Some time ago, Edmund, winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Economics? When Phelps attended the 20 13 Nobel Prize Beijing Forum, he put forward his own views on the phenomenon of young people in China competing to apply for civil servants: "Many well-educated young people are trying to be civil servants, which is a serious waste." His reason is: "government agencies are not suitable for young people, which underestimates their ability and wastes the educational cost that society spends on them."

Edmund? Phelps believes that young people should strive to innovate. He said, "We want to see smart young people say to their mothers, Mom, I went to the west, south and north to start a company."

Although the author has always respected and admired Nobel Prize winners, I have no idea about Edmund? Phelps's remarks are deeply unacceptable and even more difficult to agree with. Whether innovation should be the only life goal for young people, whether starting a company is equivalent to innovation, and whether it is a waste of social education costs for well-educated young people to become civil servants is worth thinking about.

Although many civil servants do not consider themselves as high-income groups, in the eyes of the public, being a civil servant is a job with high income, low risk and many benefits. Many young people give up their majors and are attracted by the benefits of being civil servants, which should be a very normal phenomenon in the economy and society. Not only in China, but also in many other countries and regions, civil servants are a popular occupation, especially in the economic depression. In recent years, there are dozens or even thousands of people competing for a civil servant position in China. In fact, it not only indirectly reflects the macro-environment of employment difficulties in today's society, but also reflects the choice results of those groups in society who pursue low risks and high returns from the perspective of economic rationality. More income and less jobs, and the popular standards on which people choose their occupations or jobs are completely in line with the characteristics of rational people in economics. In the social form of market economy, it is obviously reasonable and universal to pursue the maximization of one's own interests. Even if young people dare to start a business, their original intention or motivation is often to make more money. The so-called benefit maximization, different people will inevitably have different judgment basis. In reality, the so-called maximization is actually the result of comprehensive evaluation based on personal preferences, and there is no unified standard.

A major change in education after the implementation of market economy in China is that it no longer covers the employment distribution of college graduates, which is in line with the consensus of market economy advocates that social human resources should be adjusted and allocated by market forces. Naturally, for some people, the adjustment of the market has given them opportunities to give full play to their own advantages, but it has also led to more and more college students, graduate students, and even doctors and postdocs being attracted by high-paying jobs after graduation, unable or unwilling to engage in professional-related jobs. From a single point of view of the educational cost that society spends on them or the cost that it spends on their professional education, it is obvious that the application of what individuals have learned can be regarded as a waste of social resources. But the market economy emphasizes that society can allocate resources through the invisible hand of the market, which naturally includes human resources. Therefore, from the perspective of the human resource allocation mechanism of market economy, it is very reasonable for a large number of well-educated people to engage in work outside their major.

In the face of history and reality, we have to admit that any economic system will inevitably waste social resources, and the market economic system is no exception. In addition to the so-called waste of social and educational resources in the field of human resources, in the field of production, it is not uncommon for resources to be wasted or inefficient due to oversupply caused by overcapacity. Marx has long predicted that one of the basic contradictions in capitalist society is the huge social waste caused by overproduction, and this prediction has also been verified by the fact that the whole world has overcapacity. Many economists and sociologists who think that the market economy system is omnipotent often interpret the waste of various social resources under the capitalist system as the cost that must be paid to improve the overall efficiency of society. Then, from this perspective, young people are keen to be civil servants, even if there is a waste of social and educational resources on the surface, it can be regarded as the cost that society must pay for rational allocation of human resources, rather than the waste of social resources that can be eliminated. I don't know. Edmund? Whether phelps believes in the theory of market economy, but he thinks that "it is a serious waste for well-educated young people to become civil servants" is obviously far from or even contrary to the relevant theories of market economy.

Starting from the concept of the necessary cost of improving the overall efficiency of society, it may lead to another interpretation of the purpose of receiving social education before a person enters social work. Everyone who has worked in society for many years can ask himself how much knowledge gained from school education has been used in future work, and it is estimated that it will not exceed one fifth or even one tenth. This phenomenon reveals such a concealed essential fact that the education a person received before entering social work is not to use the professional knowledge he has learned to engage in future counterpart work in most cases. How to explain the rationality of this common phenomenon? The conclusion may come from the understanding of the more basic or important significance of a person's education before entering the society: through the study of various subjects in the school, the educated can form or have a basic ability, an adaptive ability to get started as soon as possible, be familiar with new problems and become an expert. We often emphasize the pursuit of quality education. What is quality education? Isn't it the ability to fully adapt to social needs in essence? If we can accept the above views, there is even less reason to criticize or oppose the phenomenon that young people strive to be civil servants. Even if well-educated young people enter the civil service industry without learning anything, the good education they received in the early stage has played a seemingly unrelated but direct and effective role in their rapid familiarity with work, adaptation to work and competence.

If we are fully aware that the current civil service system has been criticized and the work of civil servants is generally regarded as the seriousness of inefficiency, then it seems that we should not oppose well-educated young people becoming civil servants. Imagine what our civil servants would look like if middle-aged and elderly people were allowed to enrich the civil servants, or if young people with little education were allowed to enrich the civil servants. Can we expect the quality of civil servants to be greatly improved and the efficiency of civil servants to be significantly improved? What consequences will it eventually lead to? The answer is self-evident.

At this point, if we want to say a few more words about the topic that "it is a waste for well-educated young people to become civil servants", we may not criticize the phenomenon that young people strive to be civil servants, but should improve the construction of the civil service selection system, so as to put an end to cronyism and cronyism in the civil service selection process and let the civil service selection system fully reflect fair competition. Only in this way can more well-educated and talented young people enter the civil service, thus improving the overall quality of the civil service and fundamentally changing the inefficient state of the civil service. This is the most important thing, and it is also the top priority that we need to pay full attention to.

There is nothing wrong with agreeing that well-educated young people should innovate, but it is difficult to reach a unified view on what innovation is. Being engaged in a job that can win the Nobel Prize is naturally innovation, but it is not easy to start a company directly linked to innovation. From the point of view of economics and science, if it is not for making a living, most people will start a company at most.