If non-English submissions or Facebook submissions are banned, then I will happily delete this post

So this just popped up on my Facebook. In case you can't read Danish it says (All caps are provided by the poster):

The economists in the AE (The unions thinktank) have once again calculated which educations that provides the greatest returns for the public... and as always, they've calculated that ECONOMISTS!!!!, aside from doctors, gives the greatest return for the public.

Awesome. An economist gives a public return of 198,8%... just ahead of the 3rd place: LAWYERS and POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, with 196%

On the other hand is not a lot of reason in educating teachers, because they only provide a return of 54,7%. And it's completely crazy to educate police- and jail officers that only provides an return of 19,5%. A result so bad it's pretty much is only surpassed by the prügelknabe, Masons and painters, whose public return is all the way down at 14,7%.

So where is calculation coming from? It is calculated from peoples LIFETIME INCOME. Actually it could be fun if economists calculated the public return by halving their lifetime income... You know, down to the level of masons and painters.

Or the economic consequences of a community with lots of economists, lawyers or and political scientists, but no teachers, police officers or masons. Think if the calculation accounted for the value of what people actually did, instead of what they demanded for it. Then teachers would probably have the biggest public return of all.

What is most scaring of such an analysis is not the realization that if economists, lawyers and political scientists controlled the world, then it would probably end badly. The scary part is that it, for the most part, actually is economists, lawyers and political scientists that controls the world.

Then it links to the study here, which there unforturnately isn't in English

RI: So much of what happens here is badreading. In "Boks 1", it quite clearly states that public value is calculated from "work income and contributions to employer administered pension contributions subtracted education costs". As such, it's the money provided to the government that's used to calculate the the public return. Therefore, the public return provided is a fair way of comparing, even if you believe (fairly, I might add) that teachers or police officers are underpaid. Also this paper purely deals with lifetime income, and not "value added", which the poster apparently believes are a better way of comparing educations. This misunderstanding fuels all of the badeconomics showed in the post

Or the economic consequences of a community with lots of economists, lawyers or and political scientists, but no teachers, police officers or masons. Think if the calculation accounted for the value of what people actually did, instead of what they demanded for it. Then teachers would probably have the biggest public return of all.

This is probably wrong. Interestingly enough, teachers, police officers and masons are very likely to be in a union, but university educated economists, lawyers and political scientists are probably not in a union. That means they get their actual value in salary, while teachers, police officers and masons are probably getting monopoly wages. That means it's probably above their actual value. Especially masons, since teachers and police officers are all working for the government, and I'm not sure what happens when there is both a monopoly on the workers and jobs.

What is most scaring of such an analysis is not the realization that if economists, lawyers and political scientists controlled the world, then it would probably end badly. The scary part is that it, for the most part, actually is economists, lawyers and political scientists that controls the world.

Wait, how do I get into this economist/lawyer/poly.sci-cabel? Do I gain entry when I graduate or something? And is it different from the SJW/Jew-cabel?