Very simple: it is so much more complex. Over a lifetime, one cannot anticipate all changes of the economy. What one can do is learn to learn, and train to adapt. Before the age of computer, typist was a great job, qualified, recognised, with the added skill of steno one could be indispensable in an organisation. Similarly before the fabric waving machines, the art of making fabric with one's hands was very valuable.

Whatever the learning and training track selected by a person: university or apprenticeship training, it is very clear that those successful on the job in a sustainable way are those who are curious, serious, keen to learn, not afraid of asking when they do not know. This requires the capacity to learn from available knowledge sources, and also from people who know and have experience.

What also matters for our time is to be able to work in at least two ways: do something alone competently, and also be able to work as a team member. Opportunities will sometimes be working alone: you do the job, and people know you can, so they ask you to do the job without paying for a complete environment where other people would help you. Often though, opportunities are to work in a team, to interface and cooperate with other people, and this requires human communication and empathy skills.

This leads to yet another dimension: knowledge of a subject and ability to learn during the career, and human cooperation and communication skills are both equally critical for the long-term survival in a work environment, even when difficult times have to be faced.

Let me give you an example: inventing (in engineering).

You may think that new systems are invented by younger people, whereas people stagnate after a certain age. Wrong. Wrong, but one has to keep running, training, as for sports: every morning do something creative, then you stay creative, otherwise you become less and less able, and more and more bored

:)

Thank you very much, dear colleague, for your detailed and thought-worthy reflection. I can this comprehend in all parts. But reality takes another way often, and such experience influence also our reflection. Germany is a relatively wealthy country, but there are some unsolved problems concerning live-long learning for the own professional carrier, to find a sufficient employment, to experience the bankruptcy of the company, the own dismissal, suddenly belonging to the long-time unemployed people, going from retraining to retraining, eventually without success. The problem is not my own, but concerns the generation of my children and will meet the generation of grandchildren. I think, such fates of a whole generation we find in all modern western countries, Scandinavia perhaps not, as an exception. Modern sociology has described this issue as contingency: Things can happen or not happen. But this doesn't be an argument against life-long learning as principle, just the reverse. Thank you for your comment.

In my opinion ,this is according his capability and ability may he can not work or he can not get an opportunity, therefore perhaps in my country many of my friends who has less education level than me who works instead of learning and educated in university,they are reaches than me hundred times i'm a doctorate degree .

To Mohammad Mousa Alalaya:

Surely, you are right! But the claim to improve education is not touched by the fact that reality is far away from such demand. I think, it is a trait of elites that they are capable to renounce opportunities of quick rewards regarding income; they try under worse conditions to reach a higher level of education - and a second trait is: They feel more to be responsible for the public good than other people. Such attitude deservers high respect! And you belong to those who deserve such respect, in my view. Best wishes, Hein Retter