Reasons to Stop Ignoring the Skills Gap(mikerowe.com)
mikerowe.com
Reasons to Stop Ignoring the Skills Gap
http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/
14 comments
I agree with you. I went to college and graduated with a degree, but didn't really have enough real world experience to know what I wanted to do as a career. Skip ahead five years and I finally found a similar equivalent to a software engineering trade school, Holberton School[1] in SF. I didn't have the money to go back to school and didn't want to take out loans, and this school was my saving grace. I do wish things like this existed for other vocations as well though.
[1] https://www.holbertonschool.com
[1] https://www.holbertonschool.com
Or in other words, the US (and likely a lot of other places) need more plumbers and electricians, but fewer people seem to want to apply for these types of jobs because they're not seen as 'trendy'.
Which isn't surprising, given how white collar work in a startup or internet focused company seems to have almost become a default assumption in the last few years or so.
Which isn't surprising, given how white collar work in a startup or internet focused company seems to have almost become a default assumption in the last few years or so.
Goes hand in hand with the oversubscribed university system.
Yeah, but not all subjects are the same. If we had too many engineers.. Well, that wouldn't be a problem, if it's even possible...
It would be a problem for many of those engineers, if they were unable to find, on their own, commercially viable applications for their skills.
I agree. It is possible to have too many engineers. People are complaining that there are too many lawyers, for instance. There is no reason it can't happen to us.
That's a different concern: a single lawyer is one lawyer too many.
I'm not sure, and engineering degree is very flexible.
A friend of mine got a job straight out of university, and in the following years did biological, civil and automotive engineering.
Lawyering, in contrast, I believe is fairly specialised - in that it's not as easy to move around between different areas of law? Aslo, people will always complain there are too many lawyers, the economics of law aren't properly market-lead..
A friend of mine got a job straight out of university, and in the following years did biological, civil and automotive engineering.
Lawyering, in contrast, I believe is fairly specialised - in that it's not as easy to move around between different areas of law? Aslo, people will always complain there are too many lawyers, the economics of law aren't properly market-lead..
My dad is civil engineer.
He stopped working with engineering about 15 years ago, because there was too many engineers, the pay was too low to be worth the effort and risk.
He recently resumed working with engineering, and unfortunately remembered why he had left in first place, he worked in a couple projects, and most of them had engineers getting pay less than senior construction workers, and companies frequently believed that hiring an engineer was just out of necessity because the law says so, and otherwise would build whatever they want without one.
This does had some very, very bad effects, like when an engineer-less construction company thought it was good idea to just demolish some pillars that were in the way of what they wanted to build, and managed to demolish two buildings and damage a third. (this happened in Rio de Janeiro... the person that asked to take down the pillars was the secretary, that looked at the project and concluded that by taking down the pillars they could fit more desks in the office they were furbishing...)
He stopped working with engineering about 15 years ago, because there was too many engineers, the pay was too low to be worth the effort and risk.
He recently resumed working with engineering, and unfortunately remembered why he had left in first place, he worked in a couple projects, and most of them had engineers getting pay less than senior construction workers, and companies frequently believed that hiring an engineer was just out of necessity because the law says so, and otherwise would build whatever they want without one.
This does had some very, very bad effects, like when an engineer-less construction company thought it was good idea to just demolish some pillars that were in the way of what they wanted to build, and managed to demolish two buildings and damage a third. (this happened in Rio de Janeiro... the person that asked to take down the pillars was the secretary, that looked at the project and concluded that by taking down the pillars they could fit more desks in the office they were furbishing...)
Flexible? In these days where unemployment rules, companies will reject your application if you have not 5 years of experience with the exact complete toolchain they use. Doesn't matter if you have been working 15 years in the same industry and 10 years on the same kind of job, and that you could adapt easily and quickly to other toolchains, jobs or industries, they don't care, they can find someone that doesn't even need to adapt. So the more years pass, the more you get stuck in the exact same thing, despite your theoretical flexibility.
Hmm, I'm not sure. My friend worked in UK.
> and in the following years did biological, civil and automotive engineering.
I would guess that most of what those fields have in common are their quantitative/mathematical nature. Would he have been just as fit for these roles with a degree in Math or Physics?
I would guess that most of what those fields have in common are their quantitative/mathematical nature. Would he have been just as fit for these roles with a degree in Math or Physics?
I think in all three he used the same kind of software and structural/materials know-how; solid-works or something.
I think a math/physics degree might not have the particulars of structural design specifically.
I think a math/physics degree might not have the particulars of structural design specifically.
Of course it's possible. If everyone becomes an engineer, that just means the median engineer is less impressive.
Can there be too many people with 130+ IQs? Not sure about that.
Right now engineering degrees are valuable as intelligence proxies because the standards are less relaxed than other degrees. If everyone became an engineer this would no longer be the case.
Can there be too many people with 130+ IQs? Not sure about that.
Right now engineering degrees are valuable as intelligence proxies because the standards are less relaxed than other degrees. If everyone became an engineer this would no longer be the case.
If I were a young man, and I was not in the top quartile, or really, top decile, of my high school class, I would be looking real hard at getting into a good trade, rather than going to college. There's nice money in being an electrician, a plumber, a welder, a mechanic. It's relatively low stress, and you leave your work behind when you punch out. Much better than putting yourself massively into debt to try to get a degree of increasing uselessness, particularly if you don't have the grades or the brains to get into and be able to hack a good school and a tough program. I've known too many people that really weren't ready or equipped to go to college, but got pushed along by guidance counselors and the "Everybody goes to college" rhetoric, and the only result was them racking up tens of thousands in debt and dropping out after a semester or two.
The other traditional option for those that aren't really cut out for higher education is the military, but they are starting to tighten up again, as I understand from my friends that are still in.
The other traditional option for those that aren't really cut out for higher education is the military, but they are starting to tighten up again, as I understand from my friends that are still in.
Really needs to be a business certificate that dovetails with a trade - so you can manage your business while you work your trade. Your body can wear out pretty fast with hard labor so you need to start your own business at some point.
Most skilled trades are not hard labor. If you're a plumber, you might only bust rocks or dig ditches 10% of the time. And it also depends on what you specialize in. The guy that replaces your toilet and your busted water lines might know how to build a septic system, but he probably hasn't done it in a while.
Honestly I'd be really tempted to get out of software and go into a trade. It'd be a lot less work.
Honestly I'd be really tempted to get out of software and go into a trade. It'd be a lot less work.
I think you're underestimating what it means to perform a physically demanding job. It's not like that weekend you spent painting your appartment. It is something you do five days a week, for weeks and months on end. In my late thirties I was sick of being a software developer and I did a two year stint of being an electrician for a big construction company. It was a wonderful experience and I learned a ton of stuff about a ton of stuff, but in the end I was very happy to go back to a heated room where I can work sitting in an ergonomic chair while sipping a cup of coffee. Honestly, if your body was not trained to do this from your late teens or early twenties you will likely not last.
This is a great idea. I don't think community colleges can do this, at least today. Having a focused night time set of classes in practical methods of running a business would be required.
Edit: typo
Edit: typo
This misses that those trades pay well because there is a lack in supply. If people are starting to realise this, in the future there will be more tradesmen, and then there will be a surplus of supply, and pay will go down.
As such, if you can obtain it, an engineering degree is has a little more insurance - these types of degrees are not useless, in fact, STEM degrees are becoming more and more valuable.
I have a low opinion of the military, or at least entering at a low-level. Maybe for those with discipline issues? But it's a gamble - you can literally die, without the kind of pay other dangerous jobs get. Plus, I feel you're putting your moral agency up for sale...
As such, if you can obtain it, an engineering degree is has a little more insurance - these types of degrees are not useless, in fact, STEM degrees are becoming more and more valuable.
I have a low opinion of the military, or at least entering at a low-level. Maybe for those with discipline issues? But it's a gamble - you can literally die, without the kind of pay other dangerous jobs get. Plus, I feel you're putting your moral agency up for sale...
I don't have the stats, but I suspect it would take a lot of new people in the trades to replace just the natural attrition as boomers retire. One of the unfortunate consequences of a lot of the unionized industrial environment is that in many cases seniority ruled, and the young workers got pink slips every time there was a round of layoffs. Now the old grognards are retiring, but there is no one in the mid-level to step into their places - there are huge amounts of institutional knowledge evaporating.
I wouldn't argue against an engineering degree, if you've got the chops and the discipline to finish it. Generic liberal arts fluff? More of a liability than an asset - particularly if you don't actually finish it. Hope you like bartending or waiting tables...
We may be coming from different places. I grew up in a very rural area, and especially in my parent's generation, but also mine to a large degree, the military was a way to get out of crushing poverty, learn skills, see something of the world, and maybe get a subsidized education.
I wouldn't argue against an engineering degree, if you've got the chops and the discipline to finish it. Generic liberal arts fluff? More of a liability than an asset - particularly if you don't actually finish it. Hope you like bartending or waiting tables...
We may be coming from different places. I grew up in a very rural area, and especially in my parent's generation, but also mine to a large degree, the military was a way to get out of crushing poverty, learn skills, see something of the world, and maybe get a subsidized education.
> I wouldn't argue against an engineering degree, if you've got the chops and the discipline to finish it. Generic liberal arts fluff? More of a liability than an asset - particularly if you don't actually finish it. Hope you like bartending or waiting tables...
I was just reading the History department's site, for no real reason, at the Uni where my kid goes (he's EE). Their "why study history" statement included being the foundation of a later graduate degree. Which I think is appropriate; it's great to have lawyers and MBAs with a diversity of backgrounds and interests, including history, art, engineering, etc.
It used to be that any undergraduate degree would serve you well enough. But today things are so specialized and hyper-competetive that some degrees (the "fluff") are indeed not economically worthwhile if you stop at undergrad. Not to say that some people shouldn't pursue them, but they should know up front what the limitations are, and that the degree itself won't pay itself off.
I was just reading the History department's site, for no real reason, at the Uni where my kid goes (he's EE). Their "why study history" statement included being the foundation of a later graduate degree. Which I think is appropriate; it's great to have lawyers and MBAs with a diversity of backgrounds and interests, including history, art, engineering, etc.
It used to be that any undergraduate degree would serve you well enough. But today things are so specialized and hyper-competetive that some degrees (the "fluff") are indeed not economically worthwhile if you stop at undergrad. Not to say that some people shouldn't pursue them, but they should know up front what the limitations are, and that the degree itself won't pay itself off.
I think some of those humanities degrees would be better served as "leisure" degrees, for people who already have a career.
I also think STEM is a good background for any liberal arts subject - it give you analytical tools on which to hang the "meat" of the subject, and can curb some of the more "dubious" lit-crit style thinking that can exist in some of those subjects (unfalsifiable, subjective, tautological claims etc.).
I also think STEM is a good background for any liberal arts subject - it give you analytical tools on which to hang the "meat" of the subject, and can curb some of the more "dubious" lit-crit style thinking that can exist in some of those subjects (unfalsifiable, subjective, tautological claims etc.).
> military
Depends on the job. Infantry is universally a shitty deal, even during peacetime, but the POG[1] jobs tend to be both safer and better for civilian job opportunities.
I was an radio tech, and it opened up a huge amount of opportunities when I got out. I do electron microscopy at Intel now.
Regarding discipline issues - the military is the wrong place to deal with them. Gone are the days when wild young men could be "tamed" with a couple sessions of wall-to-wall counseling and other assorted "What's this dirt doing in my ditch, Luke" hazing sessions. The military doesn't like dealing with fucksticks, and they're happy to give them a couple of Article 15s and get them out the door as quickly as possible.
It used to be expected and even encouraged to raise hell as an enlisted man. It's now a career-ender, as the rise of social media and everyone having a smartphone turns uncontrollable dickheads into liabilities. Most senior staff don't like these changes, as they see good juniors with potential get burned for minor bad decisions that would have warranted an ass-chewing and a shitty work detail 20 years ago, but that's how the military is now. I'm just glad I'm out and don't have to go to this flagrantly asinine bullshit[2] anymore.
[1] "Personnel Other than Grunt," also known as "fobbits," "REMFs," or "TOCroaches," depending on the service.
[2] https://i.imgur.com/RJVWsnQ.jpg
Depends on the job. Infantry is universally a shitty deal, even during peacetime, but the POG[1] jobs tend to be both safer and better for civilian job opportunities.
I was an radio tech, and it opened up a huge amount of opportunities when I got out. I do electron microscopy at Intel now.
Regarding discipline issues - the military is the wrong place to deal with them. Gone are the days when wild young men could be "tamed" with a couple sessions of wall-to-wall counseling and other assorted "What's this dirt doing in my ditch, Luke" hazing sessions. The military doesn't like dealing with fucksticks, and they're happy to give them a couple of Article 15s and get them out the door as quickly as possible.
It used to be expected and even encouraged to raise hell as an enlisted man. It's now a career-ender, as the rise of social media and everyone having a smartphone turns uncontrollable dickheads into liabilities. Most senior staff don't like these changes, as they see good juniors with potential get burned for minor bad decisions that would have warranted an ass-chewing and a shitty work detail 20 years ago, but that's how the military is now. I'm just glad I'm out and don't have to go to this flagrantly asinine bullshit[2] anymore.
[1] "Personnel Other than Grunt," also known as "fobbits," "REMFs," or "TOCroaches," depending on the service.
[2] https://i.imgur.com/RJVWsnQ.jpg
To dumb to go to uni is horrible assumption to make of anyone.
You should be free to follow your passion/whims and study whatever they want, love it, hate it, fuck it up, drop out, and try something else. Even more so when you are young inexperienced and finding your way in the world.
> and the only result was them racking up tens of thousands in debt
That's the problem America needs to solve.
You should be free to follow your passion/whims and study whatever they want, love it, hate it, fuck it up, drop out, and try something else. Even more so when you are young inexperienced and finding your way in the world.
> and the only result was them racking up tens of thousands in debt
That's the problem America needs to solve.
I don't agree that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for some 18-year-old to have fun for four years. Do whatever you want, but don't expect others to pay for you.
I would disagree here. If you look at this solely from the perspective of someone screwing around in the public dollar sure, it's easy to say screw that. If however you instead look at it like: "This person tried this, really didn't like it, is not good at it, and probably shouldn't do it", why should we then force them into a field they can't generate value in -or- damn them to a lifetime of wage slavery to pay for the schooling they can't use?
In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it?
In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it?
>In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it?
Because that was the agreement they made with the institution.
Either way someone is paying for it, it can be the person who got the (partial) education, or it can be someone\s that happens to live in the same state as the person who got the education.
Even if it doesn't make sense to you that people who fail their studies should pay their debts to their schools, it makes even less sense that you would transfer that debt from the pupil to someone who was neither partner to the decision to undertake studies nor a beneficiary of pupil's studies.
Because that was the agreement they made with the institution.
Either way someone is paying for it, it can be the person who got the (partial) education, or it can be someone\s that happens to live in the same state as the person who got the education.
Even if it doesn't make sense to you that people who fail their studies should pay their debts to their schools, it makes even less sense that you would transfer that debt from the pupil to someone who was neither partner to the decision to undertake studies nor a beneficiary of pupil's studies.
Why is it the job of the taxpayers to subsidize an 18 year olds passions/whims?
I get providing aid to colleges, especially for research and to ensure an adequate number of people go into engineering, science, math, etc. But I see no reason that we should subsidize someone getting a literature degree or just fucking around.
I get providing aid to colleges, especially for research and to ensure an adequate number of people go into engineering, science, math, etc. But I see no reason that we should subsidize someone getting a literature degree or just fucking around.
It's not for you to determine what is or isn't a worthless endeavour in someone else's life.
Which is exactly why he suggests that there should not be a subsidy. Subsidies exist precisely to determine for others what is or isn't worthless through monetary incentive.
You cannot reasonably tell someone that only they can choose what or is not worthwhile, while dangling a huge carrot in front of them. That you feel it is necessary to dangle that carrot says that you've already decided for them.
You cannot reasonably tell someone that only they can choose what or is not worthwhile, while dangling a huge carrot in front of them. That you feel it is necessary to dangle that carrot says that you've already decided for them.
No, it's not. It's also not up to society at large to fund someone's questionably worthless endeavour.
Society does it all the time.
[deleted]
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, if you are in say, your 40s/50s and out of work, good luck trying to get yourself a trade - apprenticeships are still the province of the young and the government won't help retrain you either. This to me is as big a problem with respect to vocational training as encouraging all school leavers to go to university to get a degree. As people live longer we can't continue to ignore those who would retrain into a trade.
You do realize that the skilled trades are physically demanding, and usually by the 40s or 50s as a tradesman you are either in management or counting the years till union retirement, or you're probably on disability from the injuries years of working in them can cause?
I mean, you do Hvac or electrical work, you're not doing it in a comfy ac office. You're working in summer heat for long shifts, lifting 100 pound boxes of tile. Not like the average 40 year old is going to be able to be an undersea welder, or will have the stamina to work as a welder on the shop floor.
I mean, you do Hvac or electrical work, you're not doing it in a comfy ac office. You're working in summer heat for long shifts, lifting 100 pound boxes of tile. Not like the average 40 year old is going to be able to be an undersea welder, or will have the stamina to work as a welder on the shop floor.
Part of the retraining could be physical conditioning for the work. Your body's capabilities are not a fixed quantity.
Wouldn't it be assumed that someone in their 30/40s would have savings to retrain?
When I went to uni, there were a few mature students.
When I went to uni, there were a few mature students.
Lets say I've been making 50k a year since I was 20. I put 5k a year into a retirement account (IRA/401k/$country's equivalent) and another 5k into just a regular saving account to keep it liquid for a rainy day. After taxes and what not that means I'm probably living on 20k a year.
I lose my job at 35. I now have 75k in liquid savings. I spend the first 6 months looking for a job, now I'm down to 65k, I decide to retrain. That's 10-20K and 12-24 months if I go to Community College. So I'm dead broke by the end. If I have to buy a car, or break an ankle I'll never make it.
So I get a part time job in retail making 10-12k a year before taxes just to help defray the cost and to keep the unemployment gap on my resume smaller. Great I make it through. Except now I'm 37 looking for a job in a field that I have no previous work experience in. So I keep my retail job and try to squeeze enough hours out of it keep everything together, or I get a second job. Now I'm a constantly stressed and exhausted 37 year old paranoid about taking a day off to interview because what if they cut my hours in retaliation for missing a shift who is looking for a job in a field that I have no previous work experience in.
I lose my job at 35. I now have 75k in liquid savings. I spend the first 6 months looking for a job, now I'm down to 65k, I decide to retrain. That's 10-20K and 12-24 months if I go to Community College. So I'm dead broke by the end. If I have to buy a car, or break an ankle I'll never make it.
So I get a part time job in retail making 10-12k a year before taxes just to help defray the cost and to keep the unemployment gap on my resume smaller. Great I make it through. Except now I'm 37 looking for a job in a field that I have no previous work experience in. So I keep my retail job and try to squeeze enough hours out of it keep everything together, or I get a second job. Now I'm a constantly stressed and exhausted 37 year old paranoid about taking a day off to interview because what if they cut my hours in retaliation for missing a shift who is looking for a job in a field that I have no previous work experience in.
Just to add: there's some assumptions here like: I live in a place with a community college.
This "works" if I'm in Albuquerque when I lose my job. If I live in Carrizozo or Tucumcari? I'm kinda fucked.
This "works" if I'm in Albuquerque when I lose my job. If I live in Carrizozo or Tucumcari? I'm kinda fucked.
If you're unemployed and looking to retrain then what savings? You've probably used up most of it while looking for work in a field that was quickly shrinking.
> Wouldn't it be assumed that someone in their 30/40s would have savings to retrain
Maybe 50 years ago? Not for the last 20 years at least. The average 30/40 year old is in debt, nevermind having savings.
Maybe 50 years ago? Not for the last 20 years at least. The average 30/40 year old is in debt, nevermind having savings.
Not today, no.
> Democrats blamed corporate greed. “Just offer workers more money,” they said, “and the skills gap will close itself.”
No seriously. Offer more fucking money.
No seriously. Offer more fucking money.
Why? They've already decided how badly they want to attract talent and set their salary budgets accordingly. You're asking them to pay more than is good for their businesses?
If their business can't afford market wages, then it was never a viable business in the first place.
Market wages are what they are because some other viable business can afford to pay them.
Failing businesses don't get to pay less on utilities, why should they get to pay less on wages?
Market wages are what they are because some other viable business can afford to pay them.
Failing businesses don't get to pay less on utilities, why should they get to pay less on wages?
If I set my phone budget at a dollar, I don't write articles in newspapers complaining that I can't buy an iPhone.
If you can justify setting your phone budget at a dollar, then your life is structured in such a way that any phone would deliver at most one dollar's worth of value to you and, in this respect, you are highly unusual.
If, on the other hand, there are 100,000 companies who all think that adding a insert-your-favorite-kind-of-specialist-here will enable their company to generate $X additional revenue per year, where X is an above-average income that many people would love to earn, but they can't find anyone to do the job for $X, it makes sense to broadcast throughout society the message that this kind of special skill may be worth obtaining.
If, on the other hand, there are 100,000 companies who all think that adding a insert-your-favorite-kind-of-specialist-here will enable their company to generate $X additional revenue per year, where X is an above-average income that many people would love to earn, but they can't find anyone to do the job for $X, it makes sense to broadcast throughout society the message that this kind of special skill may be worth obtaining.
If your specialist is generating $X additional revenue per year then the company will be paying him more like $X/3.
Many specialists will realise that working for one's self or in partnership with a small group of other specialists is far more lucrative.
So there's no contradiction here. The employers are right to say that if they could employ more specialists on the cheap then they would win more business and make more money. And the specialists are right to say that they make more money with a different working arrangement.
None of this implies that there is actually a real shortage.
Many specialists will realise that working for one's self or in partnership with a small group of other specialists is far more lucrative.
So there's no contradiction here. The employers are right to say that if they could employ more specialists on the cheap then they would win more business and make more money. And the specialists are right to say that they make more money with a different working arrangement.
None of this implies that there is actually a real shortage.
Is there such a thing as a real shortage, except in the context of an objective that can't be satisfied due to that shortage?
It's usually possible to generate additional revenue if you can hire people at below market wages (and compete on cost).
That's how IT closes skills gap, and pretty efficient at that.
Here's the perfect article for IT folks being burned out and looking for a career change.
O.k. I've heard enough of this skills gap from Mike Rowe.
I haven't figured out if he's "thick" pretty boy who honestly doesn't understand why a company in the middle of nowhere is having a hard time finding a non-union pipe welder, who's willing to even pay union wages, for a two month job; or Mike is just trying to promote himself as some Skilled Workers Guru so he won't have to work for non-union wages when this money making gig dies out?
1. If you pay a decent salary you will have a line around your union hall with applicants. For example, try to get into local 6 in San Francisco. It's the electric union for the city/county. I believe those guys are getting over $100 hr. including benefits. Most of you will just not get in.
2. Try to be become a union Plumber in New York. There were guys camping out in line just to put their name on the list to take the union test a few weeks ago.
3. I have two extreme examples, but every union that treats its members right; there's no shortage of eager apprentices.
O.k. how about the rest of the trades? Where are the workers? Let's look at Mr. Sparky, and Benjamin Franklin brought up as expamples in this piece. Both mainly hire non-union help. Mr. Sparky pays $14.00 hr, and I believe they expect state licensed electricians to apply? They offer lousy working conditions. No wonder they can't get qualified workers? They do charge customers union prices though. Someone has to make a good living?
We don't have a shortage of qualified individuals. We have employers/companies that don't pay much more than retail.
(I won't be back to argue. I a licenced general contractor, union electrician, and went to automotive school. What I see is a lot of overqualified guys, but are being exploited. I see a lot of foreigners doing these jobs at very low wages.
In many cases, they do a good job with the right supervision.
So, I'm a hypothetical shop owner. I hire a guy who knows what's he/she is doing, and pay that person just o.k.; and they delegate to a bunch of low wage foreigners. This is how you get rich as an owner in the trades. And you don't hire union if you can avoid it. And you don't hire union help. The point is not hiring union. Did you get it? See your company seems to make more profit without unions? And you have guys like Mike scratching their heads over the lack of eager beavers lining up to fill these jobs.)
I haven't figured out if he's "thick" pretty boy who honestly doesn't understand why a company in the middle of nowhere is having a hard time finding a non-union pipe welder, who's willing to even pay union wages, for a two month job; or Mike is just trying to promote himself as some Skilled Workers Guru so he won't have to work for non-union wages when this money making gig dies out?
1. If you pay a decent salary you will have a line around your union hall with applicants. For example, try to get into local 6 in San Francisco. It's the electric union for the city/county. I believe those guys are getting over $100 hr. including benefits. Most of you will just not get in.
2. Try to be become a union Plumber in New York. There were guys camping out in line just to put their name on the list to take the union test a few weeks ago.
3. I have two extreme examples, but every union that treats its members right; there's no shortage of eager apprentices.
O.k. how about the rest of the trades? Where are the workers? Let's look at Mr. Sparky, and Benjamin Franklin brought up as expamples in this piece. Both mainly hire non-union help. Mr. Sparky pays $14.00 hr, and I believe they expect state licensed electricians to apply? They offer lousy working conditions. No wonder they can't get qualified workers? They do charge customers union prices though. Someone has to make a good living?
We don't have a shortage of qualified individuals. We have employers/companies that don't pay much more than retail.
(I won't be back to argue. I a licenced general contractor, union electrician, and went to automotive school. What I see is a lot of overqualified guys, but are being exploited. I see a lot of foreigners doing these jobs at very low wages.
In many cases, they do a good job with the right supervision.
So, I'm a hypothetical shop owner. I hire a guy who knows what's he/she is doing, and pay that person just o.k.; and they delegate to a bunch of low wage foreigners. This is how you get rich as an owner in the trades. And you don't hire union if you can avoid it. And you don't hire union help. The point is not hiring union. Did you get it? See your company seems to make more profit without unions? And you have guys like Mike scratching their heads over the lack of eager beavers lining up to fill these jobs.)
> Try to be become a union Plumber in New York. There were guys camping out in line just to put their name on the list to take the union test a few weeks ago.
That sounds more like a cartel than a union.
That sounds more like a cartel than a union.
This is the only valid reply to this false and misleading diatribe from Mike Rowe or any of the twits who keep crying about the "skills gap". Why would I break my back and use my expertise for the same amount of money you pay an employee at McDonald's (I am going by Canadian minimum wage)?
The hostname in the URL, i.e. mikerowe.com, led me to wonder if it is the same guy as mikerowesoft.com [0]. Apparently, not.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft
No, this Mike Rowe is an actor turned blue collar hero as host of Dirty Jobs.
As a business owner, I can tell you that were will never be a day when business owners won't tell you there is shortage of qualified people at the price they want to pay. At a minimum this is due to losing touch with the increasing cost of living and at it's extreme it's just pure greed. I remember the same articles even during the last two recessions.
> But no one seems to want them, and the reasons have nothing to do with low pay, poor benefits, or a lack of available training.
This is laughable. The average plumber makes around $50,000 and will top out around $80,000[0]. And those wadges have flat lined over the last 15 years[1]. Not to mention, it's painful work climbing under cabinets, kneeling down and standing up with heavy work belts, and contorting your body into every little nook and cranny. It takes its toll on your body over a period of time, as does the vast majority of manual labor jobs that are out there. So why would the son or daughter of a plumber go into the work when (s)he sees her dad complain about how the industry has gone to hell? I guess this is confusing to Mike Rowe.
Let's imagine for a minute that an entry level plumber could make $250,000 a year after a year long apprenticeship that paid him/her $60,000. There would be zero problems filling these position with top notched candidates. Zero. So to say pay and benefits are not the problem, misdiagnoses skills gap.
[0] http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472152.htm [1] http://city-salaries.careertrends.com/l/116610/Plumbers-Pipe...
This is laughable. The average plumber makes around $50,000 and will top out around $80,000[0]. And those wadges have flat lined over the last 15 years[1]. Not to mention, it's painful work climbing under cabinets, kneeling down and standing up with heavy work belts, and contorting your body into every little nook and cranny. It takes its toll on your body over a period of time, as does the vast majority of manual labor jobs that are out there. So why would the son or daughter of a plumber go into the work when (s)he sees her dad complain about how the industry has gone to hell? I guess this is confusing to Mike Rowe.
Let's imagine for a minute that an entry level plumber could make $250,000 a year after a year long apprenticeship that paid him/her $60,000. There would be zero problems filling these position with top notched candidates. Zero. So to say pay and benefits are not the problem, misdiagnoses skills gap.
[0] http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472152.htm [1] http://city-salaries.careertrends.com/l/116610/Plumbers-Pipe...
I feel like many HN readers may have a non-normal view of reasonable wages - given that boot camp graduates can get absurd money relative to their knowledge/experience/contribution level.
Those figures you quote (50-80k) are starting right at the median income (around 52[0]). Assuming they're decent with money and limit their debt, that's a pretty decent living for moderate stress (granted health tolls are a valid concern, but for all the bending/lifting they're probably not suffering some of those health issues associated with high stress and crazy hours - it's all a trade off). It's also only including salary income, do they get defined benefit retirement plans? 401k? I was a financial advisor at one point and worked for a lot of these skilled jobs - most of them had pension plans that were funded (e.g. Guaranteed income for life, a non-included figure in "income" typically)
That median is also taking into account all workers, so that's people early in there career just as it is those late. If starting is actually around 50, it's not a terrible deal.
Over time though the issue should be solved as a shortage tends to drive up prices and demand follows suit. Of course throwing money at people to take a job may help in the short term, but that's not really a maintainable way to handle these issues. That money comes from somewhere, so either prices need to increase or costs need to decrease (at the risk of it going to a consumer fewer may be able to afford other things, thereby possibly costing other markets - whether or not that is good is likely contingent on the market).
[edit]: It's also worth considering that, while they may be paid low during their training, they aren't paying for it. Alternative careers may demand paid for training (boot camp, college, masters, whatever). There's not only some opportunity cost but also debt likely in this consideration.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_Unit...
Those figures you quote (50-80k) are starting right at the median income (around 52[0]). Assuming they're decent with money and limit their debt, that's a pretty decent living for moderate stress (granted health tolls are a valid concern, but for all the bending/lifting they're probably not suffering some of those health issues associated with high stress and crazy hours - it's all a trade off). It's also only including salary income, do they get defined benefit retirement plans? 401k? I was a financial advisor at one point and worked for a lot of these skilled jobs - most of them had pension plans that were funded (e.g. Guaranteed income for life, a non-included figure in "income" typically)
That median is also taking into account all workers, so that's people early in there career just as it is those late. If starting is actually around 50, it's not a terrible deal.
Over time though the issue should be solved as a shortage tends to drive up prices and demand follows suit. Of course throwing money at people to take a job may help in the short term, but that's not really a maintainable way to handle these issues. That money comes from somewhere, so either prices need to increase or costs need to decrease (at the risk of it going to a consumer fewer may be able to afford other things, thereby possibly costing other markets - whether or not that is good is likely contingent on the market).
[edit]: It's also worth considering that, while they may be paid low during their training, they aren't paying for it. Alternative careers may demand paid for training (boot camp, college, masters, whatever). There's not only some opportunity cost but also debt likely in this consideration.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_Unit...
Oh heavens...where to start.
> I feel like many HN readers may have a non-normal view of reasonable wages...Those figures you quote (50-80k) are starting right at the median income
Probably, although that ignorance cuts both ways. Like if you were to think a family of four can live off of $50k anywhere in the US, when that won't be a struggle you'll ever face. And throwing around stats like "$52k" is the median US income, when conveniently ignoring, on the very source you cited, that the median income has dropped 8% since 2007 and is still not close to it's high in 1999 ($57k)[0].
I know it's safe and pleasant to hide behind macro economics, but those are real pains blue collar workers feel. Because of this, those aging blue collar workers tell their kids and their kids friends that their profession is in the toilet, and to get a 4 year degree. So here we are.
> they're probably not suffering some of those health issues associated with high stress and crazy hours.
Ever handed a customer a bill, knowing she had to choose between this and paying the mortgage? Ever had that customer flip out at you(and I'm talking the real rage, not MBA fancy boy hissy fits)? Ever get called at 2:30am because you're the one on call and someone's pipes burst, and knowing this emergency will cause a cascading effect of lateness (and angry customers) for the 7 appointments you have that day? Or have you ever worried, daily, if they'll be work tomorrow? Or worry about your physical health, because any illness or injury could put your out of work and screw up your finances.
Just because someone doesn't take their work home, and doesn't have a take home as large as yours, doesn't mean they don't work crazy hours or have huge stresses in their lives. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
> most of them had pension plans that were funded
Go down to your local union and ask them about their pensions. Pro Tip: bring a lunch, you'll be there a while.
> If starting is actually around 50, it's not a terrible deal.
$50k wasn't the starting, it was the US average. So very few plumbers start making that kind of money.
It is, in fact, a terrible deal. One thing they don't tell would be blue collar workers is, the profession's a dead end. Every.Single.One. You are employable for that vocation, and that vocation only. True, you could start your own business (and many do), but it is nearly impossible to land a new job out of industry without a huge personal investment. Most blue collar workers aren't technically savvy (like can't operate MS Word savvy), so their is a lot of ground to make up. Any job they train for and start is starting over with huge pay cuts (like over 50%). Almost all successful blue collar workers figure this out after a while. So very few actually switch. And those that do are GD heroes.
That's the whole problem I have with Mike Rowe's piece. Wages for blue collar works have stagnated over the last 15 years. The work has left them with little wiggle room to make major career advances. So it's very hard to convince someone to invest their future livelihood into a profession that might not reward them with a comfortable lifestyle.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
> I feel like many HN readers may have a non-normal view of reasonable wages...Those figures you quote (50-80k) are starting right at the median income
Probably, although that ignorance cuts both ways. Like if you were to think a family of four can live off of $50k anywhere in the US, when that won't be a struggle you'll ever face. And throwing around stats like "$52k" is the median US income, when conveniently ignoring, on the very source you cited, that the median income has dropped 8% since 2007 and is still not close to it's high in 1999 ($57k)[0].
I know it's safe and pleasant to hide behind macro economics, but those are real pains blue collar workers feel. Because of this, those aging blue collar workers tell their kids and their kids friends that their profession is in the toilet, and to get a 4 year degree. So here we are.
> they're probably not suffering some of those health issues associated with high stress and crazy hours.
Ever handed a customer a bill, knowing she had to choose between this and paying the mortgage? Ever had that customer flip out at you(and I'm talking the real rage, not MBA fancy boy hissy fits)? Ever get called at 2:30am because you're the one on call and someone's pipes burst, and knowing this emergency will cause a cascading effect of lateness (and angry customers) for the 7 appointments you have that day? Or have you ever worried, daily, if they'll be work tomorrow? Or worry about your physical health, because any illness or injury could put your out of work and screw up your finances.
Just because someone doesn't take their work home, and doesn't have a take home as large as yours, doesn't mean they don't work crazy hours or have huge stresses in their lives. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
> most of them had pension plans that were funded
Go down to your local union and ask them about their pensions. Pro Tip: bring a lunch, you'll be there a while.
> If starting is actually around 50, it's not a terrible deal.
$50k wasn't the starting, it was the US average. So very few plumbers start making that kind of money.
It is, in fact, a terrible deal. One thing they don't tell would be blue collar workers is, the profession's a dead end. Every.Single.One. You are employable for that vocation, and that vocation only. True, you could start your own business (and many do), but it is nearly impossible to land a new job out of industry without a huge personal investment. Most blue collar workers aren't technically savvy (like can't operate MS Word savvy), so their is a lot of ground to make up. Any job they train for and start is starting over with huge pay cuts (like over 50%). Almost all successful blue collar workers figure this out after a while. So very few actually switch. And those that do are GD heroes.
That's the whole problem I have with Mike Rowe's piece. Wages for blue collar works have stagnated over the last 15 years. The work has left them with little wiggle room to make major career advances. So it's very hard to convince someone to invest their future livelihood into a profession that might not reward them with a comfortable lifestyle.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
Sure wages may have fallen, and the reasons for that I am not sure either of us fully understand (perhaps you have background I don't know).
> those aging blue collar workers tell their kids and their kids friends that their profession is in the toilet
This wasn't my experience with my clients, I am guessing again you have had some experience I haven't - I am sure that is the case for many positive/negative effects of this! For those I know - it was extra reason to build their business on top of their skill. I highly respected their attitude and how they utilized their more limited financials than I do making more (frankly it's embarrassing sometimes thinking back to how frugal and wise they were relative to myself).
> Ever handed a customer a bill, knowing she had to choose between this and paying the mortgage? Ever had that customer flip out at you(and I'm talking the real rage, not MBA fancy boy hissy fits)? Ever get called at 2:30am because you're the one on call and someone's pipes burst, and knowing ...
This seems kind of straw man, have you? I can relate to having to, at times, chose one thing over another - e.g. I gave up my successful startup for a family member's mental illness. I'm far in the hole as a result of that. Sure it's a different form, but the feeling is certainly real and similar.
> Just because someone doesn't take their work home, and doesn't have a take home as large as yours, doesn't mean they don't work crazy hours or have huge stresses in their lives. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Again, straw man. I wasn't denying external pressures and stresses, I was suggesting work related stresses. This may be different if you are a 24/7 shop. But otherwise those are inherent in most peoples' lives, it has little to do with vocation and much about those in your life. Anyone working crazy overtime will suffer similar mental drains, never meant to suggest otherwise.
> It is, in fact, a terrible deal. One thing they don't tell would be blue collar workers is, the profession's a dead end. Every.Single.One. You are employable for that vocation, and that vocation only.
You realize that is the dream for many people right? It's one thing to say "I need a job until I figure what I want to do", others have the attitude of being happy with that kind of work - and loving the fact that they can master a domain and own it. Many of my friends fall in that and they despise the concept of my job. Conversely I feel the same way about theirs.
You seem to be attributing the way you feel to all these other people. If anything over the last several years of dealing with the challenges of "gender identity", "opinion" and other post-modern concerns - we have learned that many people's opinions diverge from our own. It's unfair to say "these people feel this way" - when Mike Rowe's assertion may indeed be real, people may not know this opportunity exists. I want to see stats on who knows about it and chooses to ignore it.
Again, you may likely know many people that I don't - but after I spoke with many I know in these circles, they seemed to confirm much of my understanding (perhaps that's a selection bias, as you may have as well).
Granted we can both agree, falling/stagnating wages is an issue (though I would cite other macro issues of rising costs - whether that be land, fuel, supplies) that the owners pass to the laborers. In those cases, I have witnessed that it's not just the laborers that hurt but also the owners (they typically get paid last...). It's easy to hate the "owner"/job provider when we don't hear their story (which is an underrepresented group when there's probably 10+:1).
> those aging blue collar workers tell their kids and their kids friends that their profession is in the toilet
This wasn't my experience with my clients, I am guessing again you have had some experience I haven't - I am sure that is the case for many positive/negative effects of this! For those I know - it was extra reason to build their business on top of their skill. I highly respected their attitude and how they utilized their more limited financials than I do making more (frankly it's embarrassing sometimes thinking back to how frugal and wise they were relative to myself).
> Ever handed a customer a bill, knowing she had to choose between this and paying the mortgage? Ever had that customer flip out at you(and I'm talking the real rage, not MBA fancy boy hissy fits)? Ever get called at 2:30am because you're the one on call and someone's pipes burst, and knowing ...
This seems kind of straw man, have you? I can relate to having to, at times, chose one thing over another - e.g. I gave up my successful startup for a family member's mental illness. I'm far in the hole as a result of that. Sure it's a different form, but the feeling is certainly real and similar.
> Just because someone doesn't take their work home, and doesn't have a take home as large as yours, doesn't mean they don't work crazy hours or have huge stresses in their lives. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Again, straw man. I wasn't denying external pressures and stresses, I was suggesting work related stresses. This may be different if you are a 24/7 shop. But otherwise those are inherent in most peoples' lives, it has little to do with vocation and much about those in your life. Anyone working crazy overtime will suffer similar mental drains, never meant to suggest otherwise.
> It is, in fact, a terrible deal. One thing they don't tell would be blue collar workers is, the profession's a dead end. Every.Single.One. You are employable for that vocation, and that vocation only.
You realize that is the dream for many people right? It's one thing to say "I need a job until I figure what I want to do", others have the attitude of being happy with that kind of work - and loving the fact that they can master a domain and own it. Many of my friends fall in that and they despise the concept of my job. Conversely I feel the same way about theirs.
You seem to be attributing the way you feel to all these other people. If anything over the last several years of dealing with the challenges of "gender identity", "opinion" and other post-modern concerns - we have learned that many people's opinions diverge from our own. It's unfair to say "these people feel this way" - when Mike Rowe's assertion may indeed be real, people may not know this opportunity exists. I want to see stats on who knows about it and chooses to ignore it.
Again, you may likely know many people that I don't - but after I spoke with many I know in these circles, they seemed to confirm much of my understanding (perhaps that's a selection bias, as you may have as well).
Granted we can both agree, falling/stagnating wages is an issue (though I would cite other macro issues of rising costs - whether that be land, fuel, supplies) that the owners pass to the laborers. In those cases, I have witnessed that it's not just the laborers that hurt but also the owners (they typically get paid last...). It's easy to hate the "owner"/job provider when we don't hear their story (which is an underrepresented group when there's probably 10+:1).
You said you were a financial adviser to blue collar field owners. I'm presuming past tense (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious as to when your experience with blue collar professionals happened if not currently.
I say that because pre 2007, the picture you paint with the experiences you had with these people seem accurate and in lock step with their employees. Those were the same interactions I had working a blue collar job during that time. The housing bubble was the gravy train. Pay was good. Work was plentiful. Raises were frequent. Perks were ample. I heard that across housing related fields.
Post recession has been a different story altogether. And it's been these times which caused me to spit vitriol and emotional strawmans at less than well-thought-out statements.
While I agree with you that we have no idea what has caused a stagnate wadge among many blue collar industries, the "why" is something for academics. It is, we agree. And there isn't much to evidence to refute it. Which is why I find your argument confusing. You readily admit that wadges stagnate, yet are befuddled as to why the unemployed don't flock to these available jobs. An information gap? These days? Seems dubious.
It would seem you have your riddle to solve.
One step you could take towards solving that riddle is ask those in your circles (and yes, I'm sure our circles are different) what their entry level employee turnover rate is. There will be a lot of revealing information in that question, provided they answer you truthfully.
And maybe you can square this circle for me.
Wadges have stagnated (agreement). Housing market turned around in 2012 and is now booming in most parts of the country (my assessment, but if you need proof, I'm happy to provide).
Where did that money go if not to the laborer? Rising costs ate away at everything? Really? I guess I'll need sources for that.
And look, I've heard many a story from many an owner/job provider. My experience has been, the true craftsmen who made it, work in small skilled teams and had (admittedly) good breaks. I love those guys, and am genuinely envious.
The financially successful ones are innate salesmen and have no qualms with watering down the product to boost profits. They're the ones quick to tell you their tale of perseverance and self-sacrifice (maybe these guys are in your circles?). They could also teach Machiavelli a lesson or seven.
So forgive my experience. It's all I got.
I say that because pre 2007, the picture you paint with the experiences you had with these people seem accurate and in lock step with their employees. Those were the same interactions I had working a blue collar job during that time. The housing bubble was the gravy train. Pay was good. Work was plentiful. Raises were frequent. Perks were ample. I heard that across housing related fields.
Post recession has been a different story altogether. And it's been these times which caused me to spit vitriol and emotional strawmans at less than well-thought-out statements.
While I agree with you that we have no idea what has caused a stagnate wadge among many blue collar industries, the "why" is something for academics. It is, we agree. And there isn't much to evidence to refute it. Which is why I find your argument confusing. You readily admit that wadges stagnate, yet are befuddled as to why the unemployed don't flock to these available jobs. An information gap? These days? Seems dubious.
It would seem you have your riddle to solve.
One step you could take towards solving that riddle is ask those in your circles (and yes, I'm sure our circles are different) what their entry level employee turnover rate is. There will be a lot of revealing information in that question, provided they answer you truthfully.
And maybe you can square this circle for me.
Wadges have stagnated (agreement). Housing market turned around in 2012 and is now booming in most parts of the country (my assessment, but if you need proof, I'm happy to provide).
Where did that money go if not to the laborer? Rising costs ate away at everything? Really? I guess I'll need sources for that.
And look, I've heard many a story from many an owner/job provider. My experience has been, the true craftsmen who made it, work in small skilled teams and had (admittedly) good breaks. I love those guys, and am genuinely envious.
The financially successful ones are innate salesmen and have no qualms with watering down the product to boost profits. They're the ones quick to tell you their tale of perseverance and self-sacrifice (maybe these guys are in your circles?). They could also teach Machiavelli a lesson or seven.
So forgive my experience. It's all I got.
I started in the field just before the crash and left the field in 2013 after realizing it wasn't what I wanted in my life. Great experience, but the career wasn't what I wanted to do every day.
> An information gap? These days? Seems dubious.
I've often thought this too, but I've been surprised how many people still aren't great with consuming information with tech. Even thinking about my users (we have a bunch of internal apps we develop) - I am often blown away with how they can hardly use a computer beyond the basic few things (Facebook and, to a small extent, their email).
I enjoy hearing your experience too, thanks for commenting on it :)
> An information gap? These days? Seems dubious.
I've often thought this too, but I've been surprised how many people still aren't great with consuming information with tech. Even thinking about my users (we have a bunch of internal apps we develop) - I am often blown away with how they can hardly use a computer beyond the basic few things (Facebook and, to a small extent, their email).
I enjoy hearing your experience too, thanks for commenting on it :)
> Those figures you quote (50-80k) are starting right at the median income (around 52[0])
Just to emphasize, as I think it might be easy for other readers to overlook: That figure is median household income, which can include multiple earners. Individually, the median income is closer to $30K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...).
Just to emphasize, as I think it might be easy for other readers to overlook: That figure is median household income, which can include multiple earners. Individually, the median income is closer to $30K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...).
Good call, that definitely seemed like a high figure relative to what I recalled. That actually looks even better for an individual laborer! 50k looks much better
This. And it'll be addressed naturally once plumbers retire. The existence of fewer plumbers means that their prices will go up, which will attract more people into the trade. The fact that there is a "shortage" of plumbers means that the pay isn't high enough for ambitious people to drop what they're doing and get into plumbing.
Right, and I think you've pointed out the real problem...impending inflation.
According to this site an apprentice plumber's pay starts at 13k-25k.
http://www.eplumbingcourses.com/plumber-salary/
http://www.eplumbingcourses.com/plumber-salary/
How can somebody who's clearly interested in building trades be so unaware of the dynamics of the industry and training, and the effect that the recession had on it...past a headline unemployment figure.
I am from Brazil, so maybe this doesn't apply to the US...
But I am seeing a major problem with pay.
For example, I never got a legal job (as in, registered employee of a company following Brazil's laws correctly) since graduating in 2009, this is expected during the heavy economy depression periods, but during the "boom" of 7% of GDP growth, I actually was invited to some interviews, and had to refuse to even attempt them, despite being "good jobs"
The reason, is that many of the jobs that were offered, the pay was lower than my student loan repayments, I just couldn't accept those jobs. Back then, I went with higher paying stuff, that weren't exactly legal job. (for example being an de-facto employee, but getting paid as if I was freelancer, in Brazil this is illegal).
Then, when the economy tanked again recently, I decided to outright not work in many situations, because most of the work available were in places with cost of living so high, that I would literally lose money, I would have to pay to work (for example: not working at my parents house, would make my debt increase by "x" every month, while working in São Paulo, would make my debt increase by "3x" every month, despite now having a source of income).
For example I see lots of people claiming that the population is lazy, because they don't want to be cashiers or street sweepers... Since I desperately need money, I would accept those jobs, if they actually gave profit! Right now the pay is so low, that my costs regarding transportation, food (instead of eating the stuff I grow on my yard and cook myself) and health (for example sitting the entire day as cashier is very unhealthy overall) would be higher than the tiny salary that those jobs pay.
And then there is the "time loss", when even when the job is actually profitable, the time you lose doing it is too much compared to the benefits, for example currently most young people don't start families, here in Brazil birth rates are already below replacement rate, specially if you ignore immigrants (then birth rate is close to the one of a developed country), so usually people need money only to themselves, not their family, so suppose a guy can do some oddjobs and save 500 USD per month, and use most of his time having fun, training, taking care of his mental and physical health, and so on... or he can work 60 hours/week, and after all his costs, save 1000 USD per month... would those extra 500 USD be worth 60 hours/week when he doesn't have mouths to feed? I think that probably not.
But I am seeing a major problem with pay.
For example, I never got a legal job (as in, registered employee of a company following Brazil's laws correctly) since graduating in 2009, this is expected during the heavy economy depression periods, but during the "boom" of 7% of GDP growth, I actually was invited to some interviews, and had to refuse to even attempt them, despite being "good jobs"
The reason, is that many of the jobs that were offered, the pay was lower than my student loan repayments, I just couldn't accept those jobs. Back then, I went with higher paying stuff, that weren't exactly legal job. (for example being an de-facto employee, but getting paid as if I was freelancer, in Brazil this is illegal).
Then, when the economy tanked again recently, I decided to outright not work in many situations, because most of the work available were in places with cost of living so high, that I would literally lose money, I would have to pay to work (for example: not working at my parents house, would make my debt increase by "x" every month, while working in São Paulo, would make my debt increase by "3x" every month, despite now having a source of income).
For example I see lots of people claiming that the population is lazy, because they don't want to be cashiers or street sweepers... Since I desperately need money, I would accept those jobs, if they actually gave profit! Right now the pay is so low, that my costs regarding transportation, food (instead of eating the stuff I grow on my yard and cook myself) and health (for example sitting the entire day as cashier is very unhealthy overall) would be higher than the tiny salary that those jobs pay.
And then there is the "time loss", when even when the job is actually profitable, the time you lose doing it is too much compared to the benefits, for example currently most young people don't start families, here in Brazil birth rates are already below replacement rate, specially if you ignore immigrants (then birth rate is close to the one of a developed country), so usually people need money only to themselves, not their family, so suppose a guy can do some oddjobs and save 500 USD per month, and use most of his time having fun, training, taking care of his mental and physical health, and so on... or he can work 60 hours/week, and after all his costs, save 1000 USD per month... would those extra 500 USD be worth 60 hours/week when he doesn't have mouths to feed? I think that probably not.
Nice try, but the average pay for a tradesman is $15 - $45 per hour on the upper range. People cannot live decently with $45 per hour, let alone with $15 per hour, which is why many now juggle two or even three jobs, just trying to survive. Hence the term working poor.
The only argument that Rowe makes for the desirability of skilled-trade jobs, at least in this piece, is the job security they offer:
>> As long as Americans remain addicted to affordable electricity, smooth roads, indoor plumbing and climate control, the opportunities in the skilled trades will never go away. They’ll never be outsourced.
Of course "a whole category of good jobs have been relegated to some sort of 'vocational consolation prize'" - they're good jobs, not the best jobs. They don't pay the best, they don't offer the best working conditions, and they don't signal the highest levels of social prestige. That's simply a function of the other possible career choices that exist.
Ambitious people aspire to the best. Parents want their kids to have the best. The biggest problem I see is that society and the increasingly winner-take-all economy make it easy (and often economically rational) to feel like anything but the best is a failure.
>> As long as Americans remain addicted to affordable electricity, smooth roads, indoor plumbing and climate control, the opportunities in the skilled trades will never go away. They’ll never be outsourced.
Of course "a whole category of good jobs have been relegated to some sort of 'vocational consolation prize'" - they're good jobs, not the best jobs. They don't pay the best, they don't offer the best working conditions, and they don't signal the highest levels of social prestige. That's simply a function of the other possible career choices that exist.
Ambitious people aspire to the best. Parents want their kids to have the best. The biggest problem I see is that society and the increasingly winner-take-all economy make it easy (and often economically rational) to feel like anything but the best is a failure.
> The biggest problem I see is that society and the increasingly winner-take-all economy make it easy (and often economically rational) to feel like anything but the best is a failure.
Even if the economy isn't "winner take all", mating generally is. And that's a completely different issue.
Even if the economy isn't "winner take all", mating generally is. And that's a completely different issue.
I wish more fields were taught in trade schools rather then colleges. Ex: software engineering, writing, art, some other engineerings.
Things that are t centered around academia, in my opinion, should be considered trades. If they where we'd all be saving a lot of time and money.