What Is a College Degree?

     For so long as I can remember college degrees have been
touted as tickets to high paying jobs.  Millions of young people
go into hock buying those tickets.  There are 17,000,000 college
graduates who haven't found an employer who needs an
employee with the skills learned in college.

     How many under employed graduates dreamed of being a
cashier at McDonald's?  McDonald's dreams of hiring some of
those graduates to be cashiers.  A McDonald's advertised for
cashiers with bachelors degrees.

     What is the benefit to McDonald's?  Most likely some
high school dropouts could handle the job.  Most couldn't. 
Many high school graduates would be able to do the job.  No
specific skill taught in college is likely to be essential for a
McDonald's cashier.  Most college graduates could perform the
job.

     With current unemployment levels McDonald's would be
flooded with applications if it set no minimum education
requirement.  By requiring a bachelors degree, McDonald's
makes its screening process much easier.  It eliminates most
potential applicants up front.  So what if some of those
eliminated were qualified?  That doesn't matter to the employer
so long as it can still hire a qualified person and save itself a
bunch of work.

     Suppose you wanted to hire someone who could jump
four feet high.  Thousands might apply.  Adding the unnecessary
requirement that applicants must be able to jump six feet makes
the hiring process easier.  That only works if there is a surplus
of people who can jump six feet.  If there is no surplus, the
employer will have pay more to hire an over qualified person. 
The same principle applies to hiring overqualified college
graduates.

     The more surplus college graduates there are, the more
employers will require college degrees for lower skill jobs.  This
will create the illusion that college training is essential for
performing the low skill jobs.  Reality will be that employers put
millions to the expense of paying for a college degree merely to
make the hiring process easier for the employers.

     If there wasn't a surplus of college graduates, employers
would drop the college degree requirement for jobs where
college training was of little or no importance.  If the surplus of
college graduates continues to grow, it will be only a matter of
time until we will see jobs for truck drivers, bar tenders, and
trash collectors requiring college degrees.

     If there was a shortage of college graduates, businesses
wouldn't quietly fold for lack of trained employees.  They would
start on the job training for the skills the businesses need.  This
would be much more efficient than four year degrees.

     Most of what everyone pays to study and learn to earn a
degree is long forgotten before they ever use it for any job.  On
the job training, including home study through cyber education,
will target skills the employee actually needs and will use.   The
employee-trainees will have to work for lower pay while
learning job skills.  They will still be making more and spending
less than they would pursuing a degree at a brick and mortar
college.

     The irony is that increasing the number of college
degrees increases the expense of college while making the
degrees worth less, or even worthless.  Decreasing the number of
college degrees makes them worth more and reduces college
costs.

     A few jobs actually require much of what is learned in
college.  Most don't.  For the  jobs that do require degree
education, cyber school will usually be more efficient and less
costly.

     The main function of college degrees for most jobs is to
make the hiring process easier for employers.  The
student-employees, and taxpayers pay the bill.  For so long as
millions are willing to jump through the college hoop, waste will
continue.  A first step to solving the problem is to cut out
government subsidies to college students.  Individuals are less
likely to spend their own money to jump through the employers'
hoops.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

The Consequences of Government Intervention

      Last time I ended with the following conclusion: "The
ideal government limits its intervention to protecting life, liberty
and property.  Everything that government does that interferes
with the freedom to produce and trade makes us less productive
and less satisfied."  This conclusion deserves some fleshing out
and expansion.  Here we go.

     When government steps beyond protecting against
aggression it becomes the aggressor.  Government's only tool is
"Do it my way, or I will hurt you."  Making this threat against a
peaceful person is aggression.  Where can we turn for protection
against government aggression?

     Beyond protecting against aggressors all that government
can do is attempt to aggressively increase the satisfaction of
some at the expense of others.  "Common good" is as imaginary
as unicorns.  A common good would increase the satisfaction of
everyone.  Why would anyone object?  People object to the
actions of government because they believe those actions will
reduce satisfaction.

     Even government actions against aggressors decrease the
satisfaction of the aggressors.  Most people don't object because
they believe that reducing the satisfaction of aggressors is a good
thing.  Yes, this is a value judgment.  It is a value judgment that
has born the test of time.  It is shared by most people, at least
when the aggression is pointed at them.

     Everything we do can be traced back to a value
judgment.  The most we can hope for is shared values that tend
to benefit everyone.  There will always be friction between
people with different values.  If the differences are great enough,
violent conflict becomes inevitable.

     This is why there is violent conflict between hard core
Moslems, moderate Moslems, and most of the rest of the world. 
The only way this conflict can end is for someone to change
their values.  A peaceful, productive society is impossible where
significant numbers of individuals with serious value conflicts
interact with each other.

     Government is the power of the rulers to forcibly impose
their will by  threatening "Do it my way, or I will hurt you." 
When government uses this threat against peaceful people, the
most it can accomplish is to increase the satisfaction of some at
the cost of increasing the misery of others.  The least
government can accomplish is make everyone more miserable. 
In the long run this is the inevitable consequence of any all
powerful government.

     It is also inevitable that those who gain increased
satisfaction will be the powerful along with their supporters and
friends.  The weak and uninterested always suffer a decrease in
satisfaction.

     Generally, we shouldn't blame the weak and uninterested
for not fighting back.  Suppose that every year someone smashes
one of your windows.  You spend $100 to replace it.  Would
you be better off spending $10,000 on a security system to
protect your $100 windows?

     This is how all special interests use "Do it my way, or I
will hurt you" government to rip off everyone else.  No one
special interest costs the average person enough to justify the
cost of fighting back.  Did you ever notice how when proposing
a new intervention government and the special interests
commonly point out how the intervention will only cost each
person a few dollars?

     This brings to mind an old proverb about straws and
camels.   Each intervention only slightly diminishes the
satisfaction of most people.  Most people complain a bit and
adjust to living with a little less satisfaction.  Soon they forget
the satisfaction they lost.  It is even easier for the next
generation ignore the destroyed satisfaction.  They never
experienced it.

     Collectively these interventions will eventually destroy
most satisfaction for most people.  At some point the
government of a miserable, apathetic population will collapse for
lack of resources and support.  Will the citizens of the US draw
a line and fight back against satisfaction destroying government
interventions, or will they be content to go the way of all past
civilizations?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

How Can We Make Work Satisfying?

     Last time we saw that everyone's goal in life is to
increase their satisfaction.  The things we value most are those
that contribute the most to our satisfaction.  We plan and work
to use our resources to create things that increase our
satisfaction.

     We also encountered a possible speed bump on our road
to satisfaction.  In our trading economy our work mainly
contributes to the satisfaction of others.  We use little of  what
we produce.  Most of what we use to increase our satisfaction is
produced by others.  Why should we all make the sacrifice of
working when the products of our work only bring satisfaction to
others?

     One way to keep people working to serve others is to
punish those who don't work for others.  The result is slavery. 
That system has a few flaws.

     Another way is to reward those who work and produce. 
To successfully encourage others to do something, we must
reward them for doing what we want them to do.  How hard
others work is of no importance to us, unless we simply enjoy
seeing others work.  Our satisfaction depends on the fruits of
labor, not the quantity of labor.  Work and jobs aren't ends in
themselves.  They are only means for producing the things that
increase our satisfaction.

     The value of a loaf of bread isn't measured by how hard
the farmer and the baker worked.  It is measured by how much
it contributes to our satisfaction.  If we reward workers based on
how hard they work, low productivity work is as valuable to
them as is high productivity work.  Don't expect those workers
to lay awake nights trying to figure out how to be more
productive.

     An item may contribute much more to the satisfaction of
one individual than to the satisfaction of another.  Only the
person who is seeking satisfaction can judge how much
satisfaction anything brings to him.  When individuals try to
choose what will satisfy others, they usually assume that the
things that satisfy themselves will satisfy others.

     The way that we can all produce for each other and still
get the things we find most satisfying should be obvious.  We
can voluntarily trade with each other.  When individuals trade,
each expects to gain more satisfaction from what he gets than
from what he gives up.  The act of trading increases value. 
Each trader has something more satisfying after the trade.

     With freedom to produce and trade we all must work to
produce the things that most satisfy others.  The more our
products satisfy others, the more they will give us in exchange.

     With total freedom to make honest trades, we need not
worry about exploitation.  The only way  we get satisfying
things from others is to reward them with satisfaction for
providing us with satisfying things.

     This principle applies to all interactions.  In freedom
others will serve us only for the satisfaction they gain.  The
giver gives because he expects the satisfaction from giving to
exceed that from any other use of the gift.  An individual goes
on a date or to a party because she believes it will be the most
satisfying use of her time and other resources.

     In all voluntary interactions everyone has powerful
incentives to serve the satisfaction of others to gain satisfaction
from others.  The way to make work satisfying is to maximize
the satisfaction we can gain for the exchange or other uses of the
products of our efforts.  Only complete freedom can achieve this
result.

     When we prohibit individuals from maximizing the
satisfaction gained from their work, we decrease their
willingness to work.  By forcibly interfering with their work, we
limit their ability to serve themselves by serving others.

     The ideal government limits its intervention to protecting
life, liberty and property.  Everything that government does that
interferes with the freedom to produce and trade makes us less
productive and less satisfied.

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

Satisfying Our Wants

     Humans view the world around them.  They fear that
future conditions will not be as satisfying as they would like. 
Because we can think and plan we imagine ways that we can
make our futures more satisfying.  We then seek to implement
our plans for greater satisfaction.

     We act to alter conditions to provide us with more
satisfaction.  We call those actions work.  Thinking and planning
is as much a part of work as is digging ditches.

     There are two kinds of work, productive and
nonproductive.  Productive work alters conditions so as to
increase satisfaction more than it decreases it.  Nonproductive
work produces no net gain in satisfaction.  It may decrease
satisfaction.

     All work requires consumption of resources.  Thinking
may require little more than time.  Time is our most important
resource.  It is also the resource that is most limited.

     We can find and use more natural resources, if we have
the time to do it.  When we run out of time, we reach the limit
of productivity until someone discovers how to more efficiently
use our time.

     In our quest for satisfaction we acquire resources,
consisting of labor, materials and ideas.  We use these resources
to produce something.  That something can be anything from an
automobile, to a rubber band, to a massage.

     If the product provides more satisfaction than the
resources consumed would have provided, the work has
increased value.  The value of everything is ultimately judged by
how much satisfaction it will provide for someone.

     The worker judges his accomplishments based on their
contribution to his own satisfaction.  Thus, an individual with
the liberty to choose will choose to discontinue work that doesn't
provide him with more satisfaction than he gives up to work.

     Others may gain great satisfaction from the efforts the
worker finds unsatisfying.  If the satisfaction of others doesn't
bring a net increase in satisfaction to the worker, he will choose
to quit.

     Thus, throughout history individuals, for their own
benefit, have tried to force unsatisfying work onto others.  The
most obvious example is slavery.

     Division of labor through specialization is essential to the
high level of productivity we have today.  Self sufficient
individuals, each producing what he consumes, will never be
able to produce much more than the minimum requirements for
survival.

     In our trading economy we all work mainly to provide
satisfaction for other people.  Most of the things each individual
uses to increase his own satisfaction are produced by others. 
Why should workers continue working when mainly they are
working to satisfy someone else?  Consideration of this question
must wait until next time.

     Work that doesn't increase satisfaction is a waste.  It
consumes more value than it produces.  It is like trying to fill a
tank by punching holes in the bottom.

     This is why the politicians' obsession with creating jobs
is so wrong headed.  Only productive jobs, those that produce
more value than they consume, are of any value.  Nonproductive
jobs are holes in the bottom of the tank.

     Most jobs created by government are non productive. 
They consume more value than they produce.  Even the few that
may be productive usually produce less from the consumed
resources than would a private sector job using the same
resources.  Wages from government created jobs are usually only
disguised welfare payments.  It makes little difference whether
the jobs are created through direct spending by government,
subsidies, mandates, tariffs or something else.

     Such jobs may temporarily increase employment and
create a false impression that production is increasing.  In the
end they are simply more holes in the bottom of the tank from
which we all draw our satisfaction.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum