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.

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%.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

Some of the issue is that people are chasing the economic signals from an age past where the conditions were just different.

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.

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'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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

He writes very well, but he's still spouting right-wing, pseudo-libertarian nonsense.

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.

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?'

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.

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.

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

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.

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/

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.

Oh for God's sake! Has this idiot no class consciousness whatsoever!?

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.

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?

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.

(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.)

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.

Unfortunately, yes.

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.

I got out of school with $72,000 in debt thanks to this.

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 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.

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.

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?"

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.

</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.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/vaclav-smil-wired/

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.

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.

Some jobs cannot be outsourced.

[edit: skilled workers are need more in infrastructure / construction then factories]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 is economically smart to burn out people doing "hard work". And it's not like we're going to do much to help them.

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.

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.

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."

Not a bad career, but hardly the land of milk and honey.

JB: "But REPUBLICANS"

Repeat 5x

Please end the light text trend, let us read.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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'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.

PHP is what your neighbors can pay for.

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.

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.

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 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'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 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.

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.

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'.

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.

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).

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.

Are jobs that pay less than minimum wage even offered to citizens or documented immigrants?

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.

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?

Or 'unpaid internships'. You can argue the experience, but the law is the law.

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.

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

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.

So although there are unfilled skilled labor positions, many of those don't fit the supply/demand curve.

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 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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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...

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.)

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.

>carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists"

Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here, and as pragmatists, we should all be above them.

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...

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.

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.

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. :-)

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).

Translation: Any excuse is a good excuse to discount facts you don't like.

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!

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?

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!

In my country college is almost free.. I feel for you guys.

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).

* 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.

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.

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.

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html

"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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft

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.

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.

Your dismissal of Rowe's post as "nonsense" would be more compelling if it was accompanied by words you actually understood.

I don't know much about him except from what I say during his appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher.

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.

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.

Maybe that is unfair, but it does echo in the rhetoric to me.

    "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."

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.

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!

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.

#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).

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.

Capitalism is a brutal business, but it does have a way of sorting these things out.

Empirically, this is not always the case.

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.