BCT Editorial – 10/30/06

This page was last updated on October 30, 2006.

Beyond dollars; Editorial; Beaver County Times; October 30, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“People should be judged by how well they do their jobs, not by their degrees

“Money isn’t everything, and college isn’t for everyone.

“The Associated Press reports that according to data from the Census Bureau, college graduates made an average of $51,554 in 2004, the most recent figures available, compared with $28,645 for adults with a high school diploma.

“Those with advanced college degrees did even better, making an average of $78,093.

“The real value of an education can be seen in the average yearly income of high school dropouts -$19,169.

“However, the good-paying jobs are only held by a little more than one-fourth of the population. According to the Census Bureau’s 2005 Current Population Survey, 28 percent of Americans 25 and older had at least a bachelor’s degree.

“Meanwhile, 85 percent had at least a high school diploma or the equivalent in 2005.

“In 2000, 24 percent had at least a bachelor’s degree and 80 percent had a high school degree or the equivalent.

“There’s nothing wrong with those ratios. College isn’t for everyone, whether because of temperament or intelligence.

“Nor could our society function if it were made up of brainiacs. Who would cut and style your hair, repair your car, fix a leaking toilet, build your home or deliver and install your new washer and dryer? Who would deliver the food you buy at the grocery store and stock the shelves? Who would run the heavy equipment used to build roads or mine the coal that fuels power plants?”

[RWC] Clearly the Times doesn’t understand the world and markets.

Actually, our society would “function of it were made up of brainiacs.” You see, not all “brainiacs” want to do so-called “knowledge worker” jobs, as the editorial notes below. Second, not all “brainiacs” have equal capabilities. Competition would force “brainiacs” to take whatever job best matched up with their capabilities, even if that meant their capabilities outstripped their job. While “brainiacs” can successfully tackle a job beneath their intellectual capability, a “non-brainiac” cannot successfully tackle a job above his intellectual capability.

“And on and on it goes. Plenty of important jobs that keep our economy functioning (and make our lives a lot easier) don’t require a college degree.

“Nor is the lack of a college degree an indication of intelligence. Some people aren’t cut out for white-collar jobs. They have to build things. They have to see tangible results at the end of the day. They have to do things with their hands. It’s in their nature. It’s who they are. Sticking them in a room all day would drive them nuts.

“But that doesn’t get around the income gap.

“One way to do that is to value work and reward it accordingly. What should matter most to us as individuals and as a society is how well people do their jobs and what kind of individuals they are. An auto mechanic who loves his work and excels at it deserves more respect than a mechanical engineer who is doing what he has to do to pick up a hefty paycheck.”

[RWC] “One way to do that is to value work and reward it accordingly?” That’s what business owners do every day. They determine the economic value of a job and compensate employees accordingly. Compensation is about the economic value of the job; it is not a statement of an individual’s worth as a person.

In typical liberal form, the editorial conflates respect for a person with the economic value of the job(s) he works. The editorial tries to lead us into accepting a position that a person should be paid for something other than the economic value of his job(s). In other words, if a janitor “loves his work and excels at it,” he should paid more than a “rocket scientist.” The purpose of this conflation is to turn what should be a decision based on economics into a decision based on emotion.

I also don’t buy into the statement about the auto mechanic and the mechanical engineer. The implication is the auto mechanic isn’t getting paid what his job is worth, but the mechanical engineer is being overpaid.

“Income and wealth gaps in America are growing. The key to addressing the problem is how to reward work beyond monetary terms without destroying people’s incentives to become wealthy. Universal health care (preferably market-based), pension protection and equal educational opportunities are just the starting points toward a just society.”

[RWC] Assuming the statement “[i]ncome and wealth gaps in America are growing” is correct, the editorial doesn’t tell us why that is a bad thing. That’s because liberals believe – and/or want us to believe – the economy is a zero sum situation in which the size of the “pie” is fixed. That is, there is a fixed amount of wealth and for someone to get wealthy someone else must get poor. That’s never been the case and never will be.

The editorial talks about not “destroying people’s incentives to become wealthy,” yet the Times constantly advocates policies that dump higher tax burdens – in terms of both rates and dollars – on people who earn more income.

I don’t have a clue what the editorial means by “[u]niversal health care (preferably market-based).” Previous editorials have consistently lobbied for taxpayer-funded healthcare system, and a system like that has nothing to do with a free market.

Regarding “equal educational opportunities,” does the Times believe this is not the case? With all of the grants, low-interest loans, scholarships, et cetera that exist, who can honestly claim a more than adequate education is not available to everyone?

Finally, when a liberal outlet talks about “a just society,” hold onto your wallet and prepare for an ever-bigger nanny government. After all, society can’t be “just” unless the government tells us what to do.