Epstein Secrets

s present value of future pay less spending on future childhood nurture plus textbooks or tuition or job training (collectively called “schooling” by Mincer) invested in human capital. Ben-Porath knew that, as had others before, but reasoned that investment in anything must stop when not enough time remai

capital indeed grows more productive with age, or depreciates all at once, seem implausible in each case and cannot begin to explain enough. I think Becker hinted at the answer in 1964. Becker pointed out that job training at the Chapter 2: Fast Forward 1/06/16 14 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010954 employers’ exp

implify. But I just showed why I model all consumption after, or anyhow after a few months of job training, as Schultz’ pure kind. Here I would fault Mincer and his pupil Becker, but not Schultz or Ben-Porath, for too much focus on the potential of job training. It exists and is crucial. But it is so smal

of Frank Knight a generation before Schultz. Only the rest is what Schultz called pure consumption eliminated from the economy in satisfying tastes. Becker added in 1964 that this investment must be expected to be recovered with interest, at least when paid by employers in job training. Schultz had also

ght have room for him. Am I being too tough on later economists? We should not forget Schultz and Ben- Porath. Schultz’ greatest achievement, unless Mincer beat him, was in spotlighting human depreciation. That left me to ask where this huge flow goes. The answer becomes inescapable once we focus on the

if such) where not all surprises. A few ideas met both descriptions. They pay rule, and the equally heretical Y rule, probably count as both although Becker came within a step of getting there first. Depreciation theory is likely to be both. Other possible candidates might include my observation that hold