For what it's worth, people have studied this a lot. While it's true that bad choices can get you in financial trouble, it doesn't seem to be true that most people who are are financial difficultly got there due to poor choices.
It contributes, but on the whole a) it's way more complicated than that and (b) the general narrative around this stuff has very poor SNR.
In general "I did [path dependent thing] and so did my friends, so anyone should be able to" isn't a very good argument for nearly anything. It works as a solid existence proof, but has little to no value for anything else - too much selection bias and path dependence".
Note that previous works regardless of the negative/positive aspects of what you are claiming. Literally none of us have a good idea of how things work in general based only on observation of our own lives and those we know. To get anywhere real on this you have to go vastly broader (i.e. study real data, but first fight the uphill battle to figure out if you can get any that isn't fatally compromised). It's hard work.
Another point is that in general, unless you know someone incredibly well and intimately, your observations of them are by nature pretty weak. Drawing strong conclusions from any of it a dicey proposition.
It was caused by economic parasites, not choices.
I know a fair number of people who inherited property and do almost no productive work.
They live lavish lifestyles and live almost entirely off the hard work of others while their wealth - the result of the hard work of others - both grows and sustains them.
I know a fair few others who are worth to society far in excess of what they are paid and have very little left of that once bills from monopolies, rent and taxes are accounted for.
At some point this system breaks down completely.
https://datausa.io/profile/cip/cultural-gender-studies
The idea that genders studies degrees are to blame seems a bit like blaming avocado toast to me.
This is one of the stupidest comments I've ever read in my many years here. You're the walking epitome of privilege and survivorship bias.
Of course you don't see any poor workers, you live among rich people. You have literally no knowledge on why others may struggle. Do you think those 99% of people worse off than you all are lazy and dumb? Really?
I grew up poor and have plenty of money now so maybe I just have a more unique perspective that's difficult to have without living it. But I often find so many really just want to tow the narrative because they understand how much inequality really works and so long as they're doing better than most, the can continue to do fairly well as long as no one rocks the boat. They like hiring that person to do that thing for virtually nothing. They like all the services they get for marginal costs because the people who work there are being exploited. As long as it's not in their face as as long as they can br the lords and vassels of today, they get to enjoy enough of the spoils of human exploitation to ignore all the terrible ways we treat each other through financial abstractions.
So much success or lack there of has little to nothing to do with work ethic, value creation, or contribution to society and has so much more to do with gaming the current systems.
Only when folks are faced with how such a reality affects them, such as when a company lays them off and they have little marketable skills after toiling away in a throwaway job for 10 years, do they actually give any real consideration to how others live - because they now are facing the same sort of conditions and giant concrete roadblocks.
The people who are truly broke don't have the option of choosing between a history degree and plumber training. They grow up in broken homes with parents working 3 part time jobs because no one will give them benefits. The benefit cliffs prevent their parents from jumping up in social status.
"The only people I see are struggling are the ones who have made dumb choices" is naive at best, dismissive, callous, and uncaring at worst.
People with college degrees aren't the ones losing the wealth battle. Rather than looking around your circumstances, we should look at data [1]:
Education Level Median wealth
No high school diploma $20,780
High school diploma $73,890
Some college $89,280
College degree $308,800
[1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/average-net-worth/
1) how many people with the unmarketable degrees work in completely different fields, and would be much better off studying in that field from the beginning
2) how much more money certain majors make. Most doctors have a net worth over a million. Most art majors - not even close.
If we want to improve the wealth inequality, we should start pushing young people to what society actually demands, not the "you can be whatever you want" nonsense.
There is no majors for people who get into high-paying jobs like "Sales" or "Real Estate Broker". I also know the most successful people in those industries tend to have college degrees. People with those interests can use their college experience to make themselves more well-rounded humans. They can build their networks and improve future earning potential. They can focus on other disciplines (writing, marketing, pre-law, etc.) to make them more successful in their chosen career.
> how much more money certain majors make.
It sounds like you were surprised when you saw your initial example of a "dumb choice" major, Gender Studies, had an average wage over $80k; which is more than double the national median. Your second example International Relations, has an average wage of $97k [2].
Maybe it is your frame of reference that needs change rather than other people's major choices.
[1] https://datausa.io/profile/cip/cultural-gender-studies
[2] https://datausa.io/profile/cip/international-relations-affai...
What a miss. Teenagers being handed checks for 100K+ to study topics that wont get them a job is the fault of the... teenager? Maybe we should focus on outcomes from colleges instead of enrollments. Maybe high schooler guidance considers should actually help students discover career paths? Maybe financial institution shouldnt give teenagers unforgivable loans they will never be able to pay back? Maybe as a society we shouldnt set the standard that one has to and needs to go to college by and large to be successful?
There are a whole slew of things that cause wealth inequality but blaming it on someone taking a check to study a subject that doesnt translate to a real world job is so low on the list of concerns it shouldnt even be a part of the conversation.
Who else is responsible for their choice? They make the choice, nobody else. That 100K check doesn't force them to choose a particular degree.
I wish we had mandatory annual counseling for students that would inform them of the market demands. But again, at 18 you can just Google that info in 30 seconds.
If we are already deciding what people under the age of 21 can do we should probably add giving someone a unforgivable loan that could put them in debt for life to that list.
Also I'd argue that googling for 30 seconds to determine your future career is just as stupid as taking a check and figuring it out as you go.
It’s nice your life has been so easy. Really. But please don’t use your rose-tinted glasses to accuse everyone else of being “dumb” - aside from how pretentious it comes off, it’s a wholly incorrect view. Does it factor in covid-related job loss? Inflation? Anything other than your dated experiences that no longer apply?
The icing on ththe cake is that you responded to someone else calling them “dishonest.”
Sure, but where does that get us? What can we do about it? In the long run education should, one hopes, help. But given that wealth inequality is likely to be a feature of all but the most smurfy of societies, how do we want to manage it in ours?
(According to legend, the creator of the Smurfs was a staunch Communist and he designed the Smurfs to be a model Communist society. Supposedly the Smurfs are a kind of revenge for being denied entry to some nation or other for his political beliefs. I swear I 'm not making this up. The smurfs are ruled by a red father, they each are defined by their profession or main talent, they "give according to their ability and receive according to their need" without any money or economic system, and the guy who is their nemesis wants to eat them or turn them into gold. Oh and they have no women at first, and then they have one woman and her job is "woman". I don't know if that last part is particularly communist, but it's pretty messed up if you think about it. "Smurfs don't lay eggs! I won't tell you that again!")
It is definitely a huge problem if you don't continue your education into higher value areas, but I don't think getting one of those degrees is necessarily a 'dumb choice'
There are plenty of people with non technical degrees who do well in this world too, propped up by unpopped malinvestment.