Having a bachelor's degree in CS doesn't mean that you're underemployed if you work as a programmer or something in business. The criteria for underemployment in the referenced report is:
"...graduates working in jobs that typically do not require a college degree. A job is classified as a college job if 50 percent or more of the people working in that job indicate that at least a bachelor's degree is necessary; otherwise, the job is classified as a non-college job."
Normally there is an implied understanding of relatedness. A medical doctor with a medical degree might reasonably suggest that their degree was required, but a medical doctor with an art history degree wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Clearly anyone can become a doctor under that scenario.
Granted, the work of a programmer is derived from computer science, like the work of a janitor is derived from chemistry, but it is a stretch to think those jobs are related. Someone who applies the work of scientists is not doing the same work as the scientist. Perhaps they would be right to say that programmers and janitors do require a degree, but it wouldn't be a CS/chemistry degree. And, well, a business manager has absolutely nothing to do with CS. That one is well and truly like a medical doctor with an art history degree situation.
So, strictly speaking, those jobs would be considered underemployed when done so under a CS degree in any reasonable context. But you do rightfully highlight the bigger problem, which is to say that it is self-reported. Perhaps your key point here is that CS graduates are more likely than art history majors to be out to lunch? Given the stereotypes, that may be a fair assertion.
> Granted, the work of a programmer is derived from computer science, like the work of a janitor is derived from chemistry,
Nobody enrols in a chemistry degree with the intention of pursuing a janitorial career
Most people who enrol in CS degrees do so with the intention of pursuing a career as a professional programmer. At the undergraduate level, people studying CS because they want a career in CS research are a minority
A person who wants a career in programming, enrols in a CS degree because they believe it will help get them there, graduates and then gets a programming job, far from being “underemployed”, is employed in the exact job they did the degree in order to get
Institutional knowledge often plays a huge role here, but can be difficult to measure. A team member whose experience allows them to quickly provide needed context that would otherwise take hours/days/weeks to obtain might significantly boost their team's productivity without generating any metrics that demonstrate their contributions.
Not saying I agree that this is an actual Chinese strategy, but the idea is that, for now, they just don't drill production wells that pull from these reserves, not that they stop producing from existing wells.
Zoning is a scapegoat that allows us to avoid thinking critically about the "fuzzier" complexities behind housing prices. Of course it may be a primary driver of rising prices in some areas, but I think it's simple-minded to assume (and misleading to claim) that zoning is the cause of high prices in general.
> it's simple-minded to assume (and misleading to claim) that zoning is the cause of high prices in general
Why? Almost all the evidence points to this. And it makes intuitive sense. Take builder financing costs and add 2 years of reviews (super optimistic!) and you’ve added tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost per unit.
> it may be a primary driver of rising prices in some areas
Value or population weight your data. Nobody is complaining about a housing shortage in rural New Mexico.
the data shows over and over again that the issue is lack of supply. Zoning is the main roadblock to changing that. I don't know why you would assume people are not thinking critically about this.
... strictly speaking it's not about the actual zones or whatnot.
for example standard reference/model/template plans should not require long permitting over and over and over and over again.
(and, yes, of course this is a fundamental problem of the extremely fucked up overly-procedural lawsuit-prone US regulatory regime, zoning, NEPA, etc. see also vetocracy, tragedy of the anticommons.)
Not having enough housing where people want to live is the cause of high prices in general. Zoning and other overly burdensome land use regulations are the cause of that. It really is that simple. Let people build more housing and prices will decrease.
Sure. Although in that agreement it is worth recalling that the default position of humanity - even today - is to fumble and fail to make the sort of progress that is, technically speaking, in easy reach. There weren't any physical barriers between the Romans and a 21st century living standard. They just didn't get a couple of key organisational things right (like research, pursuing mechanisation and understanding the importance of cheap energy). Not unreasonably so, they did well compared to expectations.
A big part of the (ongoing?) failure vs the limits of the possible is the apparently non-negotiable instincts we all have to determine truth based on number of believers, good looks, tradition, power, guesswork or status games rather than evidence and good arguments.
In that line of thinking a culture that sees age as a good in itself is at a disadvantage to one that sees age as correlating with valuable things.
Devereaux & I probably agree on this one. In that article he identifies pursuing mechanisation and cheap energy as vital. He also stresses the importance of understanding the principles of the process which I'd class under research.
It is unlikely that the Romans could have had an industrial revolution, given that they were limited by being human and the conditions that caused the revolution in the Europe weren't present in Rome. But there was nothing actually stopping the Romans.
A world with high levels of inequality is also a world where power is highly concentrated, which makes the focus of the majority largely irrelevant... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The "Oh, well everyone has a little bit of ADHD..." opinion seems to be fairly popular, perhaps due to the increasing ubiquity of digital distractions we all encounter daily, but reading just a small amount of actual research led me to the conclusion that this is completely misguided and "real" ADHD (whatever that is) has likely left a significant amount of its victims dead, in prison, or terminally drug-addicted.
One simple example that supports this conclusion can be found in driving (the most dangerous routine activity most people engage in?), where stimulant medication significantly improves outcomes for those with ADHD. I don't have specific links handy, but a simple Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=adhd+medication+driving+safe...) will offer ample confirmation.
Haha yeah, it's funny. I take a little stimulant and suddenly the insatiable urge to go over 200 km/h is completely gone, I don't scream at anyone, I don't rage at all any more. Now I just wait a little and listen to my music, no problem at all.
The funniest thing is how it all comes back once I'm 2 days off the meds, though.
Yeah I produced 3 car accidents off-meds. The last of them almost killed my girlfriend at the time. Since that, I don't drive off-meds anymore (and have had no further issues). Sadly, the authorities would rather have the reverse, with driving under the influence of MPH being in a legal grey zone (at least where I live.) This IMHO needs to be fixed ASAP.
"...graduates working in jobs that typically do not require a college degree. A job is classified as a college job if 50 percent or more of the people working in that job indicate that at least a bachelor's degree is necessary; otherwise, the job is classified as a non-college job."