[randomdata]

Whenever I hear someone say "higher education is useless" I hear it in reference to the "common wisdom" that higher education increases incomes. In which case they are absolutely correct. Higher education is useless in achieving that. Incomes have held stagnant for many decades, even as more and more of the population attain higher levels of scholastic achievement. Mathematically, incomes cannot not remain stagnant if more money is earned as a result of attaining higher education.

I'm not sure I have heard anyone claim that "higher education is useless" in general. Education is never useless in general.

[jshowa3]

Statistically, higher education does increase incomes when factoring in multiple disciplines. The data is pretty clear on this.

[randomdata]

A contradiction! Incomes have not increased if incomes are stagnant, and the data is quite clear that incomes are stagnant. How do we resolve this?

Perhaps you are confusing increased income with being higher up on the income ladder? It is true that, statistically, those with higher education do find themselves higher up on the income ladder. They are not making more than they did before, when they did not have higher education, however. Incomes are stagnant.

All we're really observing there is the fact that people range from more to less able, from geniuses who seemingly can do anything to those who have crippling disabilities. At one end of the spectrum you have the people who do well in school and also the workplace due to their natural ability, and at the other, those who struggle in everything they do, be it school or the workplace because of their disabilities. And then everyone else somewhere in between. Statistically, the more able will find themselves higher up on the income ladder, and able to go further in school, thanks to being more able.

[jshowa3]

An increase income range is an increase in income. Most companies do not hire high school students or drop outs for more than minimum wage.

How you can reconcile a higher educated person being higher up the income ladder, but not making more than what they made working minimum wage at a lower education level, eludes me.

What stagnant income means is, they aren't making more relative to their productivity. Meaning salaries have not changed all that much for about 2 - 3 decades through raises despite high productivity.

[randomdata]

> An increase income range is an increase in income.

I think I see the issue here. I am talking about the population as a whole, you are talking about an individual. It is true that over time individuals tend to move up the income ladder. And that more capable people move higher up the ladder thanks to being more capable, free of disability that hinders their achievement. However, the steps of the ladder have remained unchanged over decades. Making more than someone else is not the same as making more than you otherwise could have.

If we break that ladder up into percentiles, the person at the top of, say, the 70th percentile made x of number dollars in 1970 and the person at the top of the 70th percentile still makes x number of dollars today, in real dollars. In 1970 that person did not have an education above high school. Today that person does. Despite promises, their income did not increase with increased educational attainment. Incomes are stagnant. There was no advantage to gaining that higher education with respect to income. The person at the top of the 70th percentile, who got there because of the abilities and constraints they were born with, would have ended up there regardless.

> What stagnant income means is, they aren't making more relative to their productivity.

What stagnant income means is that incomes are literally not changing, relative to inflation. On average, if you made $1 last year, you will make $1.02 this year, assuming a 2% inflation rate. A real increase of $0; stagnant. To put it another way, incomes, in nominal dollars, are increasing at the same rate as inflation.

[jshowa3]

But they are. You make roughly a million dollars more in your life time than you would if you didn't graduate college.

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Exec-Summary-w...

Inflationary dollars are largely irrelevant as everything is more expensive than it was decades ago due to inflation.

[randomdata]

Your link effectively only shows that higher earners earn more than lower earners.

That is not the same as incomes increasing because of higher education. Incomes have held stagnant for a number of decades, even as more and more people attain higher and higher levels of education. If 0% of the population had a higher education or 100% of the population had higher education, your income would remain the same as it is now.

McDonalds isn't going to pay someone flipping burgers a million dollars more over the span of their burger flipping career simply because they attained a physics degree. That is not how the economy works at all. If 100% of the population had a physics degree, someone is going to be left flipping burgers. 100% of the population are not going to be working on solving string theory. The economy cannot function in that manner.

Inflationary dollars are relevant as that is how we measure stagnant incomes. An income that tracks inflation is stagnant. Incomes are stagnant. We are not talking about spending.