only know maybe one who I think will be alright. She knows what specific area she wants to work in (immigration law), is well situated for it (Miami), has the added bonus of speaking both Spanish and Portuguese, and is going to UM with a full-ride scholarship and an accounting major spouse that is helping (along with family) to cover living expenses. The rest of them are 'international law' (doesn't really exist and the only way you get to touch it is through HYS), environmental law (no money to be made there, extremely limited opportunity to be there at all if you're not T14), sports law (extremely few potential clients, all of which have already been claimed), or other such nonsense.

Yeah, there are a lot fewer obvious paths into the professional world. I'm doing accounting with hopes of going Big Four, especially if I can land a good school for my MPA/MAcc. Sucks having to take on the debt, but if I get into a program like UTA (best in the country) or BYU (3rd, but incredibly inexpensive) it's supposed to be sickeningly easy to get in the door at the big firms.

Anonymous said...

I avoided post secondary education and passed those saving along to my customers for many years. I am now retired on my own dime.

I didn't need a lengthy government education to tell me how to live, work or make money.

I went through the catholic system back in the 50s and early 60s. I have met countless 'degreed' people who do have as good an education as I received back then for a lot less money and before the commies took over the educational industry.

Once a person learns basic math, reading and writing he can learn anything else on his own to achieve whatever he wants. The information is there for free, just read and learn.

Whatever you do, stay the hell away from a government job, they will destroy your soul as soon as you realized you are in a pointless useless over paid job that you cannot be fired from.

sisterbrat said...

To anon at 9:36:

What I have read and seen from all the woe is me OWS types, the 100k + debt has been racked up by worthless degrees...law(from low ranked schools), theology, philosophy, and any studies.

Why cant science and stem majors get a job? I work-study and parent while attending school, I'm a STEM major, so they can do it too.

School debt is a choice. If someone makes a choice to take on 100k + in debt that's on them.

Oh, Aaron, I owe you a write-up about work. Very short note: enrollment down, degrees being sought are starting to center around nursing and IT and less people SEEM to be going for worthless degrees....hard to say though for sure.

Ariane said...

Also, it's a bit harder to get accepted for STEM at major universities... you know, because they actually want to see evidence of FOCUS, like that you understand the problem, before you get in.

I'm in grad school for STEM and, during a family crisis a few years ago, considered quitting. I had a talk with our coordinator, who admitted that in times of low employment, applications go WAAAAAY up... but not everyone gets in. I asked, "In an average year, how many new PhD students get into the Bioscience program?" The answer was, at our school, about SIX.

At that point, I decided to shut up and get back to the lab.

sisterbrat said...

Edit: I meant to type "to anon at 5:36, not 9:36...darn dyslexic fingers.

sorry.

Philosophy Major said...

Have you explored the poor ROI on education along gender lines? I.e. not only do women major in 'worthless' qualifications, even when they major in STEM subjects, their comparative advantage in childbearing/raising lowers the ROI.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12sibert.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

Teknologist said...

TLDR:

What's really incredible about this expense, and that probably goes hand-in-hand with the lack of economic growth scaling with education spending, is that HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES LIKE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLERS ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF DRUDGE WORK, DIRTY WORK, SALES, CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND EARNING A DEGREE!!!!!

The college degree requirements and high school diploma requirements are so cooked and bloated they're like a microwaved marshmallow. If I ask to not have any side dishes, can I have a bigger helping of the entree?

---

What's really incredible about this expense, and that probably goes hand-in-hand with the lack of economic growth scaling with education spending, is that 9th graders in a decent school are capable of doing the work required in college to earn a degree, but with a slightly tighter schedule due to 'high school math' prerequisites, and high school graduates are not anymore capable than 9th graders in college except in math.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES LIKE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLERS ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF DRUDGE WORK, DIRTY WORK, SALES, CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND EARNING A DEGREE!!!!!

What's needed to reform education so that economic growth scales with education spending is to reform the curriculum so that senior high school students can pursue a narrow, and not general intellectual course of study in biology, physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, economics, computer science, or accounting, etc in their FOUR YEARS in senior high school so that they can take on an intellectual occupation, and not unskilled work just out of high school. That would make them 'globally competitive'. They would be capable of doing better than unskilled work for making a living.

ukFred said...

1 First point i would like to make is that the A Level results are not long out here in the UK ( a bit like High School Diploma) and the numbers applying for STEM degrees is up this year while total applications to Universities are down.

2 There was a study done, I believe in Germany some time ago which showed that there was a direct correlation between the proportion of the population educated to O Level standard (Grade 9) and economic well-being of the country, but no correlation whatsoever with the proportion of the population educated above this level.

Conclusion: Politicians spending other peoples money don't give a monkey's about value for money, they just want to boast about how much they have spent.