Lunch at the Labs

This evening on The Nightly Business Report on PBS the Money File segment was by Julie Stav entitled The Positive Return On A College Education Investment. In it she makes a logical mistake when stating:

If there is one place where you really get your money's worth, it's in education. Salaries of high school graduates have averaged over $30,000 a year, compared to over $53,000 for an employee with a college degree.

Since in general the smarter and more ambitious students do go to college, it is necessary to separate out that fact from the value of a higher education. To properly assess the value of a college education, it is necessary to compare students of equal ability who make different choices about going to college. Many years ago I vaguely remember reading about such a study and it showed that for students of equal abilities, the time and money lost spent going to college was never made up. (If you know about such a study please add a comment here or email me about it.) This is not to say a higher education is not valuable or important; there are other benefits besides money.

F.C.C. Chairman Michael Powell is making the rounds of all the TV news channels trying to defend the new FCC rules on media ownership that would permit a network owner to reach up to 45 percent of the nation's households and allow a newspaper company to purchase broadcast outlets in the same city. The bipartisan support that has developed to defeat the proposed changes includes people such as William Safire and is pretty amazing in my opinion. The problem for Powell as I see it is that, despite his theoretical arguments, since the last liberalization of media ownership rules resulting from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, people feel that they have less choice in what they can listen to on the radio or watch on TV and not more. It looks like Powell is going to lose this one, but that's another story.

Tonight on CNBC's Capital Report, Alan Murray interviewed the FCC Chairman. After Murray asked Powell the standard questions about the new rules and Powell gave the standard answers he's been repeating over and over again, Murray asked Powell about the large rise in cable rates over the past few years, giving some specific numbers for a few cities. Powell responded saying, yes but the cable companies are giving viewers more value for their money.

This response was not challenged but here's how it works. I get a notice from my cable company saying that some new channels are being added to my existing lineup. Needless to say, these are not channels that I want or will ever watch. But a few months later I receive a notice from the same cable company saying that my rates are being raised because of increased programming costs. So in effect they are forcing me to buy something I do not want; shouldn't this be illegal? Maybe I should start sending my weblogs to my cable company and then in a few months bill them for the privilege of reading them!