Hacker News Reader

One thing that has really opened my mind on this is Amazon Home Services. Basically, if you're incorporated, insured, and can provide a few references proving you do decent work, Amazon will shovel business your way. And you can limit the services you provide. For example, one of the services you can buy on Amazon Home Services is "Door knob replacement." This is a VERY low level skill that requires only the most basic tools. The price in my zip code is $77. Amazon takes 20% off the top, so your business makes $61. By the time you include travel time, fuel, etc, you're probably making $20-30/hr doing ENTRY LEVEL labor.

And there's a ton of services you can offer through the AHS portal: home theatre setup, house cleaning, lawn maintenance, plumbing, computer repair, electrical etc.

What's amazing to me is that there are people who don't feel like they're capable of changing their own doorknob.

(I get it; there are some people who would rather just pay, but surely some of these people just don't feel like they could manage this task. That's wild.)

One obvious market is elderly folks who aren't getting around well anymore.

I think the more likely market is those elderly folks' children, who'd rather pay on Amazon than take the time to visit their parents.

Assuming they have children.

Though you're right, that's probably common too, particularly when the children live far away.

That's wild to me too, but rich lazy people who subcontract out everything is much better for society than rich people who hoard their money forever, so I'm certainly not going to shame them about it :)

maybe they are rich because they work hard/long for more than $30/hr ?

It doesn't really matter to me why they're rich as long as a proportional amount of their earnings is reinvested in their local community, jobs, and infrastructure :)

There's as much here that's cultural as economic. There's no ceiling on how much I'd have to earn before I'd pay somebody to do that kind of work for me, because (for someone with my working-class background, at least) hiring someone to do that for you feels degrading and emasculating.

It's a simple task you can and should do yourself. Money has very little to do with it.

There aren't enough rich people who need services to give people jobs. Martin Ford's "The Lights in the Tunnel" makes this point.

I live in a duplex and my neighbors are always impressed when I do simple things like fix cat5 cable caps, screw/caulk down a loose doorframe trim, or sometimes even just for having basic tools at all.

When I was installing my blinds when I first moved in, a group of neighbors from down the street were walking by and asked me (through the open window) if I was the hired help (guess cus I looked too young to be the owner and too not-hispanic to be the usual hired help in the area, and god forbid anyone do their own manual labor). That was awkward.

Yea I don't get it either, but I know exactly what you're talking about. It's like when you see the meme/trope about Ikea furniture being hard to assemble. Really? What?

> It's like when you see the meme/trope about Ikea furniture being hard to assemble.

Oh dear, I always thought that was about missing parts or pieces not fitting. This gives a new perspective …

I don't think missing or misfitting parts is a common problem with Ikea -- I've certainly put together a fair amount and haven't run into those problems.

TBH, I think many people don't have the patience to follow the instructions. Even with the wordless ones Ikea uses, it can take a few minutes of study to understand the exact orientation of pieces a diagram is calling for.

I actually find wordless instructions much harder to follow; insofar as Ikea builds.are difficult (they rarely are particularly, mostly just time consuming drudgery which isn't the same thing), it's because of rather than in spite of wordless instructions.

The ikea thing is different. (ok, you’re probably right for many people, but...). I find their issue to be that it’s easy to miss a step, and if you do, you often don’t catch it until 30 minutes later. And then you have to undo everything back to that missed step.

Agreed+. This is anecdotal, but I tried recently to get roof repairs made in CA for a rental home I own. I called 20+ roofers none of whom are taking new projects. I was able to get one quote from a friend of friend for over $1k for about 4 hours of work -- but he made no commitment. Plumbers, AC guys, roofers are in incredible demand in CA - need an electrician? forget it. These guys all own their own companies, drive nice trucks, are booked until feb '18 and have rude secretaries. The future seems bright for them, not much competition (know anyone learning HVAC?), a push for new housing all over CA, and I have no idea how to outsource a plumber.

Honestly after a recent home renovation, I found myself a little envious I didn't take house building as a career. It's definitely skilled labor and in high demand.

It's not a "sexy" job - you'd be more likely to get a date telling someone you're a software developer than a plumber. But the low prestige of the job seems to make it worth .kre.

A few years ago one of the guys in my IT Ops team quit his job to start his own company and become a plumber. Next year he made twice the money of his peers, and worked fewer hours. Now a few years later, his house is twice the size of mine and he works about 50-60% when all is said and done. I don´t envy him working the filthy London piping, but my gosh he makes good money.

If you're using your job to get dates you're doing it wrong ;)

At least in the US, a person's job is a big part of both their identity and their brand. "What do you do" is one of the first questions that come up in most conversations, and everyone judges everyone else (at least subconsciously) based on the response.

Back in another life I did a lot of online dating and tested this hypothesis by telling some of my dates that I worked as a garbage collector for the city. Those dates pretty much always ended early. :) I had drastically higher success when I told them my real job: software consulting.

be a plumber. splash the cash, lie.

That sounds odd. Why don't roofers increase their fees until supply matches demand?

I would guess that roofing services have inelastic demand, meaning that a change in price doesn't affect demand much. A home owner often doesn't have much choice about whether or not to repair their roof, if it needs to be done then it needs to be done.

If that were true, it would mean that a roofer would need to raise prices a great deal in order to reduce demand a small amount. In such circumstances, it would probably be very profitable for a roofer to increase prices. The opposite (roofing has very elastic demand) is probably more likely. Under elastic demand, a small increase in prices would lead to a large decrease in demand. Under those circumstances, a roofer may prefer the certainty of 100% utilization at a slightly below market rate to having to struggle for contracts at the market rate.

That's only true if the supply side of the market is non competitive.

They are, in most regards. In most places in the US the cost of reroofing a house has doubled or tripled in the last decade.

Because the industry basically milks the insurance companies, the customer doesn't actually pay (much).

Most reroofing is due to wear and tear - insurance does not cover it.

Insurers have huge negotiating power since they bring a lot of business.

Depending on circumstance, they may also be tied to whatever home insurers deem proper for a roof. I'd guess roughly a third of my peers have had their roofs replaced and paid for by their home insurance (storm damage - tree limbs, hail, etc).

It's the same everywhere.. HVAC guy in a rural area near me cleared $400k a year. Only know about it because he had some tax issues so it got written up in the paper.

The best way is to go through your insurance company if you can. They have contractors who have to take jobs. This leads to another idea that a good business might be selling a remodeling membership plan where you get access to contractors.

Your comment reminded me of an essay Paul Graham wrote. (See the link below.) He argues that modern society has taken kids, isolated them from participating in greater society, and made school a "job" to them. The consequence is that teenagers feel out of step with society because they don't participate in it, the way that they did when apprenticeships were common. This observation supports the premise of the essay.

It's a thought-provoking read.

http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

That's interesting. I was a volunteer firefighter from ages 12-19 and while it's not for everyone (and some tasks were not for me) the overall experience during that time in my life taught me a lot of values that you don't get in sports / schooling... the value of a human life- and that is- that you would put yours on the line for theirs. Not to mention to see someone TRULY in need and being equipped to provide that assistance.

It also taught me that a LOT of people still behave in adulthood as they did in their adolescent years and they try to "smart-shame" those that have / persue "book smarts" since many of them work as skilled laborers and didn't care much about schooling / education.

>they try to "smart-shame" those that have / persue "book smarts"

I suspect this anti-intellectual attitude is underrated as a key problem in American culture. There could be greater value for lifelong learning, science (as in valuing empiricism over arbitrarily inventing your own facts), problem-solving oriented attitudes, and open-ended discussion. People shouldn't feel complacent and act like they don't have room for more knowledge and improvement.

Parents pass on flawed ideas about education or have lax standards about school work performance. I'd see evidence of this as how the most affluent class tends to put a lot of emphasis on educational achievement and the results pay off (but I don't believe this status quo is the best approach).

It exists in our politics. An open hostility toward The Establishment often includes institutions of education.

It inhibits the effectiveness of schools and teachers if a student lacks the attitude and is unreceptive. A student can both have a strong work ethic but not care about educational attainment. Evidence of this might be that increases of spending on education seem to lack consistent increases in outcomes. Early childhood education is seen as beneficial, but then the benefits tend to even out (maybe as students become acclimated to anti-intellectual culture).

People who can learn how to learn, or who appreciate and support those who can as leaders, will generally be better off.

This is a tangent to your comment: Its pretty common to see people complain about anti-intellectualism as a big problem in modern society. Then, you ask people like Mike Rowe (and I'd bet the author of this article) what the biggest problem is and they'd say its anti-blue collar.

At first I thought these two ideas were at ends, but the more I think about it the more I wonder if the real root concern should just be that too many people are anti-work, either physical or mental.

Part of that anti-intellectualism is viewing people as anti-"real/hard work". If your job disappears because it's outsourced, automated, or you throw out your back, you are going to be more successful in finding satisfying new work if you didn't stop learning.

What I'm talking about applies to all people, including blue collar workers. I have a blue collar background, and I've worked labor intensive jobs. I grew up in a red part of the country, but it applies there as well.

I'm not debating if people should go to college or trade school. Mike Rowe has a dog in that fight but I don't. He claims that there is a shortage of people in the trades. If that's true, why don't companies raise wages and signal that there is a need?

Actress Gal Gadot talked about serving in the Israeli military. I'm paraphrasing, but she said it taught her that there are bigger things in life than herself. It sounds like you had a similar experience as a volunteer firefighter.

> They get pressured to go to a 4 year school

You're not kidding. My kids are in high school and the pressure on them to go to college is nuts. They push it so hard that it makes me wonder if there's some kind of reward for the teachers based on the number of kids that go on to college.

Very likely. In my country, schools are rated by % of kids getting into universities.

Teachers are also punished for kids who give a try at non-mandatory exams, but fail. Those who wants to get it into university damn sure work hard. Meanwhile people who don't aim for university and take those exams for the lulz are likely to damage teacher's statistics.

You have statistics for teachers? That's just plain stupid to be honest.

That depends on what it is they are measuring and what they use those results for.

No less stupid than rating schools by acceptance to universities. Gap-year and trade schools should be encourage whenever they make sense. But the rating does not incentivise looking out for kids interests.

Another fun fact - one of the points to certify a school as "gymnasium" is attendance. My school was certifying for that status during my last year. One of the vice-principals was nicknamed "12th graders attendance" since her office door was opening directly to cafeteria/lounge area and her #1 job was to make sure we attend as many classes as possible :)

In my high school/gymnasium students needed to bring a signed excuse from parents if they missed a class -- even if they were already 18! -- and too many absences would automatically disqualify the course even if you had a good reason, such as being sick. No overseer really needed for persuading students to attend class.

We had to bring in the excuses too. But the harshest penalty was calling in parents once you reach certain threshold. Which may or may not work, depending on your parents attitude. But as long as you skip a class or two a month, there was next to no consequences. Aside from explaining absent marks in your papers to your parents, of course. Which may or may not be easy to remove. Although forging parents' signature may be even easier.

No amount of absence would invalidate the course. But you if miss a test/quiz/project/etc, you automatically get 1 (out of 10). If you bring in a good excuse - of course you can re-do it at later date. If annual average drops bellow 3.5, school jury decides wether you can transfer to next year or not. In final year, < 3.5 would prevent you from taking that specific exam (which may give bonus points at your chosen university). If that exam is mandatory, then you have to repeat the course next year or drop out...

> makes me wonder if there's some kind of reward for the teachers based on the number of kids that go on to college.

yes, there is.

perhaps a bit controversial but there's the viewpoint that college and the degree you pay for is simply access to a social network / community where as outcome hands-on, trade skills aren't necessary in the chosen career path

This is still absolutely the case for top tier schools - the Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, etc Ivy/West Coast Ivy level schools are all about building a social/professional network that will last the rest of your life. These are also the kinds of schools where financial aid dramatically reduces costs for the majority of students - many of them offer varying levels of financial aid up to family incomes of $180,000/yr.

The problem is public and less selective private colleges that have the same price tag as these schools, but deliver much less value.

Public schools don't have the same price tag, (except out-of-state schools which are essentially private with respect to those foreign students).

The Ivies are interesting but statistically irrelevant simply because they have so few total seats.

The one issue with home appliances is that they are becoming disposable and cheap enough to just throw away and buy if it breaks. Although the higher end stuff still breaks down and may justify a repair cost but a $300 dishwasher does not. Even washer and dryers are now very close to being disposable. I would have hoped it had gone the other way with today's products being super reliable due to improved manufacturing and technology but we got cheap and fancy useless features vs cheap and reliable.

I think you can get cheap and reliable still, but it takes some looking. (I'd probably start with Consumer Reports.)

I bought a Consumer Reports highly rated dishwasher last year and it's turned out to be a complete nightmare. In fact the thing has destroyed my countertop and cabinet. In retrospect, googling the dishwasher brand/model and issues (steam / excessive moisture) basically would've saved me the pain since other people already had reported similar problems. I think my issue though is I didn't buy the cheapest one.. instead I got a whole kitchen package.

I don’t know why it has to be one of the other, university generally isn’t vocational training. I know lots of people who went to university and then did a trades program, I don’t think any of them really regret getting their degree. Of course this was Canada and nobody had racked up 60-80k in debt.

In the US, that would be called a college, not a university. A university is research+teaching institution.

Maybe I was unclear, they did bachelors degrees at universities and then later went to trade school.

Technical school started as early as sophomore year in my high school. My teacher was an absolute fuckwad.