[, ]
What is he smoking?
I want some.

Richard Florida, over at Cato Unbound, speculates:


Such remarkable job growth goes far beyond technology and engineering. While the U.S. economy will add 950,000 computer jobs and another 195,000 in engineering, the biggest gains by far will be in health care and education, which will add more than 3.5 million. Jobs for college professors alone are projected to increase by more than half a million. Arts, music, culture, and entertainment will contribute some 400,000 new jobs. That’s twice as many as engineering.


Right. So, 500,000 new college level (college!) professors in the next 25 years. Say there are 500 colleges and universities around the US that attract 90% of students (and 90% of professors). So in these, 450,000 new professorships will be created. That would, I am guessing, probably double the number of professorships in the U.S., in total. This from a profession that has been largely stagnent in the last several decades. I love to believe this, but it's not realistic. First, there would have to be a ton more students coming in, which census bureau stats don't indicate (no huge 'baby boomer' population). Second, the funding of the various agencies (NSF, NEA, NIH), would have to skyrocket to support these professors (since at top universities they are expected to bring in their entire income based on grants). I wonder what the numbers would be, but another doubling of the NIH would have to happen, or maybe 4x, or 10x, in 25 years. A lot could happen in 25 years, but does anyone see this happening?

Akamai University (what in the world?) reports that the total number of U.S. professors is 0.6 million (they reference Steven Brint, Schools and Societies, Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 1998). Akamai is referenced as 'intelligent' in Hawaiian. I thought the locals gave it a somewhat derogatory meaning (which i guess makes sense in the worldview of a poorly educated group which uses pidgeon Hawaiian).

Anyway, regarding the population numbers in 25 years (2030), according to census, there are about 40 million people of age 20-30, which I would define as college age. So, if this number doubled in 25 years, a foreseeable doubling in college professorships is reasonsable (supply=demand). Not so. The census projects 44 million in this bracket, an increase of 4 million or roughly 2.5%. Wow. So you better not count on those professorships just yet. If the NIH budget doubles again in 25 years, then it might be feasible, but this isn't likely, given that our population won't change too much (and thus the govt income in tax revenue won't be skyrocketing).

On the other hand, per capita GDP has increased substantially in the last 5 years (which is a measure of how productive/competitive the U.S. has become.

2000: per capita GDP was $34,700 (pop 282 million, GDP 9817 billion)
2005: per capita GDP was $42,000 (pop 296 million, GDP 12487 billion)
Source: US census and Bureau of Economic Analysis

Getting crazy here. I then extrapolated the rate of population growth (1% in last 5 years) and rate of GDP growth (5% in last 5 years, to 2030). The per capita GDP in 2030 is $123,000, which is triple the current pcGDP, which means that our tax base will approximately triple (depending on the taxes at the time), meaning we could easily afford to triple the NIH budget (if we didn't have to worry about social security, our huge national debt, etc). Which means, if the U.S. pcGDP keeps skyrocketing (it won't), we'll all be rich (yeah right).

Which means we could all afford to smoke whatever Mr. Florida is on.


Will Wilkinson (mail) (www):
Hi! Thanks for the link. Just to let you know, Cato Unbound is an online magazine and the views of the invited essayists, who are usually not affiliated with Cato, are not intended to reflect the views of the Cato Institute. Florida is speaking for himself. So if it turns out there is any smoking going on... well, you know.
6.5.2006 7:40pm
gibbie (mail):
I should have known better; thanks for the notice! Post updated.
6.5.2006 8:59pm
TrekLady001@aol.com:
Too funny!!! However, I don't think "smoking" makes you better able to analyze. It just increases tangential thinking... and makes you hungry!
6.5.2006 10:14pm
gibbie (mail):
So maybe he was smoking dope?
6.5.2006 11:18pm
TrekLady001@aol.com:
Couldn't be!
6.6.2006 12:20am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?
Any comments welcome, and may be edited/removed at any time without notification.