I'm trying to follow you. I don't get how Baumol's has a higher degree of effectiveness in the US than it does in the EU? Are you saying there are more tech companies and therefore tech roles in the US than EU and thus those drive up non-tech wages even though they aren't as productive?

Exactly

I call bullshit on this.

There are lots of reasons why US academics earn so much more than their european counterparts, but the income level of US tech employees is not high on the list, if it is on the list at all.

Also, Baumol's doesn't predict that wages in low productivity growth sectors will rise, it merely notes that the costs in such sectors do not fall, which means that whatever the sector produces (good, services, art etc) become relatively more expensive compared to other production. This is why it appears to cost so much to see the symphony orchestra, even in Cincinnati - it's not that the players all make a ton of money, it's that their productivity is flat, so the costs of the performance appear to rise relative to, say, toothpaste.

I asked Gemini 3 if your statement is true and got this, as expected: "That statement is false. In fact, the prediction that wages will rise in low-productivity sectors is the central mechanism of Baumol’s Cost Disease"

Somebody asked Gemini 3 yesterday about a piece of music I was looking for. It said:

> Based on the details you provided—specifically the overlap with the poem "AM" (from Be Bop or Be Dead) and "Set The Tone" (from Bernie Worrell's Blacktronic Science)—the track you are most likely looking for is: "Music" by DeadbEAT (featuring Umar Bin Hassan) Released in 1992/1993 on the album Wild Kingdom, this track was a cult hit in the acid jazz/trip-hop scene of the 90s and later appeared on compilations like the influential Red Hot + Cool (1994).

Very good, except that there is no album called "Wild Kingdom" by an artist named Deadbeat, and while Hassan does appear on "Red Hot + Cool" it is on a differently named track written by himself.

So forgive me if I call bullshit on Gemini 3 as well.

However, in this instance, it is a correct summary of the most visible popular summaries of Baumol's cost disease, so there's that.

I don't think it captures the essence of what Baumol (& Bowen) were writing about, but I accept that my presentation was misleading.

LLM hallucinations are still a thing for ultra niche topics. Not a problem for topics that have sizeable wiki pages, like Baumol Effect. Here is the first paragraph from wiki: "...tendency for wages in jobs that have experienced little or no increase in labor productivity to rise in response to rising wages in other jobs that did experience high productivity growth"

The problem with this summary is that it's not actually what Baumol & Bowen were really focused on in their original paper.

It is what most people nowadays connect with "Baumol's cost disease", but in their paper, the way in which rising productivity sectors cause wage increases in stable productivity sectors was more of a detail than the central part of their thesis. The core part was the observation that certain kinds of economic activity cannot reduce costs through productivity gains, while others can; the wage connection between them was, well, not an afterthought, but more of a consequence of the very specific sort of economic system we live in. One could imagine a society with different ways of distributing resources to labor that didn't really have this feature, and yet the same sectors of this imaginary society's would still suffer from "Baumol's cost disease".

EU universities, the amenities are quite meager, as they should be. But for dorms it’s usually single occupancy. Unlike the US where you’re expect to have roommates.

The roommates thing is just part of the socialization of US universities, since many kids are not living anywhere near home and if they aren't forced to become close friends with someone by, say, sleeping right next to them, they often go a little nuts. By the time you are an upperclassman you are generally given your own room or you live off campus.

I've done the US university dorm living. I was already pretty well socialized being involved in many social causes and clubs. Unlike the movies, my roommate and I didn't turn into lifelong friends. Our living arrangement was strictly business. Now, I am lifelong friends with my apartment roommates. We shared a house together but did not share a room.

Also, campus ties you closer to home more than you imagine. They shutdown campus for different breaks and you're more or less forced to go elsewhere, which is typically your family home.

But honestly, double and triple occupancy rooms are completely unnecessary and uniquely American.

>I am lifelong friends with my apartment roommates. We shared a house together but did not share a room.

It depends entirely on the person. I had a similar thing happen to me, except that I managed to get a single my first couple years of school. But I know from others, that it often creates a very intimate, fraternal bond which gives kids some semblance of a family bond before they are able to get a real social life, join clubs, make friends, find a partner etc.

When you break down how budgets have changed, the two biggest drivers of tuition increases are the growth of administration, and fancy amenities like sports facilities.

The cost of the person in front of the blackboard has not been increasing.

The cost of the person in front of the blackboard has been steadily going down; those people have been complaining about this for decades.

Ok, the prior link was comparing it to EU though, so perhaps costs for professors there went down even more, as professors make less there compared to US

Is it necessary for there to be student amenities paid for by the school? Why should tuition pay for a bunch of ancillary nice-to-haves instead of, ya know, the education?

It's not. But apparently that's what most American students demand and universities supply to satisfy the demand.

Public schools shouldn't oblige and instead offer the lower cost option. The market will then sort this issue out in a few years. Right now its public = expensive and private = absurdly expensive

Because schools are in competition with one another to attract students (who have the ability to broadcast applications to multiple schools). The campus life factor is a major part of a student’s decision.

Put yourself into the student’s shoes. If you had the choice between two schools of otherwise roughly equal academic reputation but one offered luxurious residences while the other housed students like medieval monks, which would you choose?