Why is investment in human capital out of favor?

David Brooks:

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

 

I got this quote via Aaron Carroll.  One thing that seems to have really changed in the public mind over the past 5 years is the simple relationship between investment in human capital and improved outcomes.  Putting aside the Randian fantasy of super-men who can do it all on their own, all of us are dependent on others to a greater or lesser extent.  Hard work may well make opportunity into success but all of the hard work in the world doesn't help in the absence of opportunity.  Just ask any coal miner or subsistence farmer . . . 

Jonathan Chait -- now to the right of David Brooks on Education

For those keeping track, Jonathan Chait has now chastised both David Brooks and the National Review's Jim Manzi for being too moderate on this subject.

David Brooks' 100K statistic explained

If you follow this sort of thing, you may recall that a few weeks ago, David Brooks claimed that "Over the last 10 years, 60 percent of Americans made more than $100,000 in at least one of those years, and 40 percent had incomes that high for at least three." based on research by Stephen J. Rose. It was one of those statistics that just looks wrong and it turns it was, though the fault seems to lie mainly with Rose's less-than-clear prose and his algorithm for calculating adjusted household income for individuals (an individual living alone could make considerably less than six figures and still have an adjusted household income of 100K).

Andrew Sprung (who was on this from the beginning) has the details:

I should not have cast my inference that Brooks was misquoting Rose as a near-certainty without being able to verify it. Literally, there was no misquote -- or rather a minor one, converting Rose's "fully 60 percent of adults had at least one year in which their incomes were at least $100,000" to a more active verb formulation: "Over the last 10 years, 60 percent of Americans made more than $100,000." Brooks' re-cast also edits out a ghost of pronoun slippage in Rose's studiedly vague formulation: "adults" had years in which "their" incomes were over $100k. While "their" grammatically agrees with "adults," keeping both in the plural somehow highlights the elision by which household income (the term Rose uses in earlier writings citing similar statistics) becomes the income enjoyed by the individuals in the household.

(h/t to Brad DeLong)