# Where will they go?

by SixNein
Tags: None
 P: 46 I see that there are two main types of people ruling this world: those that only view things in a capitalist manner and those that view things in a socialist manner. (I see communism as a minority in our world, so am ruling it out for now in my reply). Some politicians and prominent business-people care about others (ie. socialists) and others don't (ie. capitalist). What a lot of people don't see is that we can have an even more flourishing economy if we cared about each other. My post is BY NO MEANS me advocating socialist regimes, I'm just stating that there are two types of elite people in conflict, concerning control; it's hard to tell who'll overcome - if at all.
Mentor
P: 5,343
 Quote by Elihu5991 I see that there are two main types of people ruling this world: those that only view things in a capitalist manner and those that view things in a socialist manner. (I see communism as a minority in our world, so am ruling it out for now in my reply). Some politicians and prominent business-people care about others (ie. socialists) and others don't (ie. capitalist). What a lot of people don't see is that we can have an even more flourishing economy if we cared about each other. My post is BY NO MEANS me advocating socialist regimes, I'm just stating that there are two types of elite people in conflict, concerning control; it's hard to tell who'll overcome - if at all.
Hmm I disagree because I don't think it is far to suggest that capitalism and socialism are on the opposite end of a spectrum, you can have socialist capitalism (1, 2) and I can't think of any country that has no socialist policies or institutions.

The opposite of socialism is individualism which IMO is damaging to society at large if it is the majority practice. Also with regards to communism I'm not sure why you think it is a minority as the most populous and second richest country in the world practices communism.
P: 46
 Quote by Ryan_m_b Hmm I disagree because I don't think it is far to suggest that capitalism and socialism are on the opposite end of a spectrum, you can have socialist capitalism (1, 2) and I can't think of any country that has no socialist policies or institutions. The opposite of socialism is individualism which IMO is damaging to society at large if it is the majority practice. Also with regards to communism I'm not sure why you think it is a minority as the most populous and second richest country in the world practices communism.
Ok, I see that I was not adamantly clear ... my apologies. I was not stating that capitalism and socialism or on opposite ends of the spectrum (think of the quartered graph thing in politics - sorry but can't momentarily remember it's name). I can think, on the top of my head, that Zimbabwe doesn't (please don't take this example in a racist manner).

Individualism = egotism = corruption amongst self and all.

I meant country wise. Think of how many countries are communism, not it's population. Besides, China is not a true communist nation.
Mentor
P: 5,343
 Quote by Elihu5991 Ok, I see that I was not adamantly clear ... my apologies. I was not stating that capitalism and socialism or on opposite ends of the spectrum (think of the quartered graph thing in politics - sorry but can't momentarily remember it's name). I can think, on the top of my head, that Zimbabwe doesn't (please don't take this example in a racist manner). Individualism = egotism = corruption amongst self and all. I meant country wise. Think of how many countries are communism, not it's population. Besides, China is not a true communist nation.
I think on the whole no country is truly socialist and none is truly individualist/capitalist. Moreover I would suggest that most countries are mostly socialist.
P: 46
 Quote by Ryan_m_b I think on the whole no country is truly socialist and none is truly individualist/capitalist. Moreover I would suggest that most countries are mostly socialist.
I wouldn't say most, but a lot are. There's a lot of this world that we don't know that goes on (ie. you didn't know about ZImbabwe as such) and I don't of other nations as such, too. So I say we are generalising far to much to say that most countries are. Of those nations, most of them 9for sure) have poorly functioning (if at all) 'socialist' systems.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by SixNein Where will they go now?
To college?
Mentor
P: 5,343
 Quote by Gokul43201 To college?
A university education is not for everyone, I have a big problem with the often espoused assumption that educations and training is a linear process with university as a climax rather than the reality that university as a route for certain specialties.

On top of this how would they actually pay for this education? And will it really help having an overqualified workforce with huge debts and not enough work for them?
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by Ryan_m_b And will it really help having an overqualified workforce with huge debts and not enough work for them?
The basis for this thread is the following sentence from the OP:
 Quote by SixNein On that note, I came across an interesting statistic that claimed 60% of jobs over the next decade will require a college education.
So:

1. Having an underqualified workforce go after the qualifications that they are anticipated to need does not make the workforce overqualified.

2. The article cited includes all kinds of "post-secondary education" in the statistic quoted in the OP. That includes trade school, community college, etc. - a lot of which does not come with huge debts of the kind that are common with private university tuition.

3. Do you think the fraction of the workforce with a college education today is the same as it was 20 years ago, 50, or a 100? The cost of tuition and the resulting expected salary (amongst other factors) determine the position of the (quasi) equilibrium - the fraction of the workforce with a college education. As these risks and rewards vary with time, people living near the margins of the equilibrium will move over into one side or the other, in response to those forces.

Why is it that the question raised in this thread, "how will the workforce respond to a greater demand for college education" is answered with a number of possible scenarios, not a single one of which is "they will respond by seeking more college education"?
PF Gold
P: 183
 More Jobs Predicted for Machines, Not People
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/te...ot-people.html

 IT spending has hollowed out labour markets, to the detriment of middle-income workers
http://www.economist.com/node/169907...ry_id=16990700
PF Gold
P: 183
 Quote by Ryan_m_b A university education is not for everyone, I have a big problem with the often espoused assumption that educations and training is a linear process with university as a climax rather than the reality that university as a route for certain specialties. On top of this how would they actually pay for this education? And will it really help having an overqualified workforce with huge debts and not enough work for them?
I think the labor market will eventually get saturated with college educated people. Maybe it already is in quite a few areas.
P: 1,414
 Quote by SixNein I think the labor market will eventually get saturated with college educated people. Maybe it already is in quite a few areas.
You can probably make some sort of accurate statement about "where they will not go".
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by SixNein I think the labor market will eventually get saturated with college educated people.
Wait ... are you saying that more people will start getting a college education?
 PF Gold P: 1,370 The data at the Bureau of Economic Analysis might indicate where they might go. GDPbyInd_GO_NAICS: Gross Output by Industry in Current Dollars, Quantity Indexes by Industry, Price Indexes by Industry (dollars in millions) % Δ________1998________2010____Description 68%____$215,672____$362,308____General Federal nondefense government services 14%____$320,990____$366,383____Other nonresidential structures 81%____$214,504____$388,590____Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities 37%____$296,292____$406,174____Management of companies and enterprises 20%____$377,990____$454,476____Insurance carriers 13%____$477,434____$537,816____Telecommunications 29%____$429,724____$556,071____Food services and drinking places 78%____$316,283____$562,360____Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related activities 46%____$390,964____$572,369____Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners 294%___$154,000____$606,411____Petroleum refineries 59%____$394,794____$626,833____Hospitals 55%____$413,200____$642,181____Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 74%____$405,963____$708,297____General Federal defense government services 25%____$815,047__$1,021,821____Real estate 29%____$957,347__$1,230,213____Owner-occupied dwellings 19%__$1,032,467__$1,231,934____Wholesale trade 13%__$1,176,978__$1,335,540____Retail trade 36%__$1,355,308__$1,843,225____General state and local government services These are the top 18 sectors by 2010 gross output. Other than doctors and nurses, I don't see much on the list that would require any college.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 11,154
 Quote by OmCheeto The data at the Bureau of Economic Analysis might indicate where they might go.
How are you using this data to answer the question? I don't follow your argument. Admittedly, you are not explicitly answering the question in your post, but the last line seems to be implying that you are.

 GDPbyInd_GO_NAICS: Gross Output by Industry in Current Dollars, Quantity Indexes by Industry, Price Indexes by Industry (dollars in millions) % Δ________1998________2010____Description 68%____$215,672____$362,308____General Federal nondefense government services 14%____$320,990____$366,383____Other nonresidential structures 81%____$214,504____$388,590____Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities 37%____$296,292____$406,174____Management of companies and enterprises 20%____$377,990____$454,476____Insurance carriers 13%____$477,434____$537,816____Telecommunications 29%____$429,724____$556,071____Food services and drinking places 78%____$316,283____$562,360____Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related activities 46%____$390,964____$572,369____Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners 294%___$154,000____$606,411____Petroleum refineries 59%____$394,794____$626,833____Hospitals 55%____$413,200____$642,181____Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 74%____$405,963____$708,297____General Federal defense government services 25%____$815,047__$1,021,821____Real estate 29%____$957,347__$1,230,213____Owner-occupied dwellings 19%__$1,032,467__$1,231,934____Wholesale trade 13%__$1,176,978__$1,335,540____Retail trade 36%__$1,355,308__$1,843,225____General state and local government services These are the top 18 sectors by 2010 gross output.
The important numbers in that list are in the first column: %Δ. Those numbers tell us which sectors are growing most/least rapidly, and from that, one might be able to guess something about necessary changes in qualifications. The retail trade sector, for instance, has grown only 13% in the last decade, a period over which the US GDP has grown about 30%. So if you believe that most of the workforce in that sector requires no college education (and I have no good reason to doubt that), that is an argument against the point you seem to be making, or at least implying.

 Other than doctors and nurses, I don't see much on the list that would require any college.
Really? Maybe you have a very different opinion of the usefulness of a degree than most hiring and HR departments. Or maybe they don't have as much time as you do to delve into the intangibles of the applicants.
PF Gold
P: 183
 Quote by OmCheeto The data at the Bureau of Economic Analysis might indicate where they might go. GDPbyInd_GO_NAICS: Gross Output by Industry in Current Dollars, Quantity Indexes by Industry, Price Indexes by Industry (dollars in millions) % Δ________1998________2010____Description 68%____$215,672____$362,308____General Federal nondefense government services 14%____$320,990____$366,383____Other nonresidential structures 81%____$214,504____$388,590____Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities 37%____$296,292____$406,174____Management of companies and enterprises 20%____$377,990____$454,476____Insurance carriers 13%____$477,434____$537,816____Telecommunications 29%____$429,724____$556,071____Food services and drinking places 78%____$316,283____$562,360____Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related activities 46%____$390,964____$572,369____Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners 294%___$154,000____$606,411____Petroleum refineries 59%____$394,794____$626,833____Hospitals 55%____$413,200____$642,181____Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 74%____$405,963____$708,297____General Federal defense government services 25%____$815,047__$1,021,821____Real estate 29%____$957,347__$1,230,213____Owner-occupied dwellings 19%__$1,032,467__$1,231,934____Wholesale trade 13%__$1,176,978__$1,335,540____Retail trade 36%__$1,355,308__$1,843,225____General state and local government services These are the top 18 sectors by 2010 gross output. Other than doctors and nurses, I don't see much on the list that would require any college.
How much is the output attributed to automation vs people?
P: 1,414
 Quote by OmCheeto ... I don't see much on the list that would require any college.
Low level, relatively unskilled or semi-skilled positions wrt any sector don't generally require college. The problem is that the relative incidence of these sorts of jobs is decreasing. Hence, the OP's question. How will the inordinately increasing masses of unskilled and semi-skilled people be employed? Will a large portion of them simply be unnecessary in the American economy of the future?
PF Gold
P: 1,370
 Quote by ThomasT Low level, relatively unskilled or semi-skilled positions wrt any sector don't generally require college. The problem is that the relative incidence of these sorts of jobs is decreasing. Hence, the OP's question. How will the inordinately increasing masses of unskilled and semi-skilled people be employed? Will a large portion of them simply be unnecessary in the American economy of the future?
Tougher question than the OP, IMHO.
PF Gold
P: 1,370
 Quote by Gokul43201 How are you using this data to answer the question?