[travisb]

I think the author is missing the forest for the trees when they try to construct a taxonomy of 'elites'.

Firstly, there is little reason to believe that per-capita is the correct way to think about surplus elites. It's just as plausible that there is an absolute threshold above which the surplus meet together in, for example, the student union building and start causing problems.

Secondly,

> First, virtually all of the people who fail to attain their dream jobs can secure perfectly decent employment in some other line of work.

It's easy to say there's no surplus in any particular sub-group because they can always go to some other sub-group. But if most acceptable sub-groups are 'full', then it's not possible in general. Further, as a first approximation the 30% getting college degrees are the top 30% generally so it's not surprising that they could find _a_ job. That job being in some other line of work might be a problem, especially if it's several steps down from what they've believed they were owed all their life.

To use the article's example, a PhD in History may never have been likely to result in becoming a working historian, but it may have led to managing a factory or branch office. It's pretty obvious that is no longer true and it's likely that the wider job prospects of a History PhD holder has declined.

Further, the article foolishly equates becoming an actor or poet with academic achievement or business success. That entirely ignores that it's been well known forever that life success as an actor or poet is rare. The same cannot be said about getting a PhD.