I refer you to Li, the elements of which were defined in fixed proportions by the speaker in the video. I left their definitions deliberately general to be defined in any way desired. You could easily say l1 = 1, l2 = 2, l3 = 7 in a unit level economy.
Not seeing applicability to the post-secondary degrees, sorry.
The point being, nobody should assume fixed labour proportions in making future decisions because productivity isn't static, particularly not as a universal constant.
What would you offer as an alternative foundation for advice in making future decisions about colleges/degrees?
is a vector of factor endowments of different types of human capital; a head count, if you will, of the different levels of employees with each type of credential.
My recommendation? Assume general equilibrium is unique to the region, industry, and time in which economic activity is generated. Let labour be assigned as much capital as it needs as merited by its marginal productivity (i.e. let that level fluctuate according to demand) and let enrollment levels in post-secondary programs be as market-linked as possible, with intervention only when there is a strong public policy argument.
Sorry, I get jargony quickly and forget my audience sometimes!
