# Economic value of learning a language ?



## englishman

Inspired by a couple of postings I've read recently, I'd like to ask this:

With the exception of those for whom it's a necessity (e.g. translators), does the learning of a language bring a nett economic benefit to the individual ?

My impressions (based on my experience in the UK) are:

1. Few employers will pay a premium for candidates with language experience.
2. Roles requiring significant language expertise (e.g. multilingual secretarial work, technical translation) are generally not well payed.
3. There is an opportunity cost of several years required for someone to acquire a "useful" level of language ability, in general. 
4. Despite there being the usual complaints of "skills shortages" for linguists, I see few jobs advertised in the UK where language skills are vital.

From this I conclude that, considering only the economic benefit, the time one spends in learning a language could be better spent elsewhere.

Anyone want to shoot me down in tatters ?


----------



## Fernando

Though you could be right for an English environment, I would say that, even in Spain, where you are most of times not exposed to English language in most professions, learning of languages is certainly an asset to get a better job.

For most professions (even for many in which you will hardly use English) you are supposed to speak English. Other languages, specially the hardest ones (Chinese, Arabic) are certainly a huge point in your resumé.


----------



## Etcetera

Fernando said:


> For most professions (even for many in which you will hardly use English) you are supposed to speak English. Other languages, specially the hardest ones (Chinese, Arabic) are certainly a huge point in your resumé.


Just the same for Russia. 
Besides, English plays so large a role in the modern world that it's almost impossible to live without any knowledge of English at all.


----------



## Tadeo

In Mexico, the most important Universities ask you to  learn at least one foreign language(English) upon completion of your career. Why??'because when you are applying for a job, you have some extra possibilities to be accepted if you speak English.

 Lately, some universities request you to learn French, Dutch, or Italian besides English, overall to the studentes in Law or Commerce  school.

 So, being a student, I think that the econocmic value of learning a language will be determined by the job opportunities you may have if you speak more than one language.


----------



## Hakro

englishman said:


> With the exception of those for whom it's a necessity (e.g. translators), does the learning of a language bring a nett economic benefit to the individual ?
> 
> My impressions (based on my experience in the UK) are:
> 
> 1. Few employers will pay a premium for candidates with language experience.
> 2. Roles requiring significant language expertise (e.g. multilingual secretarial work, technical translation) are generally not well payed.
> 3. There is an opportunity cost of several years required for someone to acquire a "useful" level of language ability, in general.
> 4. Despite there being the usual complaints of "skills shortages" for linguists, I see few jobs advertised in the UK where language skills are vital.
> 
> From this I conclude that, considering only the economic benefit, the time one spends in learning a language could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Anyone want to shoot me down in tatters ?


 I'll shoot you down if that is what you are looking for.
When I worked as journalist I was (I believe) better payed than my colleagues because I spoke fluently English, Swedish and French and I could translate texts into Finnish from German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.
For the last three years as technical translator I have had an annual income of about 250 000 euro. I think it's not too bad.
It's possible to learn a language or at least complete your language abilities while you're working, so it doesn't take any extra years.
In the UK it may be so (they suppose that everybody speak English) but in most of the countries at least English is required for a great variety of jobs.
I really don't know any other education that could be better rewarding than learning languages.


----------



## boardslide315

Hakro said:


> For the last three years as technical translator I have had an annual income of about 250 000 euro


 !! Isn't that like, 10x the average for a translator?


----------



## Hakro

boardslide315 said:


> !! Isn't that like, 10x the average for a translator?


I don't know about the average but no one can live with 25 000 euro a year!
Of course I didn't get the income for nine-to-five working time. I have learned that if you want to be a good/appreciated/wanted translator you have to be available 25 hours a day, 8 days a week. If not, try another job.


----------



## fenixpollo

englishman said:


> My impressions (based on my experience in the UK) are:
> 
> 1. Few employers will pay a premium for candidates with language experience.
> 2. Roles requiring significant language expertise (e.g. multilingual secretarial work, technical translation) are generally not well payed.
> 3. There is an opportunity cost of several years required for someone to acquire a "useful" level of language ability, in general.
> 4. Despite there being the usual complaints of "skills shortages" for linguists, I see few jobs advertised in the UK where language skills are vital.
> 
> From this I conclude that, considering only the economic benefit, the time one spends in learning a language could be better spent elsewhere.


 What is your experience in the UK, exactly?  My impression is that you need a broader range of experience or you need to do more research. I know people in the corporate world, from janitors to jexecutives, whose job requires them to be bilingual or who reap monetary benefit from being bilingual.  

As boardslide points out, anyone who lives in an area where there are people who speak multiple languages has significant opportunities.  Whether you're talking about retail, sales or the trades, there's money to be made by people who are able to market and provide their products and services to speakers of other languages.


----------



## hedonist

englishman said:


> Inspired by a couple of postings I've read recently, I'd like to ask this:
> 
> With the exception of those for whom it's a necessity (e.g. translators), does the learning of a language bring a nett economic benefit to the individual ?
> 
> My impressions (based on my experience in the UK) are:
> 
> 1. Few employers will pay a premium for candidates with language experience.
> 2. Roles requiring significant language expertise (e.g. multilingual secretarial work, technical translation) are generally not well payed.
> 3. There is an opportunity cost of several years required for someone to acquire a "useful" level of language ability, in general.
> 4. Despite there being the usual complaints of "skills shortages" for linguists, I see few jobs advertised in the UK where language skills are vital.
> 
> From this I conclude that, considering only the economic benefit, the time one spends in learning a language could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Anyone want to shoot me down in tatters ?



I tend to agree with you.  There are plenty of jobs in fact I would say the majority that have no practical use of a second language.  People should endeavour to pursue what they love and if that involves the learning of a second language than so be it.  Best of luck in finding a job in that line of work. But I don't think it's a good idea to learn another language when the only aim is to make a financial gain.  You have to a passion for it or else you won't succeed.


----------



## englishman

fenixpollo said:


> What is your experience in the UK, exactly? My impression is that you need a broader range of experience or you need to do more research.


I'm not sure what kind of experience you referring to here ? You want to hear the story of my life (too long and dull, I'm afraid) or experience related to use of languages in industry ?



> I know people in the corporate world, from janitors to jexecutives, whose job requires them to be bilingual or who reap monetary benefit from being bilingual.


 You may well know such people (though I doubt many janitors get a bonus for their language skills), but can you put a figure to the *excess* money they make ? That is the question I'm asking. The question isn't whether or not people can use their ability with languages to make cash; it is whether or not, taking any opportunity cost into account, it is *worthwhile* to invest time in learning a language, from the economic POV. The answer may well depend upon which country you're sitting in. For someone in the UK, my feeling is that, statistically, you are unlikely to gain significant benefit from the ability to use a foreign language, aside from those roles where it is a requirement of the job (such as for translators, bilingual executives and janitors). From some of the responses I've read, the situation may well be different in other parts of the world.



> As boardslide points out, anyone who lives in an area where there are people who speak multiple languages has significant opportunities. Whether you're talking about retail, sales or the trades, there's money to be made by people who are able to market and provide their products and services to speakers of other languages.


Of course. But there's money to be made in lots of other ways too. Do the people who specialise in use of language to make money make more than people who don't ? Do they even see a return on time invested ? Do you have any figures to back up what you're claiming ? (I don't, so I'm very interested to see any hard evidence either way).


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

In Canada, the main area of the economy that rewards bilingualism financially is the federal government; and to a lesser extent, the provincial governments in Ontario and New Brunswick.

Bilingualism doesn't generate much if any extra income for most other sectors of the work force, although it may make it easier to get the job in the first place.  I see all sorts of ads for bilingual secretaries, nannies, support staff, teachers ... all offering pay at the _bottom _end of the scale.  

As one example, my school board posted an ad for a trilingual recruitment officer (one year contract), with a substantial amount of overseas travel.  The incumbent, in addition to mastery of three languages, had to possess a teacher's certificate and international experience and a background in management ..... for which skills they were willing to pay the rate of an entry level secretary.

My languages have so far been of no economic benefit whatsoever, but have nevertheless opened a multitude of other doors.


----------



## fenixpollo

englishman said:


> I'm not sure what kind of experience you referring to here ? You want to hear the story of my life (too long and dull, I'm afraid) or experience related to use of languages in industry ?


 You said, that your impressions were based on your experience in the UK. I thought your impressions were wrong... therefore, you just need more experience. 

Here's my life story: After graduating from the university with a teaching certificate, I looked for jobs as a History teacher. There were none. Zero. But I had enough college credits to teach Spanish. Districts were suddenly bending over backwards to hire me. One district gave me a $3000-per-year bonus when the hired me.  They paid me more because I was bilingual.





> You may well know such people (though I doubt many janitors get a bonus for their language skills), but can you put a figure to the *excess* money they make ? That is the question I'm asking. The question isn't whether or not people can use their ability with languages to make cash; it is whether or not, taking any opportunity cost into account, it is *worthwhile* to invest time in learning a language, from the economic POV.


 Yes, your question was, "does learning language bring a net economic benefit"?   In other words, "can people use their ability with languages to make cash"?  Now I see that what you are really looking for is, "how much more cash can people make by using their language skills, than people who don't?"

I can't give you figures other than my own, because my experience is based on people that I have known professionally. I know what they do in their jobs, and I know that they got their jobs or have succeeded in their jobs because of their language skills.... but it is not kosher to discuss salaries at work, so I they never told me what they make and I never asked.

In order to answer your question, I need more experience.


----------



## equivoque

Learning another language is like physical excersize.  Ultimately, it may not be of any financial benefit, unless of course you are involved in a profession such as sport. But....

Like excersize, non vocational learning broadens the individual by both giving the brain a good work-out and expanding personal growth, often opening new unexpected avenues in the life experience.  This indirectly might improve everything you do. 

From a more fiscal point of view, excersizing the body or the brain just make them work better - and longer .... giving you a better "shelf life".

Alternatively, it could be a total waste of time.  I madly studied and did all aspects of hand raising parrot hatchlings.  Too time consuming, stressful and I don't want to do it.

BUT I CAN!!!


----------



## Dave44000

You are asking about the economic value of a second or subsequent language. 

I've been looking for the business case for improving reading. It turns out that the case has not been made at all. Further, when you hear economic theories about how the best paid decision maker will make the best decision, it is clear that expertise of any kind DOES NOT have significant economic value. 

I'm a technical writer. Back when Gartner was defining the concept of the total cost of ownership (TCO) of software applications, they used a category of costs for non-productive effort called negative use costs. Self study at work is such a cost. Self study includes reading, doing desktop tutorials, experimenting. We all know intuitively that there is economic value in doing these things. But, Gartner deleted this notion from the TCO, because the accounting system cannot capture the numbers around these activities. 

I've tried to make the business case for a means of improving lifetime reading efficencies only to be met with the notion that the improvements were secondary effects, rather than primary effects. No VCs would invest. 

The TCO enabled trainers to make a better business case than writers. As a consequence, you do not want to be a technical writer in any economic sense. Do something else. Everyone can write. Writing well is not going grant you financial freedom or financial security. Everyone can write. Everyone can do your job. 

Is there value? There has to be. What is lacking is proof. 

In choosing a career, go where you passion is, not where the economic value is. That economic value will increase and later diminish over time. For a translator, learn the languages of the up and coming economies. A boom will attract others. Get there before the boom, and when the boom hits be ready to leave early. Don't think that a career decision made today will hold long into the future. Be dynamic. Learning languages helps you be dynamic, so you  can maximize your income in the world's turbulent economy.


----------



## Bilma

Tadeo said:


> .
> 
> Lately, some universities request you to learn French, Dutch, or Italian besides English, overall to the studentes in Law or Commerce school.
> .


 

Where?


----------



## CiegoEnamorado

I'm currently focusing my language study efforts on Spanish and Japanese. When I inform people of this, they can understand learning Spanish but Japanese to them is seen as more of luxury. This is because I live Arizona in the United States, where lots of immigrants from Mexico choose to come to live. So there is a large community of Spanish-only-speakers and an even larger community of their offsprings who are naturally bilingual in both Spanish and English. No matter what market you are in, no matter what job you do for a living, here you will always receive higher pay than coworkers if you can speak Spanish quite competently or even fluently. If I were to apply for a job, though, and mention that I was learning Japanese, it would look nice on my résumé and might come in handy once or less every year, but they would be more interested in my Spanish, because there is practically nothing of a Japanese community here... unless, of course, I worked at a Japanese restaurant or in some sort of Asian/Japanese supermarket. It's just proof that you need to be living in a multilingual community or [part of a] country.


----------



## equivoque

I second Dave - albeit his argument was far more financially descriptive and corporate/dynamics based.  There are obvious benefits to your self-education on many levels and these will overflow into your value as an employee.

As a cash-cow pursuit however, I believe, as an endeavor to improve your potential in your career path, concentrate on expanding what you anticipate your most valuable skills will be sought out in the future.

Study of a second language or mathematics was required for many decades for almost all university entrance applicants in Australia.  The point behind this philosophy was a proven school record in the ability to study one subject throughout secondary school - thus, apparently displaying consistency.

When it comes to broadening your scope in the understanding of communication and multi-lingual skills it can be invaluable but if you are talking  wallet power - and high corporate income opportunities -- you don't need to know how to make coffee, if you can afford someone to do it for you.

I speak one language and still struggle with this one, continually trying to learn more. As far as the benefits of being multi-lingual, - wow! - that's an skill/achievement which I am always unabashedly jealous. 

I believe international flight attendants require two languages, but you can make as much money mowing lawns (although, your chances of marrying into money might be less likely!) ;-)

Do it for self improvement but if you are serious about making money - concentrate on what you do best and get better at it.


----------



## Athaulf

englishman said:


> With the exception of those for whom it's a necessity (e.g. translators), does the learning of a language bring a nett economic benefit to the individual ?



You can look at it this way: people are on average economically rational.  Therefore, the economic benefit of some skill to a typical individual will always be roughly proportional to the percentage of people in the general population who take the effort to acquire that skill in practice.  (Here by "economic benefit" I mean all the benefits that come with a skill, not just the increase in wages.)  This of course applies to skills of any sort, not just languages.  

Thus, to answer your question, you just need to look at the actual knowledge of foreign languages in the general population of various places.  The percentage of people speaking a particular foreign language will always be roughly proportional to its practical value.

This of course doesn't mean that people who make above average efforts to learn languages are irrational, because someone's _individual_ benefit from a skill can be drastically different from that of the typical person -- and there is nothing irrational even if this benefit comes from curiosity and entertainment.  Economics is not just about money, but also about everything else people value.


----------



## palomnik

OK, I'll jump into this one, and I must add my _kudos _to Dave as well in his perceptive analysis. 

Language learning has only seriously helped me once in my professional career - the ability to speak Arabic, which I picked up after an extensive time in the Middle East with the US military in the 1970's (yeah, we were over there even then). I landed a job with an oil company selling lubricants to various national governments in the Middle East and East Africa. It was fun, but it lasted less than two years and then I was laid off.

Since that time my employers have been glad to make use of my skills as the need arises - I did a series of questionnaries in Russian in 1989 for a joint venture and I've done tons of translations into Spanish for the state consumer advocate - but my career has been enhanced much more by other things I did and learned in the course of my career, such as teaching technical subjects and managing a call center. Life has a way of conspiring against what we really want - or what we think we want. In general, language skills are an asset but not much use on their own.

I'll add one exception, which is generally restricted, I think, to the USA. There are any number of jobs with the US government that require fluency in a foreign language and the ability to pass security clearances. Obviously these jobs are with the intelligence establishment in one form or another, for the most part, and the languages that are spoken by potential enemies of the USA are particularly favored.  While it's not impossible for the average immigrant from, say, Egypt or Afghanistan to get a security clearance in the USA, it's a lot harder than it is for somebody that was born here.

Obviously, this is not everybody's cup of tea. As for me, I married a Soviet citizen, which automatically disqualified me from any such consideration, at least until it was too late to make any difference. We all have to make choices in life. I don't regret mine.


----------



## argentina84

This thread is very, very interesting. 

In Argentina, knowing a *foreign language* does make a difference in your income, but it depends on the kind of job you look. For example, if you are a teacher...you will be bad-paid. But if you work for a company or in the tourist industry- which is becoming very important in the country- you can be promoted and take advantage from your *language* skills. 

 First of all, you have to speak English...but the more *languages* you know, the better the chance to get a really good job. I think this does not happen in Britain because you already speak the *lingua franca* so you do not need to learn a new* language*...the rest of the world does it for you.


----------



## María Madrid

Hakro said:


> I don't know about the average but no one can live with 25 000 euro a year!


 
ha! well, lots of Europeans HAVE to live 25,000€ or less. And I don't necessarily mean Eastern Europe.

As for the original questions, when it comes to Europe, a second or third language is always an advantage. It will not replace qualifications or experience, that's for sure, but when evaluating two candidates with a similar background, the one with good level of an "useful" foreign language has more opportunities. Useful meaning a language the company is interested in, not just any language. Saludos,


----------



## PocketCathy

Everyone I've met in the U.S. assumes that earning power increases with language skills. While studying foreign language enriches the mind, it doesn't necessarily enrich your pocket. From my experience, anyway. I've found it easier to find employment because of my language skills, but I've been paid the same as monolingual employees every single time, no matter what industry. I currently work for a company where I work in three languages -- and I make exactly the same as those who do my exact job, but only in English. It is certainly frustrating some days, but at least I can enjoy my job, which, as Dave pointed  out, definitely matters.


----------



## Nanon

All depends on how economic value is defined. I work in five languages. This does not mean that I earn more than my colleagues who work in French and English and whose job is equivalent to mine. However, the ability to give technical advice in five languages means employment stability within the company I work with (because nobody else does...), and this is priceless. 
Yet I had to be patient until my employers began to consider that Russian, for instance, was a "useful" language and that I could travel and do something else than being office-based.


----------



## avok

englishman said:


> Inspired by a couple of postings I've read recently, I'd like to ask this:
> 
> With the exception of those for whom it's a necessity (e.g. translators), *does the learning of a language bring a nett economic benefit to the individual ?*
> 
> 
> From this I conclude that, considering only the economic benefit, *the time one spends in learning a language* could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Anyone want to shoot me down in tatters ?


 
Here, *the learning of a language does not necessarily bring any economic benefit to the individual.* I speak Turkish, English, French, Portuguese and even German to some extent but, this does not necessarily bring any economic benefit to me. Lawyers who earn money...hmmmm much money are usually those who have spent their times in having "amicable ties" with "amicable people" 

I also think that *the time one spends in learning a language* could be better spent elsewhere such as looking for  money-loaded jobs. 
For example, here, in Turkey, you don't have to speak any foreign language to be a *doctor,* still you can earn much money. So you can spend your time in school of *medicine.*


----------



## Sepia

María Madrid said:


> ha! well, lots of Europeans HAVE to live 25,000€ or less. And I don't necessarily mean Eastern Europe.
> 
> As for the original questions, when it comes to Europe, a second or third language is always an advantage. It will not replace qualifications or experience, that's for sure, but when evaluating two candidates with a similar background, the one with good level of an "useful" foreign language has more opportunities. Useful meaning a language the company is interested in, not just any language. Saludos,



Not so long ago I read that only 10-15% of the German population made more than 25,000 Euro a year. But then again everything depends on the price level in the various countries and what is left after taxes. You'd live a lot better with 20,000 a year in Germany than you would with 25,000 in Denmark or Sweden.

----

What languages and jobs are concerned: Especially in times when jobs are scarce you'll see the advantage. Now and then when there is lots of un-employed competing with you on the market and hardly any jobs, here and there ther'll be this or that job for which nobody else is qualified. 

The fact that you do not see many of them advertized doesn't mean anything. Most jobs are not in the classified ads. When unemployment is high an even smaller proportion of jobs available will be found in the ads.


----------



## sunkitty

Everyone's made some excellent points about the value of foreign language knowledge in different professions. I want to bring up one more angle. Being competent (even if not fluent) in several languages can bring you a lot of extra money if you are a small business owner in a multi-ethnic area.

For example, here in Los Angeles, we have native speakers of dozens of different languages (Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, just to name a few with a lot of representation). Even though most immigrants can speak at least enough English to do daily business in it, they are drawn to businesses where the proprietor speaks their native language. Some people are very timid about communicating in English if they don't speak it fluently. When word gets out that they can do business in their native language at your store, you will get a lot of word-of-mouth advertising in these areas/neighborhoods.

And I just wanted to agree with those who pointed out that in certain areas, foreign language ability can mean a higher salary, or even get you the job in the first place. Anyone in Southern California searching for a job in which they deal with the public, answer phones, etc., is very well-postioned to get the job and/or receive a higher salary if they are fluent in Spanish as well as English.


----------



## Ziwen

Depends on what language you learn, and what profession you are working in. 

Here in Australia, a commerce graduate will be offered a job above others if they have language skills. That's basically the first step. You got the job.

In the world of commerce/business etc, your bonuses are tied to your ability to bring in extra clients and profits. Alot of companies here negotiate deals with China for e.g. If are part of the team negotiating, and you can speak the language, understand the culture and the mindset of the people, chances are, the chinese will seal the deal with you. $$$

I don't understand how having an extra skill could not be beneficial. You may not be paid more, but you have greater job security, more positions to choose from, more respect from collegues and superiors etc.


----------



## Istriano

Here in Europe, the only language that has ''economic value'' is German.
Germany, Austria and Switzerland have escaped the crisis, and they pay pretty well for most jobs with a university degree, so, many people from Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Eastern Europe go to the German speaking places. And in Zürich Spanish is the 2nd language, and Portuguese the 3rd native language of its population.


----------



## Montesacro

Istriano said:


> Here in Europe, the only language that has ''economic value'' is German.



Looks like a definitive statement.
"Als sprach Istriano", we might say.



Istriano said:


> And in Zürich Spanish is the 2nd language, and Portuguese the 3rd native language of its population.



Where did you get that info from? I'm curious.
It is most certainly wrong. 

By the way, it is Zurich in English, not Zürich.


----------



## Istriano

> *Languages*
> 
> The official language used by the government and in most publications  is German, while the main language is Zurich German (_Züritüütsch_), which is a  dialect of Alemannic. As of 2000, speakers with  Alemannic or German as their mother-tongue make up 77.7% of the population. Italian  follows behind at 4.7% of the population. Other native languages spoken  by more than 1% of the population include South Slavic languages (2.2%)—this includes Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, Macedonian, and Slovenian, Spanish (2.2%), French (2.1%), English (1.8%),  Portuguese (1.6%), Albanian (1.5%).[30]


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurich#Languages


As for the spelling, in English Zürich is as correct as Zurich, according to Dictionaries and Usage Guides.


----------



## Nanon

Istriano said:


> Here in Europe, the only language that has ''economic value'' is German.


_Had_, and _was_, unfortunately for Germanists, at least in France - learning and teaching German is not promoted as actively as it used to be. People are mostly focusing on English and Spanish. German speakers usually speak very good English, so many French business people consider that English will suffice to deal with Germans. This is just an observation - it is not an approach I like and not a personal opinion .
When I was a child, however, learning German was the perfect choice to show that you were intelligent enough to master German syntax, noun declensions, a choice for good students... so German had some sort of prestige apart from a direct economic value.


----------



## Sepia

I don't know how anybody can come up with the idea that it doesn't pay to learn a foreign language - and I find it very, very narrow-minded just to think in terms of "premiums" on top of your salary. 

It is as simple as this: Having a job means more money than being unemployed. There are lots of jobs you'd have no chance of getting without knowing at least one foreign language, preferably more. The smaller the language culture, the more important are the foreign languages. There are lots of jobs you'd hardly have any chance of training for, without at least understanding one or more foreign languages.


----------



## Havfruen

I understand the poster is asking about residents of anglophone countries whose job does not explicitly require foreign language skills. (So not interpreters, translators or foreign language teachers.)  Personally my interests in languages are hobbies and I don't need to use any language but English in my work. Why do think most Americans and Brits have fair to no foreign language skills?

Unfortunately, the lens of economics can be narrowly focused on figures which can be measured in currency and not on  intangible benefits where it's difficult to assign a value. 

Of course the situation is very different in other settings, like small countries with minority languages.


----------



## MRossi

englishman said:


> With the exception of those for whom it's a necessity (e.g. translators), does the learning of a language bring a nett economic benefit to the individual ?


According to my personal experience , the answer is :not,I  didn't get a nett economic benefit.Neither I got an little advantage when I was looking for work.But I don t care , because for me languages, as Norwegian ,Portugese, Latin ,Ancient Greek etc etc, are too important.


----------



## Sepia

Havfruen said:


> I understand the poster is asking about residents of anglophone countries whose job does not explicitly require foreign language skills. (So not interpreters, translators or foreign language teachers.)  Personally my interests in languages are hobbies and I don't need to use any language but English in my work. Why do think most Americans and Brits have fair to no foreign language skills?
> 
> Unfortunately, the lens of economics can be narrowly focused on figures which can be measured in currency and not on  intangible benefits where it's difficult to assign a value.
> 
> Of course the situation is very different in other settings, like small countries with minority languages.



If you mean the threadstarter, he is not explicitly talking about anglophone countries, and even if he were, some of those countries are bi-lingual. 

But the whole thing is probably also about how you are marketing yourself. 

If you go about it like this: There are no jobs around, where foreign-language skill is reqired, there is no use learning foreign languages - then you probably also won't get into the situation, where you see somebody getting the job you are applying for because he had language skills you did not have. 

However, if you go looking for the jobs with companies and institutions where certain language skills may come in handy, you are likely to find openings where they basically don't ask for foreign-language skills, but you get the job because you have them. 
This is pretty much why I have never been unemployed more than 57 days at one time, for the past 20+ years.


----------



## Tjahzi

Nanon said:


> When I was a child, however, learning German was the perfect choice to show that you were intelligent enough to master German syntax, noun declensions, a choice for good students... so German had some sort of prestige apart from a direct economic value.



I recognize a similar pattern! From my impression, the trend in Sweden for the last couple of years has been that the dedicated students study German, those interested in art and theater go for French and Spanish for the party people. Of course this is an over generalization, but that's roughly how it works.

(Needless to say, the popularity of German, and partially also French, is decreasing rapidly in favor of Spanish...)


----------



## xmarabout

In Belgium (bi- or trilingual country) and specially in Brussels (HQ of the European institutions and of other international organisations like NATO) two languages is a minimum... Without that you will grow up the ranks of the workless people and you are valueless on the job market. Even to be vendor in a small shop in Brussels, you have to learn French, Dutch and English ...


----------



## Nicodi2

I don't think somebody mentioned the must-talk case of China.

I don't have too much experience to share now as I have been here for about a month, but this is quite impressive to see how welcomed It is to master Mandarin (or at least showing that you are applying to It) here in China.

It is actually a huge investment in time, and sometimes results even can't be seen in a pretty long range, however, this is a substantial help to improve communication with the locals and get integrated in a business environment.

The Chinese labour market is also very particular as practically everything works with the _guanxi_, and to my understanding, Spoken Mandarin is more than an option to do efficient business here.

Another thing, to contradict some common place, is that most Chinese people DO NOT speak any word of English...even in international places such as Shanghai or Guangdong.

Thanks all for posting in this very interesting thread, 

Nico


----------



## Nicodi2

Istriano said:


> Here in Europe, the only language that has ''economic value'' is German.
> Germany, Austria and Switzerland have escaped the crisis, and they pay pretty well for most jobs with a university degree, so, many people from Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Eastern Europe go to the German speaking places. And in Zürich Spanish is the 2nd language, and Portuguese the 3rd native language of its population.



Ludicrous.
German is certainly important, so are other European languages.
Trust me, I am sure showing your interest in learning French is a real advantage.

I won't do business with you whatsoever for instance If I hear what you've just said.

Nico


----------



## merquiades

Every language has its worth in its context.  The good thing about English is you can get a hotel, a hot meal and find your way in any country, as far as having an in-depth conversation with citizens of these countries or doing long term business you have to learn or at least be open to the native language. Coming to France... probably China, Spain, Russia or many other countries, and refusing to respect the local language will make you a lot of enemies... and to swing back to the topic of this thread... will not be economically beneficial.  Ideally we should learn or try to learn many languages... German, Mandarin, Portuguese included


----------



## Istriano

I guess in Europe, German and French are the strongest when it comes to opportunities, and English is not even counted, because it being spoken is automatically expected.


----------



## merquiades

I think I've used this example before, but I'll tell it again. My friend, an Indian-American, always shunned languages.  He believed that English was the lingua franca of the entire world.  You learn English and you need nothing else. I suppose that was his experience in India. So, he got a job in Amsterdam, the country in the world where non-native people probably speak English the best.  The result was, yes he could get by in English.  I can attest to that too. They would speak to him in English, but never use it amongst themselves. Meetings in English, conversations in Dutch, working without him in Dutch, coffee breaks in Dutch, lunch in Dutch when it wasn't one on one. He always thought that everyone should stick to English if he were present. Outside, same scenario, he could use and be understood in English everywhere, but all in all he was living in a Dutch world, the language people preferred. He ended up alone, marginalized, and never developed friendships and left.  Learning some Dutch would have been beneficial to him, personally and economically.


----------



## Istriano

But even in India, people use the native languages (official language of the state), and not English, English is used only 1. with foreigners; 2. with Indians from other Indian states; 3. as a schooling language in some high schools and all universities.

(But then again, even here in Fiume you can send your child to a school which uses another language if you wish so, here where I live there are elementary schools in Italian and high schools in Italian, English, French an German. There are university courses in Italian (dentistry) and English (medicine)).

Going back to India, I've been to Kerala, and people don't expect you to learn Malayalam as a tourist. But, if you want to work there, they consider it very rude not trying to learn their language...For example actors from other states, if they make just one role, it's okay not to bother with the language, but if you dedicate yourself completely to the Malayalam movie industry, they expect you to learn Malayalam.


----------



## Vanda

As everybody else has pointed out, there are always two sides of the coin to consider. Let's think my country. Many foreigners come to work here, and even if in his place of work some people can speak English he'd be lost because the majority can't. As Merquiades said: meetings outside work, leisure, everything else would demand the local language. 
I'll quote a known forera coming to do business in Brasil, even if she can speak Spanish (her second native language), English (international business language) one of her customers here kind of ''demanded'' of her to do business in Portuguese (yes, he can speak English or Spanish) but wanted to do business in Portuguese. 
So, any major language can ''open'' the market for you but many times can't keep you happy and fulfilled there. The person will necessarily need to learn the local language if he wants to lead a ''normal'' life.


----------



## rusita preciosa

For me personally knowing languages does not result in a higher compensation compared to my peers. My monolingual colleagues who do the same job as I have the same paygrade and benefits.

However, as I live in the US where most people speak only English, I feel that it helps me secure jobs easier and have more interesting positions, compared to my peers in the industry (industry that is not related in any way to linguistics). 

BTW, by "more interesting jobs" I mean more interesting for *me personally* - I value the opportunity to travel internationally and work with people from all around the world; many people would not care for this type of job. I had a boss once who did an assignment on a global team and was absolutely uncomfortable and uninterested, he did it for a year and a half just to check the box and then happily returned to manage a domestic team.


----------



## Joannes

Some practical knowledge of at least two, usually three languages is required in Belgium to get a well paid job, unless you're international and you've proven to truly excell at what you do -- then you may be hired while you speak only one (English, French or Dutch). But even for those talented people learning another language would be a good idea, perhaps not for the economic value, but for the social value. I am referring to what merquiades described in his last post..


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

In Ireland speaking foreign languages is of huge economic benefit given that the country has now become a central hub for multinational companies: Google, Facebook, Dell and Intel (amongst others) all have headquarters in Ireland dealing with overseas markets. PayPal has just announced 150 new jobs in Dublin and speaking a foreign language is, according to them, a "massive plus".

Lamentably, given the fact that most Irish people can't speak any foreign languages (never mind our own national language, Irish), most of these jobs go to foreigners by necessity. The government is trying to change things somewhat but it's deeply embedded, I think, in the Irish psyche that all one needs to do is speak English to get ahead.

They're dead wrong of course.


----------



## Tagarela

Hi,

As I see it, in Brazil, knowing English is certainly an advantage. You're really broaden your professional chances. Learning a second foreign language perhaps isn't that much. Spanish, French and German may be required for some special duties in some companies, but probably, together, you'll need some other qualities. 

Anyway, I think that there is another advatange of learning a new language: the acess to more information. Perhaps you can read some texts or get in contact with people in a way it wouldn't be possible knowing only your language.


----------



## uchi.m

No, you guys are NOT serious!

English is NOT only a plus. It IS the thin line splitting the outer world from the corporate world.

They don't come up to you and kindly say, like: well, now let's see if you have a little, basic knowledge of English.

The potential employer suddenly calls you up in the middle of the night from their branch in Australia and goes like this, in the strongest Oz accent, ever: 

Employer:  - Hello, this is xyz from zyx company.
Zombie candidate:  - Alô? Uh..., I mean... hello?
Employer:  - Following up on our last talk, I would like to know what you think are your weaknesses and strengths?
Zombie candidate:   - ???​
Seriously, the more languages you get to learn, the better your chances will be. One day it could be the branch from Shenzhen... and then


----------



## WyomingSue

I have heard of nursing jobs that pay more for bilingual people, and one of my former students is an army medic and is making several hundred dollars more per month for speaking Spanish.  
But even better:  http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/02/21/learning-second-language-protects-alzheimers/ ... some researchers suggest that speaking a second language delays the onset of Alzheimer's disease.  So just think of the economic benefit of spending less money on healthcare!


----------



## uchi.m

englishman said:


> You may well know such people (though I doubt many janitors get a bonus for their language skills)


Boo! Wrong.


englishman said:


> but can you put a figure to the *excess* money they make ?


At least a twofold surplus.


englishman said:


> That is the question I'm asking. The question isn't whether or not people can use their ability with languages to make cash; it is whether or not, taking any opportunity cost into account, it is *worthwhile* to invest time in learning a language, from the economic POV.


Ask the American Army who, during the WW2, employed several native speakers of Navajo to "crypt" their top secret messages. There was no Navajo speakers in za lands of za camrrrades.


englishman said:


> The answer may well depend upon which country you're sitting in. For someone in the UK, my feeling is that, statistically, you are unlikely to gain significant benefit from the ability to use a foreign language, aside from those roles where it is a requirement of the job (such as for translators, bilingual executives and janitors). From some of the responses I've read, the situation may well be different in other parts of the world.


Move yourself right away to other places of the planet where there's an urge of English teachers (read: everywhere else) and go make some cash, since that's what you seem to want, without any effort on learning any languages other than yours. Or else you will always be in an economic disadvantage comparing to foreigners, who struggle to barely get to know English AND speak their mother tongue naturally. 

I can speak two languages: English and Portuguese. Okay, one and a half. You can only one. 

And I'm most probably paid half of you are in my country to get the very same thing done. 

E-P-I-C W-I-N


----------



## englishman

uchi.m said:


> Boo! Wrong.
> 
> At least a twofold surplus.
> 
> Ask the American Army who, during the WW2, employed several native speakers of Navajo to "crypt" their top secret messages. There was no Navajo speakers in za lands of za camrrrades.
> 
> Move yourself right away to other places of the planet where there's an urge of English teachers (read: everywhere else) and go make some cash, since that's what you seem to want, without any effort on learning any languages other than yours. Or else you will always be in an economic disadvantage comparing to foreigners, who struggle to barely get to know English AND speak their mother tongue naturally.
> 
> I can speak two languages: English and Portuguese. Okay, one and a half. You can only one.
> 
> And I'm most probably paid half of you are in my country to get the very same thing done.
> 
> E-P-I-C W-I-N



Yikes, I'd completely forgotten about this thread - still going strong after almost 5 years, and still attracting amusing, if ill informed, rants, I see. I feel that I deserve some kind of WR prize. Anyway ..

I think that with 5 more years of wisdom and accrued knowledge, some gleaned from this thread, that I'd summarise the gross position as follows:

1) Native English speaker living in anglophone country:
economic value of a foreign language: minimal, in general

2) Native English speaker living in non-anglophone country:
economic value of a foreign language: varies greatly, but can be mimimal (I personally am aware of many English ex-pats earning good money in foreign climes, with very limited language skilss)

3) Non-English speaker any where in world:
economic value of English: huge, in general
economic value of any-language-but-English: varies greatly

re: point 1) above: I've heard from more than one source that, in London, as one example, there are now so many native speakers of most of the European languages (who also speak good English) that British language graduates bring little to the table, as viewed by recruiters in many large companies. (Any British language grads out there who can comment on this, one way or the other ?)

In summary: there is a huge asymmetry between English speakers adding a foreign language to their repertoire, and non-English speakers adding English to their repertoire.

I'll be back in 5 years to follow up again


----------



## uchi.m

englishman said:


> I'll be back in 5 years to follow up again


And probably your arguments won't display a wee change. Brilliant.


----------



## englishman

uchi.m said:


> And probably your arguments won't display a wee change. Brilliant.


I'm not making arguments; I'm providing some opinions and observations. Any argument about the topic would require some decent statistically verifiable data, and I'm not aware of any. If you know of some, please tell us about it.


----------



## uchi.m

Look at this:


englishman said:


> Yikes, I'd completely forgotten about this thread - still going strong after almost 5 years, and still attracting amusing,* if ill informed*, rants, I see.


Now, this:


englishman said:


> I'm not making arguments; I'm providing some opinions and observations. Any argument about the topic would require some decent statistically verifiable data, and I'm not aware of any. If you know of some, please tell us about it.


What exactly is *ill* doing over there? Does that stand for the point of view of a British guy or the point of view of the rest of the world?


----------



## JamesM

englishman said:


> Yikes, I'd completely forgotten about this thread - still going strong after almost 5 years, and still attracting amusing, if ill informed, rants, I see. I feel that I deserve some kind of WR prize. Anyway ..
> 
> I think that with 5 more years of wisdom and accrued knowledge, some gleaned from this thread, that I'd summarise the gross position as follows:
> 
> 1) Native English speaker living in anglophone country:
> economic value of a foreign language: minimal, in general
> 
> 2) Native English speaker living in non-anglophone country:
> economic value of a foreign language: varies greatly, but can be mimimal (I personally am aware of many English ex-pats earning good money in foreign climes, with very limited language skilss)
> 
> 3) Non-English speaker any where in world:
> economic value of English: huge, in general
> economic value of any-language-but-English: varies greatly
> 
> re: point 1) above: I've heard from more than one source that, in London, as one example, there are now so many native speakers of most of the European languages (who also speak good English) that British language graduates bring little to the table, as viewed by recruiters in many large companies. (Any British language grads out there who can comment on this, one way or the other ?)
> 
> In summary: there is a huge asymmetry between English speakers adding a foreign language to their repertoire, and non-English speakers adding English to their repertoire.



I think this is a fair assessment of the state of things, overall. 

There are some exceptions.  I have a friend who is bilingual English/Spanish and is an executive trainer. She gets paid extra for assignments.  She is also the only bilingual trainer at one company she contracts for, so she gets all the Latin America assignments for Spanish-speaking countries.  In other words, for that group she has the corner on the market in Latin America.  That's a big economic advantage.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

JamesM said:


> I think this is a fair assessment of the state of things, overall.
> 
> There are some exceptions.  I have a friend who is bilingual English/Spanish and is an executive trainer. She gets paid extra for assignments.  She is also the only bilingual trainer at one company she contracts for, so she gets all the Latin America assignments for Spanish-speaking countries.  In other words, for that group she has the corner on the market in Latin America.  That's a big economic advantage.



The same holds true for Montreal, where being properly bilingual in English and French is actually rarer than one might think, but a massive advantage business-wise.


----------



## henrylee100

Englishman said:


> 3) Non-English speaker any where in world:
> economic value of English: huge, in general
> economic value of any-language-but-English: varies greatly


Actually the economic value of English for a non-native speaker of English also depends greatly on where they live. Thus in Russia, while employers are increasingly including English as desirable skill for potential candidates, 9 times out of 10 (or even 99 out 100) you won't ever have to use it once you get the job. Naturally no extra pay is offered to candidates that claim knowledge of English on their resumes. And having figured this out a lot of people simply claim fluency in English even when they can barely speak it, because they know that they won't be tested at the interview (the interviewer will probably not be able to speak it either) and that they won't really need it in their job. 
In general I think that knowledge of foreign languages is like fitness; in most cases there is no immediate tangible economic benefit to it, however imho learning a new language increases the 'plasticity' of your brain and makes you more capable to adjust to changing environments, generally better at learning new stuff, you know, an old dog that can speak several languages can learn new tricks and that can translate into more specific economic benefits down the road.


----------



## englishman

Well, here's a piece of semi-anecdotal evidence, apparently in my somewhat sceptical favour:

"But is learning moderately good Chinese worth the opportunity cost?  After all, in three or four years a British graduate could get most of  the way to qualifying as a lawyer, for example. *According to the  Association of Graduate Recruiters, those who hire British graduates  attach little importance to language skills in general. *So to justify  the extra effort needed, the demand for fluency in Mandarin would have  to be way above demand for, say, French."

My bold. 

Taken from the Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/10180807?story_id=10180807


----------



## uchi.m

henrylee100 said:


> In general I think that knowledge of foreign languages is like fitness; in most cases there is no immediate tangible economic benefit to it, however imho learning a new language increases the 'plasticity' of your brain and makes you more capable to adjust to changing environments, generally better at learning new stuff, you know, an old dog that can speak several languages can learn new tricks and that can translate into more specific economic benefits down the road.


I would rather think that non-specific knowledge is not very welcomed in the real world. That's why people are asked to specialize themselves. So, the fact your brain is prepared to do extra tricks is not an advantage per se; it's rather a loss in that you cannot focus your carrier, or make long-term plans.


----------



## henrylee100

uchi.m said:


> I would rather think that non-specific knowledge is not very welcomed in the real world. That's why people are asked to specialize themselves. So, the fact your brain is prepared to do extra tricks is not an advantage per se; it's rather a loss in that you cannot focus your carrier, or make long-term plans.


I disagree, imho specialization is pretty much a thing of the past, things are changing too fast these days, before you have time to specialize in any one field and become an expert in it the field in question becomes obsolete, we're turning into a civilization of amateurs and under these conditions the ability to change and adapt and to learn just enough to get by very fast trumps expertise.


----------



## Istriano

I don't agree. American education system is all about specialization. And that's why they have the best universities, with the best students.
Even in Europe, if you want a nice salary, you have to be a specialist, there are no ads for ''a person who can say twenty phrases in 1000 languages'',
but there are ads for ''M.D, specialist in abdominal radiology'', or ''psychotherapist specialized in adolescent psychoanalysis'', or ''event photographer'' or ''wildlife photographer'' or ''linguist specialized in Iberian Romance languages with experience in medieval corpus linguistics''.

Even ''family medicine'' is now a specialist field of medicine. No M.D. can work in Northern America, European Union, US, Australia or NZ without residency/specialization of 4-8 years.

If you want to become an English teacher, according to the Bologna process, you have to take 3 years of general English studies plus 2 years of pedagogy/teaching of English.
Those who want to become translators will have to take 2 years of translation studies instead. If you want to become a simultaneous interpreter, there are 2 years more of studying and practical exercises.

So, an English professor (for teaching), an English professor (for literature translating) and an English professor (simultaneous interpreter) are all different specializations.
Could a non-native professor of English who teaches English in a high school be a certified simultaneous interpreter? Yes, but after s/he completes those 4 years of translation and interpreter training, like all those interpreters who have done so. There should be no automatic ''jumping the line''. You want a re-qualification? Well, then go back to school.  Standards are high, and people should respect them, so they can stay high.


----------



## henrylee100

Istriano, I think we're talking about slightly different things.
Actually from what I've heard about American medical schools, for instance, the reason they spend so much time studying is because they give them a very broad background education. Eventually they do specialize in one sub-field or another but their specialties are not nearly as narrow as they are in Russia, where specialization starts early on with the result that an abdominal radiologist will often have no clue when it comes to administering first aid.  

Things are a bit different in Russia with regard to English teaching/translating/interpreting. Here we don't have the Bologna process and when someone wants to become a teacher/translator they simply get a teaching/translation job. I actually discussed the issue of certifications on another thread recently. Imho certifications are pretty pointless from the point of view of the customer, because if I, as a customer, hire an internationally certified translator and the quality of their work proves to be so poor that I end up losing money as a result, to the best of my knowledge, the certifying organization will be under no obligation to compensate me for my losses. And if that really is the case, then what's the point to paying more for a certified translator? (or whatever certified specialist that may be) I mean if there are no real guarantees. 

At the end of the day as a customer/employer you just need somebody who will get the job done. I personally would have no problem with hiring somebody with the 'wrong specialization' as long as they have a good track record of getting done the kind of job I need them to do for me. So if a non-native professor of English who teaches English in high school can produce translations that are as good as those done by a certified translator I will hire them  in a heart beat, especially if they charge less than a 'certified translator'

The truth is that these days qualifications/certifications and even higher education are fast losing value because nine times out of ten these things are rather poor predictors of how well the person will perform under real-life conditions. Given the choice between a certified specialist with lots of diplomas etc but with no real track record or experience and someone with a lot of experience in several related fields and a good track record of getting the job done, I personally would always go for the latter person (naturally between someone with no experience and no certifications/education and someone with no experience but with a bunch of certifications/a good education in a related field I would naturally choose the inexperienced but educated person)


----------



## zangetsu8888

Although this thread has not been active for a year, I feel that it will be of value to add a comment.

This is simply my opinion so if anyone has a different opinion then I respect that and am interested in hearing it but I just want to make it clear that it's simply my own opinion.

I generally agree that in today's world the importance of non-English foreign languages is decreasing. In relative terms, in the second half of the 19th century this was not the case to take one example. During my studies of psychology, I was interested in learning that when one individual who later won the Nobel Prize in 1905, Cajal, had originally published his scientific work in Spanish (his native language); but, in order to expose his work to a wider scientific community he had to get it translated to German and French as well. For the remainder of his successful career he had his work published in German, French and Spanish - surprisingly not in English until much later in his career. 

What does this show us? It shows that in the 19th century, when there was no dominant language, the knowledge of several important language could have been very economically advantageous since so much translating was necessary. Even science, which now is almost exclusively dominated by English, needed translations to different language. Now, however, this is no longer the case. *Most fields such as science, law, medicine, technology, engineering and so forth all communicate in English = This means that less translating and multilinguism is needed = as a result, learning a non-English foreign language for economical purposes is akin to learning an "outdated" skill for economical purposes such as how to use a type writer, how to do mental maths or how to memorise large amounts of information through mnemonics. 

*I do want to emphasise that I'm talking in general terms, specific situations like in the south of the US and Belgium the situation is different, but is this not the exception to the rule?

Therefore, if one learns languages for economical purposes, in my personal opinion in most cases that person can invest that time in improving their ability to do their job better. For example, if I pay a lawyer, a medical doctor, an architect or a mechanic, I will personally not be interested in how many languages they speak, or other skills that are not directly relevant to this profession such as whether they can knit, do yoga, do gymnastics, do salsa dancing and so forth. I will be interested in how well they do their job and nothing more. 

Ideally for me, I would prefer a situation similar to that in the 1800s where there was not one dominant language and international business might be conducted in German, French, English, Spanish and so forth. This would make it important to have a person learn a foreign language. Presently though, and more so in the future, multilinguism is becoming less relevant economically. 

I love languages and agree that they are a great form of personal development, of prestige, they are good for dating, and are an impressive socially. This is why I am learning a foreign language. However, I believe that to say that I will get paid more if I spend 4 years learning fluent Chinese, than if I spend 4 years doing a doing medical school, is not accurate.

Finally, my friend recently said that in high school she did no languages and focused on sciences. I said "but languages are important, how could you not learn a foreign language" and she replied "what will I do with a foreign language?". She made a good point because then I was talking to another friend of mine and she was studying French at university, and I said why did you do it, and she replied that she was simply good at it (not a very good reason). Then I said so what will you do with it, and she told me she wants to work in management. I asked her if she will work for a French company then, and she said that would be nice but she wasn't sure. So she is a nice person and at the same time she did not seem to make a good decision because she went to university to study a language, however, she will not use this language in her work possibly and would have benefited in studying management at university straight away rather than learning French.

As I've said strictly speaking in terms of economics, learning languages seems to almost be the same as learning ancient languages. From perspectives of personal growth, socialising and prestige, on the other hand, language are useful.

I think this has been a sobering post as it disambiguates the usefulness of language, that is where language is useful (personal growth and socialising) and is not (economics).

PS. I want to make it clear that I love languages and very much enjoy learning languages for personal growth and think it's a great way to communicate with others in their own language and it allows you to see the world in new eyes when you learn a new language. For me this is a great pleasure and I enjoy this. Everyone has forms of leisure and this is one form of my leisure.


----------



## LilianaB

If you love languages, this is great, and you want to do something related to them. If someone wants to learn a language just for economic reasons, I think it is almost like having a wish to play piano for purely economic reasons.

On the other hand, linguistic professions, especially in interpreting, legal and technical translation are well paid for. Linguistic research is more for your own pleasure. I have never met a good interpreter or translator who did it just for the money, and especially who planned to work in one of those professions for economic reasons.


----------



## henrylee100

Financial consultants get paid a lot more than translators and interpreters so I would imagine that most people who go into translation and linguistics mainly do it because they enjoy working with languages. 
The only language worth learning for 'economic' purposes these days is English.
And with regards to zangetsu8888's post above, I personally prefer the linguistic situation we have in the world today to that which existed in the 1800's - today basically people just learn English and they can communicate with each other, imho it makes things easier. You can still learn other languages if you feel like it and there's still situations where there is a lot of trade between two countries where knowledge of languages other than English can come in handy.


----------



## e2-e4 X

Hi!

I would like to broaden the question in one aspect ("good life" instead of only "economical value") and to narrow it in two other aspects ("English" instead of any language, "prerequisite" instead of just being useful).

*Is English a prerequisite for a "good life" in your country?*

By "good life" I mean gaining interesting and well-paid jobs, making friends and doing conversation, having access to culture (movies, literature), etc.

By "prerequisite" I mean something absolutely or almost absolutely necessary; for example, I understand that the English-world culture is very rich and also ancient enough, as well as Spanish, Chinese, or Italian ones, and learning English gives access to its culture, which is great, but having access to it might be not strictly necessary for a person, who would be able to have access to some other culture, preferably to his or her native one.

=============

My answer for Russia is "no". Almost all conversation in Russia is done in Russian (people, whose national language is different, like Tatar, have to learn Russian in order to communicate with people of other nationalities, for example with Russians, and I think that all of them or almost all of them learn Russian in childhood as their mother tongue, alongside of their national language, spoken only among themselves); all job is done in Russian, and all job communication goes in Russian, too (even if the company works with foreigners, occasionally or systematically, it hires translators, and the rest of the company may continue using Russian only); you compose every single paper or document in Russian and do not translate it in other languages; there are great movies and books of literature, that were made natively in Russian (mainly during the XIX and the XX centuries), and many foreign books and movies were translated from other languages and are accessible, too (indeed, there may be rather a problem to buy some book in English in Russia — they sell books in foreign languages mainly for those whose objective is to learn the language, not to read the book, and so the choice is limited). All TV is in Russian (at least, the public channels), all movies on TV are dubbed, and all foreign quotes in books, even the simplest ones, are translated in footnotes (sometimes it may be even bothering, when you read something as simple as "au revoir", see a sign of a footnote, automatically follow it and read "до свидания", "до встречи", or whatever fits the context the best  ).

So, having learned English or some other foreign language does open you certain doors, indeed, but it's not a prerequisite — I think, that's why languages are learned badly in Russia. For the social purposes, it's just a kind of knowledge, like, for example, a knowledge of medicine or a knowledge of music — you could as well use it for fun or for job, or you could manage without it just as well — a person is likely either not to say a single word in English for much or for all of his or her life (just like I am, all my English was writing on e-forums and reading Internet, that is, communication of an indirect kind with foreign people in a virtual world  ), or to speak English only during his or her foreign language classes (like most of Russian people do), and then forget it. Also, having learned some foreign language (usually English) lets you boast how clever you are (some people in English-speaking countries might want to learn Latin for the same purpose  ).

I had hints, that in some European countries it's different, and that one could even have to translate his university work into English, for example, or to watch television in English. So, I would like to ask you, is that true for your country? Is knowledge of English a prerequisite for "good living"?

======================

Just by the way, to answer to the current discussion — as far as I know, the dominating European language and the lingua franca of Europe in the XIX century was French, with some importance of German in the technical and in the philosophical field. So, the situation was not quite 'different' from the situation of today, you still had a lingua franca to use.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Hakro said:


> I don't know about the average but no one can live with 25 000 euro a year!



That's an utterly absurd proposition. Anyone can live on 25,000 euros per year if they tailor their lifestyle to their income. Most graduates get less.


----------



## henrylee100

e2-e4 X said:


> Hi!


I think knowledge of English is only a prerequisite for a good life in English speaking countries. In most other places you can get by without it just fine.


----------



## Istriano

It depends on your profession. Even in France and Germany, medical doctors are required to publish articles in English, and read medical literature in English since 90% of international medical literature and science publishing is in English. Also, when it comes to medical congresses, doctors from all around the world discuss/debate in English. So, English is definitely the language of medicine and music. _Serebro _only got noticed outside Russia when they started singing in English.


----------



## LilianaB

Hi. I agree that English is the contemporary unofficial lingua franca, if there is anything like getting official for linguas francas (what is the plural of lingua franca, by the way) There is usually one lingua franca at a time, so it is hardly ever used in the plural, but there have been a few within history. I believe it is absolutely necessary to know English in many fields to progress, especially in such disciplines as science, economy, medicine, of course, being a part of science. I don't agree however that it is necessary to know English to create great music. Many singers from non-English speaking countries sing much better in their native languages. There are some exceptions, but not that many, definiteley not in Russian music, some Scandinavian perhaps. Somehow music goes with the language -- I don't know how to explain it any better. As far as financial gains from learning any foreign language are concerned -- I think they are minor, which does not undermine the importance of learning languages, but only when one feels like it.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Well, ABBA got popular when they  started singing in English, so even in popular music nowadays it's nearly impossible to become popular without singing in English.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, I had ABBA in mind and a few other Scandinavian groups, but Russian music sounds really better in Russian, in my opinion. In fact I prefer music of any group or singer in their ethnic language. Maybe they can make more money, if they sing in English -- I don't know. Can you imagine Edith Piaff in English? Even Julio Iglesias sounds better in Spanish. This is just my taste -- I don't want to convert anyone to my ideas.


----------



## e2-e4 X

Istriano said:


> It depends on your profession. Even in France and Germany, medical doctors are required to publish articles in English


Yes, that was what I was asking of, Istriano, thank you.  I could never think there are non-English-speaking countries where one has to publish his or her work in English. 

Are some parts of education done in English as well? What about movies? How common are translation footnotes in novel books?

I'm not sure what you understand by "the language of music"; one is certainly more likely to make good songs in his or her native language, and even if the world as a whole does not become aware of his or her creation, the recognition of his work in his own country counts no less (besides, I must admit, I have never heard of "Serebro", but songs performed by Edith Piaf, Dalida, Joe Dassin, Salvatore Adamo ("Tombe la neige"), Toto Cutugno, Adriano Celentano, "Ricchi e Poveri" and others gained a great popularity in Russia, as well as English and American music and compositions of native artists). In fact, generally, in my opinion, songs written by the writer in h?? native language, enlived by music composed by the composer belonging to the same culture, and performed by the singer in h?? native language, too, somehow "value" more (which was not the case for ABBA, of course  , and I remember how much I was surprised when I learned that this is a _Swedish_ group, basically I could not believe).


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, e2-e4 X, ABBA has some very nice songs in Swedish as well, and so do many other Scandinavian groups -- they are just less known in the wide world, but I think even in this case I prefer them in their native language, although some are good in English too. As for Russian, I think Russian music sounds really much better in Russian. There was one Russian singer who participated in the Eurovision, like two years ago, Alex I think, and had he sung even the simplest song in Russian that most people could sing, he might have even won the first prize, but singing in English he got one of the last places, which is quite unusual for Russian singers. I don't think language learning has that much to do with good music -- it may be somehow important for the show business industry -- but this guarantees usually a short lived glare of fame.


----------



## 涼宮

merquiades said:


> Every language has its worth in its context.  *The good thing about English is you can get a hotel, a hot meal and find your way in any country*, as far as having an in-depth conversation with citizens of these countries or doing long term business you have to learn or at least be open to the native language. Coming to France... probably China, Spain, Russia or many other countries, and refusing to respect the local language will make you a lot of enemies... and to swing back to the topic of this thread... will not be economically beneficial.  Ideally we should learn or try to learn many languages... German, Mandarin, Portuguese included



Not really.  As you probably know the knowledge of English is very low in Latin America. English would be useful if you were to hire those touristic guides or be in certain places, but most of the times Spanish is the only language you can get by.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

涼宮 said:


> As you probably know the knowledge of English is very low in Latin America.



A lot of Latin America has conditions akin to that of the Third World, however, hence that is not overly surprising.
I would expect to be able to go to the likes of Santiago, Buenos Aires, Bogota, etc. and be able to get a hotel, a meal, or see the sights in English, though.


----------



## 涼宮

Well, All Latin American countries are ranked 3rd world countries, from Mexico to Argentina. So, as 3rd world countries, it's only to be expected that most people don't speak English . But, hey, on the bright side, since most don't know English, it's a good excuse to learn Spanish, you have 19 countries to choose from.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

涼宮 said:


> Well, All Latin American countries are ranked 3rd world countries, from Mexico to Argentina. So, as 3rd world countries, it's only to be expected that most people don't speak English . But, hey, on the bright side, since most don't know English, it's a good excuse to learn Spanish, you have 19 countries to choose from.



I'd certainly rank somewhere like Honduras or Guatemala as third world countries.
I wouldn't place Chile or Argentina in the same category though.


----------



## curly

englishman said:


> Inspired by a couple of postings I've read recently, I'd like to ask this:
> 
> With the exception of those for whom it's a necessity (e.g. translators), does the learning of a language bring a nett economic benefit to the individual ?
> 
> My impressions (based on my experience in the UK) are:
> 
> 1. Few employers will pay a premium for candidates with language experience.
> 2. Roles requiring significant language expertise (e.g. multilingual secretarial work, technical translation) are generally not well payed.
> 3. There is an opportunity cost of several years required for someone to acquire a "useful" level of language ability, in general.
> 4. Despite there being the usual complaints of "skills shortages" for linguists, I see few jobs advertised in the UK where language skills are vital.
> 
> From this I conclude that, considering only the economic benefit, the time one spends in learning a language could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Anyone want to shoot me down in tatters ?



The first part of your question i.e. 'with the exception of those for whom it's a necessity' is your answer. There is very little benefit to learning skill that is not related to your job, barring circumstances which can apply to linguistics as well as any other. 

For example, language is essentially my job, I teach and I translate. But I have a passion for mathematics, I could easily become an accountant or some such thing, but so far it has never proved useful in my career. Yet very obviously, mathematics is a great skill to have, and essential to many a job, just not to mine.


----------



## Nipnip

I had this same discussion with an American aquaintance, he is convinced that in poorer countries one has to learn English to make a decen income, he is very familiar with Brazil and Brazilians, his argument was that all upper class Brazilians spoke English. Statistically, only a small fraction of Brazil's population speaks English. The elite who do speak English and who manage Brazil's money, do so because it has been customary in the upper classes of any country to speak a foreign language, usually French, but also English as of the second half of the last century.  In regards of public signage in Latin America, I would expect not to see it. Since tourism became more affordable, we have waves of solo travallers in Mexico who have a hard time in the country, they've gone as far as Thailand or Laos and managed perfectly well with English. Only to discover that south of the border, in one of the world's biggest cities people don't really care for English and they will not be understood, a hard way to find out the Mexico is not Cancun or Puerto Vallarta.  In Colombia, on the other hand, I see a greater openness to change and adoption of things English/Anglo, but still nothing in comparison with other non-English speaking countries in Europe or elsewhere.


----------



## henrylee100

Learning a language can have economic value if you decide to make language your business.
This doesn't really depend on which country you're in. 
Suppose you decide to open a language school. There's obviously economic value to being able to teach people some language other than your own. 
Or if you decide to become a professional translator. You probably won't get rich that way, not many translators do, but it can put food on your table. 
They say there's money in translating and dubbing movies. American movies usually tend to be popular and watched around the world and so they have to be translated into local languages. You won't make a lot of money if you just work as a lowly translation drudgeoun for a big translation/dubbing firm but if you happen to be at the helm of such a firm, I'm fairly sure you can make a nice living. 

So at the end of the day, the economic value of learning a foreign language is more or less the same as the economic value of learning any skill. Provided the stars are aligned the right way and you're really good at it and know what you're doing - it can be a lot. On the other hand, like in most other fields, mediocrity and drudgery pay little. 

You know, it's like being a stock trader or a financial analyst- there's this mystic and a lot of people tend to think that if anyone who goes into finance or stock trading instantly becomes a millionaire - truth is they don't. The people who are in the right place and at the right time and who know what they're doing can make lots of money from time to time, but the vast majority just survive like everybody else. 

With languages - there's always demand for translation and for language courses. If you can find your niche in either of those fields and manage to take full advantage of it, you'll be golden. But it takes a lot of hard work as well at least some amount of luck. No promises.


----------



## LilianaB

I agree with many things you said Henry, however, as to using languages for professional purposes in such fields as translation and interpreting, it takes more talent and hard work than luck.  (years of work)


----------



## Sepia

English is an important language to know. But it is not always the language that everybody else learns that makes you successful in your job. What got me started in Hamburg (Germany) and also helped me along the way over the past 15 years was an expert knowledge in Danish and a pretty good knowledge in Swedish.

Those are two languages that are rarely asked for, but when it happens even less qualified applicants show up.


----------



## Beninjam

Well this is an old thread but I can't resist adding my two bits... 
What OP says about the UK environment certainly rings true to me but in Belgium, where I live, speaking the other major national language is fairly essential if you hope to rise through the organization. 
I attended a reunion for graduates of the Translation College I attended in the 60s. 
Many of the people there had had international careers in business. 
The common factor was that they all had been able to trade on their exceptional competence in one or other language (German, French, English, Russian) into foreign appointments and managerial responsibilities. 
Note the word exceptional. You must be really competent in the other language to make a mark. 
In passing I might also remark on an article in last week's Time magazine, which claims that the ability to speak more than one language helps acquire various useful skills.


----------

