Wouldn't the pure signaling model predict the Macro-mincer return to be negative? A return of zero seems like it would imply that the increased productivity exactly offset the lost prime working year and misallocated capital.
Makes sense that only 25% of population can be in the top 25%. And I can see the argument that personal education on a system level is just a rat race of giving you a leg up on the guy next to you while remaining zero sum. But couldn’t education on a societal/country level lift all boats?
Wouldn't the pure signaling model predict the Macro-mincer return to be negative? A return of zero seems like it would imply that the increased productivity exactly offset the lost prime working year and misallocated capital.
So -- Macro-mincer = ~2%, and Micro-mincer ~= 10%
IOW, on this model: Human capital ~= 20% of education, because it's 5:1
This is again well beyond my depth.
Makes sense that only 25% of population can be in the top 25%. And I can see the argument that personal education on a system level is just a rat race of giving you a leg up on the guy next to you while remaining zero sum. But couldn’t education on a societal/country level lift all boats?
Bryan, maybe mention the last line first in cases it applies.