It's kind of expected when in the US you have a culture of "everyone has to go to university or you are worthless".

I'd probably make the argument that it's an overemphasis on the principles of supply and demand (capitalism) that make one potentially worthless.

If there are enough geographers with graduate degrees applying for the gig even at minimum wage pay, you pay them minimum wage.

In the US (and let's be real, most of the world), capitalism trumps altruism (paying someone more than their market value because you're nice).

We exploit our own kind - it's always been that way, and there have always been a sufficient number of justifications (whether you agree with them or not) to keep up the practice.

You see exploitation, I see a market signal to high schoolers and undergraduates telling them we have enough graduate-level geographers, encouraging them to pursue something else and eventually making us all more prosperous in the future.

Sure, just two different ways of looking at the same thing. I personally view all employment as fundamental exploitation. Obviously you only hire employees with the intention to extract more value than what you give back in compensation. Some employers are downright extreme in this exercise.

I'm not against all of it. I just appreciate viewing things from as many perspectives as possible, uncomfortable or not.

What's a better system? About the time that Marx was formulating his ideas on society and markets, the US was just about finishing up several decades of government businesses that kept losing money against free market ran businesses even though they had the weight of the US treasury behind them. I doubt anyone would disagree that the reason the government businesses failed was that they were not sensitive to market signals and kept investing people's labor poorly.

Socialism need not be paired with a command economy. Capitalism plus redistribution works better.

Because as we know, high-schoolers are really good at labour-market analysis.

Maybe there should be a specialist who's role is to counsel students through these decisions and provide guidance?

Is it a reliable signal?

To everyone who says "If money is important to me, what should I major it," it's a great signal.

To people who say "What's my passion in life and the rest of the world should subsidize it," not so much.

sort of like how bandit activity is a signal that a road should be avoided

I see cheap labor on mechanical turk woohoo upvotes are in my future for 1 cent!

It's not ridiculous as long as there are Geographers with masters degrees willing to take those jobs.

Actually it is ridiculous. Why were public funds spent on giving someone advanced education to drive around? Is there nothing better society can do with such skills?

It absolutely is not ridiculous on Google's part.

You're making some other point.

It absolutely is. If the best you can do with someone with an advanced degree is make them drive a car, you're wasting a valuable mind on a menial task.

If it was a valuable mind then surely the owner of it would opt to do a more valuable activity than drive a car around? Google is just providing an option. Should they be binning applications for the position that include degrees?

How pretentious of you to decide what's best for someone else. Your job shaming just reinforces the notion that everyone must get a higher education degree or GTFO. Maybe people doing the job enjoy it or are doing it part time or find that the resume benefits outweigh the pay?

Either way there's nothing inherently wrong with a job that requires you to drive around all day. Work is work regardless of if you look down your nose at it as "menial".

> Your job shaming just reinforces the notion that everyone must get a higher education degree or GTFO.

i think they were simply remarking that someone had an advanced degree and it wasn't being put to use.

this point is really about the system/world/situation and not so much about individuals.

> there's nothing inherently wrong with a job that requires you to drive around all day

seems like a red herring.

Re-read what I said, because you are responding to something that has nothing to do with any of my claim.

Restated: If you spend 8+ years and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn something, not putting it to use is a colossal waste of resources for everyone involved. It's not just you. It's the seat you took from another student who would have appreciated it more.

That's the same thing. It's not up to you to define "waste of resources" based on what someone chose to learn.

I have a different perspective. Education is resource-constrained, and learners do not exist in a vacuum. In my opinion, it is the height of ego to refuse to make use knowledge that so many others have spent time and effort to teach.

The education is paid for, so the "others" who are teaching are earning money, it's not wasted effort.

Knowledge itself doesn't contain any inherent value, it's free if you want to learn it all yourself without depriving anyone else of it. What you're paying for is the academic environment, resources and tutoring of a person. That's a business exchange like any other and everyone is free to spend their money on that, whether they do anything with the results or not.

All knowledge learned represents an opportunity cost paid, both in real capital and time consumed in acquisition, both for the students and the educational system as a whole. If nothing is done with it other than acquisition, we as a society lose.

I am not against the viewpoint you present for anything other than what I see as pragmatic reasons. If we lived in a post-scarcity economy, I would agree with you.

But we don't, and we aren't going to be there anytime soon, either. The system we have now loads crippling debt on to students, and one of the reasons it can do so is because of the constraints of supply and demand. Thus, in my opinion, to not do anything with an advanced degree is deeply selfish.

> It absolutely is

while i agree with your sentiment about not at all utilizing the potential of an advanced education, i'm not sure how google is "at fault" here...

assuming this resume requirement is real: is it google's fault there is a sufficient supply of master's holders willing to drive for minimum wage, such that they're content having the requirement?

No. But it very much is their fault for making such an asinine requirement. I have no doubt it actually hurts them, too. Turnover is expensive, and someone who has an advanced degree will bail for better prospects as soon as possible.

Why would they not ask for higher requirements as long as the jobs continue to be filled? You seem to have a problem with the wrong thing.

That very attitude (that higher degrees=better at everything) is what I have the problem with. Not only is it demonstrably not true, but it comes with real consequences. An entire generation is being saddled with crippling amounts of debt because of attitudes like this, and we all lose because of it. Our society becomes lopsided, with not enough jobs for college grads to enable most to pay off their student debt, and not enough tradesfolk to fill the ever-widening gap between our needs and who can do the work.

Please note that I am not talking about learning in general. Lifelong learning is fundamental. But there are other paths to knowledge beyond a 4-year college.

there was a candidate that wanted to address the "crippling amounts of debt" issue, but that movement was cut off at the knees.

No argument there.

While it is off topic, the other point is interesting

And if you profit from Google stock/options/rsus/whatever, you're benefiting from this exploitation.

Those poor master's degree havers!

an american having a master's degree and getting low wages could mean they're indeed poor. a near-lifetime of non-dischargeable debt repayment.

They're clearly people who had choices in life.

That categorization encompasses what.. 98% of everyone?

Your bar for sympathy may be a bit high.

Well it's certainly not going to include people that have $13/hr jobs in America.

well, they presumably weren't born into slavery only to be worked brutally hard then tortured and murdered by a slave owner, so i guess they're worthy of a sneer or two.

I'm not sneering at them. I'm objecting to the categorization of them as a victim being exploited. They're doing useful work and getting paid for it.

you haven't established how that is necessarily not-exploitation.

Oh it is exploitation. It's not like there's a victim, though. The drivers likewise exploit Google's insufferable desire for street photography in exchange for cash.

is this purposeful equivocation?

> you're benefiting from this exploitation.

So what? I'm sure there's things you benefit from thanks to the Nazis.

Personally I prefer to not encourage bad behaviour and change the world in a positive way than worry about philosophical arguments.