Hacker News Reader

Comment by icehawk219 | Hacker News Reader

Part of the problem is that the last few generations have been told the same thing: blue collar jobs aren't "good" jobs. You need to go to college so you can get a "good" job sitting at a desk because those other jobs are below you. If you take one of those blue collar jobs then you've failed and aren't "achieving your potential".

The grand irony in all of this is that the people who did go on to become plumbers, electricians, mechanics, roofers, HVAC specialists, etc, are all the ones that are currently in huge demand. And over the next 20 - 30 years they're the ones that aren't going to be automated (well ... mechanics may become less relevant with electric cars rising in popularity). As much as I'd love to automate remodeling my kitchen I'm not holding my breath on seeing it happen any time soon.

View on HN

>> Part of the problem is that the last few generations have been told the same thing: blue collar jobs aren't "good" jobs. You need to go to college so you can get a "good" job sitting at a desk because those other jobs are below you. If you take one of those blue collar jobs then you've failed and aren't "achieving your potential".

I think another part of it is that even low level office jobs now require some sort of degree simply because everybody has one. It's no longer something unique to have on your CV hence why so many people seem to be going for Masters degrees too. I know so many people only getting out of education in their late 20's and many of them got a degree, struggled to find a job, so went back for the Masters to give them ad edge.

Another problem all this education causes is lack of experience. If you decide at 16 or 17 that you're going into a trade you can get an apprenticeship and build up experience. If you go to college 'because that's what people do' and struggle to find a job based on your degree when you come out it's hard to even get a job in retail or sales because you're 23 with no experience.

One solution might be to only offer loans for degrees that lead to a job (doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) and consider things like History or Music a luxury.

I'm skeptical of not allowing loans for degrees that don't lead to jobs. The fact that a statistical argument can be made, like "Only 30% of music majors have jobs out of school" totally obscures the fact that there are causal factors that determine career success out of school. I don't think the issue is degrees that don't lead to jobs. I think much of the issue is people beginning degrees that they have no business beginning. I suppose this is probably related to to many people going to college in the first place?

I majored in music. It's pretty easy to tell who will have a reasonable career after college. The people who are well prepared succeed. The people who aren't usually flounder and subsequently go on to flounder after school.

Should we be telling people who are likely to succeed in their field that they can't get loans to study something they will probably do well at because of all the asshats that apply to these programs with little preparation?

I can see your point. Let's take music for example seeing as you majored in it and I am also quite invested in it. I can't think of too many music jobs that require a degree. It tends to be an industry where you work hard, from the bottom and learn as you go or you teach yourself. There are legitimate reasons to study it as a degree but are you really getting $60-100k of value from it? Some people might but even a lot of the people prepared to succeed are not going to get that amount of value out of it and likely could have got the information they need for their future through an online course, on the job training, or a community college course.

My main point is that a lot of people are doing degrees when they can get the information they need elsewhere, much cheaper, and they are not getting value for money. Unless we can convince people college isn't something they have to do being more specific about which degree paths get loans is the only way I can see to prevent those people taking out loans they will never be able to pay back.

Continuing the example, I'd say that at the non top-tier level it's pretty important to have a degree if you want to make more than 60k a year. It's really hard to justify charging more than 20$ an hour to parents of prospective students if you don't have some sort of degree. I'm assuming that most music majors will go on to teach. Granted, this isn't the only thing you need to be successful, but it's a pretty important component. I doubt that anyone who is going to succeed at an instrument could get the information they need from a community college. It sounds elitist, but pedigree is very important in music. The community is not particularly open about sharing information, so very few people (relatively speaking) really know what they're doing. And they tend to keep it to themselves/students.

Additionally, music is pretty unique in that very few people study music in college without having already studied it seriously for 10+ years prior. Typically, if you've been playing that long, you've applied to specific schools with specific teachers in mind. I don't think anyone that plans on being successful in the field will be able to get much from whatever clown is teaching at the local community college.

Further, teaching can be surprisingly lucrative. Teachers that consistently put out competition winners at the state+ level can charge upwards of 100 dollars an hour. Top tier teachers in the LA area charge 300+. The most expensive I've ever seen was 700 /hr. (This is true for piano, which is my frame of reference. I'm not sure what music teachers in other instruments make.)

Continuing some of the above points, basically every really good pianist in the US comes from one of two "lineages" of pianists. Either they can trace their teachers back to Schnabel, or back to Josef and Rosina Lhevinne. I would be very surprised to hear of any 2nd generation student of Schnabel's or 1st generation student of the Lhevinne's teaching at a community college, much less online. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's really not possible for the students who would succeed to get the information they need in a cheaper form.

But back to the initial point, I'm not convinced that cutting off entire paths of degrees from receiving support in the form of loans won't represent some sort of massive loss to society. Consider all of the potentially lost art/literature/music? At any rate, I feel like either college should just be subsidized by the state, or let people just be personally responsible for what they choose to study (which is what we already do.) I'm heavily in favor of the former.

Interesting points. I agree that having a degree is going to help you be able to charge a higher rate if you are teaching. I disagree with a few points though:

> Consider all of the potentially lost art/literature/music?

I don't think that would happen. Music degree != creativity. You could argue that the people not creating teach others who do create but I think the majority of people who go on to create great art are going to do that whether they get a degree or not.

> The community is not particularly open about sharing information

Maybe it's because we're talking about music in such abstract terms but this is certainly not my experience. I've been working towards a career in mixing for the last few years and there is an abundance of great teachers and communities online for a small monthly fee. Everybody is incredibly supportive, helpful, and even share work when certain people have more than they can handle. From another angle I've always found musicians more than helpful teaching each other new things (e.g. I see someone playing with a technique I don't know and ask them to show me how it's done).

> At any rate, I feel like either college should just be subsidized by the state

I agree with you here. I live in the UK and the most anyone pays for tuition is £9k per year. I actually looked into going to the US for college and the costs were incredible. However a lot of that is because students choose to go out of state and go to well known schools. Maybe that's where the change needs to happen. Big subsidies for studying in state.

I think the idea of offering loans only for 'vocational' degrees is extremely damaging. It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about.

The idea of a university is not a place where one goes to get a piece of paper that certifies one as competent to perform a job - that should merely be a side effect - university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual. I acknowledge this is a rather idealistic view of our higher education institutes but I think it's one we should strive to make a reality.

> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual

As long as we continue to believe this, nothing will change.

Universities indoctrinate, lets not be naive. Most schools have little interest in widening the perspectives of students. They are on a mission to unify perspectives. Indeed I would say that universities are more responsible for our Idiocracy than television - graduates really believe they have become enlightened when in fact they have been programmed.

Looking at my daughter's textbook at a top-20 college in the US, I was stunned. She took a (core) class in philosophy/psychology. Very little time was spent on classics (ancient philosophers, Kant, Hegel, Freud, etc.) They were replaced by contemporary researchers (often from the same university), often with a VERY extreme, one-sided, politicized agenda (feminist, etc.). Pretty sad.

It's a shame that a well rounded education doesn't solely consist of studying entirely apolitical, classic European thinkers.

It's almost as if there is more to the world than Central and Mediterranean Europe.

And heaven forbid, students get exposed to radical ideas in their philosophy classes. We can't have any of that, here.

The author's criticism was about replacement of old ideas, not addition of new ideas

Those old ideas provide a very occicentric, and, by extension, biased framework for understanding the world.

There are plenty of old ideas that are excluded by what most universities define to be classical education - yet the complaints are about lack of coverage for Kant and Plato, rather then, say Confuscius, or Cornel West. (For examples both less, and more relevant to modern thought.)

The complaint was directed at a Philosophy education, not at a Western Philosophy education. If said top-20 college promised the latter, and ignored the classics, that would be reason to complain. Otherwise, it's like complaining that your History class didn't solely focus on America.

The other assumption that I call into question is that Freud, Kant, etc are 'apolitical' figures - whereas a feminist writer is 'political.' This is, quite plainly, nonsense.

What are the politics of Kant and Plato?

What are the politics of Karl Marx?

Plato's views on government, and condemnation of democracy are quite clearly laid out in the Republic.

Kant writings have plenty to say about freedom vis-a-vis government, state power, rights of property, revolutions, warfare.

None of these great minds existed in an apolitical, unbiased vacuum, where they could devote themselves to nothing but free thought.

When it comes to education, my impression is that people use the term 'apolitical' to describe political opinions that happen to align with their own. Hence, Hobbes and Locke are apolitical - whereas feminist philosophy so frequently is. Adam Smith? Apolitical. Karl Marx? Political.

> None of these great minds existed in an apolitical, unbiased vacuum, where they could devote themselves to nothing but free thought.

If that is the claim, then I agree that it is wrong. The most common criticism of Marx that I have heard is not that he is political, but that he is wrong (and perhaps incoherent). Similarly, I think that any curriculum that wants to replace the highly influential writings of Plato with another philosopher should make a case for why we should do this... an argument beyond the "inclusion" of additional points of view. I can sit at my desk and come up with a dozen different points of view. I don't think that each of those should be included in a philosophy class, in place of Plato.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder - I said ancient philosophers, the list of names was not meant to be exhaustive, just a few, to give the reader an idea. Of course one would include Confucius, Buddha, etc in that list. A short post cannot be as precise as a dissertation.

Students are already exposed to too many radical ideas (supported by current political interests), which REPLACED the basics/foundations - that was my point.

Many current political interests support the views of classic liberal philosophers. Just because the view is mainstream doesn't make it apolitical.

Can you think of a core class that would include Aristotle and Freud? It'd be a shitty survey class where people came out half-educated, using phrases like "begs the question" instead of "raises the question", which is ideally part of the problem philosophy core classes should solve. I don't think a survey of modern philosophers is any worse than this. Philosophy half-understood isn't very meaningful.

Also, modern philosophers have a lot to say. I still recommend de Beauvoir and Wittgenstein to anyone who cares to read.

How much did the textbook cost?

OK well there are all sorts of programming, and DNA is one of those, so is culture, so is family. We're programmed to say pledges to flags, desire an education, get married, buy houses, go into debt, have children, have more debt, etc. It's all programming. But what you're doing is putting a very broad value judgment on a particular variety of programming. I don't think it's terribly interesting to only criticize university doctrination without exploring the opportunity costs. Let's say all the kids want to go to Costa Rica and retire instead of going to college, oops, small problem. So I'm unclear on what your scalable alternative is.

I can see how you thought I was advocating loans for only vocational degrees. Something like Computer Science I think would be fine as a job path is very clear and well paid. I can't speak for Maths of Physics because I don't know much about jobs paths from those. I was more talking about degrees that have no clear job path and which could don't need to be studied at an institution where you are largely paying for the name. If someone wants a loan to study history - fine, give them enough to study in-state or at a community college.

>> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual

This is the problem. That all sounds great but it is not worth $100k and there are many other ways to have that experience that do not cost that much.

> it is not worth $100k and there are many other ways to have that experience that do not cost that much

You can get an excellent education at a state school for less than $6k per year.

The person who gets a degree in music theory, philosophy, or art history may not get a job that ties in to their major, but these people all leave college with skills in critical thinking, writing, the ability to meet deadlines, skills in communicating complex ideas to others, public speaking, etc. Most importantly, they leave with proof that they know how to learn and improve themselves. There are jobs for people with these skills, and they will likely be far more rewarding than gutting chickens on the line all day or waiting tables at the Cheesecake Factory.

what state does that exist in? No state school here in NJ is under 10k a year, and none of them are ranked decently except for maybe Rutgers, Stevens, and NJIT's architecture program.

The University of Texas has in state tuition for below 6k a year, and in some cases out of state tuition can come in at below 10k as well. [1] This is just tuition and administrative fees and doesn't include housing and textbooks.

[1] https://admissions.utexas.edu/tuition/cost-of-attendance

Edit: Sorry I misread. These stats are by semester, not year.

Right and also tuition doesn't mean cost of attendance where there are all kinds of additional fees, books, room and board, etc. Cost of attendance is easily double that of tuition. So it's actually in the vicinity of $25K per year for a state university.

State college and community college in particular can be a lot less, and it's possible to even split the difference and do 2 years community and then graduate from the university by transferring credits. Of course, you have to have your ducks in a row to pull that off.

room and board

You're paying for room and board regardless if you go to college or not. Or you can just live with your parents.

Most colleges require on-campus residence for at least 1 year (usually 2 years)

Seriously? I've never heard of this in the UK. How can a college require that? It's outrageous.

In reply to jazzyk, very few community colleges require that and even if you don't include those, most state schools will waive that requirement if you are over a certain age I.e. you went back to school.

Room and board is just a cost of life. You're paying it whether you go to college or not and it's easily affordable with a part-time bar job (obviously it'll be a crappy room and you won't be having steak for dinner but still not something you should need loans for).

Colorado you can do two years in community college for less than $6k per year and then two years at a state school for just over $6k per year if you don't count room and board which you'd have to pay anyway.

- university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual.

Sounds like a fun luxury good. Why should we subsidize such a luxury good and encourage 25-50% of the population to consume it?

Should we also subsidize luxury goods enjoyed by other subcultures, e.g. video games, muscle cars or strip clubs? If not, why not?

Educatuion is a public good. We all benefit when society is highly educated. The benefits might not be obtained at an individual level. That is, there will be some people whose education does not end up benefitting us all.

If you want to claim education has positive externalities, then make that case. But that's a little hard to square with BenElgar's idea that subsidizing some degrees more than others is "damaging". His comment argued nothing about externalities.

After all, if it turns out that the public external benefits of a physics degree exceed those of a women's studies degree, then the former should be subsidized but not the latter.

In any case, what do you believe the external benefits of education are?

If the public benefits of a physics degree exceed those of a women's studies degree then the former should be subsidized but not the latter? What if the former's benefit exceeds the latter's benefit by an epsilon amount? By your reasoning only the most beneficial degree should be subsidized but not any others. Perhaps you typed in haste and did not mean what you wrote in a strict sense.

I don't believe one can really quantize which degree has more public benefits. Some benefits are hidden, in the sense that their benefit isn't so readily recognizable. The benefits of an educated populace are manifest and, I believe, clearly worth the expense of public financial support.

To be more precise, what I meant is that both should only be subsidize to whatever degree they create external benefits. I.e., if a physics degree has $5k external benefit and a women's studies degree $5, then the physics degree deserves 1000x more subsidies.

And once you factor in the harms caused by signalling, it's far from clear it's even a net positive.

The benefits of an educated populace are manifest and, I believe, clearly worth the expense of public financial support.

The external benefits are far from clear.

If a person is educated and becomes a doctor, and then fixes my spine in return for money, the benefit is clear. But that benefit is fully captured by myself and the doctor, and he factored the cost of education into the price he charged me.

Can you name what the external benefit (i.e. benefits captured by third parties) is, for both medical education, physics education and women's studies?

The external benefits are quite clear to me. That they are not clear to you suggests to me that nothing I write or say will change your mind. So what's the point of asking me to list them? Are you merely trying to see if I understand the concept of a external benefits or genuinely trying know what possible external benefit there could be with someone being provided a subsidized education? I think you can think of some.

Are you merely trying to see if I understand the concept of a external benefits or genuinely trying know what possible external benefit there could be with someone being provided a subsidized education?

I'm trying to know what external benefits you think exist and why you think they are uniform across all fields of study, which is a much stronger claim that you made. I cannot think of any such benefits.

E.g., one might hypothesize that people in college develop useful skills that benefit others in a manner they cannot capture as wages. But it's a little crazy to suggest that a women's studies major develops those skills to the same degree as a nurse.

I've not made any claims of uniformity. I've not suggested such a thing.

>>Educatuion is a public good. We all benefit when society is highly educated.

Right. The point of contention is whether we should be paying $50-150k per person for this public good.

I mean, the benefits are clearly there, but the price has been skyrocketing and when the individual can't pay back their loans, we all suffer.

There is a big elephant in the room here - the terrible state of high school education in the US. In many (advanced) countries in the world you can be reasonably educated/knowledgeable with a high school diploma - Kant and Hegel (and Confucius and Buddha :-)) are discussed in classes.

It leads to people taking 'Software Engineering' degrees rather than computer science or maths or physics when really these less directed degrees generally allow people to explore what they are really most passionate about.

I share your concerns; on the other hand, is signing up for a 3-to-5 year course really the best way to help people discover their passion? As an exploratory path, it sound expensive both in resources and in time wasted for the student.

Around here, we have something called "summer university" wherein high-school students can spend a week or two getting an high level overview of the college course. It's extra-curricular, so few attend, but seems like a similar approach introduced into the regular HS calendar (say, the last two months), getting everyone to try a few courses of their choice, could provide even more exploration for much lower costs.

Education is not job training. And a good education should prepare you to switch careers.

Comparing higher education to job training is especially damaging in a fast paced economy with new fields and jobs popping up all the time.

>I think another part of it is that even low level office jobs now require some sort of degree simply because everybody has one.

This is the key problem - education is often positional good, since not every job seeker can be better educated than the others.

>One solution might be to only offer loans for degrees that lead to a job (doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) and consider things like History or Music a luxury.

Better is to make asking about and providing your college background illegal, with some exceptions for doctors/lawyers/engineers/etc.

>plumbers, electricians, mechanics, roofers, HVAC specialists, etc, are all the ones that are currently in huge demand.

...You might get a different picture of things if you hang out in some of the skill trades reddits:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SkilledTradesNetwork/wiki/community...

...fer instance: "Here's what 10$ an hour looks like! Had to put in my 2 weeks."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Welding/comments/52byky/heres_what_...

>>...fer instance: "Here's what 10$ an hour looks like! Had to put in my 2 weeks."

And pretty much every reply is "I make way more than that, what are you thinking??"

I'd imagine the guy either doesn't know how to show up consistently and on-time, or has such a severe lack of social skills that he can't properly interview for a job. If you can weld like that and can't find a job making more than $10/hr you are doing something SERIOUSLY wrong.

> "I make way more than that, what are you thinking??"

Way more than that being $30/hour = $60K per year.

Which is $20k over the US household average.

Not arguing that we could consider it low, but providing more context.

IIRC just this week the US Census released a median household income of $56,000k. Even traditionally poor-performing demographics are well above $40,000/year at median.

The key word there is household. Most households are dual income. The $60K is an individuals salary.

Combine that in a household are you're getting close to $100K.

Sure--just pointing out that the assumption the average income is $40k just isn't there.

Just looked into this myself, and yeah, they quite literally just released some new figures.

I think the point still stands, but it's good to have more accurate data.

Most of my neighbors are "blue collar" entrepreneurs who started in trade jobs and eventually founded their own construction, electrical, or plumbing contracting companies. Most of them make way more money than software developers. Well into the six-figure scale.

Yes, those who start a successful company make great money. Most don't.

Which is the same as the peak career earnings for someone with a liberal arts bachelors degree that doesn't pursue graduate education.

> peak career earnings

I make much more than that and I only have an B.A. in English.

Congrats, you are the exception to the rule.

My point is that I am not exceptional and I know many others in the same boat.

60k a year is a good living in most of the US.

Are you implying $60k a year is poor?

My parents retired from teaching making roughly that both with masters degree plus max credits. Either that's a good wage or we grossly underpay our "overpaid" teachers.

I don't even think it goes that far. A lot of young kids go to school because they can. It's autopilot, basically no different than going middle school -> high school. Find a school that'll accept you, pick a major when they tell you to, and don't worry about the loans until after you've graduated.

I saw this first-hand -- I want to a very good school that wasn't _quite_ top-tier. My classes were full of kids who were only there because their parents had decided they should go to college, and then the parents fell in love with the school.

The trades are difficult to completely automate but there are similar impacts from deskilling and moving work into factories.

When I say deskilling, I'm talking about creating products that reduce the amount of skill required to do a task. This increases the pool of labor competing for the job. It also often increases how much a single person can get done in a given amount of time.

Compare PEX and copper pipe fitting.

Yep, the laser cutter I operate can do in a day what it was taking 4 apprentices to do in a week. And it can do things no human could possibly do with hand tools.

The next thing we'd like to get us something like the Voortman V808[1], that thing should cut or labour input requirements by 50% or more.

1. https://youtu.be/Tk1un34l81E

That's the interesting thing. It's the opposite of deskilling that the parent was talking about.

Instead of removing skilled jobs and increasing a job pool of less skilled ones, tech can increase efficiency of master craftsman to the point where there is no need for the less skilled/experienced apprentices, thereby compressing the job pool instead of expanding it.

Non-salaried jobs are not stable, it's not about "good"ness. If you want to provide, find a salaried job. If you want to weather recessions, find a salaried job. If you want to have a career as opposed to a job, start with a salaried position and work your way up.

At least this is how I was raised. I don't think I have an opinion myself aside from enjoying the idea that I'll likely have the same job in a year I do now.

Blue collar employment has been falling in this country, replaced by either knowledge work -- which usually requires further education -- or service industry jobs. If there were truly huge demand for many of these professions, pay would be skyrocketing, encouraging more and more people to go into these professions.

I agree that there are and will continue to be good skilled trade jobs and many people would be better served by pursuing these options, but there is tremendous value for the average American in a college degree. The problem is that a lot of Americans are unable to graduate college, and waste their time and money pursuing a degree instead of doing something more inline with their talents or their drive.

As it stands, automation will most likely continue to primarily affect blue collar workers before it hits knowledge workers. Long-haul truck driving will probably fall relatively soon and factories will continue to have more and more automation.

I've seen welders making $160k/year in Texas (oil), BUT the caveat is that its 1 welder whereas 20 years ago that 1 guy had 3 coworkers.

Plus that is likely a shitload of hours per week. Definitely not sustainable long term.

How do the health risks compare to sitting at a desk all day?

You could argue programmers in most countries get compensated for that risk of sitting all day. But most office workers do not.

OTOH, I've been trying to get a bathroom remodel done for about 18 months at this point. (Hopefully about to start.) It's 1.) Not cheap and 2.) Isn't about to be done by a robot.

Not for everyone obviously and it's not big pay but I know what I pay contractors and it's nowhere near minimum wage.

But you could have gotten it done much faster by paying more...

Ha! Money was not particularly an object. Everyone was just busy.

They aren't good jobs. The average salary for plumbers is around $50-55k or so, right around the median for the US. Ok, but certainly not good. For roofers and mechanics, you're significantly below the median around $35k, basically in poverty especially if you have a family. I don't think encouraging people away from education is the problem when salaries are this low (poverty levels).

The median you quoted is for a household (usually more than one person). 55k is well above the median individual income.

not to split hairs, but that's median household income... usually made of 2 incomes these days.

plumbers, electricians, and plenty of other blue collar vocations do pretty well imo.

35K is def not poverty. I managed to get by in Manhattan on less...

pray tell how you managed to do that

Not too complicated an equation— one can find a basic room in a share for $1k a month uptown or in Chinatown, plus $110/month for a Metrocard or $10/month for Citibike, plus a reasonable amount of money for food like $300/month (cook a big pot of something a couple days a week, pack lunch from that, and have a few meals out for a $10/day diet).

That's about half of $35k for basic expenses while living in Manhattan, which leaves plenty of room for taxes/savings/going out/travel/etc. And there are a lot of great free events in NYC, too.

Almost exactly this. Cheapo room in a two bedroom up near the 125 A stop, monthly metro card, not eating out too much and once a week stocking up on staples from Trader Joe's. Left plenty of overhead for hitting up bars with friends on the weekends, travel for the holidays, etc. I wasn't living lavish by any means, but I also wasn't struggling to make rent.

Magic. See his username.

Hah, i bet its way higher. Anyone that owns their own business like that is probably fudging their income numbers and writing off as much as they can. I wouldn't be surprised if the income was 2-20x higher for established self employed people.

The owners are a minor percentage of the workers in these fields and therefore what they make is irrelevant.

Here is the thing: A lot of jobs after college are bad jobs if you go by income only. The average teacher's salary is around 40-45k, beginners make much less. Preschool teacher with degree? Barely over minimum wage if you are lucky. Sure, you get summers off, but you also don't have a paycheck during that time.

Business degree? You might be a retail store manager because that is what you found that you actually have experience in... because you worked retail through school.

It is bad all around.

Most of these jobs are not salaried and can have significant opportunity for overtime at time and a half or more.

> And over the next 20 - 30 years they're the ones that aren't going to be automated

Not true. Look at any construction site and labor-saving innovations abound. Plumbing comes in new materials like PEX, which takes less labor to install. Large parts of houses are fabricated off-site and shipped in on trucks. No job is immune from automation and increased efficiency.

The problem with the jobs you're listing is that they are tied to the individual's physical health and capability. A 50 year old guy can sit at a desk and work, but many 50 year olds don't want to go fixing roofs. Sure they can run a business and hire other plumbers/roofers, but then they are doing desk job again.

Your anecdotes are interesting but the data shows that the college wage premium is as high as it has ever been.

Or how about software engineer?

You can absolutely get a job as a web developer without a degree. I know many who have done so.

To me, the issue started when college became about securing a career over expanding / exploring intellectual horizons.

The result of this transition incentivizes the wrong output: instead of kids coming out of college able to freely think for themselves, now they come out begging for direction.

> The grand irony in all of this is that the people who did go on to become plumbers, electricians, mechanics, roofers, HVAC specialists, etc, are all the ones that are currently in huge demand.

Huge demand? Not in the US. Trades salary growth has been flat.

The demand for many of those trades largely follows the rises and falls of the housing market. I grew up with family in that industry and have seen both extremes of it. Right now, in this area, there is more demand than labor. Several years ago the opposite was true.

The other irony is that when college is paid for by taxes of the entire society, both those who went to college and those who didn't, the ones who didn't go to college end up paying for those who did. Net, it's literally a transfer from the non-college educated people to the college-educated people. Absolutely insane.

Even if they were not able to get a college education, their kids might. Also people who benefit the most for college will pay more. The productivity that society gains as a whole will offset the costs.

Not only that, but "tradespeople" start earning right after high school. That four-five year head start is more meaningful than people realize. You could be making a down payment on owning your residence while your friends are still undergrads. Nothing wins in investing like being early.

That depends on whether or not your trade requires some sort of qualifacation or not and whether your high school or surrounding area offers free courses in it. (Occasionally folks will pay to train you, if you meet minimum qualifacations, but you also must work for them for some years).

Otherwise, you wind up going to school a couple more years. You are still likely going to start work 2-3 years sooner than someone going for a 4 year degree.

Conversely, leverage allows you to make more money, and if you can use education as leverage to put you into a six-figure-a-year career trajectory, that's going to pay off.

Technically, some really need to go through an apprenticeship. Plumbers take a while. Most also need to go to a trade school. Your point about a head start stands though. Plus its very hard to ship those jobs overseas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com