The New York Timesrightly laments the decline in wages after deindustrialization, but they cite bogus government data to say that GDP has been growing. An understated deflator, prior uncounted women’s labor, undercounted labor hours (since computers), and no accounting for depreciation (gross), make charts like this completely suspect:
In 2019, the median annual total compensation for all U.S. full-time Amazon employees was $36,640, up from $35,096 in 2018. However, Amazon had something like 1,298,000 employees in 2020. Do the math.
ZeroHedge: “That said, it’s hard to make a case for a ‘contrarian sell’ here, because while BofA’s Bull & Bear Indicator remains elevated, it has been steady at 7.2 and has avoided a blow off top for now…”
I was taking Stanford CS courses remotely when I was in high school. While the curriculum of the Ivy League is a little more depthy, it’s not substantially better than what I have seen from the syllabi of state schools. I did like that much of our course material was neatly constructed and that many of the texts were written by the professors. I thought it was slightly better than MIT. We don’t need to clone Stanford, just offer more courses online. The New York Times can’t read the writing on the wall:
A 2017 study showed that at 38 colleges, including five in the Ivy League, more students come from the top 1 percent of the income scale than from the bottom 60 percent. These hyperrich youths are a jaw-dropping 77 times as likely to attend an Ivy League college as those whose parents’ income is in the bottom 20 percent.
The rich kids go to Ivy League schools to network with other rich kids. The education will only get you so far. Frankly, education is incredibly bad no matter where you go because the system is unionized and lazy. We have too much focus on liberal arts colleges as a means of social mobility because they essentially end up as country clubs for the wealthier students.