This is bad news for humanity.

So, sorry -- if you actually get into and graduate from MIT, chances are your debt levels are going to be at the levels of many state university graduates, perhaps lower.

This is doubtful. If only because the caliber of student who is admitted to MIT is likely to receive extremely generous merit-based scholarships at most state schools, and especially at lower-tier state schools. There's at least one AAU member school (Arizona) that offer a free ride (tuition + fees + room + board) to any national merit scholar. When I was applying to colleges (which, admittedly, was 20 years ago), I was offered free rides to the University of Oklahoma and LSU based solely on my SAT Math score. It really depends on which state schools we're talking about (top-tier vs. lower-tier) and the student's household income. In the specific case of a middle-income student (household income = $70k/year) and a top-tier state school then what you've said is likely correct. Despite having a strong resume (evidenced by his being admitted to MIT) that student may not get a full ride at a top-tier state school. So he's relying on financial aid, and MIT's financial aid package for a student whose family earns $70k/year is likely better than the top-tier state school's. As income goes up and/or the quality of state school goes down, though, the equation starts to favor the state school if all we care about is out-of-pocket cost.

My household is around the 15th percentile (counting from the top) in terms of income. I'm a software dev. and my wife, who works half-time, earns about a quarter what I do. So that should provide some context. I recently ran the numbers and compared how much I'd have to pay for my son to attend Harvard vs. how much I'd have to pay for him to attend my alma mater, which is generally thought to be in the upper tier of state schools. Using in-state tuition for the state school, the cost was approximately the same, though Harvard would have required work-study to make up part of the tuition. If he (my son) were admitted to both, I'd probably pony up the difference to send him to Harvard. If the difference were large (say, $10k/year) then I would probably advise him to attend my alma mater.

It's also worth noting that the sorts of people paying tens of thousands of dollars for Ma's services are themselves quite wealthy, so when discussing whether it's "worth it" you have to take into account the marginal "value" of those dollars to the person paying them. If I'm fabulously wealthy then sure, paying $20k is "worth it" to get my kid into Harvard. Because $20k is a meaningless sum to me. (Which, incidentally, is why it would not be so tragic if that $20k were to go to, say, the IRS instead.)

I know this is a trendy view to take, but I can assure you that when it comes to applying to graduate programs and, for that matter, applying for certain McJobs, an engineering degree from MIT is going to count for more than an engineering degree from Football State U.

You are a fscking moron for the comment you made to the other person.

What was moronic about it? The poster claimed he will only be able to command 35-40% of his previous salary when he finds a new job. Presumably his productivity will stay roughly constant, assuming he stays in the same industry. So the "market value" of all that he brings to the table is actually 35-40% of what his previous employer was paying him. Ergo his previous employer was overpaying him. If I can buy an identical car from two dealers, A and B, and they provide equivalent customer service, have identical policies, are equally convenient, etc., but A charges N and B charges N + $1000, then buying from B is "overpaying". Likewise if I can hire either A or B to perform a given task and A and B are such that they'll perform it equally well, but B costs 35-40% more than A, then hiring B is "overpaying" to have that task completed.

Many of us have been laid-off as a cost-reduction strategy by short-sighted management.

It may well be that your layoff was shortsighted. But how do you know? Is it possible the layoff was, in fact, the right move to make with respect to the business's short-term and long-term success?

My salary has been on a steady decline for the past decade as a consequence of these "thought leaders" and "best and brightest."

If your salary has steadily declined then it's because your skill set has become comparatively less valuable over time. That's likely the result of a whole host of factors, and isn't necessarily caused by the employers in your industry acting contrary to their own self-interest (i.e. being short-sighted).

With over 2 decades professional experience and currently unemployed I feel as though I made a terrible mistake pursuing a career in many roles within IT.

It is entirely possible you have, in fact, made a terrible mistake. And I don't say that to be mean. It absolutely sucks. But it is what it is. If I were in your shoes, the main question I'd be asking myself (and I'm sure you are) is: what can I do about it? Unless it's reasonable to expect that the trend will reverse, and it probably isn't, then it may be time to consider switching career tracks. Or, alternately, relocating to someplace your skill set is in higher demand. Obviously both of those are more easily said than done, but they're not impossible.

We're defining "overpaid" differently. If an employer lets Joe go, who was earning N, and hires Bob for M, who is just as productive as Joe, then Joe was overpaid if M N. The employer was paying Joe more than necessary to acquire his labor output.

Not redundant. "Obvious" perhaps. I'm not familiar with the situation in Australia, but I'd be surprised if you weren't exaggerating the 35-40% figure. If only because if it were true then I'd expect your employer to have laid you of earlier than they did. For instance, when the potential savings were 20% instead of 35-40%. Though it's entirely possible they're just incompetent.

I'm estimating a 35 -> 45% pay drop from the job I've just been given the heave ho-from to my next one

If this is accurate, then it sounds like your former employer was massively overpaying you and was smart to let you go. They can hire a new you for 35-40% less.

Our country is demonstrably not better off with them

I don't cede this point. Nor would the majority of those who actually study and think about this stuff.

The age-old fallacy that what specifics you teach people has any correlation to their future careers. If you're a programmer, the language does not matter.

I'd like to push back against this. I'll agree that the specifics of what one learns in university, assuming we're talking about someone who got a Math/Physics/CS/Engineering degree, likely aren't predictive of long-term career success. That said, subject matter can be decently predictive in terms of short-term success. If I'm looking to hire a junior Java developer, say, and I have two candidates in front of me who appear to be equally hard-working, intelligent, sociable, etc. but one exhibits high Java proficiency and the other has never seen a line of Java then I'm going with the former. Your skill set does matter when it comes to getting a job. Your point is that anybody who's a decent dev. can ramp up on almost any technology. I agree. But not every employer is willing to pay for the lag-time for you to ramp up. Especially if you're competing with other candidates who are already ramped up.

You two seem to be using different definitions of "rigorous". He's using it in terms of mathematical rigor. You're using it to describe things that are tricky and difficult and where there's little margin for error.

All job markets are local. I don't care so much about what the top-line number is for IT jobs. I care about what the market is for my specific skill set in the area where I happen to live. Obviously if the national number plummets then that trend will eventually be replicated in the majority of individual markets, but from the summary of this article it doesn't sound like we're talking about the number "plummeting".

At the moment, for my specific skill set and in the specific area where I live, the job market is about as good as its ever been. If I were to lose my job tomorrow my chances of acquiring another one reasonably quickly would be better than during any of the other times I've been jobless.

Aliens.

Automata.