Higher Education, Lower Wages

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 17:00


Once upon a time, education really was the key to opportunity and advancement in America.  Although we did not collect comprehensive statistics throughout most of the era in which this was true, we do have some statistics from the tail end of that era, which I've summarized below.  As you can see, non-high school graduates gained a small amount of ground from 1967 to 1973, while high school graduates and above gained 10% or more.  "All" workers did better by over 10%, too, because the mix of workers was becoming more and more education.

Over the next 17 years, however, only those with a college degree or more showed any improvement (as a group, obviously individuals gaining experience and seniority did better, while some also did worse).  High school drop-outs faced a drastic drop in income.  Meanwhile, the super-high income groups--the top 0.1% and top 0.01%, who had been in the doldrums from 1967 to 1973, saw their incomes start to skyrocket:

(Note: p90 means 90th income percentile = top 10%. p95, 95th percentile = top 5%, etc.)

These changing trends only intensified in the years 1991 to 2008, although things were relatively good during the 1990s.  Altogether, however, people with advanced degrees saw their incomes drop significantly over this time period--83.2% down for those with professional degrees, and 92.2% down for those with doctorates.  Meanwhile, those in the top 1% and above showed strong to astronomical income growth:

Paul Rosenberg :: Higher Education, Lower Wages
This first chart shows how incomes started to diverge from around 1973 onward"

And this chart, from 1991 onward, limited to college grads and better, shows how higher education stopped being a key to constantly rising incomes, even as being in the higher income brackets became more and more of lock:

Looking at the 1967-1990 period in terms of percentage changes, it becomes particularly clear why elites looked back on that time as one of near economic disaster--as significant in their thinking as the Great Depression, while most people remember it as simply the beginning of a long stagnation in wage growth that has never really ended, although some periods have shown slight improvements (notably the Clinton years) and some have substantial slumps (the Bush II years.)  Just look at how the top two income groups (top 0.1% and top 0.01%) slumped during the 1970s, only to start a meteoric rise as soon as Reagan took over:

Finally, for the post 1991 era, the top 1% can't even appear on this chart without compressing the rest of it too much to be very legibile--forget about the top 0.1% or 0.01%.  So we only include the top 10% and top 5%--both of which have continued to rise, despite a downturn in the early part of the decade. None of the education-level lines have recovered, however, while the one on the very bottom, with the sharpest downward trajectory represents those with a doctorate degree:

While it's still much better to have more education, rather than less, these figures clearly show that the income advantages of higher education in the aggregate are decreasing significantly.  This absolutely the wrong sort of thing to be happening in an economy that's supposed to be increasingly dependent on knowledge, skills and specialized understanding.

On the bright side, perhaps this trend will mean an increase4d awareness that even if you've got a PhD. after your name, in the end, you're still just basically a glorified worker, who has more in common with a janitor than you do with those who own and run this country.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I guess that goes to show (4.00 / 3)
what a sham the "information economy" always was, and the true malevolent effects of globalization, among other things.

As for PHDs and professionals ever identifying as proletarians, I've never seen data on that, but my anecdotal impression is that they're at least as resistant as the lumpenproles and future teabaggers detailed in What's the Matter With Kansas?

Indeed both groups were classically part of the base for fascism.

http://attempter.wordpress.com


God Works In Mysterious Ways--And History Even Moreso (4.00 / 4)
Professionals used to be solidly Republican.  Now they're Democratic.  The AMA may still be a roadblock to single-payer, but PNHP is far more active & on the rise.

It really is a 99-1 economy, and there's no way all the folks with higher degrees could fit into that 1, even if they were somehow allowed in.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Morning in America (4.00 / 1)
I never understood what the hoo-ha was about Reagan.  Income growth never was that good and debt, wars, and future wars took off like crazy.

Your chart really explains it.  Reagan was great only for the tippity top of the "elite"; Carter was "bad" for the tippity top of the elite and the elite  spent the money to deify the one who worked for them (who cares about the rest of the country).

What this shows is that even more so what typifies the tippity top is not education alone but  ... what?  Connections?  Inherited wealth?  Luck?


[ Parent ]
The Roman Empire, the French Revolution (4.00 / 5)
Do you remember Fellini's Roma -- the banquet scene, specifically? While the great hogs of the Roman aristocracy feasted -- and God knows, Fellini knew how to find fat people to serve as object lessons -- an underfed young man standing at the head of the table declaimed from Aristophanes, or some other such august Hellene. One of the largest of the Romans belched and said, according to the subtitles, Ah, I LOVE to hear the sound of Greek while I'm eating.

Sooner or later, we'll come round to the realization once again that property, not education, is what makes a gentleman. And then, if our current crop of gentlemen haven't managed to completely shut down the public university system, perhaps we'll return to the days when threadbare young aristocrats plotted with the sans-culottes to resurrect the guillotine.

If we're going to indulge in fantasies, why not go whole hog? Heh!


WHAT is education? Aside from the noble (4.00 / 2)
goals of a broad exposure to history blah blah blah, education is NOT about learning how to contribute to factory earth in a meaningful manner.

How many people do we need pontificating and emanating and ruminating and illuminating? People acting like their edicts, memos and powerpoints are Sermons From The Mount, people behaving as if they're at the right hand of Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill at Yalta? Kind of like "I wave my arms and armies move and nations shudder!"

OF COURSE their wages haven't done shit - these powerpoint pontificators can't and don't DO shit that is useful. they can't even figure out that they're getting the shitty end of the stick so that the rich boys can steal more, more and MORE.

There is plenty of work to do on factory earth - 6.4 billion people who need clothes, shelter, sewage, water, garbage, transportation, education, training and retraining, health care, retirement, raw materials and manufactured materials and recycled materials,  VACATION ... we need people educated on how to make FACTORY EARTH work, NOT people who needed an MBA or Masters in Public Policy to understand how to use freaking excel with powerpoint.

rmm.

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


Formal Education vs Learning (4.00 / 1)
While I don't agree with you completely, I do share a rather high disdain for formal education in comparison to learning.  So much of higher education is just getting a piece of paper that lets you into the club.

For example, I have a Masters in Physics, but I program computers for a living; something I'm not formally qualified for.  (I did take a few classes, but just enough for a minor.)  But I've got a degree and learned most of what I needed on the job.  All that paper did is let me in the door the first time.

One of my best friends, however, is a much better programmer than I am, or at least was back in high school.  However, he never graduated from college and was never let into the club.

Also, we home schooled my daughter for several years.  Most of that was just her and my wife picking out books to read.  "Well read" is one of the best educations anyone can get and all it costs is a library card.

Where I disagree, however, is I believe learning and expertise is very important.  There is a correlation between formal education and knowledge and expertise.  The correlation ain't 100%, but it is much higher than 0%.


[ Parent ]
well, my comments do have some holes. (0.00 / 0)
it is just a comment;).

I ahve NO clue how you tie expertise and education and learning together -

I got a math b.a. 12 yrs ago when I was 37. I flim flamed my way into high tech - it wasn't too hard in '97 in seattle, as long as you didn't drool on yourself - and I worked in operations at Microsoft for 6 years.

I worked with all kinds of people who'd barely graduated high school BUT were pretty skilled - and then some of them took the next steps up into the abstraction and theory, and some didn't.  I worked with a few of the high MIT propellor head types. I worked with LOTS and LOTS of ivy / next tier who were just khaki clad powerpoint jockeys who just excelled at bullshitting, hob knobbing ... back stabbing, blame dodging ...  so I think I know where you're coming from.

Did I use my math degree. hell no. was I allowed in doors and meetings (and get access to OPPORTUNITIE$) cuz my degree had exposed me to concepts that poli sci majors didn't have a clue about ... yup.  

and then there is the rest of the economy. In my NOT humble opinion MOST jobs which require a college degree do so only so they'll have fewer applicants to wade through.

Frankly, I think the way the powerpoint gentlemen set have stacked the rules have ELIMINATED rewards for figuring out the next mousetrap - therefore ... why break your ass doing something you won't get compensated for ? ;)

our education system is turning out too many wanna-bee gentlemen who lack the technical skills to FIX and CHANGE the technical issues holding us back.

rmm.


It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


[ Parent ]
And it's only going to get worse: (4.00 / 1)
http://gizmodo.com/5384330/dis...

All unskilled and semiskilled labor gone: all of it.


We have never reached this point (4.00 / 2)
with all the fears of people in the past that we would (luddites anyone)?

But it seems inevitable that we will, someday, reach this point, or begin to, in industrialized economies.

I'm thinking also of the new robots that do cleaning in office buildings in Japan? And I'm thinking of the drug dealers asking the ethnographer Venkatesh about whether he can get them a job as janitors at the university?

We;ve long worried about the loss of high paid, low-skilled work.  What happens when demand for low-wage work, even crappy low-wage work begin to decline in significant ways?  

--Aaron Schutz (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)


[ Parent ]
Robots (0.00 / 0)
I seriously wonder if there is any way to deal with our robotic future other than full-blown socialism.  A safety net isn't good enough if there literally isn't enough work to go around.

Here is my compromise to all the libertarians out there: Social Libertarianism.  (I just made it up, though I'm sure I'm not the first.)

Socialism: A flat 50% tax rate on investment and labor.  The proceeds are distributed to every citizen equally.

Libertarianism: Beyond that, the rest is a libertarian paradise with a small land tax to support almost non-existent government.

Now we can let the robots loose!

(Ok, we still need to deal with global warming...  still needs some work, I guess...  but so close...)


[ Parent ]
A good guy from the University of Chicago, back when they had good guys (4.00 / 2)
In the dimly remembered past, in the mid-1960's to be precise, the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, founded by Robert Maynard Hutchins -- yes, that Robert Maynard Hutchins -- in 1959, devoted a lot of brainpower and ink to the proposition that the cybernetic revolution then in its earliest stages of development, would render most forms of manufacturing labor obsolete. As a consequence, thought the brightest fellows of the premier liberal think tank of the day, one of the biggest problems that future Americans would have to face would be what to do with their increased leisure time.

So certain were these American social democrats that they'd banished the dragons of unrestrained capitalism forever, that it never occurred to them what would really happen when capitalism counterattacked.

It must have come as a hell of a shock to them when a misplaced working-class piety, encouraged by the usual suspects, arose from the ashes of the welfare state. If you don't work, you don't eat, being good enough for our ancestors, would henceforth be good enough for us and our children as well, and climbing the ladder as a Wal*Mart associate (Oh, the irony of that job title), or working part-time as a massage therapist would be just the ticket to a brighter future for everyone.

Maybe they weren't as dumb as I'm making them out to be, but by 1977, the Center was out of business, and The American Enterprise Institute is now the top dog. Yippee!

Anyway, Mark, it's true. There really isn't anything new under the sun.



[ Parent ]
And, to extend on my comment on another post (4.00 / 3)
The flip-side of this is even worse.  These are the incomes of those people able to get these degrees.  If more people got the degrees, the degrees would be worth even less, because few of these degrees provide the kind of knowledge that actually provide the human capital that can create jobs.  And it's hard for human capital to create jobs without other kinds of capital anyway.  

On the margins, a few more people getting degrees might lead to more people in jobs.  However beyond this, more degrees doesn't equal more jobs.  

So the education/jobs link is mostly fantasy.

And the education lifting large numbers of people into new class levels is also mostly a fantasy.

We are already seeing this with the explosion of private universities offering watered down degrees (not always, but frequently) that offer a decreasing pay-off.

Which means it would actually be better if we thought about all those other things besides jobs that education could do if we weren't focused on jobs (e.g., "think creatively" anyone?)

--Aaron Schutz (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)


What were your sources for this? (4.00 / 1)
Apologies if you provided them and I missed it, but a good friend of mine did tons of research on this topic for years at the post-doc level and I'm just wondering if he had something to do with this. I believe that some of his work was done in conjunction with the Brennan center at NYU.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Sorry, (4.00 / 1)
Seems I zapped that part inadvertently.  This is a combo of historic income data from the Census Bureau and the IRS data analyzed by UC Berkeley's Emmanuel Saez that I used previously.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
What happened between '85 and '89? (0.00 / 0)
Why those wild fluctuations in the income of the upper percentiles during that period? Did Reagan implement a tax cut in '86 that was too extreme, took it back in '87 but went "too far" for the liking of his base, and corrected this again in '88? Those wild zigzags all over the graph are really extreme...

There Was A Huge Crash In '87--October 19, To Be Exact (4.00 / 1)
The stock market dropped dramatically, the Dow was down 508 points in one day--22.61% at the time.  It ended up at 1738.74.  It was a woldwide crash that started the day in Hong Kong.  But the Dow had already dropped almost 500 points from it's August high.

More from Wikipedia here.

There was a major tax reform bill in '86, but it's impact was relatively minor compared to that crash.

What's amazing is how little impact that crash had on economic theory, which continued to claim, in effect, that the one-day evaporation of trillions of dollars was perfectly rational.

Hyman Minsky had just published his major work, Stabilizing an Unstable Economy the year before, but even after the crash, it was like he couldn't get arrested.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Oops, right, I totally forgot that! (4.00 / 1)
But this shows nicely how much the income of the upper classes depends on capital income. And this is what makes the big difference!

This kind of shit makes me reallly angry - all around the globe, it has creepily become the standard that income from capital investments has to be treated much better than income from hard work. Just recently, my own brother, even though (to the best of my knowledge) he has no big investments, told me that taxing interests, dividends, and speculation profits would be unfair because the money used to make those investments had already been taxed! He's an intelligent guy, but I had to remind him that nobody taxes the capital a second time, but that it's very unfair if the income generated from it is taxed lower than wages and salaries. What the eff is wrong with those people, they wonder why the rich manage to mutliply their fortunes every few years while the middle class struggles to keep afloat, but they have no clue at all about the reasons! It's really hopeless.


[ Parent ]
Interesting to see the consequences of that bursting bubble! (0.00 / 0)
We see the huge growth of income in 86, certainly driven by speculation, before the bubble bursts. Then there is the fall in 87, and a rebound in 88. But not even once during those years did the income decrease! Unbelievable.

[ Parent ]
Uh, by "decrease" I mean, of course, ... (0.00 / 0)
..sink below the 100% line. Relatively to 1987, even the upper classes earned less in '88, of course.

[ Parent ]
Plus (4.00 / 1)
look how little difference it made to the real economy.  (None of the education-level trend lines took a hit that year.)

Maybe that's part of why people didn't pay as much attention to it as they should have.  But only part.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search