Display:
But you have to make education sufficiently interesting for people to consider it a worthwhile pursuit. Purely pecuniary incentives to train will only get you so far - once the difference between the remuneration of "high-skill" and "low-skill" labour becomes too stark, social unrest follows.

And social unrest is damaging to modern industrial societies in a way it never was to feudal subsistence societies. You cannot simply gun down striking mechanics or rioting plumbers, the way a nobleman of old could order a cavalry charge on uppity peasants: Peasants were easily and swiftly replaceable, qualified plumbers are not.

The scions of the oligarchs will almost certainly segregate into Oxbridge ghettos. But while that may be socially undesirable in a number of ways, I don't see any direct threat to the educational and scientific estate. Except, of course, from semi-literate billionaires who decide to attempt to kill off the educational and scientific estate without understanding that this would also crater much of industrial society in the process.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Aug 15th, 2009 at 02:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Except, of course, from semi-literate billionaires who decide to attempt to kill off the educational and scientific estate without understanding that this would also crater much of industrial society in the process.

I wouldn't put it past them to try - we have had 30 years of semiliterate politicians attempting to kill off one natural monopoly after another without understanding that this would crater much of the infrastructure supporting industrial society in the process.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 15th, 2009 at 02:59:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series