The Dwindling Power of a College Degree
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
"But these days, many workers have lost a near guarantee on a decent wage and benefits — and their careers are likely to have much more volatility (great years; bad years; confusing, mediocre years) than their parents’ ever did."
But in actuality, this is not really true. Most workers have a decent wage and benefits by the standards of their parents, and this doesn't even account for the fact that CPI considerably overstates inflation.
In fact, the majority of Americans are better off than their parents were at the same age. Aggregate statistics don't reflect this due primarily due to Simpson's paradox.
http://crazybear.posterous.com/did-immigrants-and-simpsons-p...
I'm also a bit surprised by the blatant USA-centricism of the article: "Global trade works much the same way. It’s horrible news for a textile factory worker in North Carolina, but it may be great for a fashion designer in New York."
In addition to being great for the fashion designer in NY, it's also great for the textile factory worker in Tamil Nadu. But I guess he is so insignificant that he doesn't deserve even a parenthetical mention.
The numbers don't back that up. There were 13 million clerical workers in the United States in 1970 (a 40% increase from Mad Men's 1960, btw):
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_...
There are now over 21 million: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes430000.htm
Granted, the population has increased somewhat, but the data don't appear to support the claim that there were vast hordes of clerical workers who were "hurt" by computers.
I wonder how value of degrees from elite schools have eroded (or grown). That might go to explain part of the intensity with which people clamor to get into them.