Archinect
anchor

let's tie together universities, human capital, professional decline and libertarianism.

fascinating article in slate today - here's the excerpt that inspired the title:

 

"Even in 1975, it took a pretty narrow view of history to think all capital is human capital, and that philosophy professors, even the especially bright ones, would thrive in the free market. But there was a historical reason for Nozick's belief: the magnificent sieve. Harvard's enrollment prior to World War II was 3,300; after the war, it was 5,300, 4,000 of whom were veterans. The GI Bill was on its way to investing more in education grants, business loans, and home loans than all previous New Deal programs combined. By 1954, with the Cold War in full swing, the U.S. government was spending 20 times what it had spent on research before the war. "Some universities," C. Wright Mills could write in the mid-'50s, "are financial branches of the military establishment." In the postwar decades, the American university grew in enrollment, budget and prestige, thanks to a substantial transfer of wealth from the private economy, under the rubric of "military Keynesianism." As a tentacle of the military-industrial octopus, academia finally lost its last remnant of colonial gentility.


At the same time the university boomed, marginal tax rates for high earners stood as high as 90 percent. This collapsed the so-called L-curve, the graphic depiction of wealth distribution in the United States. The L-curve lay at its flattest in 1970, just as Nozick was sitting down to write Anarchy. In 1970, there were nearly 500,000 employed academics, and their relative income stood at an all-time high. To the extent anyone could believe mental talent, human capital, and capital were indistinguishable, it was thanks to the greatest market distortion in the history of industrial capitalism; and because for 40 years, thanks to this distortion, talent had not been forced to compete with the old "captains of industry" with the financiers and the CEOs. Buccaneering entrepreneurs, boom-and-bust markets, risk capital—these conveniently disappeared from Nozick's argument because they'd all but disappeared from capitalism.

In a world in which J.P. Morgan and Cornelius Vanderbilt have been rendered obsolete, reduced to historical curios, to a funny old-style man, imprisoned in gilt frames, the professionals—the scientists, engineers, professors, lawyers and doctors—correspondingly rise in both power and esteem. And in a world in which the professions are gatekept by universities, which in turn select students based on their measured intelligence, the idea that talent is mental talent, and mental talent is, not only capital, but the only capital, becomes easier and easier for a humanities professor to put across. Hence the terminal irony of Anarchy: Its author's audible smugness in favor of libertarianism was underwritten by a most un-libertarian arrangement—i.e., the postwar social compact of high marginal taxation and massive transfers of private wealth in the name of the very "public good" Nozick decried as nonexistent.

And the screw takes one last turn: By allowing for the enormous rise in (relative) income and prestige of the upper white collar professions, Keynesianism created the very blind spot by which professionals turned against Keynesianism. Charging high fees as defended by their cartels, cartels defended in turn by universities, universities in turn made powerful by the military state, many upper-white-collar professionals convinced themselves their pre-eminence was not an accident of history or the product of negotiated protections from the marketplace but the result of their own unique mental talents fetching high prices in a free market for labor. Just this cocktail of vanity and delusion helped Nozick edge out Rawls in the marketplace of ideas, making Anarchy a surprise best-seller, it helped make Ronald Reagan president five years later. So it was the public good that killed off the public good.


Since 1970, the guild power of lawyers, doctors, engineers, and, yes, philosophy professors has nothing but attenuated. To take only the most pitiful example, medical doctors have evolved over this period from fee-for-service professionals totally in control of their own workplace to salaried body mechanics subject to the relentless cost-cutting mandate of a corporate employer. They've gone from being Marcus Welby—a living monument to public service through private practice—to being, as one comprehensive study put it, harried "middle management." Who can argue with a straight face that a doctor in 2011 has more liberty than his counterpart in 1970? What any good liberal Democrat with an ounce of vestigial self-respect would have said to Nozick in 1970—"Sure, Bob, but we both know what your liberty means. It means power will once again mean money, and money will be at liberty to flow to the top"—in fact happened. The irony is that as capital once again concentrates as nothing more than capital (i.e., as the immense skim of the financiers), the Nozickian illusion (that capital is human capital and human capital is the only capital) gets harder and harder to sustain.

Sustained it is, though. Just as Nozick would have us tax every dollar as if it were earned by a seven-foot demigod, apologists for laissez-faire would have us treat all outsize compensation as if it were earned by a tech revolutionary or the value-investing equivalent of Mozart (as opposed to, say, this guy, this guy, this guy, or this guy). It turns out the Wilt Chamberlain example is all but unkillable; only it might better be called the Steve Jobs example, or the Warren Buffett* example. The idea that supernormal compensation is fit reward for supernormal talent is the ideological superglue of neoliberalism, holding firm since the 1980s. It's no wonder that in the aftermath of the housing bust, with the glue showing signs of decay—with Madoff and "Government Sachs" displacing Jobs and Buffett in the headlines—"liberty" made its comeback. When the facts go against you, resort to "values." When values go against you, resort to the mother of all values. When the mother of all values swoons, reach deep into the public purse with one hand, and with the other beat the public senseless with your dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged."

 
Jun 20, 11 1:17 pm
trendzetter

Its not as facinating as some might think.  In fact it's the same old drum beat to justify government payroll employees and Gender studies proffessors.  Moneys gone folks - your gonna have to get real jobs.

 

Jun 20, 11 2:22 pm  · 
 · 

Get "real jobs" doing what exactly? With robots, servers and software doing most of the work in this country and a services industry over-saturated, what jobs are there exactly left?

And without gender-studies professors and government employees, many communities wouldn't have much of population left with disposable incomes. Completely ignoring the recession, depression, bubble or whatever you'd like to call it, diversification of the economy was and is a pretty important issue. The white-collar, blue-collar and 'pink-collar' jobs are relatively interconnected in such a way that you can't have one without the others.

We focus primarily on job creation. But for every job, there's also a customer. Customer creation is almost as important if not more important than job creation.

You can overextend an job to handle a surplus of demand (overtime, price gouging) but you can't overextend a customer to handle a surplus of supply— without debt of course.

Jun 20, 11 2:40 pm  · 
 · 
Rusty!

Great article, if a bit of a painful read at times (one must use run on sentences if writing about  intelectual discourse).

Libertarianism (at least the one prescribed by Rands and Nozicks of the world) has always been fool's gold. An -ism for the lazy minded. As such, the movement is not going away any time soon.

I'm actually surprised more architects don't identify themselves as libertarians. Sales pitch is that the most talented individuals deserve the most compensation. And that totally describes every single one of us. World needs us! Without us castle walls would totally be crooked, and fortification layouts drab and unimaginative. 

Jun 20, 11 7:57 pm  · 
 · 
BIG+

You are more patient than I, my friend.

Jun 22, 11 3:23 pm  · 
 · 
lletdownl

quick aside... this article has been making the rounds amongst some people i know, including some self proclaimed libertarians, and almost all discussions regarding it ive seen thus far start with "...once you get past how poorly written it is..."

 

 

Jun 22, 11 4:04 pm  · 
 · 
lletdownl

and after having read it myself finally, i gots no problem with the intensity of the background info... a good refresher course

Jun 22, 11 6:31 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: