A CNN Viewer Has Questions for Mike Rowe(profoundlydisconnected.com)
profoundlydisconnected.com
A CNN Viewer Has Questions for Mike Rowe
http://profoundlydisconnected.com/cnn-viewer-has-questions/
29 comments
I looked into this a bit for the University of California system, and that did indeed seem to be the issue in that case. Tuition has gone up, but less than state funding has gone down. In other words, the university is getting cheaper to operate on a per-student basis, but nonetheless getting more expensive to attend, because of a large shift in who pays (from taxpayers to students). The historical public funding levels were around $25k-$30k per student, in present-day dollars, while today the state kicks in a bit under $13k per student: http://www.kmjn.org/misc/uc_funding.txt
It's not entirely due to the increase in student population, either, although that's part of it. If you look at just the total funding column, it's gone down since the '80s, despite the state's increasing population and GDP. Someone should double-check my numbers, but last time I looked into this I remember a back-of-the-envelope calculation that California used to put ~0.3% of state GDP into the UC system, and now puts in only about 0.1%.
It's not entirely due to the increase in student population, either, although that's part of it. If you look at just the total funding column, it's gone down since the '80s, despite the state's increasing population and GDP. Someone should double-check my numbers, but last time I looked into this I remember a back-of-the-envelope calculation that California used to put ~0.3% of state GDP into the UC system, and now puts in only about 0.1%.
You can look at british uni's for another data point, though. It all has to do with demand, not the cost base. Uni's were free, but seeing how much the 'stupid americans' were paying (thanks to leverage), the UK started to reduce grants to 'tap into the damand', and they now purposefully issue debt to students as a from of highly targeted TAX.
The demand comes from the 'social marker' heuristic that a university degree conveys (ie, social proof) for employment and personal networking. Until there is a competing "commodity" whith this aspect of social utility, a degree with have economic value proportional to GDP, in a way like housing stock. The main problem with broad based inflation of the costs of college is that there is only so much "beach front" real estate in the degree system. The top 10 schools are typically the ones that matter, for social signalling, and quite frankly nobody cares how much you paid to get the degree. A "free" degree from cambridge (UK) has a good value, just like a $$$ degree from MIT or Stanford. Heck, many will argue a <dropout> from a top 5 school has more going for them than a degree holder from a middle of the pack school.
The great thing about Berkeley is its one of the few state schools that has a powerful global reputation. And in that sense it remains good value for money (if you are a resident Californian). But the taxpayers and politicians seem to be playing a rather sophisticated game of stealth-taxation with the Higher Education system as a whole. It really doesn't matter the details until one unpacks how the system is really working. And what is driving supply and demand at a more 'meta' level.
Not to mention, barely anyone pays the "listed price" in the USA for any school.
The demand comes from the 'social marker' heuristic that a university degree conveys (ie, social proof) for employment and personal networking. Until there is a competing "commodity" whith this aspect of social utility, a degree with have economic value proportional to GDP, in a way like housing stock. The main problem with broad based inflation of the costs of college is that there is only so much "beach front" real estate in the degree system. The top 10 schools are typically the ones that matter, for social signalling, and quite frankly nobody cares how much you paid to get the degree. A "free" degree from cambridge (UK) has a good value, just like a $$$ degree from MIT or Stanford. Heck, many will argue a <dropout> from a top 5 school has more going for them than a degree holder from a middle of the pack school.
The great thing about Berkeley is its one of the few state schools that has a powerful global reputation. And in that sense it remains good value for money (if you are a resident Californian). But the taxpayers and politicians seem to be playing a rather sophisticated game of stealth-taxation with the Higher Education system as a whole. It really doesn't matter the details until one unpacks how the system is really working. And what is driving supply and demand at a more 'meta' level.
Not to mention, barely anyone pays the "listed price" in the USA for any school.
but seeing how much the 'stupid americans' were paying
What an amusing and inaccurate stereotype. Brits who repeat it have apparently never been to the further reaches of England. For example, Birmingham or Liverpool... See how stereotyping isn't helpful?
What an amusing and inaccurate stereotype. Brits who repeat it have apparently never been to the further reaches of England. For example, Birmingham or Liverpool... See how stereotyping isn't helpful?
Easy there...Its not in 'inverted commas' for nothing. After all, the point is that the Brits copied the US model because the 'thought they were onto something'. Also, It may help to note that the UK <had> previously a policy of charging US students 3x cost prior to the increase in fees. Which seemed like a deal only a crazy person would take.[1] But...The US/other foreign students were still paying 1/2 price vs what the US-based schools cost, hence they viewed the 3x cost as a bargain. So, the Brits might pay $5K, the US would pay $15K and the North American Uni's would charge $30K. Theat is, notwithsatnding, the US students were paying 10x in their home country for the same services. After the changes, the UK students may pay about $15-20K pa, closer to what they charged the non EU people before. And the others (non-locals) are paying double that, much closer native costs for them. And thus a no-arbitrage position.
[1] There is a long history of "fleecing" rich foreign kids at schools, where they are looked at as cash cows. This is both true in the US (where they pay 'retail' with no financial aid) and in places like the UK/EU where locals are heavily subsidized.
[1] There is a long history of "fleecing" rich foreign kids at schools, where they are looked at as cash cows. This is both true in the US (where they pay 'retail' with no financial aid) and in places like the UK/EU where locals are heavily subsidized.
Also, because the US has an increasingly unequal income distribution, that makes a college degree relatively more valuable. In addition to the social-status factor it certainly still seems to pay off despite the increased tuition (http://priceonomics.com/is-college-worth-it/).
My point is simply that maybe college costs so much more now because it's just worth it. It used to be that you could still do alright without a college degree, but a ton of manufacturing jobs have moved overseas and there's a ton of downward pressure on peoples' wages who don't have engineering and computer jobs.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is the reason why college is so expensive these days, but I think that it's a point which isn't brought up enough.
I think there's a tendency to say: "oh well not everyone can have these high-paying jobs", "college isn't right for everyone", etc. which Rowe also says. Maybe that's true, but we certainly seem to have a shortage of qualified people in this country. Seems to me to be a failure of the educational system and while it makes sense not to saddle yourself with tons of debt for a degree if that degree won't help you pay off the debt, I don't think encouraging people not to get a higher education is a good idea either. Now I'm just rambling - I just wanted to point out that that attitude is a sign that something is wrong.
My point is simply that maybe college costs so much more now because it's just worth it. It used to be that you could still do alright without a college degree, but a ton of manufacturing jobs have moved overseas and there's a ton of downward pressure on peoples' wages who don't have engineering and computer jobs.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is the reason why college is so expensive these days, but I think that it's a point which isn't brought up enough.
I think there's a tendency to say: "oh well not everyone can have these high-paying jobs", "college isn't right for everyone", etc. which Rowe also says. Maybe that's true, but we certainly seem to have a shortage of qualified people in this country. Seems to me to be a failure of the educational system and while it makes sense not to saddle yourself with tons of debt for a degree if that degree won't help you pay off the debt, I don't think encouraging people not to get a higher education is a good idea either. Now I'm just rambling - I just wanted to point out that that attitude is a sign that something is wrong.
His whole point at the end is that there are millions of well paying benefitted jobs that are available without a college education.
I'm not going to doubt that... I'm just saying there must be some underlying economic reason why that's true. Seems that things are in an equilibrium, but maybe not the optimal one (blasphemy, I know).
The reason is no longer true but it was true that corporations needed more educated workers to perform certain tasks and college graduates were relatively rare. Most of the college graduates in my parents' generation were gainfully employed consistently in my childhood. That is definitely not the case among my college educated peers today. Many are underemployed and in debt.
Some of the issue is that people are chasing the economic signals from an age past where the conditions were just different.
Some of the issue is that people are chasing the economic signals from an age past where the conditions were just different.
It's okay, so long as people behave rationally equilibrium will come ;).
Good news, everyone! Real people are predictably irrational!
He's also implying that whether one should go to college is determined by his parents' finances, not academic skill, quality of the schools they've been admitted to, etc.
While it's true that tuition is a larger source of revenue than it used to be, most of that increase can't be explained by falling subsidies.
According to this http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=68... total inflation-adjusted revenue per student went from $5,846 in 1991 to $11,016 in 2011.
According to this http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=68... total inflation-adjusted revenue per student went from $5,846 in 1991 to $11,016 in 2011.
I'm not sure the linked data is correct. The charts from the 2012 SHEEO report [1] shows revenue/student increasing from $10,869 in 1991 to $11,095 in 2012 (these are 2012 dollars).
Here is the page with links to the 2012 report and data: http://www.sheeo.org/node/631
[1] http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/All%20...
Here is the page with links to the 2012 report and data: http://www.sheeo.org/node/631
[1] http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/All%20...
I think you're right, something's wrong with my source.
I'm not sure the SHEEO number's usable "raw", as it uses its own ad-hoc inflation calculation (HECA) instead of CPI or GDP, but even correcting for that I can't reproduce the numbers in the NCHEMS site from its supposed source.
I'm not sure the SHEEO number's usable "raw", as it uses its own ad-hoc inflation calculation (HECA) instead of CPI or GDP, but even correcting for that I can't reproduce the numbers in the NCHEMS site from its supposed source.
That comparison becomes $9,644 in 1991 to $11,016 in 2011 when adjusting for inflation: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5846+1991+dollars+in+20...
How much does it actually cost to educate a student? A full load is about 12 or so hours a week in class (at least back when I went to community college). If a class has 40 students, and the instructor spends 2 hours outside of class for every 1 hour teaching (office hours, curriculum structure, grading), and makes 80K a year, that is 2K per student per year.
Now add in the facilities expenses (roof, walls, lights, hvac), and some labs need labs, how much should that cost? I still can't see that being more than another 2K, but I haven't run the numbers on that yet. Overall, it makes 20K a year seem outrageous.
Now add in the facilities expenses (roof, walls, lights, hvac), and some labs need labs, how much should that cost? I still can't see that being more than another 2K, but I haven't run the numbers on that yet. Overall, it makes 20K a year seem outrageous.
The short answer is: "Administrators"
I'm a nearly-finished Ph.D. candidate, and when people complain to me about how bloated and inefficient the government is, I think to myself "Wow, that sounds like a pretty good system."
A typical graduate teaching assistant at my university has about 10 lab sections per academic year. The lab fees--just the lab fees, not tuition--from just one section is enough to pay the TA's salary for the entire year. Even if you include the outrageously-inflated graduate tuition that a TA-ship pays, lab fees from just three lab sections cover the entire compensation package.
The tuition from just one big lecture section is enough to pay a tenured professor's salary for almost two entire years (and a tenured professor should be teaching 5-6 courses per year).
Some of the rest of the money goes to pay for the country-club campus, but most of it disappears into the black hole of bureaucracy.
And we haven't even started to talk about the scam of "overhead" that the university charges on federal research grants--30% straight off the top, except for very large purchases. Want to have a new electrical outlet installed in the lab? You have to use the university's maintenance department (and its inflated hourly rates--at least 3x what you'd pay a licensed/bonded union electrician) and pay overhead on top of that!
I'm a nearly-finished Ph.D. candidate, and when people complain to me about how bloated and inefficient the government is, I think to myself "Wow, that sounds like a pretty good system."
A typical graduate teaching assistant at my university has about 10 lab sections per academic year. The lab fees--just the lab fees, not tuition--from just one section is enough to pay the TA's salary for the entire year. Even if you include the outrageously-inflated graduate tuition that a TA-ship pays, lab fees from just three lab sections cover the entire compensation package.
The tuition from just one big lecture section is enough to pay a tenured professor's salary for almost two entire years (and a tenured professor should be teaching 5-6 courses per year).
Some of the rest of the money goes to pay for the country-club campus, but most of it disappears into the black hole of bureaucracy.
And we haven't even started to talk about the scam of "overhead" that the university charges on federal research grants--30% straight off the top, except for very large purchases. Want to have a new electrical outlet installed in the lab? You have to use the university's maintenance department (and its inflated hourly rates--at least 3x what you'd pay a licensed/bonded union electrician) and pay overhead on top of that!
There is a reason community colleges exist: they are the place where the sole focus is teaching students, and so they can keep prices low.
Of course, you get a somewhat worse education there, due to the fact that the people teaching are essentially similar to grade school teachers in motivation.
Additionally, another important thing to consider is that the degrees that are actually useful have to compete for professionals with industry to some extent if they want to not be left with the dregs. A professor is going to pull $150,000 a year or more in many places, because that is what they could earn elsewhere.
And yeah, then there is the administration, IT, upkeep, dorm housing, campus police, facilities, student medical coverage, and so on.
But if you really want to know... any public university will have public records. Go check. I know that my local university has only slightly increased student tuition rates, and had a massive influx of students seeking lower prices. The problem is that once the slight surge of money is distributed, they are still on the brink of fiscal collapse due to how much the state has cut funding (they lose money for every in-state student, and have to accept them anyways) and are leaking their top researchers left and right due to the incredibly low wages they pay, relatively speaking.
But seriously, go look for yourself.
Of course, you get a somewhat worse education there, due to the fact that the people teaching are essentially similar to grade school teachers in motivation.
Additionally, another important thing to consider is that the degrees that are actually useful have to compete for professionals with industry to some extent if they want to not be left with the dregs. A professor is going to pull $150,000 a year or more in many places, because that is what they could earn elsewhere.
And yeah, then there is the administration, IT, upkeep, dorm housing, campus police, facilities, student medical coverage, and so on.
But if you really want to know... any public university will have public records. Go check. I know that my local university has only slightly increased student tuition rates, and had a massive influx of students seeking lower prices. The problem is that once the slight surge of money is distributed, they are still on the brink of fiscal collapse due to how much the state has cut funding (they lose money for every in-state student, and have to accept them anyways) and are leaking their top researchers left and right due to the incredibly low wages they pay, relatively speaking.
But seriously, go look for yourself.
He's spot on.
We Americans focus so very very often on how we disagree rather than how we agree. If you look at both parties, they broadly agree on so many things. Instead we focus on unimportant social issues, shaving a couple percent off government spending, and so on.
The educational system we have now is largely a scam, it promises that if you spend tens of thousands (or more) dollars on a 4 year degree, you'd have a good job waiting on the other side, and its largely BS. We need vocational training, we need training for non white collar career options, and no one is really working on it. I make a salary of that of a skilled professional - with no formal education beyond high school - it's been a long fight to get here though, perhaps it could have been easier otherwise. The other problem with the current college education program is a lack of correlation between cost and outcome, it's something that needs to be looked into.
He also hits on a point - the government doesnt create jobs, so it doesnt matter what congress does, or what the president does, its the job of the government to create a stable environment (regulatory and otherwise) so the economy can go and create jobs. I believe our government is largely failing at this.
On to the skills gap - I disagree with him on one point, companies are largely unwilling to train - there are jobs for which I'm broadly qualified for, but can't get because I'm missing one specialized skill or another for. If companies were willing to train, they would be able to fill most of those unfilled jobs.
We Americans focus so very very often on how we disagree rather than how we agree. If you look at both parties, they broadly agree on so many things. Instead we focus on unimportant social issues, shaving a couple percent off government spending, and so on.
The educational system we have now is largely a scam, it promises that if you spend tens of thousands (or more) dollars on a 4 year degree, you'd have a good job waiting on the other side, and its largely BS. We need vocational training, we need training for non white collar career options, and no one is really working on it. I make a salary of that of a skilled professional - with no formal education beyond high school - it's been a long fight to get here though, perhaps it could have been easier otherwise. The other problem with the current college education program is a lack of correlation between cost and outcome, it's something that needs to be looked into.
He also hits on a point - the government doesnt create jobs, so it doesnt matter what congress does, or what the president does, its the job of the government to create a stable environment (regulatory and otherwise) so the economy can go and create jobs. I believe our government is largely failing at this.
On to the skills gap - I disagree with him on one point, companies are largely unwilling to train - there are jobs for which I'm broadly qualified for, but can't get because I'm missing one specialized skill or another for. If companies were willing to train, they would be able to fill most of those unfilled jobs.
I kind of choked on his message of tolerance. We says we should stop talking about how we disagree, then he goes on a tirade against all the lazy, spoiled, stupid people. "We shouldn't disagree on party, but, if you don't agree with me and the GOP, you're a stupid, lazy slob!"
He writes very well, but he's still spouting right-wing, pseudo-libertarian nonsense.
He writes very well, but he's still spouting right-wing, pseudo-libertarian nonsense.
The pseudo-libertarian nonsense is unpleasant for me, too, but I see great value in cheer leading for blue collar work.
I don't know of anyone else saying "Blue collar work is an honorable thing to do, and you're a fool to judge someone for doing it." At least no one with as high a profile as MR.
I don't know of anyone else saying "Blue collar work is an honorable thing to do, and you're a fool to judge someone for doing it." At least no one with as high a profile as MR.
Some people do seem to genuinely look down on 'blue collar' work.
Last week, my sisters friends went for a meal out to celebrate her birthday. Her boyfriend drives freight trains, and seems to get some strange attitude from her friends. They are mostly working for free while trying to break into film, or journalism. A few are teachers, which the others seem to see as 'giving up'. Yes, they are hipsters.
I loved this conversation:
Sophie - 'so taking this as an axiom... sorry, have you heard that word before'
Sisters Boyfriend - 'Well, a long time ago my masters was in philosophy ...'
Sophie (double takes) - '... but... why are you driving trains? Surely you could find something better?'
Sisters Boyfriend - 'Well, why are you working as a receptionist for free?'
Last week, my sisters friends went for a meal out to celebrate her birthday. Her boyfriend drives freight trains, and seems to get some strange attitude from her friends. They are mostly working for free while trying to break into film, or journalism. A few are teachers, which the others seem to see as 'giving up'. Yes, they are hipsters.
I loved this conversation:
Sophie - 'so taking this as an axiom... sorry, have you heard that word before'
Sisters Boyfriend - 'Well, a long time ago my masters was in philosophy ...'
Sophie (double takes) - '... but... why are you driving trains? Surely you could find something better?'
Sisters Boyfriend - 'Well, why are you working as a receptionist for free?'
I both farm and write software professionally. I find the differences in reactions that I get, depending on which career I claim to have, to be quite amazing.
That sounds like a great setup. Care to give more details?
This was a real conversation? Wow.
edit: Plus, driving trains doesn't seem like a bad job to me. I had a friend who drove freights in the 90's, and he really enjoyed it. Also, your sister's friend is a clueless hipster: driving freight trains was one of the dream jobs of those original hipsters, the beatniks.
edit: Plus, driving trains doesn't seem like a bad job to me. I had a friend who drove freights in the 90's, and he really enjoyed it. Also, your sister's friend is a clueless hipster: driving freight trains was one of the dream jobs of those original hipsters, the beatniks.
That's hilarious. I wish I could've seen her reaction.
I don't see him as touting anything right-wing, IMO - he is touting the 'Don't demonize the opposition' idea, a worthy one at that. He also advocates market solutions, which in many cases solve problems with a whole lot less effort and in a 'cleaner' (read less complex) way - for example, the CAFE standards versus just raising the taxes on gas, both would accomplish the same goals of increasing fuel economy for cars sold. One does it with a bunch of complex regulation, the other does it thru a market mechanism.
Sometimes market mechanisms are really hard to apply, things like roads, healthcare, public safety, and so on. But when you can use a market based mechanism in a market economy its almost always the least complex and most efficient way to solve problems.
Sometimes market mechanisms are really hard to apply, things like roads, healthcare, public safety, and so on. But when you can use a market based mechanism in a market economy its almost always the least complex and most efficient way to solve problems.
[deleted]
Yeah, I'm with you. I just wish it wasn't portrayed as such a partisan, negative thing. Which is frustrating because that's how he leads.
I wish he could have just said "we have an untapped well of jobs which sit between unskilled jobs and highly skilled tech jobs. Someone has to run all these new computers. If you go to a trade school, you can get a good job in less time and with no debt."
Heck, liberals and Democrats should be psyched for this message. Because: 1) people who graduate from trade schools join unions 2) green energy production needs these skills more than older oil companies do. Sun doesn't turn itself into electricity. 3) this sort of training is usually close to urban centers, which means more business for blue-leaning cities
I wish he could have just said "we have an untapped well of jobs which sit between unskilled jobs and highly skilled tech jobs. Someone has to run all these new computers. If you go to a trade school, you can get a good job in less time and with no debt."
Heck, liberals and Democrats should be psyched for this message. Because: 1) people who graduate from trade schools join unions 2) green energy production needs these skills more than older oil companies do. Sun doesn't turn itself into electricity. 3) this sort of training is usually close to urban centers, which means more business for blue-leaning cities
I don't believe in unions as the ideal situation for workers or employers, I believe strongly when a company ends up with a union, it's because they did something stupid.
Didn't pay enough, treated employees unfairly, poor working environment, any number of things, but generally something that could have been mitigated by 'doing the right thing' in the first place.
Didn't pay enough, treated employees unfairly, poor working environment, any number of things, but generally something that could have been mitigated by 'doing the right thing' in the first place.
To be fair, the bigger unions aren't tied to their employers. There are, for sure, large companies with their own unions, or that might ought to have their own unions (e.g., Wal-Mart), but most of the larger unions arise from historical conditions that may or may not pertain to a given employer.
I've been a union member in the past, but I don't generally see the need for unions to exist in anywhere near the capacity that they do -- that said, for a counterpoint that justifies their existence, check out Harlan County, USA[1]. It's a documentary that illustrates how bad exploitative employers can be in the US.
And of course, the other counter to anti-union sentiment is that unions are just people. Employers have, like it or not, economic power over their employers, which could (or could not) be leveraged for abuse. Employee collusion is the fairly obvious counter to that advantage.
In short, my opinion of unions has evolved from unions are the worst -- to unions are great, in theory, but often bad in practice.
[1] - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074605/
I've been a union member in the past, but I don't generally see the need for unions to exist in anywhere near the capacity that they do -- that said, for a counterpoint that justifies their existence, check out Harlan County, USA[1]. It's a documentary that illustrates how bad exploitative employers can be in the US.
And of course, the other counter to anti-union sentiment is that unions are just people. Employers have, like it or not, economic power over their employers, which could (or could not) be leveraged for abuse. Employee collusion is the fairly obvious counter to that advantage.
In short, my opinion of unions has evolved from unions are the worst -- to unions are great, in theory, but often bad in practice.
[1] - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074605/
Exactly. One thing that always gets me annoyed about immigration debates is about how there exist so many jobs that Americans are "unwilling to do". Why? Why is there a stigma against certain jobs? If it is a question of a living wage, surely, those immigrants who are taking up those jobs are making a "living" with those wages.
One reason why is because Americans are more atomised culturally than people from, say, Mexico or Guatamala. Americans believe that you should live independently after you graduate from HS (or else go to college) and don't generally want to live in a home with multiple families or even the same family consisting of multiple generations under a single roof.
Actually, sometimes American real-estate owners won't even rent a unit to more than N people who are not all blood relatives.
Exactly, the question I ask when we talk about sending people back to wherever is "Who's going to pick my lettuce?" Americans don't want these jobs.
Fun story- lettuce picking used to be relatively high skilled and high paying, and the lettuce pickers were the backbone of Cesar Chavez's unionizing. This made them expensive enough that it was worth automating their jobs away. Today, a guy with an extremely fancy tractor does it.
>If it is a question of a living wage, surely, those immigrants who are taking up those jobs are making a "living" with those wages.
Well no, they're not. They are not making what Americans consider a living. You might say Americans have spoiled, overly-high standards, but hey, it's America, so Americans have a right to set their own standards.
Well no, they're not. They are not making what Americans consider a living. You might say Americans have spoiled, overly-high standards, but hey, it's America, so Americans have a right to set their own standards.
He actually criticizes both Democrats and Republicans. I don't think it's fair to say that he was a strong representative of the GOP.
I read the article, I didn't see any of what you describe. Can you provide an example or two?
He is railing against the modern notion that everyone should go to college and that a degree is the only path to success. This is prevalent and I grew up being told the same thing. It's not all explicit, but when the high school -> college -> white collar career is all you are pushed toward, all that is emphasized, other paths (skilled trades namely) are implicitly marginalized. Many people my age and younger view a job such as an electrician or a tool and die maker as a failure and it is unfortunate.
He is railing against the modern notion that everyone should go to college and that a degree is the only path to success. This is prevalent and I grew up being told the same thing. It's not all explicit, but when the high school -> college -> white collar career is all you are pushed toward, all that is emphasized, other paths (skilled trades namely) are implicitly marginalized. Many people my age and younger view a job such as an electrician or a tool and die maker as a failure and it is unfortunate.
Wait... Republican-leaning pseudo-libertarian blue collar workers?
Oh for God's sake! Has this idiot no class consciousness whatsoever!?
Oh for God's sake! Has this idiot no class consciousness whatsoever!?
> The educational system we have now is largely a scam, it promises that if you spend tens of thousands (or more) dollars on a 4 year degree, you'd have a good job waiting on the other side, and its largely BS.
So I didn't grow up in the United States so I am not aware of what high school counsellors teach kids, but are there people really selling the idea that if you go to Podunk university and study Asian comparative literature, you will end up with a good job?
The other thing that surprises me about blanket statements like this is why is personal responsibility missing? Especially in a country with such vast free flow of information? I am not knocking on the idea of going to college learn in a structured way anything you like. However, surely complaining you can't get a job at the end because the market can hire only so many English majors or Philosophy majors is rather silly?
So I didn't grow up in the United States so I am not aware of what high school counsellors teach kids, but are there people really selling the idea that if you go to Podunk university and study Asian comparative literature, you will end up with a good job?
The other thing that surprises me about blanket statements like this is why is personal responsibility missing? Especially in a country with such vast free flow of information? I am not knocking on the idea of going to college learn in a structured way anything you like. However, surely complaining you can't get a job at the end because the market can hire only so many English majors or Philosophy majors is rather silly?
> So I didn't grow up in the United States so I am not aware of what high school counsellors teach kids, but are there people really selling the idea that if you go to Podunk university and study Asian comparative literature, you will end up with a good job?
Yes. And it wasn't just HS guidance councilors pushing this - parents were saying the same thing.
That's because as the white collar workforce in the US expanded in the 1960s through the early 80s, many positions just asked for a 4-year degree. The idea was a college degree showed you were teachable in advanced subjects and you'd do most of your learning on the job. Since then (US) employers have shifted away from job training and prefer candidates who can "hit the ground running." -- either by job experience or relevant degree or both.
Unfortunately, many schools and parents did not pick up on this change for whatever reason.
Yes. And it wasn't just HS guidance councilors pushing this - parents were saying the same thing.
That's because as the white collar workforce in the US expanded in the 1960s through the early 80s, many positions just asked for a 4-year degree. The idea was a college degree showed you were teachable in advanced subjects and you'd do most of your learning on the job. Since then (US) employers have shifted away from job training and prefer candidates who can "hit the ground running." -- either by job experience or relevant degree or both.
Unfortunately, many schools and parents did not pick up on this change for whatever reason.
Just to demonstrate the answer to your question: I'm currently a junior in HS and am going through the process of learning about colleges. Last week, our guidance counselors gave us pamphlets. They were blatantly telling us to pursue liberal arts degrees (such as art or music) even with low job prospects. They were reassuring us that we should follow our passions no matter what. Lots of kids saw right through the promises of success and threw out the pamphlets right away. They really try and convince you that a four year university is the only option.
(I go to a very affluent, competitive HS. I think that the counselors want to maintain their college placement rates even if it means sending kids to college if they are failing high school classes. The system is completely broken or just plain ignorant, but that's just my opinion.)
(I go to a very affluent, competitive HS. I think that the counselors want to maintain their college placement rates even if it means sending kids to college if they are failing high school classes. The system is completely broken or just plain ignorant, but that's just my opinion.)
" I think that the counselors want to maintain their college placement rates"
Not "want" but are paid to. When you get older you'll see a push toward metrics in a corporate world. The counselor trying to sell you a liberal arts degree is evaluated and paid based on some metric like "% of students after 5 years with a 4-year degree" and so forth.
Not "want" but are paid to. When you get older you'll see a push toward metrics in a corporate world. The counselor trying to sell you a liberal arts degree is evaluated and paid based on some metric like "% of students after 5 years with a 4-year degree" and so forth.
> but are there people really selling the idea that if you go to Podunk university and study Asian comparative literature, you will end up with a good job?
Unfortunately, yes.
Unfortunately, yes.
Largely yes. It's the message I was given in High School - I graduated in 2001. We we're also expected to know what we wanted to do (ideally) for the rest of our lives.
I'm not from the USA either, and while I remember counsellors proposing community college/trades, the societal view was that you would be doomed to work in a mediocre job with mediocre pay for life with that kind of education. Worse, if you didn't attend post-secondary education at all, you'd be lucky if McDonalds would hire you to flip burgers. Only those with university educations were going to make anything of themselves.
In hindsight it was pretty ridiculous that anyone actually spread that message, having no basis in reality, but when you are not even/barely a legal adult and have spent the vast majority of your life in school, it is difficult to see what the real world is actually has in store.
In hindsight it was pretty ridiculous that anyone actually spread that message, having no basis in reality, but when you are not even/barely a legal adult and have spent the vast majority of your life in school, it is difficult to see what the real world is actually has in store.
It's not that you'll get a good job, it's that if you don't go to college for SOMETHING you're an abject failure.
I got out of school with $72,000 in debt thanks to this.
I got out of school with $72,000 in debt thanks to this.
>if you go to Podunk university and study Asian comparative literature, you will end up with a good job?
This appears to be just my experience, but absolutely not. I graduated high school in 2004 and had a very strong sense of choosing between more marketable majors and majors that are less marketable but may be more personally satisfying. Everyone that I talked to: teachers, guidance staff, parents, and friends all urged me to consider (as one of many factors) what career a particular degree might lead to. I ended up getting a major in a field with jobs (CS) and a minor in an area with fewer job prospects (religious studies).
It's also worth pointing out that even degrees that are generally considered dead ends can work out quite well if you plan correctly. My friend who went into history is working on becoming a librarian (using an apprentice-like process) and his SO has been making a living doing freelance editing for a few years now. They both figured out paths that worked for them in a relatively weak jobs market.
This appears to be just my experience, but absolutely not. I graduated high school in 2004 and had a very strong sense of choosing between more marketable majors and majors that are less marketable but may be more personally satisfying. Everyone that I talked to: teachers, guidance staff, parents, and friends all urged me to consider (as one of many factors) what career a particular degree might lead to. I ended up getting a major in a field with jobs (CS) and a minor in an area with fewer job prospects (religious studies).
It's also worth pointing out that even degrees that are generally considered dead ends can work out quite well if you plan correctly. My friend who went into history is working on becoming a librarian (using an apprentice-like process) and his SO has been making a living doing freelance editing for a few years now. They both figured out paths that worked for them in a relatively weak jobs market.
I can't say about High School, as I went from there into the military, but later in life, after several years of factory/warehouse type jobs, I got fed up and went to college.
I initially went to a community college, and the guidance councillor there tried talking me out of going a Physical Therapy degree route (switched several times and ended up going CS) into a Trade direction instead. The only thing keeping me from regretting the decision is the fact that I'd never had met my current wife if I hadn't gone to university.
I initially went to a community college, and the guidance councillor there tried talking me out of going a Physical Therapy degree route (switched several times and ended up going CS) into a Trade direction instead. The only thing keeping me from regretting the decision is the fact that I'd never had met my current wife if I hadn't gone to university.
Mike Rowe is the bomb. He also has an a classic TED talk http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.htm...
Thank you for posting that. He was able to put into words many of the things I had felt for years, but never spent the time to fully quantify.
re: training - are your skills white collar or blue collar? He seems to be talking about physical labor jobs where employers are willing to train. I don't see that much on the IT side of employment, for example.
>the government doesnt create jobs
This is not even wrong. Of course the government itself employs people. It has work that needs doing. The question is what roles you assign to the government and how much labor they require, and of what kinds.
This is not even wrong. Of course the government itself employs people. It has work that needs doing. The question is what roles you assign to the government and how much labor they require, and of what kinds.
"In the next few years, this company anticipates 15,000 new openings for welders and pipe-fitters in the southeast. And the head of recruitment has absolutely no idea where the workers will come from. That should scare us all."
Oh FFS. If the company can't find 15k workers perhaps they should consider raising wages. Mr. Rowe's show has clearly demonstrated that no matter how unpleasant 99% of the world might find a particular job there's somebody willing to hold their nose (or put on a gas mask, etc) and do it for the right price.
Of course that's not really what most companies mean when they say, "we can't find workers": it's usually more "we can't find people who've already been trained who'll work for below-market rates while enduring blazing heat AND total shitbags for bosses - won't somebody make these uppity workers stay here?"
Oh FFS. If the company can't find 15k workers perhaps they should consider raising wages. Mr. Rowe's show has clearly demonstrated that no matter how unpleasant 99% of the world might find a particular job there's somebody willing to hold their nose (or put on a gas mask, etc) and do it for the right price.
Of course that's not really what most companies mean when they say, "we can't find workers": it's usually more "we can't find people who've already been trained who'll work for below-market rates while enduring blazing heat AND total shitbags for bosses - won't somebody make these uppity workers stay here?"
Yes, I was disappointed in Mike Rowe that be basically wrote off the whole problem as people not willing to do hard work. Everyone is willing to do hard, physical labor where you risk handicapping yourself for life...it just has to pay comparatively well to office jobs.
Then again, people around the world are competing for the same jobs nowadays, and obviously those with lower standards of living are going to do them for much cheaper, and all those manual labor technical jobs that don't require a mastery of English are going to go to China until the living standards equalize.
Bottom line is make sure someone in a poor country can't do your job (probably an intellectual, specialized, English speaking job), otherwise be willing to compete with China.
Then again, people around the world are competing for the same jobs nowadays, and obviously those with lower standards of living are going to do them for much cheaper, and all those manual labor technical jobs that don't require a mastery of English are going to go to China until the living standards equalize.
Bottom line is make sure someone in a poor country can't do your job (probably an intellectual, specialized, English speaking job), otherwise be willing to compete with China.
And many people with degrees are delivering pizzas for a living while trying to pay off their student loans. That is a problem.
Excuse me, but don't you know that workers demanding compensation is un-American? They should be willing to work for little or nothing, not because they don't have material needs but because the purpose of life is to work. Work makes free, work is free! Workers should not be angry that they make sub-living wages, suffer union-busting management, cannot support families and have a tendency to drop dead or be laid-off before they can retire. They should be honored that it is thus! Praise Work, Work is great, blessed is the Name of Work!
</dripping sarcasm>
Or, you know, they're refusing to take jobs that don't pay them enough to not die slowly, because they've grown wiser since refusing to take jobs that actually killed them on a regular basis.
</dripping sarcasm>
Or, you know, they're refusing to take jobs that don't pay them enough to not die slowly, because they've grown wiser since refusing to take jobs that actually killed them on a regular basis.
"Only two countries have done this well: Germany and Switzerland. They’ve both maintained strong manufacturing sectors and they share a key thing: Kids go into apprentice programs at age 14 or 15. You spend a few years, depending on the skill, and you can make BMWs. And because you started young and learned from the older people, your products can’t be matched in quality. This is where it all starts."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/vaclav-smil-wired/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/vaclav-smil-wired/
Couldn't read the whole thing. I might actually agree with her but the questioner is strawman-level superficial and trite.
I can only imagine how frustrated Mike Rowe was answering those questions. It's a shame he's too tactful to scream "Maybe if you stop blaming literally everything on the political party you weren't raised as, you could spend a minute focusing on real ideas for solving problems!"
Not sure why it should bother us that a basic cable celebrity is getting frustrated with questions. It's not like people are asking Andrew Wiles to answer long division problems here. Low-to-middlebrow amateur political economy, by contrast, seems pretty solidly within the pay grade of a spokes-actor like Rowe.
If you read closely, you can see that it wasn't an exchange at all. JB wrote a paragraph with multiple phrases and questions, and Mike broke them into individual points and responded to each one in turn. As a result, the format deceptively makes JB look much more stubborn and ignorant than it would if they used a "quote" format rather than a conversation format.
I think this is just the general level of discourse provided by the average CNN viewer.
It's very telling how Rowe comments on how workers wanting more for less is the human condition, but then never considers the same about employers.
One example he gives is of one employer who doesn't want employees with a union mind set. He also cites a "success" where a guy got good pay for working 60 hours per week. What could this mean? He doesn't want workers who want good benefits and overtime pay? I bet the $50k/year job he brings up expects 60 hours per week under physically demanding conditions without time and a half and pretty and weak benefits. If you make $15/hour and work 60 hours per week you start getting really close to $50k/year.
One example he gives is of one employer who doesn't want employees with a union mind set. He also cites a "success" where a guy got good pay for working 60 hours per week. What could this mean? He doesn't want workers who want good benefits and overtime pay? I bet the $50k/year job he brings up expects 60 hours per week under physically demanding conditions without time and a half and pretty and weak benefits. If you make $15/hour and work 60 hours per week you start getting really close to $50k/year.
> It's very telling how Rowe comments on how workers wanting more for less is the human condition, but then never considers the same about employers.
Of course its true about employers. They are just humans, too. When they both agree on an acceptable level of compensation for a given task, you end up with a job. Just markets and no amount of high-minded legislation will ever change that.
Of course its true about employers. They are just humans, too. When they both agree on an acceptable level of compensation for a given task, you end up with a job. Just markets and no amount of high-minded legislation will ever change that.
It seems to me that these articles are talking about different sorts of jobs. They are both quoting the same numbers, but choose to use different application for those numbers. I would think there is some truth in both sides. For Rowe's part, he is talking about jobs that can not be outsourced and are not optional to those who need the work finished. Pipe fitting, maintenance through welding, and vague post-Katrina engineering jobs are jobs and skills that have to be done on site, and therefore can not be moved overseas. They also pay well. These are jobs that make up part of that 3.5M jobs number, but I would guess a small portion of it. The NYT article talks about machining and factory work. In this field, work can be done here or abroad, so the cost of workers is a commodity. Unless tax breaks help these factories bring higher wages or the owners are altruistic, in my mind we can count these jobs as already gone. Someone could take that job for a bit, making $10-15 an hour but as soon as the commodity cost of wages exceeds the cost of added transportation abroad or the cost of transportation falls or any number of little pieces that fall into the outsourcing equation change, those jobs are gone just like the rest. The issue with these jobs are that they are still considered skilled when technology is quickly making them unskilled.
I would love to hear Mike Rowe's reply to this. His answers had plenty of anecdotes, as did this article. My question is, where's the data?
He mentions the data several times, go look at the US Labor stats. Infrastructure jobs are open and we don't have the skilled workers to fill them. ND is importing welders from Canada while road work on the eastern side of the state gets delayed. ND has stats on that too.
Some jobs cannot be outsourced.
[edit: skilled workers are need more in infrastructure / construction then factories]
Some jobs cannot be outsourced.
[edit: skilled workers are need more in infrastructure / construction then factories]
"Number of available jobs" is a meaningless statistic.
HN-ready example: I'd like to do a web start-up, if only I could find skilled engineers. I'm willing to pay 100 experienced, skilled Java programmers $10/hr to build the site. What? No takers? Not one?? Well, there you go! 100 jobs unfilled. Skills gap!
You can't offer poverty-level wages for skilled jobs, then complain that "we don't have the skilled workers" when college educated workers instead choose to go sell shoes at the mall.
HN-ready example: I'd like to do a web start-up, if only I could find skilled engineers. I'm willing to pay 100 experienced, skilled Java programmers $10/hr to build the site. What? No takers? Not one?? Well, there you go! 100 jobs unfilled. Skills gap!
You can't offer poverty-level wages for skilled jobs, then complain that "we don't have the skilled workers" when college educated workers instead choose to go sell shoes at the mall.
This is a terrible analogy; If I were a Java programmer who was unemployed, struggling to find any job at all, I would take your shitty $10/hr programming job in a heartbeat.
Of course I am not under/un-employed, so I have the luxury of telling you to take your shitty job offering and shove it. Your little scenario seems absurd to all of us because we all know that there are plenty of far better programming jobs available. We are not looking at a job shortage.
Of course I am not under/un-employed, so I have the luxury of telling you to take your shitty job offering and shove it. Your little scenario seems absurd to all of us because we all know that there are plenty of far better programming jobs available. We are not looking at a job shortage.
Unless you were collecting unemployment, in which case the shitty $10/hour job would result in a net loss.
There are better programming jobs out there precisely because there are fewer capable programmers than there are jobs. If we had more programmers than jobs, you would be looking at the $10/hr job right now, because if you didn't take it, someone else would jump all over it.
That argument is a bit disingenuous if you ask me.
A company that legitimately needs worker would be forced to raise their offered wages until they can find employees or would be forced to go out of business.
I think the problem is that society has told young people that if they have a 4-year degree they should be making mid to high wages right out of school just because they have a degree. In the real world employers need people with skills not people with a piece of paper.
If you were to learn a skill right out of high-school you could live off of $10 to $12 per hour for a few years while you live with parents or roommates and overtime as your skills improve you should be able to earn much more and become independent. But no people would rather goof off at university for four years and have their high wages handed to them.
A company that legitimately needs worker would be forced to raise their offered wages until they can find employees or would be forced to go out of business.
I think the problem is that society has told young people that if they have a 4-year degree they should be making mid to high wages right out of school just because they have a degree. In the real world employers need people with skills not people with a piece of paper.
If you were to learn a skill right out of high-school you could live off of $10 to $12 per hour for a few years while you live with parents or roommates and overtime as your skills improve you should be able to earn much more and become independent. But no people would rather goof off at university for four years and have their high wages handed to them.
I think you might be a wee bit disingenuous as well. There are a few issues with so called "skilled labor" right out of high school:
1. Skilled jobs are hard jobs. They are often limited to men strictly due to the physical ability required (I used to work as a diesel mechanic and it was simply not a job that could be done by most women). This is obviously not universally true: machining, some welding, virtually all engineering can be done by women, but there's still a limiter for lots of jobs.
2. The work is hard. This isn't just an issue of "people preferring to goof off". It's hard labor. Given the choice of going to school and continuing that backbreaking work, I made the (wise) choice to go to school.
3. Because it's hard, it's not work for middle aged people. I live in North Dakota, a state that's attracting a lot of skilled labor right now, and it's predominantly young men because men into their 40s and 50s simply can't do it anymore. We need to consider the long term impacts of a workforce that doesn't extend into their 70s.
4. It's not always work that transfers well. Someone who is a computer programmer might be able to work for a long time and in many places, but a skilled laborer is more limited in their options. A machinist in Seattle when Boeing left? Tough break, move or find something else. Obviously this is true with many careers, and many skilled jobs have greater options (mechanics, some welders, engineers) but a skilled laborer is much more subject to the whims of nature than a white collar worker who's skills might be more transferable.
I think it's as unfair to say young people want to goof off at college as it is to say that companies want to screw over workers. Young people make decisions for lots of reasons and though I agree that the systems in place to help them make those decisions (parents, school counselors, etc.) could advise them better, it's certainly not because they are goof offs who want a free ride.
1. Skilled jobs are hard jobs. They are often limited to men strictly due to the physical ability required (I used to work as a diesel mechanic and it was simply not a job that could be done by most women). This is obviously not universally true: machining, some welding, virtually all engineering can be done by women, but there's still a limiter for lots of jobs.
2. The work is hard. This isn't just an issue of "people preferring to goof off". It's hard labor. Given the choice of going to school and continuing that backbreaking work, I made the (wise) choice to go to school.
3. Because it's hard, it's not work for middle aged people. I live in North Dakota, a state that's attracting a lot of skilled labor right now, and it's predominantly young men because men into their 40s and 50s simply can't do it anymore. We need to consider the long term impacts of a workforce that doesn't extend into their 70s.
4. It's not always work that transfers well. Someone who is a computer programmer might be able to work for a long time and in many places, but a skilled laborer is more limited in their options. A machinist in Seattle when Boeing left? Tough break, move or find something else. Obviously this is true with many careers, and many skilled jobs have greater options (mechanics, some welders, engineers) but a skilled laborer is much more subject to the whims of nature than a white collar worker who's skills might be more transferable.
I think it's as unfair to say young people want to goof off at college as it is to say that companies want to screw over workers. Young people make decisions for lots of reasons and though I agree that the systems in place to help them make those decisions (parents, school counselors, etc.) could advise them better, it's certainly not because they are goof offs who want a free ride.
Can you clarify #4? I'm actually struggling to see how my programming skills can apply to other jobs in any meaningful way outside of the realm of programming.
I mean, sure, if Microsoft left Seattle today, I could probably find another software company in town to work for. However, I expect at one point in time, machinists could walk into another shop with ease too. There is no reason to believe programmers will always be in high demand.
I mean, sure, if Microsoft left Seattle today, I could probably find another software company in town to work for. However, I expect at one point in time, machinists could walk into another shop with ease too. There is no reason to believe programmers will always be in high demand.
I think that most "skilled labor" is more specialized than people realize. As a diesel mechanic I could go a lot of places (urban areas were generally out; I would need to live in the suburbs, where there were truck stops). A programmer, on the other hand, has the option to freelance, work from home, even start his own business with limited or no capital. Any company of any decent size probably hires programmers once and a while or even has a few on staff, but it's not really that easy if your specialty is hyperbaric welding (which you can make a small fortune doing, to be fair). No one "bootstraps" a mechanic's shop, too much space and specialized equipment.
But that's still pretty flexible. I'm thinking about all these super industry specific jobs Rowe talks about on his show. Agricultural specialties, oil rig workers, aircraft mechanics and so on. Just not that easy to live close to home and family and do that for a living.
But that's still pretty flexible. I'm thinking about all these super industry specific jobs Rowe talks about on his show. Agricultural specialties, oil rig workers, aircraft mechanics and so on. Just not that easy to live close to home and family and do that for a living.
A friend of mine is also a diesel mechanic. He has been freelancing for a couple of local farmers and has used that money to bootstrap his own shop. I think there are actually a lot of parallels with the opportunities programmers have.
As an added bonus, he had to learn about driving trucks, farming, etc. in order to do the job. If mechanical work suddenly disappeared, there are many things he could transition into with ease. I'm still not sure where my programming skills can be used, other than for programming. I suppose I've picked up some general computer skills by way of having to use a computer to do the job, but it seems like everyone has those skills these days.
You do bring up a good point about location though. It would be quite difficult for him to do the same in a heart of a metro area. However, the inverse is true in many ways for programmers. The opportunities for a programmer on the farm are limited compared to someone doing the same in the city.
As an added bonus, he had to learn about driving trucks, farming, etc. in order to do the job. If mechanical work suddenly disappeared, there are many things he could transition into with ease. I'm still not sure where my programming skills can be used, other than for programming. I suppose I've picked up some general computer skills by way of having to use a computer to do the job, but it seems like everyone has those skills these days.
You do bring up a good point about location though. It would be quite difficult for him to do the same in a heart of a metro area. However, the inverse is true in many ways for programmers. The opportunities for a programmer on the farm are limited compared to someone doing the same in the city.
Rowe didn't mention it, but I think that in addition to a number of people who simply aren't willing to work hard, there are a number of people who aren't willing to move to where the work is. This is another change from 40–50 years ago.
This is a big deal! A documented major shift in US society is that we are no longer moving around as much.
It has been fascinating looking around and seeing the mentality differences between people willing to move (aka adapt) to the world they live in and the jobs they want and the people who are unwilling. IMO, the adaptable people do remarkably better.
It has been fascinating looking around and seeing the mentality differences between people willing to move (aka adapt) to the world they live in and the jobs they want and the people who are unwilling. IMO, the adaptable people do remarkably better.
@stinkytaco fair point. "Goof off" was a poor choice of words.
You pointed out that the work is very hard. I agree but why is that bad? I think that is one of Rowe's biggest points. Doing hard work should be glorified, it should be honorable, it should be something we admire. But American culture has made it a bad thing that should be avoided at any cost. I don't think that is a good thing in the long run.
You pointed out that the work is very hard. I agree but why is that bad? I think that is one of Rowe's biggest points. Doing hard work should be glorified, it should be honorable, it should be something we admire. But American culture has made it a bad thing that should be avoided at any cost. I don't think that is a good thing in the long run.
It's bad because it cause physical damage. Virtually every long-term practitioner of a "hard work" job is damaged: back, knees, neck, hands. It's very often a career that you can't outside past 50.
A good deal of that is alleviated and managed by care at the job site and personal fitness. Growing up around construction workers, all too many of them did not take care of themselves and the debt was called in later in life. Quite sad, but largely preventable. Of course, this does not protect from non-mitigatable risks, which are non-negligable.
Which (when true--lifting heavy things on a daily basis is eventually deleterious even when one uses proper technique) takes time, which reduces productivity, which isn't acceptable because money.
It is economically smart to burn out people doing "hard work". And it's not like we're going to do much to help them.
It is economically smart to burn out people doing "hard work". And it's not like we're going to do much to help them.
Churn and burn joints trying to crank maximum effort at maximum speed do exist in the trades. My observation is that as people acquire skill, they try to avoid avoid such companies. It's simply bad quality output, bad morale, and lousy work conditions.
And that's great! It really is. Except for when you take into account all the other people who aren't so fortunate. That's why I have no real problem with the cultural aversion to that "hard work"--because somebody ends up at the bottom and being at the bottom means they get screwed.
Can you give us an example of how this is preventable? Repeatedly physical stress wears down the body. This is why you see long time weight lifters and runners with worn out joints in middle age.
"long time weight lifters"
Who?
I was into lifting when I was younger. The gossip and locker room wisdom I heard was is if I screwed up a ligament or muscle or joint by doing something really stupid at age 18 I'd heal perhaps three to ten times faster than the old retired guys. Quite a few of the old lifters were damaged goods; because their OT told them to start lifting or get used to being permanently bedridden in the future; they were damaged goods before they started not because of lifting which was medically therapeutic.
So ... doing something stupid has a higher cost for older folks. One interesting solution to that problem, which most HN readers think applies to them, is to apply a high IQ to not doing something stupid. And/or identifying coworkers who are idiots and avoiding working with them.
Anecdotes about individual extreme roid users are not terribly useful unless you're suggesting everyone who gets involved much inherently become an extreme roid user. Amongst the clean rank and file, general health levels were much higher than the general population.
Who?
I was into lifting when I was younger. The gossip and locker room wisdom I heard was is if I screwed up a ligament or muscle or joint by doing something really stupid at age 18 I'd heal perhaps three to ten times faster than the old retired guys. Quite a few of the old lifters were damaged goods; because their OT told them to start lifting or get used to being permanently bedridden in the future; they were damaged goods before they started not because of lifting which was medically therapeutic.
So ... doing something stupid has a higher cost for older folks. One interesting solution to that problem, which most HN readers think applies to them, is to apply a high IQ to not doing something stupid. And/or identifying coworkers who are idiots and avoiding working with them.
Anecdotes about individual extreme roid users are not terribly useful unless you're suggesting everyone who gets involved much inherently become an extreme roid user. Amongst the clean rank and file, general health levels were much higher than the general population.
There are a large number of people who have terrible fitness and are 50+ pounds overweight. Many people smoke. I don't have numbers on the correlation with socioeconomic status, but I'm pretty sure that worse fitness and smoking correlate with lower status to a degree (can't recall the news articles on such things, I've read occasional notes on such things). That's borne out by my personal observation.
So basically, if you take the intersection of "bad habits" and "physical work", you wind up with "worse body" as a result. On the other hand, careful maintenance of your body & health habits allows you to do better than your unmaintained colleague. It's hard, but doable.
So basically, if you take the intersection of "bad habits" and "physical work", you wind up with "worse body" as a result. On the other hand, careful maintenance of your body & health habits allows you to do better than your unmaintained colleague. It's hard, but doable.
There is a difference between doing hard work and working hard. Hard work (of various sorts) for an extended period of time often has a long term negative impact on one's health. The people who do it should be respected, definitely, but glorified? Seems like a bad idea especially considering the lack of transference to other fields and growing automation.
Rowe addresses this in his article. He describes many of the available jobs as being well above minimum wage. Granted it's anecdotal data, but in the absence of better data, number of available jobs seems to be the best way to determine whether there's a skills gap.
Wow, six figures for a welder in the Dakotas is poverty level? I can't imagine what you consider a livable wage.
Except they're not shitty jobs. You start low, yes, but you work your way up. Most of them are union. Soon you're making $25+ / hour with benefits and overtime. Yes, God forbid, what a horrible life.
Anytime I hear "we have a shortage of workers" my first thought is, "for what jobs, and at what wage/working conditions?"
Usually when a person says "I have a shortage of workers" they mean "I can't find enough chumps/desperate people to work for the ridiculously low wage I want to pay."
Usually when a person says "I have a shortage of workers" they mean "I can't find enough chumps/desperate people to work for the ridiculously low wage I want to pay."
There is also the difference between jobs and careers. For many it is not enough to have a job that pays decently. They need one that is stable. Preferably with benefits that can make future planning easy. (And, by easy, I mean possible.)
Are these the us labor stats that you are referring to? http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag23.htm. Because, if so, it seems they paint a more nuanced picture than either side (shocker!). There are plenty of openings (113k), but the median pay is in the 40k/year range, not 55k starting mentioned. The unemployment rate is also higher than the national average.
Not a bad career, but hardly the land of milk and honey.
Not a bad career, but hardly the land of milk and honey.
MR: [long eloquent response]
JB: "But REPUBLICANS"
Repeat 5x
JB: "But REPUBLICANS"
Repeat 5x
JB wasn't responding, MR had broken up her questions to reply to parts of them.
That font is garbage, hard to read, it's like they'd been downvoted on HN.
Please end the light text trend, let us read.
Please end the light text trend, let us read.
Yes! So many websites are practically unreadable due to low contrast.
Contrast Rebellion:
I've also found Readability (Instapaper and Pocket are similar) a huge breath of fresh air: http://www.readability.com/articles/jzhgvevd
There's also Stylish / Stylebot browser plugins which let you modify site CSS. I've ... become a tad addicted to that.
/me checks.
Yeah, over 700 sites that I've styled now. Contrast and font sizes are a big nit, nuking annoying elements is another. More drastic layout revamps are still another use, though I reserve that for a small number of sites.
I've also found Readability (Instapaper and Pocket are similar) a huge breath of fresh air: http://www.readability.com/articles/jzhgvevd
There's also Stylish / Stylebot browser plugins which let you modify site CSS. I've ... become a tad addicted to that.
/me checks.
Yeah, over 700 sites that I've styled now. Contrast and font sizes are a big nit, nuking annoying elements is another. More drastic layout revamps are still another use, though I reserve that for a small number of sites.
I hadn't heard about Mike Rowe until he started his program to popularize the trades. It's an interesting perspective, and I don't really have a beef about it.
But let me make a few factual points, borne out of my experience and the experience I have in growing up around tradespeople and being related to tradespeople.
* The trades are physically hard labor
edit: It might not be clear what this entails, as perhaps not everyone reading has performed it. It entails working 40-50 hours per week, in nearly all possible weather (for outside jobs), where you must maintain (in addition to the work itself) a personal fitness regimen not to be injured through strain. In the pursuit of this work, you will probably find yourself moving objects up to perhaps several hundred pounds, with possibly zero help. You will almost certainly be on your feet (or knees) all day except for breaks.
* The trades expose you to non-negligable levels of risk of injury on a daily basis.
edit: A few examples, taken from real life experiences. Falling off the roof of a house and breaking vertebrae - lifelong medication after that. Wearing out knee mechanisms due to going up and stairs with 50+ pounds in your hands daily for many years - lifelong care required. Heavy object falling onto shop floor within inches feet - would have chopped feet off or required cutting off the boots if the steel toes had held. Other examples readily available from medical professionals and friends in the trades. These risks are systemic in the trades by and large.
* The trades do not pay well until/unless you specialize into certain areas.
Let me clarify a bit on what I mean by paying well. I mean, bluntly, that trades frequently pay in (current US dollars) between 12 and 25 dollars per hour; frequently without benefits and (due to seasonal demand and project-based nature of the work) frequent lack of steady employment. Mike Rowe cited a welder's experience as a counterexample of my thesis. The fact that supply & demand makes certain skilled trades very valuable does not obviate the reality of the poor pay endemic to the field, paticularly for the semi-skilled and unskilled areas.
All that being said, it's been documented in both popular culture and research that self-centeredness is on the rise; it's getting to be well understood that many modern Americans simply don't want to work hard in unpleasant conditions (Mike Rowe cited an example of people who quit training programs en masse in the SE US because of the heat). This has been borne out anecdotally by the number of immigrants doing these same hard work in unpleasant conditions while native-born "modern Americans" moan about being unable to find work.
That doesn't meant that it's a particularly pleasant experience to find out that "pursue your passion" means very little in the broader job market, after you've pursued your financially negative ROI degree (with the utmost support of your parents, friends, and other authority figures). And that's something that I think should be brought out of this debate: don't ruin your life in the pursuit of a dream - be responsible with your dreaming; fulfil your duties and calculate your risks.
edit:
I don't have a real conclusion here. But I think it's reasonable to evaluate the risk/reward payoff for the trades and seek higher education as an alternative.
I suppose a more knowledgable observer could draw some interesting connections between what unionization provides and what higher education degree jobs provide and infer some interesting conclusions. I can't guess as to what those conclusions are. I'd like to read some discussion on that topic sometime.
But let me make a few factual points, borne out of my experience and the experience I have in growing up around tradespeople and being related to tradespeople.
* The trades are physically hard labor
edit: It might not be clear what this entails, as perhaps not everyone reading has performed it. It entails working 40-50 hours per week, in nearly all possible weather (for outside jobs), where you must maintain (in addition to the work itself) a personal fitness regimen not to be injured through strain. In the pursuit of this work, you will probably find yourself moving objects up to perhaps several hundred pounds, with possibly zero help. You will almost certainly be on your feet (or knees) all day except for breaks.
* The trades expose you to non-negligable levels of risk of injury on a daily basis.
edit: A few examples, taken from real life experiences. Falling off the roof of a house and breaking vertebrae - lifelong medication after that. Wearing out knee mechanisms due to going up and stairs with 50+ pounds in your hands daily for many years - lifelong care required. Heavy object falling onto shop floor within inches feet - would have chopped feet off or required cutting off the boots if the steel toes had held. Other examples readily available from medical professionals and friends in the trades. These risks are systemic in the trades by and large.
* The trades do not pay well until/unless you specialize into certain areas.
Let me clarify a bit on what I mean by paying well. I mean, bluntly, that trades frequently pay in (current US dollars) between 12 and 25 dollars per hour; frequently without benefits and (due to seasonal demand and project-based nature of the work) frequent lack of steady employment. Mike Rowe cited a welder's experience as a counterexample of my thesis. The fact that supply & demand makes certain skilled trades very valuable does not obviate the reality of the poor pay endemic to the field, paticularly for the semi-skilled and unskilled areas.
All that being said, it's been documented in both popular culture and research that self-centeredness is on the rise; it's getting to be well understood that many modern Americans simply don't want to work hard in unpleasant conditions (Mike Rowe cited an example of people who quit training programs en masse in the SE US because of the heat). This has been borne out anecdotally by the number of immigrants doing these same hard work in unpleasant conditions while native-born "modern Americans" moan about being unable to find work.
That doesn't meant that it's a particularly pleasant experience to find out that "pursue your passion" means very little in the broader job market, after you've pursued your financially negative ROI degree (with the utmost support of your parents, friends, and other authority figures). And that's something that I think should be brought out of this debate: don't ruin your life in the pursuit of a dream - be responsible with your dreaming; fulfil your duties and calculate your risks.
edit:
I don't have a real conclusion here. But I think it's reasonable to evaluate the risk/reward payoff for the trades and seek higher education as an alternative.
I suppose a more knowledgable observer could draw some interesting connections between what unionization provides and what higher education degree jobs provide and infer some interesting conclusions. I can't guess as to what those conclusions are. I'd like to read some discussion on that topic sometime.
> The trades do not pay well until/unless you specialize into certain areas.
A problem that makes this particularly bad is that many now don't pay at all until you manage to become qualified as a high-skill specialist. A lot of the low-end work has been automated, which has gutted the traditional pipeline where you start with low-skill jobs and move upwards. It's not just that low-skill welding jobs (say) don't pay well; they simply don't exist. Only high-skill welding work is in demand, and a beginning welder is very likely to be unemployed. He or she might try to get free work to improve, but even that is iffy. I'm not convinced the odds are actually better here than the (already not great) liberal-arts degree -> unpaid internship -> office job route. If you really want to DIY a trade without a college degree, I'd recommend learning PHP or web design before I'd recommend trying to break into welding. Or learn something about CNC machines and get a job servicing the machines that replaced those low-end trade jobs...
I looked into this at some point out of personal interest, and really the numbers don't bear it out. There are a lot of anecdotes about how we "need skilled tradesmen", but the pay and jobs just aren't there. When you take into account the lack of training opportunities, the high risk of injury, the generally short careers, and the unstable unemployment, the expected earnings from taking up a trade are much worse than just getting a college degree.
A problem that makes this particularly bad is that many now don't pay at all until you manage to become qualified as a high-skill specialist. A lot of the low-end work has been automated, which has gutted the traditional pipeline where you start with low-skill jobs and move upwards. It's not just that low-skill welding jobs (say) don't pay well; they simply don't exist. Only high-skill welding work is in demand, and a beginning welder is very likely to be unemployed. He or she might try to get free work to improve, but even that is iffy. I'm not convinced the odds are actually better here than the (already not great) liberal-arts degree -> unpaid internship -> office job route. If you really want to DIY a trade without a college degree, I'd recommend learning PHP or web design before I'd recommend trying to break into welding. Or learn something about CNC machines and get a job servicing the machines that replaced those low-end trade jobs...
I looked into this at some point out of personal interest, and really the numbers don't bear it out. There are a lot of anecdotes about how we "need skilled tradesmen", but the pay and jobs just aren't there. When you take into account the lack of training opportunities, the high risk of injury, the generally short careers, and the unstable unemployment, the expected earnings from taking up a trade are much worse than just getting a college degree.
My experience as an electrician is that there's work available even for completely green newbies who don't know anything useful, and once you've worked for a few years and become a registered tradesman you're pretty much sorted for life.
I'm not sure where you're getting these anecdotes about poor pay, high risk of injury, short careers and unstable employment. Most of the guys I work with have had long careers (often with a single employer for 10-20 years) and haven't sustained any serious injuries. The ones who don't want to take on management roles get paid very well even though they're 'just' highly skilled tradesmen, and the ones who want to go further run their own companies and are doing very well for themselves.
Ironically, I actually terminated my career as a software developer because I was developing RSI and found the work rather unsatisfying (despite really enjoying programming work in general). Working as a tradesman has so far proven to be far more satisfying and far better for my health - plus it leaves me free to work on my own projects after hours rather than forcing me to leave them unfinished since I already spent a full day working inside.
I'm not sure where you're getting these anecdotes about poor pay, high risk of injury, short careers and unstable employment. Most of the guys I work with have had long careers (often with a single employer for 10-20 years) and haven't sustained any serious injuries. The ones who don't want to take on management roles get paid very well even though they're 'just' highly skilled tradesmen, and the ones who want to go further run their own companies and are doing very well for themselves.
Ironically, I actually terminated my career as a software developer because I was developing RSI and found the work rather unsatisfying (despite really enjoying programming work in general). Working as a tradesman has so far proven to be far more satisfying and far better for my health - plus it leaves me free to work on my own projects after hours rather than forcing me to leave them unfinished since I already spent a full day working inside.
> Ironically, I actually terminated my career as a software developer because I was developing RSI and found the work rather unsatisfying (despite really enjoying programming work in general). Working as a tradesman has so far proven to be far more satisfying and far better for my health - plus it leaves me free to work on my own projects after hours rather than forcing me to leave them unfinished since I already spent a full day working inside.
I'm not sure this is really that ironic. Sitting in a chair for 8-14+ hours a day, focusing 25" in front of your face, slouching, pushing your hands into an unnatural position and tweaking your ligaments and tendons, and being stressed about maintaining a level of production is exactly what I would prescribe for physical degeneration.
Throw poor nutrition and little to no exercise in the mix and it's amazing how atrophied the back muscles get. Constant headaches from misusing the trapeziuseseseses and other muscles around c7, lower back pain, pain between the shoulders, this is all the type of back pain that gets "blue collar" workers depending on various analgesics and narcotics.
The fact that it's preventable is especially worrisome, as it's just as hazardous as shorting live voltage down your arm. You're trained to be cognizant of the risks and developers are not.
I'm not sure this is really that ironic. Sitting in a chair for 8-14+ hours a day, focusing 25" in front of your face, slouching, pushing your hands into an unnatural position and tweaking your ligaments and tendons, and being stressed about maintaining a level of production is exactly what I would prescribe for physical degeneration.
Throw poor nutrition and little to no exercise in the mix and it's amazing how atrophied the back muscles get. Constant headaches from misusing the trapeziuseseseses and other muscles around c7, lower back pain, pain between the shoulders, this is all the type of back pain that gets "blue collar" workers depending on various analgesics and narcotics.
The fact that it's preventable is especially worrisome, as it's just as hazardous as shorting live voltage down your arm. You're trained to be cognizant of the risks and developers are not.
The reason I consider it ironic in this context is that a number of people have claimed trade work is dangerous, yet the worst injury I've sustained during my career was when I wrote software for a living.
The worst case injuries are certainly worse - a switch room explosion which kills you and your colleagues on the spot is worse than RSI - but as you say we're trained to minimize those risks and most people will work their entire careers without major injury
The worst case injuries are certainly worse - a switch room explosion which kills you and your colleagues on the spot is worse than RSI - but as you say we're trained to minimize those risks and most people will work their entire careers without major injury
Who do green newbies need to talk to for that kind of opportunity?
Years ago I applied with the local IBEW, earned very high marks on the written test and interview, and it took them YEARS* to call me back with an invitation to start the program. By then I had other things going on and couldn't take the opportunity.
At the time I had a feeling I wasn't approaching things in an optimal way, but I sure couldn't figure out how to create a more immediate opportunity.
*not hyperbole, it literally was years later.
Years ago I applied with the local IBEW, earned very high marks on the written test and interview, and it took them YEARS* to call me back with an invitation to start the program. By then I had other things going on and couldn't take the opportunity.
At the time I had a feeling I wasn't approaching things in an optimal way, but I sure couldn't figure out how to create a more immediate opportunity.
*not hyperbole, it literally was years later.
The answer to that is probably 'whoever you need to to get the job', though that isn't a lot of help to most young guys who don't yet have enough professional experience to talk their way into work.
It's no different really to getting a job later on in life. If you do a lot of networking then jobs will fall into your lap seemingly without any effort, but if you don't have an introduction then you are probably going to have to do a lot of cold calling and respond to a lot of job applications before you get lucky.
As a new entrant to the work force your best bet is probably to get an intro from a parent or family friend, asking an acquaintance to take you on as a favour. If you can't do that then you either need to try your luck cold calling or learn to hustle
You might have been held back by your high test scores, believe it or not. When I first applied to start my apprenticeship the HR chap was very hesitant to give me a job purely because I had good grades and was currently working as a software developer. He didn't think I was the 'tradesman type' and that I might prefer an office job!
It's no different really to getting a job later on in life. If you do a lot of networking then jobs will fall into your lap seemingly without any effort, but if you don't have an introduction then you are probably going to have to do a lot of cold calling and respond to a lot of job applications before you get lucky.
As a new entrant to the work force your best bet is probably to get an intro from a parent or family friend, asking an acquaintance to take you on as a favour. If you can't do that then you either need to try your luck cold calling or learn to hustle
You might have been held back by your high test scores, believe it or not. When I first applied to start my apprenticeship the HR chap was very hesitant to give me a job purely because I had good grades and was currently working as a software developer. He didn't think I was the 'tradesman type' and that I might prefer an office job!
>> If you really want to DIY a trade without a college degree, I'd recommend learning PHP or web design before I'd recommend trying to break into welding.
Isn't that have the exact same 'problem', where only high-skill developers are paid $40/hour and a beginner is going to have trouble finding work and when he does it will only pay $12/hour?
Isn't that have the exact same 'problem', where only high-skill developers are paid $40/hour and a beginner is going to have trouble finding work and when he does it will only pay $12/hour?
Not the same problem. Many of the skilled trades not only require an apprenticeship to learn, but also to be licensed to perform the work independently. Coding could probably use more of an apprenticeship path, but there is currently nothing preventing a coder from pursuing just about any type of job that they can talk their way into.
As a PHP developer with just an associates degree, I can tell you that my first coding job was in fact paying $13 / hr, but roughly two years later I had enough skills to freelance at twice the rate. It has only gone up since.
I think the GP was saying that the low end welding jobs have been automated out of existence; I don't think that's the case for low-end coding jobs.
I think the GP was saying that the low end welding jobs have been automated out of existence; I don't think that's the case for low-end coding jobs.
> the low end welding jobs have been automated out of existence; I don't think that's the case for low-end coding jobs
I'm not so sure- it seems like times are pretty hard in the website business, which always seemed like the primary swimming pool for low end/beginning devs. Twitter + Tumblr can do a lot.
I'm not so sure- it seems like times are pretty hard in the website business, which always seemed like the primary swimming pool for low end/beginning devs. Twitter + Tumblr can do a lot.
As a former electrician, I should mention that trade unions usually have their own forms of college as well, in the form of apprenticeships -- these vary from trade to trade, but at least within the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, you got access to very cheap, job-specific vocational education that combined classroom learning with on-the-job training, and graduated pay as you progress.
When I was doing it many years ago, in Memphis, TN, a first year apprentice made, basically minimum wage, or something close to it, but graduates of the program made an actual living wage, or a rate of something like $25 an hour.
Those rates have likely gone up, since I'm talking at least decade-and-a-half old numbers, but the notion that they don't pay well is a relative term. Compared to minimum wage, they pay extremely well, once one reaches a level akin to 'college-educated'.
The majority of my family are blue collar workers, in trades from electrical to HVAC to fiber optics, etc., and they're all doing well. They aren't rich by any metric, but they all have comfortable housing, adequate/reliable vehicles, ample food, and enough surplus that nobody's starving, and nobody's generally in more debt than their mortgage.
In today's economy, that is something worth mentioning. That there are 600,000 of these jobs[1] is baffling to me, and merits further research.
[1] - Potentially, I'd like to see how many of them match up to what I'm picturing, as I see the numbers in dispute, so it's possible that there are a few of these jobs, while the rest are far lower, I dunno.
When I was doing it many years ago, in Memphis, TN, a first year apprentice made, basically minimum wage, or something close to it, but graduates of the program made an actual living wage, or a rate of something like $25 an hour.
Those rates have likely gone up, since I'm talking at least decade-and-a-half old numbers, but the notion that they don't pay well is a relative term. Compared to minimum wage, they pay extremely well, once one reaches a level akin to 'college-educated'.
The majority of my family are blue collar workers, in trades from electrical to HVAC to fiber optics, etc., and they're all doing well. They aren't rich by any metric, but they all have comfortable housing, adequate/reliable vehicles, ample food, and enough surplus that nobody's starving, and nobody's generally in more debt than their mortgage.
In today's economy, that is something worth mentioning. That there are 600,000 of these jobs[1] is baffling to me, and merits further research.
[1] - Potentially, I'd like to see how many of them match up to what I'm picturing, as I see the numbers in dispute, so it's possible that there are a few of these jobs, while the rest are far lower, I dunno.
Out of curiosity, what kind of benefits (health, retirement) do your family members in the trades typically have? What sort of job stability? Are they unionized?
The direct experience that I have is, as I mentioned somewhere, a decade-and-a-half old, but I was speaking of unionized work in the electrical trade.
As far as benefits go, they were indeed very good. As has been mentioned around here, these jobs tend to be somewhat more physically demanding than the average programming / desk jockey position, and the result of that was better than average health insurance. The insurance industry everywhere has changed a lot in the past decade, so I'd recommend doing your own research.
For perspective, my cousin got Lyme disease, and didn't catch it until well after he'd been symptomatic. He was a drummer in a band, had thick, long hair, and had a tick on his scalp that went unnoticed. When he first began acting erratically, his parents chalked it up to typical teenage rebellion. He drove a car into the house and didn't realize it, ran another car into a telephone pole, and basically got to 'late-stage' symptoms before it was inspected.
He spent months in the hospital, specialists were flown in, and ultimately, he was made better -- though later in life he's developed early arthritis, which is believed to have been caused by the Lyme. All totalled though, nobody was bankrupted by the medical treatment and cost of the rather excessive care involved.
As for job stability, there are indeed periods of boom and bust. Boom periods often involve working optional overtime, which is compensated as overtime -- nobody in a union works off the clock. When I was a member, I never had a day where I missed work due to lack of employment, but I know that it does happen. I can't speak for how frequently it is from experience, but the union hall makes an effort to keep everyone as employed as they're able. In an up economy, this likely means steady work, in a down economy, I don't know.
Anyway, if you have any other questions, feel free to email me (contact in my profile), and I'll answer what questions I'm able. The (again) disclaimer is that my experience is dated, and a lot has happened since then, but as most of my family back home are tradesmen, I can ask around for answers if need be.
As far as benefits go, they were indeed very good. As has been mentioned around here, these jobs tend to be somewhat more physically demanding than the average programming / desk jockey position, and the result of that was better than average health insurance. The insurance industry everywhere has changed a lot in the past decade, so I'd recommend doing your own research.
For perspective, my cousin got Lyme disease, and didn't catch it until well after he'd been symptomatic. He was a drummer in a band, had thick, long hair, and had a tick on his scalp that went unnoticed. When he first began acting erratically, his parents chalked it up to typical teenage rebellion. He drove a car into the house and didn't realize it, ran another car into a telephone pole, and basically got to 'late-stage' symptoms before it was inspected.
He spent months in the hospital, specialists were flown in, and ultimately, he was made better -- though later in life he's developed early arthritis, which is believed to have been caused by the Lyme. All totalled though, nobody was bankrupted by the medical treatment and cost of the rather excessive care involved.
As for job stability, there are indeed periods of boom and bust. Boom periods often involve working optional overtime, which is compensated as overtime -- nobody in a union works off the clock. When I was a member, I never had a day where I missed work due to lack of employment, but I know that it does happen. I can't speak for how frequently it is from experience, but the union hall makes an effort to keep everyone as employed as they're able. In an up economy, this likely means steady work, in a down economy, I don't know.
Anyway, if you have any other questions, feel free to email me (contact in my profile), and I'll answer what questions I'm able. The (again) disclaimer is that my experience is dated, and a lot has happened since then, but as most of my family back home are tradesmen, I can ask around for answers if need be.
Why did you limit this learning to PHP? For the motivated individual, mastery of any of the "enterprise frameworks" would do (i.e. Django, Rails, Java EE). I will admit that some job openings (or maybe companies) are much pickier, but when I see postings for a candidate with a BS but MS preferred that ask for a full-stack Java EE expert with 2-3 years of experience, I have to laugh.
Sure, let me just see if Millie has the budget for a Rails app to run her blog with a paypal button selling beads, hand blown glass lampshades, random antiques, and beanie baby collection. Because I bet she can afford a wordpress skin and some plugins. Maybe I'll even talk her into letting me install woocommerce and I can learn about payment gateways while earning about 1800$
PHP is what your neighbors can pay for.
PHP is what your neighbors can pay for.
> The trades are physically hard labor
Mike Rowe agrees with you, so what's your point? Of course it is hard. Mike's point is our culture is becoming increasingly averse to engaging in hard, physical labor, even in the cases where compensation greatly exceeds that of many other fields.
Mike Rowe agrees with you, so what's your point? Of course it is hard. Mike's point is our culture is becoming increasingly averse to engaging in hard, physical labor, even in the cases where compensation greatly exceeds that of many other fields.
I'm not disagreeing with Mike Rowe there in the least. His point is very well taken, and people without a yen for the academe or the STEM world should very carefully consider a tradesperson's life. But, it's a far cry from the hard work in college compared to the hard work on a construction site. Construction work is, in a very primal way, harder work[1].
I do not see any rational reason not to engage in skilled tradeswork if one has the desire to. It's not my path, but I respect it.
[1] I am so not getting into an debate over this, having done both.
I do not see any rational reason not to engage in skilled tradeswork if one has the desire to. It's not my path, but I respect it.
[1] I am so not getting into an debate over this, having done both.
Wasn't my post, but I believe the point is that the vast majority of people can't physically do some of these jobs.
This is an interesting parallel to the fallacy that many fall into in trying to get really good at sports so that they have a straight path to a lucrative career. Simply put, statistically you are not likely to be able to cut it in that industry.
This is an interesting parallel to the fallacy that many fall into in trying to get really good at sports so that they have a straight path to a lucrative career. Simply put, statistically you are not likely to be able to cut it in that industry.
When you say 'some of these jobs', are you talking about, say, manual labour at oil wells? I have a hard time thinking of any trade that an average person would struggle to thrive in if they were willing to do the work. A few exist, but to use them as a reason to avoid trade work is disingenuous.
In fact, even working as a labourer at an oil well is easy enough that one of my friends who normally works as a graphic designer did it for a few months while traveling in Canada. The hardest part of his experience was that he didn't see his girlfriend very much.
I spent the first 23 years of my life as a weak, desk-dwelling geek. I never thought I could work a trade. I never even thought a trade was worthwhile work. Now I'm an industrial electrician with a great job and a fulfilling life. The work is 'hard', sure. There's a lot of manual labour and the sites we work at (abattoirs, waste water treatment plants, chemical mixing plants etc) are all unpleasant for one reason or another, but the day you get over yourself and get properly stuck into the job you realise that it's actually worthwhile work and it isn't even very hard. Even for somebody who spent the majority of their life training to work at a desk.
Comparing trade work to being an elite athlete is absurd, too. Statistically speaking, there's no reason what so ever that would prevent you from doing well in a trade. Quite the opposite. Most trades just require somebody willing to do the work. They don't require unusually high IQ (although high creativity can be great for problem solving), they don't require unusually high fitness, they just require somebody to do the work. If you want to do well, do lots of work.
It's pretty simple. Most people just aren't willing to do it because they don't think trade work is respectable. Oh, and it's 'hard'.
In fact, even working as a labourer at an oil well is easy enough that one of my friends who normally works as a graphic designer did it for a few months while traveling in Canada. The hardest part of his experience was that he didn't see his girlfriend very much.
I spent the first 23 years of my life as a weak, desk-dwelling geek. I never thought I could work a trade. I never even thought a trade was worthwhile work. Now I'm an industrial electrician with a great job and a fulfilling life. The work is 'hard', sure. There's a lot of manual labour and the sites we work at (abattoirs, waste water treatment plants, chemical mixing plants etc) are all unpleasant for one reason or another, but the day you get over yourself and get properly stuck into the job you realise that it's actually worthwhile work and it isn't even very hard. Even for somebody who spent the majority of their life training to work at a desk.
Comparing trade work to being an elite athlete is absurd, too. Statistically speaking, there's no reason what so ever that would prevent you from doing well in a trade. Quite the opposite. Most trades just require somebody willing to do the work. They don't require unusually high IQ (although high creativity can be great for problem solving), they don't require unusually high fitness, they just require somebody to do the work. If you want to do well, do lots of work.
It's pretty simple. Most people just aren't willing to do it because they don't think trade work is respectable. Oh, and it's 'hard'.
Just going from the examples given. Welding or any construction in typical Louisiana weather.
And, I am far from against trade work. If anything, I wish I had been more considering of them when I was younger.
Regarding my comparison. I meant simply that it was similar. Most "trade" jobs are things that you can make decent money on, certainly. Interestingly enough, so are most "sport" related jobs. You may not be the star athlete, but a lot of "mediocre" sport jobs pay quite decently. Especially if you are able to fully devote yourself to it. To think just getting your foot in the door is a sure path to that "straight line to a 6 figure salary" is absurd.
And, I am far from against trade work. If anything, I wish I had been more considering of them when I was younger.
Regarding my comparison. I meant simply that it was similar. Most "trade" jobs are things that you can make decent money on, certainly. Interestingly enough, so are most "sport" related jobs. You may not be the star athlete, but a lot of "mediocre" sport jobs pay quite decently. Especially if you are able to fully devote yourself to it. To think just getting your foot in the door is a sure path to that "straight line to a 6 figure salary" is absurd.
Some people feel physical work is easier. Some people feel cognitive work is easier. Strangely enough, the subjective ease of the work has little to do with your actual relative ability at it: I've had really stressful or depressing times working in a programming job or a grad-school environment, but I would certainly say my brain is my strong-suit rather than my muscles. In contrast, if I have physical work to do and can let my mind wander a bit more, I find it very easy, if somewhat boring.
I don't think inability to perform these jobs is the limiting factor. In the past, larger percentages of the population have had hard labor jobs.
Maybe we're all fatter, but if we are talking about 18 year olds getting into a physically demanding job, that should be far less of an issue (less of an issue as it would be for, say, a 35 year old, who has had 17 more years of their body decaying and 17 more years of eating too much).
Maybe we're all fatter, but if we are talking about 18 year olds getting into a physically demanding job, that should be far less of an issue (less of an issue as it would be for, say, a 35 year old, who has had 17 more years of their body decaying and 17 more years of eating too much).
My guess is that the ages of the people involved in many of these situations is a touch higher than 18. Also, beware considerations of the past. In the past, larger percentages of the population died before hitting 15 years of age.
Yes, most unemployed people are probably much older than 18. However most people making the decision to go to college, or go into various trades, are 18 or younger. That seems to be the age bracket Mike Rowe is primarily talking about.
The specific example was about a large influx of trainees into post Katrina Louisiana. That is the scenario I was mainly talking about.
The general point about kids not necessarily needing to go to college, I 100% agree with. Though, all of the numbers I've ever been shown do paint a picture that statistically you are better off doing so than not.
The general point about kids not necessarily needing to go to college, I 100% agree with. Though, all of the numbers I've ever been shown do paint a picture that statistically you are better off doing so than not.
Wall street jobs are super stressful. Stressful enough that people not properly suited for it might kill themselves.
Programming jobs are mentally taxing. Mentally taxing enough that people not properly suited for it might become depressed, decide that they're a failure, and/or have a very hard time.
Jobs in science require math skills that are hard / expensive to acquire, which one might never master or become good at.
Jobs in law require very expensive educations, passing an extremely hard bar exam, years of work for low pay and long hours, for a job that only might prove to be good paying after the fact.
Becoming a doctor requires expensive education; Surgery require that plus steady hands. Etc., etc.
Jobs and trades have different pros and cons. I agree that yes, trade skills are physically demanding, but having done them before, they aren't that physically demanding. It isn't the same as being on a prison chain gang, and an average work day is less intensive than a couple of hard hours at a gym.
Obviously, this varies from trade to trade, but the I agree with you that the idea that trade skills should not be considerable because they require physical effort is fairly silly, unless the suggestion is that we should all eschew all forms of work, because every job has some sort of down side.
I don't know of any high pay, low skill, low stress, cushy jobs in the world. If someone knows of one that doesn't have some other downside I haven't listed, feel free to let me know. Email address is in my profile.
Programming jobs are mentally taxing. Mentally taxing enough that people not properly suited for it might become depressed, decide that they're a failure, and/or have a very hard time.
Jobs in science require math skills that are hard / expensive to acquire, which one might never master or become good at.
Jobs in law require very expensive educations, passing an extremely hard bar exam, years of work for low pay and long hours, for a job that only might prove to be good paying after the fact.
Becoming a doctor requires expensive education; Surgery require that plus steady hands. Etc., etc.
Jobs and trades have different pros and cons. I agree that yes, trade skills are physically demanding, but having done them before, they aren't that physically demanding. It isn't the same as being on a prison chain gang, and an average work day is less intensive than a couple of hard hours at a gym.
Obviously, this varies from trade to trade, but the I agree with you that the idea that trade skills should not be considerable because they require physical effort is fairly silly, unless the suggestion is that we should all eschew all forms of work, because every job has some sort of down side.
I don't know of any high pay, low skill, low stress, cushy jobs in the world. If someone knows of one that doesn't have some other downside I haven't listed, feel free to let me know. Email address is in my profile.
Actually when you measure stress it turns out that high-flying jobs are not that stressful. It's having no control over your life that causes stress, and being an underpaid peon is the most stressful situation to be in.
Many high-flying jobs are stressful because they're insecure. Think of an untenured professor or a junior associate at a law firm: up or out, and it's a zero-sum competition! Yes, that's very stressful, even if worrying about your job every few months is less stressful than worrying about making rent every month.
That's an interesting stance. I admit that I was speaking generally, but I've had a high-stress job, and left it, because it was insanely stressful. It was exceedingly high paid, and leaving it was indeed a difficult decision, but I definitely felt the stress.
Conversely, I've had a trade skill position, and considered it neither high-stress nor low paid. There are obviously higher paid positions out there, but there are also a bevy of far lower paid positions out there.
I'm curious as to how you discount the stress of high stress positions though. Not necessarily doubting it, but my personal anecdata contradicts it.
Conversely, I've had a trade skill position, and considered it neither high-stress nor low paid. There are obviously higher paid positions out there, but there are also a bevy of far lower paid positions out there.
I'm curious as to how you discount the stress of high stress positions though. Not necessarily doubting it, but my personal anecdata contradicts it.
I've worked in high paying "high stress" jobs (indeed, my current job probably qualifies). The stress of not knowing whether you're going to be promoted or fired is certainly horrible, but you still get to eat good food and sleep in a nice bed.
I can't find the studies right now, but I was simply quoting results from research from memory. Frankly, I call BS on the typical idea that higher paid jobs are more stressful in general. Sure, you can find examples to suit an argument, and I'm sure many of us have had a high paid job that is stressful, but we've also probably had a high paid job that isn't stressful, or isn't stressful most of the time. Being poor and having no control over your day is far worse, and I say this as someone who has only had brief bouts of financial stress.
I can't find the studies right now, but I was simply quoting results from research from memory. Frankly, I call BS on the typical idea that higher paid jobs are more stressful in general. Sure, you can find examples to suit an argument, and I'm sure many of us have had a high paid job that is stressful, but we've also probably had a high paid job that isn't stressful, or isn't stressful most of the time. Being poor and having no control over your day is far worse, and I say this as someone who has only had brief bouts of financial stress.
Oh, agreed. I'm not trying to imply that all high-paying jobs are stressful... not at all.
I'm just saying that there are indeed jobs that are high-stress, and that typically, the trade-off for that stress is in higher pay. There are certainly high paying jobs that aren't inherently stressful, and I'd wager that most of us, as programmers, enjoy them quite a lot. There are also certainly low paying jobs that are extremely stressful -- state level politics, social workers, etc., are likely to fall within those demographics.
Just as certainly though, there do exist high-stress jobs that also are high pay, and that said high stress is a check mark in the con column against it, just as 'physical labor is hard' is a valid check mark in the con column against trade labor.
I'm just saying that there are indeed jobs that are high-stress, and that typically, the trade-off for that stress is in higher pay. There are certainly high paying jobs that aren't inherently stressful, and I'd wager that most of us, as programmers, enjoy them quite a lot. There are also certainly low paying jobs that are extremely stressful -- state level politics, social workers, etc., are likely to fall within those demographics.
Just as certainly though, there do exist high-stress jobs that also are high pay, and that said high stress is a check mark in the con column against it, just as 'physical labor is hard' is a valid check mark in the con column against trade labor.
> the number of immigrants doing these same hard work in unpleasant conditions while native-born "modern Americans" moan about being unable to find work.
Are jobs that pay less than minimum wage even offered to citizens or documented immigrants?
Are jobs that pay less than minimum wage even offered to citizens or documented immigrants?
Of course they are. I question their relevance when it comes to considering "liveable" situations, though. Eventually, this becomes akin to thinking someone should stay in an abusive relationship because at least they have that option.
I'm not talking about jobs that pay less than minimum wage. In a place and time, (say, before 2008 :-) ) a hard working landscaper where I used to live took home between $15-$25/hr, and often worked 70 hour weeks. As a rule, these people seemed to be Hispanic. Many of them were and are very hard workers.
I don't enquire into people's visa status as a rule of thumb, so I'm afraid I can't answer whether they were being paid under the table or not. However, the pay rates were quite respectable.
I don't enquire into people's visa status as a rule of thumb, so I'm afraid I can't answer whether they were being paid under the table or not. However, the pay rates were quite respectable.
>In a place and time, (say, before 2008 :-) ) a hard working landscaper where I used to live took home between $15-$25/hr, and often worked 70 hour weeks. As a rule, these people seemed to be Hispanic. Many of them were and are very hard workers.
And did they want their kids to grow up to be landscapers working 70 hours/week as well? Or did they perhaps want their kids to become fat, spoiled Americans?
And did they want their kids to grow up to be landscapers working 70 hours/week as well? Or did they perhaps want their kids to become fat, spoiled Americans?
Yes. 1099 your ass and don't you dare ask for 1.5x OT while paying $8.50/hr and doing 50-60 hour weeks.
Or 'unpaid internships'. You can argue the experience, but the law is the law.
Or 'unpaid internships'. You can argue the experience, but the law is the law.
The current situation is somewhat problematic, absolutely. But I am pretty sure privatization of universities is exactly the wrong way to go. As far as a society goes, that would be putting the last nail in the coffin for social mobility... if anyone still believes in that. Prices won't drop. At some universities, they will just rise to make up for the lower number of students who are able to afford to pay tuition, and those who are able to afford it (the upper classes) will be able to attend. At other universities, the prices will indeed drop, and they will be unable to retain any truly talented professors, and become a second wave of community colleges and trade schools. And with that, the ability for children of the lower classes will be even more entirely cut out of the ability to rise anywhere beyond our shrinking middle class.
The reason blue-collar work is avoided is that it is a dead end. And as factories close down, the remaining work is more and more just packing boxes and stocking shelves at minimum wage.
The reason blue-collar work is avoided is that it is a dead end. And as factories close down, the remaining work is more and more just packing boxes and stocking shelves at minimum wage.
Mike Rowe continuously spouts on a "skills gap" but doesn't seem to know anything about "job lock".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_lock
He keep avoiding the topic of health care in the USA several times in the Q&A. Frankly, I think Rowe is out of his league here and doesn't understand that we need a true single payer system for health care:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_lock
He keep avoiding the topic of health care in the USA several times in the Q&A. Frankly, I think Rowe is out of his league here and doesn't understand that we need a true single payer system for health care:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq
Is there some reason to think health-care related "Job Lock" is a thing in the US after COBRA and HIPPA?
COBRA is vastly expensive for most Americans and does very little to combat "job lock" and HIPAA doesn't help the situation.
COBRA:
• COBRA is prohibitively expensive for most people who are attempting to transition to another job especially with the risks that are often incurred by switching to another job (see below)
• It has a time limit. If it doesn't work out with new jobs, you can find yourself without any health insurance. For example, if you're forced to get a job in the meantime that doesn't provide insurance, COBRA won't qualify you. Also, even if the job did have insurance and they lay you off, COBRA is expensive and will drain savings (if one is fortunate enough to have savings in the first place).
• If things go wrong after your transition to another job and you're expensive COBRA runs out you may get stuck with State-sponsored high risk pools with yet even more high costs, waiting lists, poor benefits. Of course, that is IF you're "luckily" enough to live in a state that has such a things.
• If you dare apply for another job and your current employer finds out you're looking for another job and find an excuse to fire you, you can't qualify for COBRA. You're SCREWED.
• Not all states are consistent in applying COBRA. Depending on which state you're in, if you're denied COBRA, you may be stuck.
• If you want to leave a job to start your own business, you may not quality for COBRA and/or afford it in the first place.
HIPAA does not ensure that a worker who changes jobs will have access to health insurance coverage on the new job or that the coverage offered will be affordable. Thus, neither COBRA nor HIPAA ensures affordability of health insurance -- the main cause of job lock.
COBRA:
• COBRA is prohibitively expensive for most people who are attempting to transition to another job especially with the risks that are often incurred by switching to another job (see below)
• It has a time limit. If it doesn't work out with new jobs, you can find yourself without any health insurance. For example, if you're forced to get a job in the meantime that doesn't provide insurance, COBRA won't qualify you. Also, even if the job did have insurance and they lay you off, COBRA is expensive and will drain savings (if one is fortunate enough to have savings in the first place).
• If things go wrong after your transition to another job and you're expensive COBRA runs out you may get stuck with State-sponsored high risk pools with yet even more high costs, waiting lists, poor benefits. Of course, that is IF you're "luckily" enough to live in a state that has such a things.
• If you dare apply for another job and your current employer finds out you're looking for another job and find an excuse to fire you, you can't qualify for COBRA. You're SCREWED.
• Not all states are consistent in applying COBRA. Depending on which state you're in, if you're denied COBRA, you may be stuck.
• If you want to leave a job to start your own business, you may not quality for COBRA and/or afford it in the first place.
HIPAA does not ensure that a worker who changes jobs will have access to health insurance coverage on the new job or that the coverage offered will be affordable. Thus, neither COBRA nor HIPAA ensures affordability of health insurance -- the main cause of job lock.
This is incredible. Mike Rowe has a blog and he apparently understands economics (based on first answer.) once again HN has made my day.
One factor of the metric that there're "unfilled skilled positions" is that the pay for those positions is still incredibly low. Many of those positions offer compensation near minimum wage, or are laborious enough that it's not worth working for.
So although there are unfilled skilled labor positions, many of those don't fit the supply/demand curve.
So although there are unfilled skilled labor positions, many of those don't fit the supply/demand curve.
On education, Mike Rowe is correct, it's not in the government's hands what the price of education is. Now the government could choose to subsidize higher education fees more, but that would cost a lot of money so its a difficult choice to make.
The problem with all discussion on jobs is that they are treated as a special kind of market where free market principles don't apply. Rowe doesn't even go as far as suggesting letting the market determine who works where.
Cracking down on illegal immigration would help deal with the lack of jobs at the low end of the market, unfortunately hypocritical politicians find enforcing the law to be an untenable platform.
In general though, jobs should come from having skills that are useful, not protectionism. We do need to be training people to fill the new class of technical positions and this includes programmers, even though it will lower the salaries of existing programmers.
The problem with all discussion on jobs is that they are treated as a special kind of market where free market principles don't apply. Rowe doesn't even go as far as suggesting letting the market determine who works where.
Cracking down on illegal immigration would help deal with the lack of jobs at the low end of the market, unfortunately hypocritical politicians find enforcing the law to be an untenable platform.
In general though, jobs should come from having skills that are useful, not protectionism. We do need to be training people to fill the new class of technical positions and this includes programmers, even though it will lower the salaries of existing programmers.
Skate where the puck is going to be. How much confidence can you have nowadays that your job isn't one clever-roboticist away from being automated, if your main value contribution is skilled labor? The same economics that drive high pay for skilled welders who work in the heat also will drive dollars towards automating these jobs. If I have to pay a welder 100k a year now, if I can automate their job away for anything less than that then it's worth it.
The truth is college is a form of leverage. If you get a solid degree you have basically added a skills multiplier to many things you will encounter in your career. The same cannot really be said if you become a master tradesman, since the deeper you go the less transferrable your skills become.
The truth is college is a form of leverage. If you get a solid degree you have basically added a skills multiplier to many things you will encounter in your career. The same cannot really be said if you become a master tradesman, since the deeper you go the less transferrable your skills become.
MYCIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycin), a program written in the 70s, was better able to diagnose infections than doctors. If failed because "in the 1970s, a session with MYCIN could easily consume 30 minutes or more—an unrealistic time commitment for a busy clinician."
Now, with most medical information already computerized (or headed that way), how much better could a modern MYCIN be? What would this do to the career of a typical doctor?
Now, with most medical information already computerized (or headed that way), how much better could a modern MYCIN be? What would this do to the career of a typical doctor?
This automation argument applies to everything in the US, and the world.
Previously in the history of the world, we had to do things with our own hands, or use manual tools that used our hands. (Shovels, spades, rakes,...)
Then we migrated to machines that we could sit in or stand in, that could greatly magnify our strength (vehicles, trains, gas powered stuffs).
Now, we entered a realm back in the '60s with powerful automation via computers. And it's only gotten more powerful, smaller, and cheaper. But yet, computers have always been bad for many types of manual jobs because of fuzziness.
And now, our computers are dirt cheap and damn fast. And they can handle fuzziness and broad input. And they are replacing jobs rather quickly. But so what? Whom does this make money for? Well, people who can afford the means of production. And that answer takes us back to a treatise that was written back in the late 1800's: The Communist Manifesto.
But wait a moment... Communism fails because people seek "fair" compensation. For example, a doctor _should_ get paid more than a burger flipper, right? It seems logical that the more work you put into attaining the position should be relevant to the pay of that position. But what happens when those screws are turned, and you now compete with auto-doc or auto-flipper? You end up with lowering wages. Most of the times, those wages get lowered directly to 0.
But we then hear the old saying: When the buggy whip manufacturers died out, it opened up automotive manufacturing. Well, yes. When a segment closes, another opens, but usually the segment is smaller. For example, when a factory is mostly laid off due to automation, the few that are kept are the ones that can program and debug software and hardware. And they then are also 'encouraged' to work harder. Then this harder is the new average.
And these new employees are doing the work of 2-3 people, because it is what is expected of them to keep their job. And then automation takes over even these people, because automation can do the job of 10 people (or more!) with low error rates. But this is a look at an individual.
Now, what happens nationally? Well, we see higher numbers of unemployed and subsidized users (food stamps, WIC, housing, other means tested benefits). But why? Because automation does work, and well. But it leads to the ones whom can afford it more money, and workers without. But is Communism the answer? Maybe... Or perhaps a post-capitalism answer is needed; one that blends all of the needs of citizens and some of the wants, whilst not ignoring that those whom work harder/smarter should also be compensated for their hard work.
And of course, we've heard about the the Canadian program of Mincome, as well as Switzerland's possible venture into this territory. Is this a solution? I believe so, even as a simple humanitarian solution of compassion for fellow man.
Previously in the history of the world, we had to do things with our own hands, or use manual tools that used our hands. (Shovels, spades, rakes,...)
Then we migrated to machines that we could sit in or stand in, that could greatly magnify our strength (vehicles, trains, gas powered stuffs).
Now, we entered a realm back in the '60s with powerful automation via computers. And it's only gotten more powerful, smaller, and cheaper. But yet, computers have always been bad for many types of manual jobs because of fuzziness.
And now, our computers are dirt cheap and damn fast. And they can handle fuzziness and broad input. And they are replacing jobs rather quickly. But so what? Whom does this make money for? Well, people who can afford the means of production. And that answer takes us back to a treatise that was written back in the late 1800's: The Communist Manifesto.
But wait a moment... Communism fails because people seek "fair" compensation. For example, a doctor _should_ get paid more than a burger flipper, right? It seems logical that the more work you put into attaining the position should be relevant to the pay of that position. But what happens when those screws are turned, and you now compete with auto-doc or auto-flipper? You end up with lowering wages. Most of the times, those wages get lowered directly to 0.
But we then hear the old saying: When the buggy whip manufacturers died out, it opened up automotive manufacturing. Well, yes. When a segment closes, another opens, but usually the segment is smaller. For example, when a factory is mostly laid off due to automation, the few that are kept are the ones that can program and debug software and hardware. And they then are also 'encouraged' to work harder. Then this harder is the new average.
And these new employees are doing the work of 2-3 people, because it is what is expected of them to keep their job. And then automation takes over even these people, because automation can do the job of 10 people (or more!) with low error rates. But this is a look at an individual.
Now, what happens nationally? Well, we see higher numbers of unemployed and subsidized users (food stamps, WIC, housing, other means tested benefits). But why? Because automation does work, and well. But it leads to the ones whom can afford it more money, and workers without. But is Communism the answer? Maybe... Or perhaps a post-capitalism answer is needed; one that blends all of the needs of citizens and some of the wants, whilst not ignoring that those whom work harder/smarter should also be compensated for their hard work.
And of course, we've heard about the the Canadian program of Mincome, as well as Switzerland's possible venture into this territory. Is this a solution? I believe so, even as a simple humanitarian solution of compassion for fellow man.
I've always found it puzzling that many businesses believe that if they can't fill a job, it can't be because they're offering too low a wage - they invariably say the pay is fair.
If went around trying to buy bread at what I thought was a fair price, and found no takers, my immediate reaction would not be "Well, bakers just don't want to work hard."
If went around trying to buy bread at what I thought was a fair price, and found no takers, my immediate reaction would not be "Well, bakers just don't want to work hard."
It's a hard pill to swallow when you realize the cost of your business critical resources have gone up. I suspect most business sit in denial until their competitors who are willing to pay it and can figure out a working business model begin to eat into their wallets.
I don't buy the arguments that trade jobs are a good option. It's especially hard to swallow from a college graduate who belongs to an anti-union political party.
Unless you are unwilling or unable to go to college, the numbers indicate that, on average, you will have much lower unemployment and a substantially higher lifetime income.
Unless you are unwilling or unable to go to college, the numbers indicate that, on average, you will have much lower unemployment and a substantially higher lifetime income.
Markets still remain supply and demand driven. Industries that have roots in college educations have appeared more stable because the number of people with degrees has historically been relatively low. When we have more educated people than jobs that benefit from such an education, incomes will drop and it will become difficult to find work.
The trades are starting to gain appeal right now because people have put more emphasis on getting a college degree in the past decade or so. That leaves fewer people able to take on trade work, which pushes for higher incomes and better jobs to the people who can. At the same time, college educated people are finding it increasingly difficult to find meaningful employment.
Of course, if people follow Rowe's track in the future, it will swing back the other way again soon enough. That is why smart investors go to where nobody is showing interest.
The trades are starting to gain appeal right now because people have put more emphasis on getting a college degree in the past decade or so. That leaves fewer people able to take on trade work, which pushes for higher incomes and better jobs to the people who can. At the same time, college educated people are finding it increasingly difficult to find meaningful employment.
Of course, if people follow Rowe's track in the future, it will swing back the other way again soon enough. That is why smart investors go to where nobody is showing interest.
Show me any evidence that college educated people, in particular, are having trouble finding employment. These numbers look extremely favorable http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm.
Seeing as how we're talking about a relative increase in difficulty, I'm not sure what we're supposed to take away from a single data point?
You can see here[1] that this decade has brought on a distinct change in unemployment rates for college graduates. The last four years averaged an entire percentage point higher than the highest rate ever seen before. Since we both seem to agree that unemployment rates are a reasonable metric for determining the difficulty of finding work, it seems pretty clear that it is more difficult now as a college graduate than it once was.
[1] http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screen-shot-2013-0...
You can see here[1] that this decade has brought on a distinct change in unemployment rates for college graduates. The last four years averaged an entire percentage point higher than the highest rate ever seen before. Since we both seem to agree that unemployment rates are a reasonable metric for determining the difficulty of finding work, it seems pretty clear that it is more difficult now as a college graduate than it once was.
[1] http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screen-shot-2013-0...
[deleted](1)
Do any of those numbers break out people with technical training vs those who's total education has ended at high school?
How do you propose we fix things that break and build new things without any trade jobs? Given the prices that plumbers charge for example, it appears that it is both lucrative and quite needed (especially since many people today would have trouble changing a tire let alone replacing a burst pipe.)
How do you propose we fix things that break and build new things without any trade jobs? Given the prices that plumbers charge for example, it appears that it is both lucrative and quite needed (especially since many people today would have trouble changing a tire let alone replacing a burst pipe.)
[deleted]
>most of the Republicans I know want the same basic things as most of the Democrats I know ... They all want a healthy planet
That's a crock of shit right there. Most Republicans put the almighty dollar ahead of the environment and many still think global warming or climate change effects are a hoax.
Mike Rowe must live in quite the small bubble.
That's a crock of shit right there. Most Republicans put the almighty dollar ahead of the environment and many still think global warming or climate change effects are a hoax.
Mike Rowe must live in quite the small bubble.
I'm not a Republican, but I work with mostly Republicans in some of the charities I'm associated with, and at least anecdotally, that statement seems completely unsubstantiated, and carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists" or "all Democrats hate the rich".
Except I didn't say "all republicans" anything.
Nor did I say that you did.
Please stop being obtuse. You obviously implied it with your post.
>carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists"
>carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists"
What I implied was that a lie about "most" Republicans is just as asinine as a lie about all Republicans.
Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here, and as pragmatists, we should all be above them.
Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here, and as pragmatists, we should all be above them.
>Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here
The FACT that most Republicans still consider climate impact and/or manmade global warming an overblown hoax isn't a "undeserved stereotype" unless one is to devolve into fantasy.
As a self-proclaimed pragmatist, you should be above this fantasy.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-ov...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-climate...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-tr...
The FACT that most Republicans still consider climate impact and/or manmade global warming an overblown hoax isn't a "undeserved stereotype" unless one is to devolve into fantasy.
As a self-proclaimed pragmatist, you should be above this fantasy.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-ov...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-climate...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-tr...
The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.
From your link:
1) climate change isn't the sum totality of the environment, and
2) whether one chooses to believe or disbelieve in either its presence or its seriousness, that does not necessarily bely an ulterior profit motive?
Many Democrats are against the private ownership of 'semi-automatic firearms', but that doesn't mean that they're trying to disarm the populace so that they can crush us like Hitler.
Many Republicans are against expanding social welfare programs, but that doesn't mean that they're trying to crush the poor and kill off minorities through starvation.
Many Libertarians are against the idea of income taxation, but that doesn't mean that they want people whose jobs are paid for with tax dollars to be evicted from their homes and be subjected to the elements.
Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment, and even if it does mean that, it does not mean they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.
In short, you've took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.
From your link:
About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a
very serious problem
1) climate change isn't the sum totality of the environment, and
2) whether one chooses to believe or disbelieve in either its presence or its seriousness, that does not necessarily bely an ulterior profit motive?
Many Democrats are against the private ownership of 'semi-automatic firearms', but that doesn't mean that they're trying to disarm the populace so that they can crush us like Hitler.
Many Republicans are against expanding social welfare programs, but that doesn't mean that they're trying to crush the poor and kill off minorities through starvation.
Many Libertarians are against the idea of income taxation, but that doesn't mean that they want people whose jobs are paid for with tax dollars to be evicted from their homes and be subjected to the elements.
Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment, and even if it does mean that, it does not mean they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.
In short, you've took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.
>The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.
No, it wasn't. You inferred that I was stating that ALL republicans put money ahead of the environment by saying:
"carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists" or "all Democrats hate the rich"."
I clearly said MOST and corrected you.
You also presented your own useless, anecdotal experience that's in direct odds with the empirical evidence I later presented to you.
>The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.
You then go on to present your own false equivalence with Democrats, how quaint.
>About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a very serious problem
Nice false equivalency cherry-picking. You're ignoring the rest of the research that clearly shows that most Republicans are notorious for being deniers of everything from warming itself, to it being caused by human activity, along with impact denial.
You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point.
>Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment
Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans. But, the fact that MOST put a corporatist, profiteering point of view ahead of a vast majority of climate scientists doesn't actually show a sincere concern for the environment, either.
Unless, once again, you want to jump into another foray of fantasy.
No, it wasn't. You inferred that I was stating that ALL republicans put money ahead of the environment by saying:
"carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists" or "all Democrats hate the rich"."
I clearly said MOST and corrected you.
You also presented your own useless, anecdotal experience that's in direct odds with the empirical evidence I later presented to you.
>The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.
You then go on to present your own false equivalence with Democrats, how quaint.
>About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a very serious problem
Nice false equivalency cherry-picking. You're ignoring the rest of the research that clearly shows that most Republicans are notorious for being deniers of everything from warming itself, to it being caused by human activity, along with impact denial.
You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point.
>Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment
Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans. But, the fact that MOST put a corporatist, profiteering point of view ahead of a vast majority of climate scientists doesn't actually show a sincere concern for the environment, either.
Unless, once again, you want to jump into another foray of fantasy.
> You're ignoring the rest of the research that clearly shows that most Republicans are notorious for being deniers of everything from warming itself, to it being caused by human activity, along with impact denial.
Which doesn't equate to hating the environment, nor does it associate that {non}hatred into profiteering.
> You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point.
No, I'm pointing out that your initial statement is meritless, while you attempt to dilute the issue completely.
> Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans.
Okay, fine. Even if MOST Republican agree on climate change, that doesn't mean they hate the environment. Even if it does mean that, it doesn't mean that they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.
"In fact, in areas where curbside recycling is available, an overwhelming 70 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans say they “always” participate."
That doesn't seem very hateful to me, even though it clearly isn't profitable to either party.
In short, your initial statement was baseless, and shame on you for trying to dilute the issue into plausibility. That isn't how facts work.
This still holds true.
> In short, you took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.
Edit: Typo which, ironically, was quoted from an original typo I'd made, but which I now can't edit. :-)
Which doesn't equate to hating the environment, nor does it associate that {non}hatred into profiteering.
> You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point.
No, I'm pointing out that your initial statement is meritless, while you attempt to dilute the issue completely.
> Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans.
Okay, fine. Even if MOST Republican agree on climate change, that doesn't mean they hate the environment. Even if it does mean that, it doesn't mean that they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.
"In fact, in areas where curbside recycling is available, an overwhelming 70 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans say they “always” participate."
That doesn't seem very hateful to me, even though it clearly isn't profitable to either party.
In short, your initial statement was baseless, and shame on you for trying to dilute the issue into plausibility. That isn't how facts work.
This still holds true.
> In short, you took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.
Edit: Typo which, ironically, was quoted from an original typo I'd made, but which I now can't edit. :-)
> Which doesn't equate to hating the environment
I didn't say they simply "hated the environment" in the first place. You steered away from my points and into a silly territory. You're resorting to goalpost moving instead of just admitting you're wrong.
> Even if MOST Republican agree on climate change, that doesn't mean they hate the environment.
Once again, you steered it to this inane direction away from my initial point.
Almost no one "hates the environment" in itself and I never made such a ridiculous claim. But, many Republicans are clearly more willing to put aside uncomfortable facts, destructive externalities and live in denial and willful ignorance if it helps them make a buck.
Sad, but true on many levels beyond the environment. That's NOT to say that others are guilty of such things, but Republicans are far worse than others on the left and plenty of evidence backs this up.
It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.
> your initial statement was baseless
Only if one is to continue to delve into fantasy (as you obviously do) when it comes to the modern Republican party and its supporters in regards to protecting the environment (and lower income class humans for that matter).
I didn't say they simply "hated the environment" in the first place. You steered away from my points and into a silly territory. You're resorting to goalpost moving instead of just admitting you're wrong.
> Even if MOST Republican agree on climate change, that doesn't mean they hate the environment.
Once again, you steered it to this inane direction away from my initial point.
Almost no one "hates the environment" in itself and I never made such a ridiculous claim. But, many Republicans are clearly more willing to put aside uncomfortable facts, destructive externalities and live in denial and willful ignorance if it helps them make a buck.
Sad, but true on many levels beyond the environment. That's NOT to say that others are guilty of such things, but Republicans are far worse than others on the left and plenty of evidence backs this up.
It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.
> your initial statement was baseless
Only if one is to continue to delve into fantasy (as you obviously do) when it comes to the modern Republican party and its supporters in regards to protecting the environment (and lower income class humans for that matter).
Thanks. That last bit of hyperbole was all that I needed to completely discount your arguments. I'll stop feeding the troll.
Why doesn't he have these jobs listed on his website? I have 2 friends who are unemployed one with a newborn who would be more then interested in those welding jobs he mentions. Does anyone have more information? Do you have to own your own gear? How much is school? Is there a lot of travel?
Thanks, clicking around I eventually found this website too http://search.jobsinwelding.com/jobseeker/search/results/
But on both of these there are very few entry level jobs and the one I did find that actually listed the salary was only $22k a year!
But on both of these there are very few entry level jobs and the one I did find that actually listed the salary was only $22k a year!
Try emailing him. I bet a few HNers could throw something together by next weekend.
Notice how the questioner seems to have someone else's actions to blame for the problems. This is often a narrow way of thinking and can be a deception in ones own view of the world. What I like most about Mike's responses are that he doesn't blame anyone, per se, but understands that these problems are best described by analyzing the current environment in which they become evident.
Who could blame colleges for raising tuition when the current funding environment begged them too? Who could blame people for not wanting to work shit jobs in the heat but instead go to college and work at jobs that require instead a skilled intellect, pay more, and are more comfortable? And why shouldn't Mike talk about people who work hard, dirty jobs when a show about them made him famous?
Who could blame colleges for raising tuition when the current funding environment begged them too? Who could blame people for not wanting to work shit jobs in the heat but instead go to college and work at jobs that require instead a skilled intellect, pay more, and are more comfortable? And why shouldn't Mike talk about people who work hard, dirty jobs when a show about them made him famous?
Can someone American explain what the core of the issue is for people like me?
American culture leads kids to believe that trades jobs have low social standing, so they borrow obscene amounts of money to go to college because they think it will get them a good job where they do paperwork for lots of money.
Instead they wind up in debt working in an unskilled retail sales or service job, or just unemployed. If they had gone to a legitimate trade school[1] or even just an entry-level manual labor job that trains you they'd be much better off.
[1] most of the trade schools in America are outright scams, signing up people for government tuition loans then giving them garbage education. Some of them are not, and anyone who graduates from them will have valuable skills that can support a family. Have fun finding out which ones, 17 year olds!
Instead they wind up in debt working in an unskilled retail sales or service job, or just unemployed. If they had gone to a legitimate trade school[1] or even just an entry-level manual labor job that trains you they'd be much better off.
[1] most of the trade schools in America are outright scams, signing up people for government tuition loans then giving them garbage education. Some of them are not, and anyone who graduates from them will have valuable skills that can support a family. Have fun finding out which ones, 17 year olds!
Thanks. I was a bit confused.
In my country college is almost free.. I feel for you guys.
In my country college is almost free.. I feel for you guys.
In your country college is not almost free.....think about it.
Here's maybe a simple solution: Why can't it be made illegal to list 'college degree' as a requirement for a job? Everyone knows of jobs that any moron can do, but a college degree is required. Especially for white collar jobs in large corporations, you can't make it past the first layer of HR without a degree.
So your solution to the complex problem of college tuition increases over almost 30 years is "Make a law, then create n enforcement department, then levy fines"? I'm presuming the latter too since it makes no sense to "Make a law" that isn't going to be enforced. To enforce this over the 20,000,000 job postings out there - probably need a department of at least 50 people. Budget $80,000 per employee + $20,000 in taxes + benefits = $100k per person x 50 = $5m budget each year. I guess we'd better make those fines pretty high so we can pay for the department but, if not, that's okay - we can raise taxes 0.004% on everyone to offset it.
Mike talked about how Repubs and Dems want the same basic things but disagree about (a) how to get there, and (b) the role of government. I'm guessing you and I are on different sides of (b).
Mike talked about how Repubs and Dems want the same basic things but disagree about (a) how to get there, and (b) the role of government. I'm guessing you and I are on different sides of (b).
There were a few law cases that made it difficult for employers to test applicants.
* http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagos-real-law-blog/2012/02/do-...
* http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/12/why_employers_d.html
(just a few links from a Google search for "employers can't test IQ")
It's deemed socially acceptable to use college degrees as a proxy for "smart enough for the job" or even "smart enough to be trained for the job."
Alternatively, because primary education is so bad in the US (grades 1 through 12---roughly ages 5 to 18 for those outside the US) that a bachelors degree today is the equivalent of a high school diploma from the 1950s/1960s.
* http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagos-real-law-blog/2012/02/do-...
* http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/12/why_employers_d.html
(just a few links from a Google search for "employers can't test IQ")
It's deemed socially acceptable to use college degrees as a proxy for "smart enough for the job" or even "smart enough to be trained for the job."
Alternatively, because primary education is so bad in the US (grades 1 through 12---roughly ages 5 to 18 for those outside the US) that a bachelors degree today is the equivalent of a high school diploma from the 1950s/1960s.
How is this going to solve anything? All this is going to do is bring in a flood of applicants to the job that has no listing of a college degree as a requirement. Then HR is going to reject a bunch of applications. At the end you are just moving the barrier to an internal portal.
What you do, however, is remove the reason job seekers go to college in the first place. There are not that many jobs that actually require a degree, other than as a superficial filtering mechanism, so you can take them out of that system.
The result is that demand for college decreases, therefore the price will decrease through the properties of supply and demand, which leaves an education that returns to being affordable for those who actually care about an education.
You are right that businesses will have to find a new filtering mechanism, but it can be one that doesn't come at the cost of making education unobtainable to those who want an education.
The result is that demand for college decreases, therefore the price will decrease through the properties of supply and demand, which leaves an education that returns to being affordable for those who actually care about an education.
You are right that businesses will have to find a new filtering mechanism, but it can be one that doesn't come at the cost of making education unobtainable to those who want an education.
> What you do, however, is remove the reason job seekers go to college in the first place. There are not that many jobs that actually require a degree, other than as a superficial filtering mechanism, so you can take them out of that system.
This is a second order effect which I am not so sure which actually happen reality. I posit that it is also likely that people move the requirements to an internal portal, everyone gets wind of such a thing, mainly when HR reps start writing that "breakthrough book" about secrets of getting your first job and everyone still keeps going to college.
This is a second order effect which I am not so sure which actually happen reality. I posit that it is also likely that people move the requirements to an internal portal, everyone gets wind of such a thing, mainly when HR reps start writing that "breakthrough book" about secrets of getting your first job and everyone still keeps going to college.
Remember that the old filter was "is the applicant white?"
That would be a large reversal from the current situation. College degrees are not officially required for things like immigration or proving candidate qualifications in discrimination lawsuits, but they are generally accepted as a reliable standard. This means that if you don't require a college degree, you have to do a lot more work to define qualifications and prove they match.
just to be clear, tuition is inversely proportional to the amount of funding the government gives to higher education:
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html
Mike Rowe, advocate for the human machine.
"60hrs? Lazy bums! A good hard working man only need 4hrs of sleep a night, and can put in 16hr days, six days a week. Just like the Good Book says." --Future Middle Class Worker
"60hrs? Lazy bums! A good hard working man only need 4hrs of sleep a night, and can put in 16hr days, six days a week. Just like the Good Book says." --Future Middle Class Worker
In my state of Washington, tuition increased due to a voter approved cap on taxes, exactly the opposite Rowe's claim.
Is this Mike Rowe of Mike Rowe Soft fame? Who got sued by Microsoft?
For a leftist like Piers Morgan, it was a complete embarrassment to have a low-information voter asking ignorant questions when Mike Rowe just completely schooled her.
I think your typical university is in panic mode right now. In 10-15 years, online will be the norm and these exorbitant tuitions will be a thing of the past.
I think your typical university is in panic mode right now. In 10-15 years, online will be the norm and these exorbitant tuitions will be a thing of the past.
She was so low-information that it almost seemed like a setup. I mean, really, she asked the most superficial, talking-point-like questions that provided him with perfect runway to espouse his views.
If he was going to write a script to allow him to peddle his world view, then her part would read exactly as it did. Almost too perfect.
If he was going to write a script to allow him to peddle his world view, then her part would read exactly as it did. Almost too perfect.
Neocon nonsense. But this just takes the cake:
http://profoundlydisconnected.com/skill-work-ethic-arent-tab...
http://profoundlydisconnected.com/skill-work-ethic-arent-tab...
I don't think you know what a neoconservative is. Neoconservativism is about foreign policy, and, to the extent it engages with domestic policy and the economy at all, it has centrist tendencies; "neocon" is a label originally applied pejoratively to academic liberals who shifted to the right during the cold war regarding the US's role in the world.
Your dismissal of Rowe's post as "nonsense" would be more compelling if it was accompanied by words you actually understood.
Your dismissal of Rowe's post as "nonsense" would be more compelling if it was accompanied by words you actually understood.
Do you think citing the definition of it from some dictionary is of any relevance to their popular use?
It seems you are as happy to quickly dismiss something on inane reasons as I am :)
It seems you are as happy to quickly dismiss something on inane reasons as I am :)
Rowe is a bit difficult to figure out. Many of the things he says are are quite sensible, but they seem to be couched in neocon notions of American exceptionalism and blame-the-poor economics.
I don't know much about him except from what I say during his appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher.
I don't know much about him except from what I say during his appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher.
"American exceptionalism" is indeed a notion of neoconservativism. Unfortunately for your comment, it is entirely absent from the post we're commenting on. Perhaps you can find some other source to back your assertion up? Let's be clear on what "exceptionalism" means: it does not mean that the writer believes America to be a great country, because most writers believe their countries to be great; some even believe many countries to be great simultaneously! Exceptionalism means an argument that America is so great that it should function by different rules than all other countries. My bet is that you're going to have a hard time finding Rowe saying anything like that, because he doesn't write about foreign policy.
Meanwhile, "blame-the-poor economics" are indeed an (unfortunate) notion of right-wing conservatism. But unfortunately for your comment, (a) nowhere in this post does Rowe blame the poor for anything, and (b) the "neo" in "neocon" alludes to the fact that neocons do not in fact hew to the domestic policy notions of right-wing conservatives.
Meanwhile, "blame-the-poor economics" are indeed an (unfortunate) notion of right-wing conservatism. But unfortunately for your comment, (a) nowhere in this post does Rowe blame the poor for anything, and (b) the "neo" in "neocon" alludes to the fact that neocons do not in fact hew to the domestic policy notions of right-wing conservatives.
In what part of the linked exchange did he 'blame the poor'?
There are many causes of poverty and I don't think lack of hard work is a big one. However when it comes to young people deciding how they will make their way in the world I think a lot choose to go into debt for a four year degree that won't help them in the real world. That is not a wise decision and so we should encourage those people to make better decisions even if they don't get their dream job right out of the gate at least they would be employable.
There are many causes of poverty and I don't think lack of hard work is a big one. However when it comes to young people deciding how they will make their way in the world I think a lot choose to go into debt for a four year degree that won't help them in the real world. That is not a wise decision and so we should encourage those people to make better decisions even if they don't get their dream job right out of the gate at least they would be employable.
For a few of us, it reads as him basically blaming them for not taking the jobs he references time and again.
Maybe that is unfair, but it does echo in the rhetoric to me.
Maybe that is unfair, but it does echo in the rhetoric to me.
I think he'd be more likely to agree that people just don't know, as in there is an information problem.
This doesn't fit with his rhetoric.
"Doesn’t it make sense to fill those positions before we start demanding that companies create more opportunities that people don’t aspire to?"
"And no matter where I went, the biggest challenge was always the same – finding people who were willing to learn a new skill and work hard."
"Because virtually every single trainee decided it was just too damn hot. I’m not even kidding. They just didn’t want to work in the heat. And so … they didn’t."
My original comments were based on reading additional pages of Rowe's web site...in particular his work pledge:
http://profoundlydisconnected.com/skill-work-ethic-arent-tab...
> 3. I believe there is no such thing as a “bad job.” I believe that all jobs are opportunities, and it’s up to me to make the best of them.
> 6. I believe that my safety is my responsibility. I understand that being in “compliance” does not necessarily mean I’m out of danger.
> 10. I believe that I am a product of my choices – not my circumstances. I will never blame anyone for my shortcomings or the challenges I face. And I will never accept the credit for something I didn’t do.
> 11. I understand the world is not fair, and I’m OK with that. I do not resent the success of others.
> 12. I believe that all people are created equal. I also believe that all people make choices. Some choose to be lazy. Some choose to sleep in. I choose to work my butt off.
*
On the surface his rhetoric seems reasonable, but there's a libertarian bent to his ideas that suggests he places the onus for success squarely on the individual rather than the individual and society at large.
http://profoundlydisconnected.com/skill-work-ethic-arent-tab...
> 3. I believe there is no such thing as a “bad job.” I believe that all jobs are opportunities, and it’s up to me to make the best of them.
> 6. I believe that my safety is my responsibility. I understand that being in “compliance” does not necessarily mean I’m out of danger.
> 10. I believe that I am a product of my choices – not my circumstances. I will never blame anyone for my shortcomings or the challenges I face. And I will never accept the credit for something I didn’t do.
> 11. I understand the world is not fair, and I’m OK with that. I do not resent the success of others.
> 12. I believe that all people are created equal. I also believe that all people make choices. Some choose to be lazy. Some choose to sleep in. I choose to work my butt off.
*
On the surface his rhetoric seems reasonable, but there's a libertarian bent to his ideas that suggests he places the onus for success squarely on the individual rather than the individual and society at large.
#1 and #2 are a bit conservative and nationalistic, but I see nothing wrong with the rest.
Basically the summary: "I love America, and am lucky to live here. I'm going to work hard, because hard work is the path to success. Lazy people suck." OMG! Tea bagger!
Basically the summary: "I love America, and am lucky to live here. I'm going to work hard, because hard work is the path to success. Lazy people suck." OMG! Tea bagger!
Where do you see Rowe singling anyone out as "lazy"?
I actually agree with the linked pledge for the most part. That said, to answer your question, item #12 is:
12. I believe that all people are created equal. I also believe that all people make choices. Some choose to be lazy. Some choose to sleep in. I choose to work my butt off.
12. I believe that all people are created equal. I also believe that all people make choices. Some choose to be lazy. Some choose to sleep in. I choose to work my butt off.
Not really seeing the problem with #2, but #3 has me mad. There are plenty of bad jobs that wear down your body and mind while offering subsistence or below-subsistence wage, and offer no or false hopes for advancement.
I'm curious what part of that pledge you think is non-sensical.
#2: I happen to believe that people should be entitled to education, healthcare, safety and respect.
#3: There are certainly bad jobs. Jobs where the employer does not pay, abuses their workforce etc.
#5: Debt you cannot afford? Sure. But sometimes debt is useful. A mortgage or a business loan for example.
#6: Safety is everyone's responsibility. It's all well and good that you behave well but if Bill decides he doesn't need to follow safety precautions it can just as easily injure, maim or kill others as well as himself.
#7: Don't I regularly see "Work smarter, not harder" plastered over HN? If the only way you can stand out is by working more, you're either at the top of your game or you can do whatever you are doing better.
#8: "The machines here are not maintained correctly, but I guess complaining is bad so I'll either put up with it or leave."
#10 (ish): Car accident breaks both your legs, you can no longer perform manual labour. Tornado destroys your business, insurance shrugs and pays you a pittance. Someone else's bad decisions cause an equipment failure that costs you an arm.
#11: These two sentences are not equivalent. I'm okay saying I agree with the latter, but not the former. I'm not okay with the fact the world is not fair and feel it's a noble cause to try and correct this.
#12: This just reeks of the blame the poor mindset I see in a lot of US conservatives (and in our own UK conservatives to be fair).
#3: There are certainly bad jobs. Jobs where the employer does not pay, abuses their workforce etc.
#5: Debt you cannot afford? Sure. But sometimes debt is useful. A mortgage or a business loan for example.
#6: Safety is everyone's responsibility. It's all well and good that you behave well but if Bill decides he doesn't need to follow safety precautions it can just as easily injure, maim or kill others as well as himself.
#7: Don't I regularly see "Work smarter, not harder" plastered over HN? If the only way you can stand out is by working more, you're either at the top of your game or you can do whatever you are doing better.
#8: "The machines here are not maintained correctly, but I guess complaining is bad so I'll either put up with it or leave."
#10 (ish): Car accident breaks both your legs, you can no longer perform manual labour. Tornado destroys your business, insurance shrugs and pays you a pittance. Someone else's bad decisions cause an equipment failure that costs you an arm.
#11: These two sentences are not equivalent. I'm okay saying I agree with the latter, but not the former. I'm not okay with the fact the world is not fair and feel it's a noble cause to try and correct this.
#12: This just reeks of the blame the poor mindset I see in a lot of US conservatives (and in our own UK conservatives to be fair).
I read Mike's list and it filled me with ferver and the desire to stand up and make my life better. I read you list and it made me want to sit on my butt and mope.
In my experience, leaving emotion out of the decision making process usually yields more optimal decisions.
I couldn't care less about the warm words in that pledge. I'm fearful of the mindset of the person that wrote it.
We all fancy the "meritocracy" mindset, but we can't just ignore that there are very, very important factors at play (your gender, the color of your skin, your upbringing, the wealth of your family, the social standing of your family..) that determine a persons success regardless of their conduct, determination or other internal factors.
We all fancy the "meritocracy" mindset, but we can't just ignore that there are very, very important factors at play (your gender, the color of your skin, your upbringing, the wealth of your family, the social standing of your family..) that determine a persons success regardless of their conduct, determination or other internal factors.
If an employer is dumb enough to not hire a great worker because of their gender or skin color, then that business is doomed in the long run anyways. Because somewhere out there is a competitor who will snatch up that talented person and crush them.
Capitalism is a brutal business, but it does have a way of sorting these things out.
Capitalism is a brutal business, but it does have a way of sorting these things out.
> Because somewhere out there is a competitor who will snatch up that talented person and crush them.
Empirically, this is not always the case.
Empirically, this is not always the case.
Prescriptive, not descriptive.
If you actually believed that stuff to be true about the world you'd be factually incorrect, but the guy who embraces work with that attitude will do better and be happier than the guy who doesn't. Political and economic awareness and a work ethic aren't incompatible.
If you actually believed that stuff to be true about the world you'd be factually incorrect, but the guy who embraces work with that attitude will do better and be happier than the guy who doesn't. Political and economic awareness and a work ethic aren't incompatible.
who really cares what else is on their website? That kind of offtopic posting can explain some of the downvotes.
Well that's also ignoring the point that colleges used to get the majority of their funding from States, and almost every major University now has the majority(and sometimes a >90% majority) of its funding coming from other sources. College used to be subsidized by society, and now it just isn't subsidized, and in his argument that entire position is ignored.
Like most subjects this is a much more complex problem than either side lets on, but just because Mike Rowe is eloquent in his response doesn't mean that it isn't ignoring rather large portions of the facts.