[cynical_sheet]

You mean you don't want to live in a world where you actually have to learn useful skills, so that you can trade with other people who have learned to do something you find useful?

I've already addressed that when I mentioned 'rampant entitlement mentality'. It's people thinking that others owe them something just because they happen to be members of homo sapiens species. Entitlement 101.

It's not a coincidence that most of the people studying philosophy, sociology, gender studies etc. are leftists, many even radicalized (e.g. anarcho-syndicalism in philosophy departments).

That's why the leftists need a powerful state. Since they are useless parasites, they have to make money by working in government or non-profit or government-inspired jobs.

[eli_gottlieb]

You should probably go spout this crap on a site where the average user doesn't make six figures.

[cynical_sheet]

What is your point? What does people making 6 figures on this site or 7 figures on some other site matter?

Is what I'm writing true or not?

[zuminator]

No. You're being at the least inconsistent when you on the one hand claim that it's wrong to push for a higher minimum wage (because the free market should decide what low skill jobs are "worth") and on the other hand deride sociology and gender studies as worthless when people are willing to pay a lot of money for those courses. In other words, you're not a capitalist, you're just co-opting the language of capitalism to spout a particular brand of conservative moralism.

[cynical_sheet]

I am not inconsistent.

Where exactly did I write that it is (morally) wrong to push for a higher minimum wage? I am not writing that it is wrong to push for $15/hour. I'm writing on why American workers have a hard time competing with people in Asia or South America, many of whom work for $15/day. That's why, among other things, companies are leaving for Mexico or Vietnam.

Students are taking huge government-backed student loans, so that they can go to college and study sociology/gender studies(or some other worthless field) and then get a job in the government or non-profit. Do you see the circular nature of that?

My point is that most people(except some spoiled & stupid rich kids) who are studying sociology now would NOT do it in a truly free market environment, because:

a) There wouldn't be many government jobs or government-inspired jobs waiting for them. b) 18 yo couldn't get student loans to study these subjects. Why? For the same reason homeless drug addicts aren't getting $10 million loans from banks. It's a bad investment for a bank to give unreliable people money. Likewise, sociology(or some other worthless field) majors couldn't get a loan, since their earning potential is very low. c) No welfare. Since there wouldn't be welfare checks to fall back on, most people would think twice about what to study and their choice would not be sociology.

[Apocryphon]

You seem to have intense negativity towards what you label "worthless fields." What is your definition of a non-worthless field? Not to mention, a lot of graduates in those fields end up working in other fields anyway (I've met a good amount of tech recruiters who were polisci or communications majors on LinkedIn). That seems to contradict your point of considering these people as inherently unreliable and unemployable.

[pdonis]

> people are willing to pay a lot of money for those courses.

No, people are willing to have the government pay a lot of money for those courses, in the form of financial aid. People who actually have to pay for the courses themselves are far more likely to study something with actual practical value.

[zuminator]

"Far more likely"? That's quite an assertion to make. Do you have a link? I'm genuinely curious. Also, as Apocryphon mentioned, "actual practical value" is a problematic phrase. If you mean "economic value" then just say that. But on the face of it, if you are applying for work for which the minimum qualification is a degree from an accredited college/university, then any course which gets you closer to fulfilling that qualification has some economic value.

[pdonis]

> if you are applying for work for which the minimum qualification is a degree from an accredited college/university, then any course which gets you closer to fulfilling that qualification has some economic value.

This is true. But why is the minimum qualification a degree? For some jobs that qualification makes sense; but there are many for which it doesn't, yet it is still considered a minimum qualification. The assertion that this state of affairs is largely due to the fact that college degrees are subsidized--many people can get them without having to pay for them themselves--is certainly not original with me; economists have been making it for decades.

[Apocryphon]

How are you even defining "useful skill"?