What doesn't necessarily cure poverty

[ksen]

Education

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/30/8308607/education-poverty

People in poverty are much more educated than they were 30-40 years ago . . . and they're still in poverty.

What does cure poverty? More income.

Shocking, I know.

 

[Trausti]

Education

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/30/8308607/education-poverty

People in poverty are much more educated than they were 30-40 years ago . . . and they're still in poverty.

What does cure poverty? More income.

Shocking, I know.

Or perhaps it's what you study that matters. If you spend 4+ years incurring student debt and walk away with a degree in feel-good studies, don't be surprised if barista is the best job in the offing.

 

[ksen]

Is that what they did?

 

[dismal]

People in poverty are much more educated than they were 30-40 years ago . . . and they're still in poverty.

Based on the data provided it would be accurate to say they have more advanced degrees. I am skeptical that this translates one-for-one to "more educated" or "have the skills that employers want".

What does cure poverty? More income.

Given the way "poverty" is typically defined that's a tautology.

 

[ksen]

Based on the data provided it would be accurate to say they have more advanced degrees. I am skeptical that this translates one-for-one to "more educated" or "have the skills that employers want".

What makes you skeptical? Are with trausti in thinking these people are just getting a bunch of "feel good" degrees?

 

[Trausti]

Based on the data provided it would be accurate to say they have more advanced degrees. I am skeptical that this translates one-for-one to "more educated" or "have the skills that employers want".

What makes you skeptical? Are with trausti in thinking these people are just getting a bunch of "feel good" degrees?

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back

 

[ksen]

What's your point?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's your point?

Didn't you start a thread about how educational level doesn't get one out of poverty as easily? A point about which majors pay back the cost of getting them would seem to be right on target.

 

[dismal]

Based on the data provided it would be accurate to say they have more advanced degrees. I am skeptical that this translates one-for-one to "more educated" or "have the skills that employers want".

What makes you skeptical? Are with trausti in thinking these people are just getting a bunch of "feel good" degrees?

I don't think there's much question that degrees in general have been dumbed down. And many people are able to get one without acquiring much in the way of skills an employer would value.

In the 1970's a lot fewer people got degrees and thus they contained more of a signal of achievement to employers as well.

I would hesitate to draw conclusions much beyond this without more data than has been provided.

 

[ksen]

What's your point?

Didn't you start a thread about how educational level doesn't get one out of poverty as easily? A point about which majors pay back the cost of getting them would seem to be right on target.

I think first you'd have to demonstrate that the degrees people in poverty are seeking are the "wrong" kinds of degrees.

Besides, we're often sold by the Right that education is the answer. Well, no, education itself isn't the answer. As demonstrated by the chart in the OP.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Education

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/30/8308607/education-poverty

People in poverty are much more educated than they were 30-40 years ago . . . and they're still in poverty.

What does cure poverty? More income.

Shocking, I know.

I find the chart interesting as the high school/GED has been relatively static and the cut in drop outs shifted to college. Most interesting is that 4 in 10 people in poverty have some form of college experience. I wonder how skewed that green zone is with college, but barely any.

All that said, the chart is too one-dimensional. I'd like to see how many people graduated from college (4 yr degree or more) and are in poverty.

 

[ksen]

What makes you skeptical? Are with trausti in thinking these people are just getting a bunch of "feel good" degrees?

I don't think there's much question that degrees in general have been dumbed down. And many people are able to get one without acquiring much in the way of skills an employer would value.

In the 1970's a lot fewer people got degrees and thus they contained more of a signal of achievement to employers as well.

I can agree with this.

I would hesitate to draw conclusions much beyond this without more data than has been provided.

Yeah, I'm looking for the original report the chart came from to see if what kinds of degrees are being earned is mentioned in it but Vox didn't feel like they needed to include a link to the CAP report.

 

[laughing dog]

Based on the data provided it would be accurate to say they have more advanced degrees. I am skeptical that this translates one-for-one to "more educated" or "have the skills that employers want".

What makes you skeptical? Are with trausti in thinking these people are just getting a bunch of "feel good" degrees?

Perhaps dismal speaks from personal experience.

 

[ksen]

Didn't you start a thread about how educational level doesn't get one out of poverty as easily? A point about which majors pay back the cost of getting them would seem to be right on target.

I think first you'd have to demonstrate that the degrees people in poverty are seeking are the "wrong" kinds of degrees.

Besides, we're often sold by the Right that education is the answer. Well, no, education itself isn't the answer. As demonstrated by the chart in the OP.

Oh, and the entire list at trausti's link, all 129 majors, have starting salaries above poverty level. So I guess trausti is arguing that the people in poverty with post-high school education mostly studied things not on that list of 129 majors?

 

[EricK]

How does their income compare with 30 or 40 years ago? How does the number of people in poverty compare?

Without those figures, it's pretty pointless trying to draw any conclusion from that diagram.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Didn't you start a thread about how educational level doesn't get one out of poverty as easily? A point about which majors pay back the cost of getting them would seem to be right on target.

I think first you'd have to demonstrate that the degrees people in poverty are seeking are the "wrong" kinds of degrees.

How does it not do that? If the median salaries for certain degrees are higher than others, then it stands to reason that there are less people in poverty who have those degrees than there are amongst people with degrees where the average salary is lower.

Besides, we're often sold by the Right that education is the answer. Well, no, education itself isn't the answer. As demonstrated by the chart in the OP.

But it's the only way to go to get to an answer. If you're uneducated these days, odds are that you're never going to get a decent job. It used to be the case that if you had a bachelor's degree, companies would see that as evidence that you can commit and be trained and would be willing to train you, regardless of what the actual degree was in. Now they are far better able to target their recruitment to those who have the relevant training to begin with. This leaves education for the sake of being educated as not so valuable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think first you'd have to demonstrate that the degrees people in poverty are seeking are the "wrong" kinds of degrees.

Besides, we're often sold by the Right that education is the answer. Well, no, education itself isn't the answer. As demonstrated by the chart in the OP.

Oh, and the entire list at trausti's link, all 129 majors, have starting salaries above poverty level. So I guess trausti is arguing that the people in poverty with post-high school education mostly studied things not on that list of 129 majors?

No they don't. They have average starting salaries at that level. This means that about 50% of the people with those degrees have a starting salary which is less that that. It's unclear whether that even includes those who couldn't even get a job with that degree.

 

[ksen]

Oh, and the entire list at trausti's link, all 129 majors, have starting salaries above poverty level. So I guess trausti is arguing that the people in poverty with post-high school education mostly studied things not on that list of 129 majors?

No they don't. They have average starting salaries at that level. This means that about 50% of the people with those degrees have a starting salary which is less that that. It's unclear whether that even includes those who couldn't even get a job with that degree.

And you're maintaining that even one those degreed jobs would have a below poverty level starting salary?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No they don't. They have average starting salaries at that level. This means that about 50% of the people with those degrees have a starting salary which is less that that. It's unclear whether that even includes those who couldn't even get a job with that degree.

And you're maintaining that even one those degreed jobs would have a below poverty level starting salary?

Ya, probably. Where I work, we take the best and brightest graduates we can find and allow them to come in and work for us for free. For some reason, they continue to show up every day. If they had a host of better options, I can't see that being the case.

 

[ksen]

You're seriously going to argue that those poverty level college educated people in the OP chart are just interns?