On 2/3/2011 11:38 AM, David Green wrote:
> But I don't understand claims that marginal differences in
> educational attainment among developed nations explain differences in
> productivity, employment, wages, etc. It seems obvious to me that these
> differences are political.
Sorry to be pedantic, but again - the claim isn't that education can explain differences in "productivity, employment, wages, etc." Just productivity. Differences in wages may be political. Differences in productivity much less so.
You mention "marginal differences"in education among developed nations. But I think this line of discussion started with data I posted showing that on a battery of adult skills tests, Americans born in the 60's performed much worse relative to their elders born in the 30's than predicted by the comparable performance gradient in other countries. ("Much worse" = 2/3 of the point difference between an American at the 25th percentile and an American at the mean.) Now, I have no idea how or to what extent those particular skills might feed into productivity. But such a large shortfall over a period of 30 years doesn't seem implausible as a possible contribution to productivity trends, especially if it continues in the future.
> So why is so much attention devoted to marginal
> differences in educational attainment among developed nations? "Human capital"
> theory exists in order to avoid fundamental realities of capitalist
> exploitation. Why would anyone on a leftist listserv want to indulge that line
> of thinking?
This isn't a propaganda or a cheerleading listserv. Speaking for myself, I come hear to learn things. It sounds like you're accusing me of maliciously spreading forbidden knowledge that should never have been known, because it "avoids fundamental realities of capitalist exploitation." Sorry, comrade, but if you have a real critique I'm all ears.
SA