Hacker News Reader

I agree there is an unwarranted stigma against blue collar jobs, but I think HN romanticizes the professions as well.

I have multiple people in my family who work as plumbers and carpenters and it's not as simple as you make it out. When the getting is good, it's nice, but they have all struggled with longish periods of unemployment, injuries, etc.

I agree--maybe it's because HN skews so heavily towards the other end, that the grass just looks that much greener, but it has a really strange and inaccurate perception of blue collar work. I've worked in a range of blue collar jobs (from landscaping to construction to electrical). Around here at least, the pay ranged from absymal ($8/hr) for unskilled to ($12/hr) for apprentice-level work, less than half of what an untrained, fresh-out-of-college, entry-level position in my current field pays (40-45K), with a much lower ceiling for advancement unless, maybe, if you operate your own business. The hours were terrible (7am-5:30pm Monday-Saturday), and on average required 30-60 minutes commute each way depending on where the job site was, with a "travel allotment" that didn't even cover the fuel costs for my cheap hybrid car, much less depreciation (I was put up in a motel when at sites more than 90-120 minutes away from home). I think people here abhor staring at the same computer screen all day (which I fully admit can be a bummer), and they think a job "working out in the sunshine where you don't have to think hard all day" sounds good. It is absolute hell on your body, and you're working in all kinds of weather in all manner of dirty, dingy environments at all times of the year--some days it's 105 degrees, some days it's 5 degrees. It's loud, stressful, exhausting, repetitive, and often dangerous work, and there's no way I'd go back to it.

Totally agree on the downside -- when you're down, you're way down.

But I'd argue, that's what separates the winners from the losers. A buddy of mine owns a lucrative landscaping business, but once the winter sets in, his revenue literally drops to zero. His solution has been a combination of part-time plumbing work and reallocating capital equipment from his landscaping business for sanding and snow removal. He probably makes more money now in the winter time than he does in the summer.

What people also don't tell you is that the majority of the middle aged men committing suicide are in blue-collar professions.

Or we can do as many other nations do, adequately fund public universities (with cost controls on extravagance) causing market forces on private universities to be more price competitive.

In-state tuition at public universities is not very expensive. Student loans are being used to pay for other stuff (room and board, probably, or out of state tuition).

Then fund room and board to some degree too?

For example Germany:

https://handbookgermany.de/en/learn/student-finance.html

tution, batchelors degree: free

food, semester fee: 250 EUR avg

basic student residence hall: 218 EUR/month (this looks like it goes higher as some students elect more than basic accommodations elsewhere..)

In the equivalent public US university costs probably almost an order of magnitude higher. ~25-30k.

Some people feel that the best societal arrangement is to let the people who benefit from an optional activity figure out how to pay for that activity on their own. I mean, if people can't seem to figure out how to avoid becoming indentured servants simply because they refuse to be economically productive and live frugally during the 4-6 years of college, how is the answer to just give them more of an ability to use resources without thinking about the consequences?

The real problem in the U.S. is that bankruptcy protection does not apply to student loan debt. Change that and the problem goes away.

I feel that societal shared loading for university education makes the most sense. Individual loading doesn't help anything about practical independence in our society, while making us all poorer for no social benefit. Bankruptcy protection is a problem, but even if you fix that, significant problems remain. Let me explain:

You significantly retard your own economy by weighting all new university grads with significant payments. If as soon as they graduate, some portion of their earnings starts going to repay loans, it's either slowing the flow of money into the economy (if not being spent), or taking money from possible retirement savings growth of that grad.

Society and our economy also loses out on not educating sharp people with leading edge knowledge. So by creating this front end debt load, some very sharp people might be unable to take the debt, or others will avoid it, but held back by self-learning things that they could have picked up faster or more comprehensively at university.

Societally, productivity is higher with a more educated labor force: https://www.epi.org/publication/states-education-productivit...

The cost of college in the US is not a limiting factor for the types of people who would succeed in college. If somebody is intelligent and not going to college, there is something else at play and it’s not at all clear to me that making college free would fix those kinds of problems.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who are poorly suited to college who would probably attend if it, as well as room and board, were free. After all, what irresponsible 18yo wouldn’t take free room and board in exchange for half-assing some classes. The community college system in the US is actually a pretty good way to figure out which students on the margins are actually able to succeed in an academic setting. All without requiring that taxpayers pay for for room & board.

And regarding the economic aspects: it shouldn’t matter who pays for college or when they pay. The same amount of economic activity is happening.

Free tuition, low cost rent and board.

There are many serious economic effects of individual loading of debt for education:

$100 dollars saved for retirement in your 20's goes much much farther then $100 saved in your 40's when many will maybe end up paying off their loans...

Lets see how those loans interact with the economy in the next recession.

> There's also a stigma in the US about "blue collar" jobs, which is absolutely pathetic. Plenty of people in America support their families (quite well) working in blue collar industries.

While I agree with this, I think part of the stigma is that "blue collar" jobs tend to be the ones that get outsourced, automated, or made irrelevant due to technology and internationalization.

And there's really not much empathy when that happens. I remember some of the elitist attitudes taken toward the out-of-work coal mining communities that were a hot topic during the last election cycle. I'm not trying to make a statement about which side is right/wrong, but it makes sense that people in general prefer to avoid "blue collar" work, with that sort of a national attitude towards it.

With a college degree being the de facto minimum bar to fields with some semblance of lifelong job security, it makes sense that people will attempt to acquire one, no matter the cost.

But plumbers and electricians aren’t going anywhere whereas radiologists and accountants seem like they’re poised to be next On the automation chopping block.

Personally, I want us to find a way to hold universities accountable for handing out bullshit degrees that aren't remotely worth what they charge.

A dead give-away that there is a problem is that every degree costs the same to acquire. That is insane and archaic.

Why not the banks who are giving out the risky loans? They know a degree in underwater basket weaving isn't going to pay off a $100k loan. In most other circumstances a bank does a risk analysis. And it isn't like they don't know what degree the borrower is pursuing.

While the banks are giving money the universities are incentivized (because they are profit seeking) to increase prices and provide overpriced degrees.

Student loans are guaranteed by the federal government, right? Thats why banks dont care. Its just the private student loans banks worry about.

correct: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/

this is the subprime bubble all over again, with the govt providing a risk free opportunity for private entities to maintain the insane price runaway until it all comes crashing down.

Incorrect. The private loans are no longer guaranteed by the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Aid_and_Fiscal_Respons...

Yes. But my problem with it is that this rule was written as a solution for a problem whose roots dig far deeper and need to be addressed there, not at this level. Making this an unintended side effect. But I think you need to address the real problem too.

You mean the fed? Because banks wouldn't be giving these loans if they were guaranteed.

How are you measuring the worth of a degree? And do you think designer brands of durable goods (or even consumables) shouldn't be allowed to charge more than other brands?

Not here at Waterloo. Engineering costs way way more than Arts. Math is reasonable but CS is twice as much.

This isn't the case. Law, Medical, and MBA's all cost more partly due to expected income.

Here's how to hold them accountable: People stop buying their product.

Unfortunately, mass brainwashing has been super effective, everyone's gonna get rich buying index funds and going a 4 year degree, just you wait and see!

This is a huge issue because of "price insensitive" buyers. With a large number of people shopping for the biggest name university possible, not the best value, loan availability significantly affects the supply curve.

When faced with an irrational consumer, unfortunately, the rational course of action for a university is to spend money on prestige building items like fancy architecture and football, rather than trying to provide the best education for the money.