Being wealthy is better than being poor, and being able to pay for college is better than working in construction. However, when choosing a specialty it is important to consider one's preferences. If your child don't want to be a lawyer it doesn't matter whether you can afford paying for the degree, and if he insists he would rather be fixing cars than dealing with documents, helping with a student loan is not really the best thing you can offer as a parent.
The part about blue collar jobs being inherently more deadly doesn't feel right to me. For one, I want to believe we have collectively gotten better in avoiding "dumb" deaths and injuries, these, that could have been prevented by inventing and following safety procedures. The health risks certain profession implies is certainly to be considered when choosing one, white collars included. Desk job kills slowly, but surely.
So, answering to the title, which doesn't seem to be related to the article contents, I absolutely do. Qualified engineer knows enough to be able to double off as a technician, and missing monthly payments is much scarier than high voltage, so if my entire job field was to become obsolete due to AI or any other reason, I would absolutely consider getting out of desk and getting my hands dirty.
You can only get so much better at reducing "dumb" deaths and injuries when you spend all day every day around things that will kill you if you touch them.
You're probably not counting all the overhead, particularly from heavy equipment. Skidsteers, dump trailers, stump grinders, as well as all the oversized/towing capable trucks to haul those machines around. All of that equipment needs maintenance and fuel, as well.
The expensive part is usually just showing up ready to work, with a marginal cost for each additional tree. If you had 15 trees taken down in one day, the cost per tree would work out to seem much more reasonable.
My neighbors were having a bunch of tree work done, and I asked the supervisor what it would cost to take a big dead one down on my property. I planned to do it myself, so I had a strong haggling position, and I got him to $400, which felt worth it to save me a day's worth of hard labor. If they weren't already onsite with all the gear, that would've been $2K+ easy.
>For one, I want to believe we have collectively gotten better in avoiding "dumb" deaths and injuries, these, that could have been prevented by inventing and following safety procedures.
better, yes, but there will always be inherent risk. even if you don't die, there will often be injuries from years of strain
It's not about what you believe it's about what the facts are. Deaths and injuries are much more common in blue collar wok, because of accidents or wear and tears than in white collar work
Sparky's with apprenticeships (in Australia at least) have the advantage of earning while learning while also segueing into the interstitial Hardware / Software zone.
A good many I've known have pulled cable and slogged for several years, invested in shitty old house after another (renovating and flipping), transitioned into running electrical subcontracting companies, and "retired" out of trades and into software careers (in GIS or other domains) in their mid thirties to early forties.
Neither trades nor university education are lifetime commitments or mutually exclusive.
rocket electrician, ... obviously they mean the one that comes and fix your house or breaker panel.
look my brother is an electrician. I do this work too, but for a different reason: in my area they make as much or more than mid level software engineers, so when it's about adding a breaker box they want 8k and if it's not absolutely perfectly easy they might still drop the job. enough of them do and eventually you do it yourself.
obviously, it's quite different for the ones that gotta go daily for a lot less pay, like my brother, and while it doesn't tax your mind as much as tech companies, you do have a tax on the body. plus, they always do quite a bit more than just the electrical wor
I've done too many jobs around my house that should have been done by a qualified <whatever> because none of them are interested in a shitty little repair job, or if they are, the quote is astronomical because there's a huge cost overhead of taking a job and getting your shit onsite.
I've got an electricians ticket specifically for working on computers.
Back in the mainframe days the power supplies for computers were pretty substantial and it was deemed that special certification was needed.
I guess things have come full circle with water cooled data centres and massive power circuitry though I haven't been under the covers of anything but an x86 machine for some time.
In my experience, datacenter industrial electricians seem to take a dim view of the skills of residential specialists as guys who just spend all their time pulling romex, but it's sometimes a lot more complicated than that... Residential has to deal with individual home owners, house flippers, renovation GCs and weird change orders in a way that people working in more technically structure and high-budget environments don't.
This is true in tech as well. Big Tech folks with figuratively infinite budgets believe they're all that, but they basically are incapable of understanding the day to day problems small organizations face, or develop the ability to jump between completely different fields of technical problems several times a day.
Larger organizations come with more specialization and greater resources, but you will never find a jack of all trades there.
Living in a 200+ year old house, I've seen a lot of this first-hand through both planned and unplanned renovations and repairs. In my experience, some contractors are better able to deal with all the uncertainty than others and, if you find the right people (which I have again), hold on for dear life--and, of course, be prepared to write some substantial checks and make potentially expensive decisions.
Had a kitchen fire caused by an appliance in the middle of the night a couple of Januaries ago. Was a complete nightmare to deal with which basically ended up redoing much of my interior because of smoke. Insurance covered a lot, but it took a lot of time and something north of $50K out of pocket.
> Residential has to deal with individual home owners, house flippers, renovation GCs and weird change orders
In other words, the customers are awful. I sell and run commercial and industrial electrical work, I’d rather go do something completely different as a career than deal with homeowners, flippers, and residential GCs. The work itself has zero challenge and requires almost no thinking, it’s not hard to pull and fish romex through finished walls.
Residential also has to deal with regulators who are capricious jerks and might (have a boss who does) not like your boss, the contractor who hired your boss, the property owner, etc, etc. and will happily screw you out of thousands of dollars of opportunity cost to get at them.
Working for BigCo you never get that stuff because anyone who wants to screw you has to go through BigCo's legal team to do it.
r/electricians is a good place to lurk to get more inside information about this trade. As you note, there are definitely sectors, like resi(dential), commercial, industrial, and they work by different rules.
The speed needed by a residential electrician is very different than the long-term outlook you hear from industrial electricians (“label that box because the next guy to service it could be you”).
Another recurring trope is the perceived hierarchy between the trades. I lose it when a plumber is described as a “turd herder.” And drywallers get no respect.
I find this especially unfortunate given that, in my experience, drywallers understand the rest of the trades far better than vice versa, since they're in the position of being able to see everyone else's completed work.
The best advice (a good) spackler ever gave me, started with his question "why do you make all your wiring holes so small?"
In my apprenticed ignornance, I figured I was "doing the gypsum guys a favor" (by not cutting large holes everywhere) but it turns out cutting larger holes made both trades' lives easier.
Making a large cut-out "disappear" is actually much easier to conceal than a smaller opening.
----
That, and wet sanding (it's incredible how many people dry sand - all the dust!).
Drywallers don’t understand anything except “it’s my turn to pull gypsum board up.”
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing contractors need to understand the most since their work goes all over the building and they’re on the project from start to finish.
Drywallers just come in and put up gypsum once walls have been framed and MEP has been roughed in.
I’ve done dozens of tenant improvement projects as an electrical PM.
I hope you had a speech you gave to the drywall crew on each new project, something like:
“This is my hammer, it would do you well to remember it. If you don’t bury my boxes, you will not see my hammer again. If you bury my boxes, I guarantee you will see and feel my hammer. The decision is yours.”
I became a licensed ship's electrician a decade and change after doing my MSc in RF design - turned out that in the line of work I stumbled into, doing control systems for heavy offshore equipment, it was a massive benefit to be able to work hands-on on the systems during commissioning, rather than pointing at the stuff which needed doing and trying to agree with some poor guy I more often than not did not share a language with as to what I meant.
The supervisor at the local trades office had a laugh at that when I called and asked if I could get to take the test(s) based on relevant work experience rather than by having served a conventional apprenticeship.
Most often, the ones asking to take that path had started working as cable pullers and helping hands at fifteen; having an MSc ask was... ...uncommon.
It was quite the experience learning HOW to do all the stuff I knew needed doing.
Anyway - I can now do all sorts of rather competent work on a ship.
I'd be utterly useless (as well as in violation of the law) if I ever attempted to do anything in a house.
The latter has been very helpful - seeing as I've been asked often whether I can help out friends and relatives with electrical installations at home, seeing as I'm an electrician and all.
Tangentially related... Back when I was a product manager for fairly large old-timey computer systems, it took a while for me to wrap my head around the fact that all these super-smart digital designers basically didn't know jack about anything remotely related to AC power. I needed to talk to the mechanical/power systems people directly.
Simple enough, one group will be living in houses falling apart, the other group will be renovating distressed cheap housing into relative mansions to live in or flip at cost or less.
As a software guy who’s worked alongside trades for the past 15 years, ChatGPT can tell you some of the tricks but the know-how comes from hands-on experience. I’ve lost count of the tips and tricks I’ve picked up from watching and talking to those guys.
There is a much larger number of people who can do electrical work than those who are "electricians". We will instead see more people doing their own work, mostly with success.
Regardless, dry walling, stud framing, roof trussing, foundations, plumbing, gas fitting, electrics, etc are all umbrella's under "blue collar work".
Those who can, will, those who can't won't - and in response to the question posed, those who can no longer afford will either have to learn how or put up with decay creep.
Well, in principle the economy scales to the labor constraint.
Obviously there are practical limitations to how fast things can rearrange but there's no reason in principle you couldn't have an economy where everyone retrained into blue collar work, and all white collar job needs were handled by the magic internet box.
The other aspect I think people are missing is that, for the right person, the choice isn't between a white collar office job and trades, it's between struggling in retail and service work with a (possibly bad) degree and no upward mobility, where your only escape is into either management or retraining.
For those people, trades are absolutely a better choice - it's not like becoming an HVAC dogs body prevents you from later going to school if you decide it's not for you.
Yep, conflating retail/hospo dead-end jobs where you get trained up in a week and replaced in a week with qualified tradesmen doesn't like high quality research.
I met a professional electrician in college who was in charge of the electrical system in an old high-rise building. He told me that it was common for him to work on high-voltage lines that could not be shut off for service. He said that hearing the pops from the high voltage was not uncommon. He regularly put his life on the line as part of his job. Just hearing that made me want to make sure I got a college degree so I wouldn't have to get a trade job. All trade jobs will wear your body down, and you regularly have to put your health on the line. Saying that trade jobs are the future is easy to say, but there's a catch. You may sacrifice your health. The better route maybe a career where you help reduce the dangers of trade jobs.
A few years back, we hired an electrician to do some relatively small things for us—things I could do like replacing light switches with timer switches and the like, but didn’t have time to do. The thing that really blew me away was when I asked him if he wanted me to shut off the power at the breaker box and he said no and did all the work with live current in the wires. Yes, I know, gloves, rubber soled shoes, he was fine, but it still was somewhat terrifying to watch.
Have done this too (and am not a professional electrician either) --- you use insulated tools and make sure you stay out of the way of any possible current paths.
I know some electricians who would call this man an idiot. PPE is for when a hazard cannot be avoided, which in this case it could easily have been avoided. Though of course the safety culture and laws differ from place to place.
In Europe anything below 10kV is low voltage because 10kV is what feeds the 380V 3-phase distribution transformers that then feed single 230V phases to residential/office.
that's medium voltage. High voltage is over 15kV. Low voltage is usually 50V or less, at least in MEP electrical parlance. So there's a gap from 50V-600V that doesn't really have a clear name
Not an electrician, but I did some when younger. And did it unknowingly at least once, when the other guy on the job cut power to the wrong circuit. My father would do it routinely.
Critical caveats: Residential 120V/15A, familiar wiring, dry wood frame buildings, proper equipment, and we knew what we were doing. If you can't tick all 5 of those boxes, my advice is that you hire an electrician to do the work.
Also the fault current is really low at these locations. My electrician shorted 2 wires together in my garage to avoid having to go back to the panel and shut it off. Try that right by a big substation at 480V and you would not be doing great.
You are correct that 120V/15A has very little potential for arcing that would be directly dangerous to you, and I've also known an electrician or two who used that method.
But I really wouldn't recommend doing that. There's a wide and complex canyon of consequences between "that little blue arc won't hurt me" and "triggering a fault current will not damage anything, anywhere, either short- or long-term".
Shut off the breaker? Oh, don't worry about that. If I need it shut, I will just touch the stripped end of this white wire, to the stripped end of this black one! Saves a walk to the breaker! But would you be a dear and reset it for me?
I think the most important aspect of high salary is job demand.
Perhaps once there was a high demand for good SWE coming out of 4 years of $$ tuition uni.
Personal anecdote: Got a buddy who dropped out of Bible school, worked at a auto shop while getting his certs. After 2 years about any dealership would hire him.
He moves, lands a 100k+ job. 2 years later, switches to a dealership in San Jose, earning 150+.
6 months later, he gets an offer to become foreman at a dealership in gilroy with a $5/h raise + foreman benefits. How it works is techs are paid flat rate: Paid per job, not per hour. So if youre good, you can really rake in the money.
Its been wild to see his career arc in real time.
He's highly trained, very handy, Nd he's damn smart at debugging.
Basically doing CAN bus diagnostics with an oscope and logic analyzer.
He earns more than me who got a MS in ECE.
On the flip side, his job is physical and he works more hours than me.
I get to so R&D, think about cool math, and code. But in another life I'd love do be a tech.
All that said, there's a lot of demand for good auto techs.
There's demand but for all but the most specialized stuff (maybe NVH), the work is brutal and the flag hour system sucks ass. Got a warranty job? Better be happy with half pay. Got something that's an absolute bitch to get apart or something goes wrong? Yeah you're still getting paid the same even if it's not your fault. There's a good reason Ford can't find enough auto techs. There's no way I would go back to earning money as a mechanic over something like HVAC or being a millwright.
Lab Scope / Meter
2-channel
Bandwidth 3MHz
Sample Rate: Up to 6 million samples/sec
Scale range 0-100mV to 0-400V
Sweep rate 50 microseconds to 20 seconds (5 min in GMM mode)
It’s slow but it’s an oscilloscope. It graphs electrical measurements over time. They sold CRT scopes on carts for years and years.
Maybe you should move the goalposts and demand FFT or higher bandwidth.
> Basically doing CAN bus diagnostics with an oscope and logic analyzer.
I'm skeptical about this; I can run my 'scope on the CAN bus and decipher the output, but there's no point. I'll use the CAN bus diagnostic reader to determine which of the 27 or so modules are sending malformed messages.
And that, itself, is theoretical - a broken module or poor wiring is still not going to result in messages so fucked up that the diagnostic reader can't read them.
It's like pulling out the 'scope to diagnose your LAN issues; you can do that, but you'd be a moron not to use a network packet sniffer instead.
I'm an electrician. I used to be a programmer. I still program for fun and sometimes get small gigs.
In my city the pay scale for the first 5-7 years of a grad software engineer and grad electrician careers are comparable and I expect that to be the case in most of the world outside the handful of American bubbles. One thing I enjoy is that the minimum pay is regulated by a union so I don't have to hop job every year to make sure I'm not underpaid.
After that the salaries diverge quite quickly and the ceiling is much much lower as an electrician.
It's still pretty good money, though, so I don't think that's really a con to this career.
What was the transition like? How did this article's description of union electrical work as like the "McKinsey partner" of the trades world strike you?
> For instance, a future job site worker equipped with smart glasses and an earpiece might receive continuous direction via an AI interpreting and providing feedback on their actions.
I see this happening very soon- already, in some cases, for some applications. And I worry that it will be another way for capital to deskill and disempower labour; see Doctorow's "chickenized reverse centaurs" with Amazon drivers and warehouse workers being the classic example.
This was literally the hero utility use case that the HoloLens team previewed to partners back in 2015. The user played the role of "electrician", communicating with another party over Skype who was using a version of MS Paint to "wire" connections in real-time over the HUD.
That technology is now creeper Ray Bans serving ads.
Yes, he's a prolific writer and cultural observer. I think he's good at identifying and naming concepts which I find somewhat useful, like the one I mentioned.
Yea, but agreeable political opinions and being a good writer have little to nothing to do with making good predictions which is what we are weighing here.
Yes, as most science fiction writers, he has good observational skills of current society and is great at seeing the core issues cropping up with new technologies.
I've tried and couldn't find anything wrong with the article.
Perhaps the only thing to note is that you should pay attention to your long term health. You can definitely stay fit if you don't grind on when you shouldn't. No job and no amount of money is worth destroying your body.
Oh, and desk workers die from lack of activity. If you sit for more than an hour you gradually start dying.
I recently switched to being an electrician in ship construction after a MSc in Computer Science and PhD in Data Science with heavy focus on writing software/services.
So far, I like it a lot. The work is physically demanding but the colleagues are nice, down to earth and come up with good jokes (I also see this a lot when I watch trades videos on YouTube). Also nice is the feeling of having made something at the end of the day and the lack of office politics. I didn’t do any extra education, they say I’m picking it up fast so it seems I can go without. I think that would hold for most programmers since it’s a very similar mindset that you use especially when you start troubleshooting.
The issue is "physically demanding", look at the guys that are 50+ in the trades, they have all sorts of physical issues from working in the trades. I say this as someone who has two JM qualifications.
Serious injuries which will nag for the rest of your life do happen, but they're extremely rare. All things being equal, physical work is vastly better for your body than sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day. Desk work is associated with increased chances of heart disease, obesity, mental health issues, and much more. We're not meant to be sedentary, but desk work basically requires that.
The confounding factor is lifestyle. Kicking back after a hard day of physical work with a huge meal and a few beers feels amazing, but that's going to wreck somebody's health if that turns into a lifestyle. And similarly, a gym rat who works a desk job is going to probably be in excellent shape.
Gym rat + desk job hints at passable cardiovascular health though. An overall healthy body in the modern age is very tough* and time-consuming when you consider all aspects..
I know 5 people closely that have had long careers in the trades.
They are all physically damaged in ways I am not from sitting at a desk.
What I notice about the trades is that the conversation from the inside is mostly about retirement because the work is not fun the way I find my white collar work to be fun.
Well okay you have your anecdotal evidence while I have mine, and they seem to be opposed to each other so I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some like it and some don't. Some hurt their bodies and some don't. It also matters a lot which trade exactly. Painting ship tanks is not good for the lungs it seems to me.
I'm not so sure about that. I think there are things you can do in either case, but you do not want to be in roofing for 40 years. I would take a 100% sedentary job over roofing 10/10 times
All things are relative. As I'm sure you know, roofing is one of the deadliest professions there is with an on-the-job mortality rate of about 50/100k per year. Do it for 40 years and your risk of dying on the job is almost 2%. That seems high, but the interesting thing is, about 17% of men who celebrate their 18th birthday won't make it to their 60th birthday. [1] So even if you do roofing for 40 years, your odds of dying on the job are much less than your odds of dying due to something else. Life's short - often said, but often only realized much too late in life for it to matter.
You also have to appreciate one other thing about health. 30-40 years ago digital work was a very small part of the labor force. Today it's a large part. So we're only starting to see the long-term consequences of sedentary work, on a large scale in relatively recent times. Then you also need to pair this with the emergence of endless entertainment of the internet to also create the possibility of sedentary work paired with sedentary lifestyles. I expect we'll find that the aggregate health outcomes of this are going to dwarf even smoking.
You can get jobs and have a career without education, certification and licensing?
> lack of office politics
Why is there any less?
> ship construction
Your story is interesting. I read articles by Gary Kim about Kim's theory of why the US has a shortage of workers for well-paying shipbuilding jobs - it's a dangerous job and the pay doesn't per Kim, compensate enough. [0] I wonder what your experience is?
> You can get jobs and have a career without education, certification and licensing?
Yes.
> Why is there any less?
Smaller company and down to earth attitude.
> I wonder what your experience is?
It's less safe than an office that's for sure. But the biggest accident in the company of 100 people has been due to arc flash and not due to walking across the shipyard. In general, the older colleagues seem physically as healthy if not healthier than average for their age; some having worked there for more than 20 years. I'm also surprised by this. The shipyard looks very dangerous but somehow not much happens to the electricians it seems from what I hear and see in the older colleagues.
The article literally admits is first point was misleading.
My carpenter buddy sets his own schedule, spends his time pulling his camper, works extra when he wants to, floats in and out of his union asks (exploiting their rigidity).
He’s been at it for years, so he’s a qualified instructor for anything he can get his hands on, even esoteric stuff like pouring concrete for nuclear facilities.
His job is hardly comparable to an Amazon driver, like this article conflates. Bro makes more than an equiv exper and age software dev, but with no glass ceiling.
On top of all this, electricians don't spend much time doing actual electrical work. Time is spent driving a van, doing metal work, cutting, drilling, crawling around tight spaces etc.
Not necessarily, a non-SCUBA trained electrician may choose to bid the job with the condition that the customer drains the pool before the electrician starts their work.
I have some electricians that work for me with rope access training and certifications, sometimes we bid a job using rope access instead of a hydraulic lift if it’s cheaper to do it that way. It all depends on the project and your competition.
Most importantly if the water table of the surrounding soil is high enough, it will lift an empty pool, even concrete. At most you would lower the water level below the lights. You’re likely getting wet either way.
Well electrical work itself is pretty easy, just connect wires. You need some knowledge to know what do to and do it safely, but there isn't that much to do.
Most of the work is opening walls, closing them, running cables, etc.
In Canada the official electrician trade name is actually 'Construction Electrician' which to me is much more descriptive of the work. Electricians typically need to know a little bit about framing, drywall, hvac, plumbing, etc so that they can confidently cut into walls and modify things.
I'm an electrician in Canada and my favourite part of the job is actually this construction type work. I probably should have just been a carpenter but the job prospects aren't nearly as strong.
Auguring holes for utility poles. Crimping cables. Etc. There is knowledge work in being an electrician -- besides electrical stuff there's also local code.
I’ve worked trades. I loved a lot about it! But I’m so glad this article pointed out the range of status: not all trades, or roles within one are equal. If you are an incredible welder who can run a perfect seam every time you can command a huge salary. For the rest of the welders it is quite different. If you can handle customers and a crew you can run a quite lucrative electrician shop, for the rest of construction it is quite different. Repeat.
I’m not saying it should be that way, but people need to be clearheaded that a top blue collar job is not as easy as showing up. There are real performance differentiators - reliability, judgement, skill, etc - and the numbers touted often belong to the top performers.
And anyone who thinks office politics go away in a family owned shop is extremely naive. Nepotism is default (and frankly reasonable. Why wouldn’t someone leave their business to their daughter if they were interested?). Large places are like that, too. Someone on a union job asked me point blank who I knew, the implication being that I’d have to know someone to get hired on.
I loved the camaraderie, being on the move, and building something physical. But it wasn’t a nice relaxing stable existence, either.
>* I’ve worked trades. I loved a lot about it! But I’m so glad this article pointed out the range of status: not all trades, or roles within one are equal. If you are an incredible welder who can run a perfect seam every time you can command a huge salary. For the rest of the welders it is quite different. If you can handle customers and a crew you can run a quite lucrative electrician shop, for the rest of construction it is quite different. Repeat.*
This is quite obviously true whenever you hire trades people. I had a guy just cut into a pipe behind some dry wall. I’m uncertain how after looking at hole and the pipe.
I remain convinced that anyone enterprising could build a very lucrative trades business simply because so many trades people are bad.
It feels weird. Those with capability to pay should choose quality. But often they still choose price. And identifying quality is rather hard... Good reputation and good quality should carry business in future and get bit higher prices.
Maybe we just live in world where every time when there is advantage gained from quality it is later destroyed to make slightly more for bit of time...
Most people are a bad judge of quality. They just don’t know the difference between a good and bad electrician. Even more obvious stuff, like painting, I find people can’t judge quality.
So you end up with a ton of unreliable reviewers online.
These days I take recommendations from people who are picky and when I can see the results myself.
I grew up on a farm. I don’t care what the author says, manual labor is very rewarding. I built my own office, carport, horse stable, chicken coop and many other projects in the evenings after already exhausting work, and if I could make more in construction, I’d pick that over an office job any day of the week.
If you take good care of your body and health, it doesn’t have to be as bad as you think. But a lot of tradies think eating healthy, stretching, eye protection, gloves, etc. are “gayyyyy”.
I had some time and decided to renovate my kitchen. I'm doing everything myself: plasterboard/drywall, flooring, electrical, plumbing, cabinets, painting, etc. I had time to learn the standards and do it all the 'right' way, and I'm almost done.
On one hand it's been incredibly enriching and rewarding. I'll never look at a room the same again. Some areas, like woodworking, also surprisingly required much more deep thinking than I'd anticipated.
On the other hand, I couldn't imagine going through half the nonsense I went though for someone else, especially an ungrateful/fussy/penny-pinching customer.
The number one reason I am unhappy about AI killing white collar and for a short time making blue collar lucrative is that for all the shit talk about office politics, I’ll take it any day over the school yard bully “banter” shit that the most average construction site has between their employees.
You can do physically demanding jobs without embracing every stupid meme of blue collarism. You don’t need a mullet. You don’t need to waste your money on lifted trucks. You don’t need to hate liberals. You don’t need to claim electricians have “women’s hands”, etc
Everyone seems to forget that if everyone followed the “AI-proof career” advice to become a plumber, electrician or carpenter - then there’d be so many of them that the pay would go down considerably
> Everyone seems to forget that if everyone followed the “AI-proof career” advice to become a plumber, electrician or carpenter - then there’d be so many of them that the pay would go down considerably
The demand will also drop through the floor because the people who previously had the well-paying white collar jobs who are a large amount of the non-corporate customers for trades people will be gone, so they can no longer afford to hire you. The corporate customers will have less need for facilities other than data centers because they won't have employees to house, so the demand craters there too.
And some amount of the other people fleeing to the trades will have taken up your specific trade too, so why would they pay someone to do something they can do themselves.
So you'll have massively increased labor supply as everyone flees to these "AI safe" jobs and massively decreased demand due to a flattened low-wage economy where almost everyone is trying to scrape by on a trades job.
Exactly this I've been saying also. It’s completely obvious and I don’t understand how this argument is not brought up more frequent. If AI would take let’s say 50% of IT jobs there'd be a huge drop in consumer demand that’d send shockwaves through the entire economy…
Me too. I am personally much less worried about typical AI doomsday scenarios like bioweapons or mass hacking swarms. I am sure those will happen, but will be relatively targeted (even if that means huge numbers of casualties). But something like unemployment of nearly all working age people across humanity is really an apocalyptic scenario. I can't imagine how terrible it will be that no one has any drive or ambition any longer. We can already see the signs of this future coming, with AI use destroying education, and the staleness of modern culture.
On the other hand a loooot of people will inherit badly run down homes from their parents as the boomers finally go six feet under. That means a loooooooooot of demand. And on top of that we got the shift off of fossil fuels to electric cars, heat pumps, decentralized production (solar) and storage, which means yet another serious piece of demand.
Are you sure about that correlation? I mean how would those who inherit this old stock pay for all these renovations if they just lost their job to the AI and barely scrape by? Maybe then the 70s tiles bathroom doesn’t looks so bad anymore.
Indeed. My original 1967 white 1"-square tile bathroom floor looks pretty good if I keep it clean. In fact, when I reflect that it was laid down nearly 60 years ago by someone more likely than not no longer alive, it looks very good.
I think you are overestimating the shift off of fossil fuels. I mean, MAYBE people will finally wake up now that the cost of feul is so high, but I wouldn't bet on it.
People here in these comments are largely just naive or unable to understand things outside of some nerd fantasy or something. If white collar jobs become untenable, the economy will just collapse. The idea people will suddenly go to the trades and work on "solar power" as someone said just mind-numbing nonsense. It would be a very unstable situation and "pulling wire for the county" would not be the main focus of the day.
So people working in white collar jobs are holding the economy hostage? That's basically your point. But society has shown it is far more resilient than narratives like this would make you believe. We seem to have survived through a lot events such as the 2008 crash, covid as recent examples. And yet there is no "collapse" except in the most extreme cases. Even some countries that are in war have not yet "collapsed".
Grandparent poster is making the claim that the economy is structured in a certain way. Their claim is that simply dismantling the existing structure of labour and economy is something that will have a very negative effect.
Also the COVID part is a false analogy / non sequitur. COVID was expected to end. Surviving COVID doesn't mean the economy can survive permanent shocks.
The west has transitioned away from a manufacturing economy into a service economy. We gave China all the manufacturing while we (the US) transitioned into a 'service' economy. Once the service economy is run by AI, there will be no jobs here. Manufacturing ain't coming back...well maybe once everyone is impoverished and willing to work 40 hours a week for their bread ration.
> The idea people will suddenly go to the trades and work on "solar power" as someone said just mind-numbing nonsense.
That is pretty obvious and mostly correct idea. I don't understand why people who have even a little bit of common sense about how the economy works thinks that mass layoffs of programmers or office workers will destroy the economy.
I think we're a few decades away, at least, from seeing a robot on something like a residential construction site. Sure they look good in a flat controlled environment, but humans have a hard time walking around a construction site. Then there is the dexterity issues that they have an human hands excel at. The startup cost of a robot is probably 4x the cost of an entry level tradesperson, at least.
Right now, today, modular homes are factory built, transported and site assembled (accurately lowered into place and levelled on biscuits to hydraulic jack together) that are multiple large Lego blocks of click together cast concrete foundation with utility piping inbuilt and "some part of a larger house" fully built above.
These can be trucked or flown into place.
Factory built simplifies full trade critical path, with pipeline schedule of custom variations moving through to be wired, plumbed, built out and finished.
There's a very large difference between robots on a new construction project - we're still quite a few years away from that - and the sort of flexibility and problem solving required for "old work" (fixing broken pipes, installing new wiring in existing homes etc. etc). I very very much doubt that the latter type of work will be roboticized within 50-100 years, even if the former might be.
You sound like I sounded in 2021 but for software, and robots (will) have LLMs/RSI to make them advance even faster. It probably even starts like software where I can buy a home repair assistant to do basic repairs or maintenance, but that advanced to the point where it could source and renovate an entire room. I don’t doubt that white-collar work will be obsolete before blue-collar, but 50-100 years feels way off. I’d say 15-20.
If you've ever done residential wiring or plumbing fixes in an older home, I suspect you'd share my opinion.
That's why I differentiated between robots working on new construction sites, where I do think that a 15-20 year timeline is entirely feasible (not necessarily desirable, but feasible). That's an entirely different task than renovations in an existing building, which is much *much* harder even for humans.
Also note that there's another way of thinking about where technology will take housebuilding that already exists: more factory-assembled modular cosntruction. That's less popular in the USA, with its focus on single family "unique" homes, but is taking off elsewhere and is already highly automated.
I suspect what will happen is that the relative value of fixing 100 year old construction will decrease. Sure you can hire someone for 20k to fix the broken plumbing in your house or you can get a new one for 30k that also has the windows, kitchen, electrical and insulation fixed.
Yeah this has essentially already happened for HVAC - repair is often more expensive than replacement because labor is so expensive and parts are so cheap.
If there actually is a large displacement of white collar work because of AI there will simultaneously be 1) a huge surplus of physical labor which will bring wages down 2) a huge decrease in the number of people who can afford to employ tradespeople.
The dynamics of blue collar employment would obviously be changed as a second order effect of white collar worker displacement
> Almost every tradesperson knows someone who’s had at least one protracted absence due to a work injury, and many of us know someone who was permanently disabled or killed.
Construction and other labor also have the highest suicide rates among occupations. [1] [2]
> ... Rowe has something in common with most people selling this popular narrative: a college degree.
Yes indeed - those senators and governors promoting trades jobs and cutting higher education funding, do you think their kids join the trades or do they go to college?
The pitch for the trades is an abomination in America (the pitch, not the trades) - telling kids to stay in their socio-economic class and do jobs appropriate for it. Don't think of college, think of where you belong. So much for 'all are created equal' in the 'land of opportunity'.
> potential missteps. Social work majors on average earn much less than their college peers
That assumes that college is about income, when it's about far more - personal development which will aid your life and your roles in family, community, citizenship, and yes, career.
I think one thing the author didn’t touch on is what your outlook for jobs would look like provided you dedicated the same amount to the trade that you would college
That’s the real comparison in my opinion
I get the whole apprenticeship route, but even that isn’t the same
Specifically what I mean is what if a teenager took 4 years to really home a skill before even looking for a job?
If you wanted to be an electrician and spent a couple years really learning from somewhat first principles up and keep yourself in good shape, you’d be set up for success
The article makes it seem like someone who would be smart enough to go to college and graduate wouldn’t be smart enough to navigate how to get an electrician job or pass those aptitude tests?
Also, a lot of trades people simply don’t take care of themselves. I’m not saying the job isn’t hard, because it is. My dad was a contractor and I worked on the sites every summer til I graduated college
But these dudes would eat like crap, skip ear protection, prove how manly they were by working to exhaustion - this only makes the “these hands” lectures worse
All in all the article felt scattered much like my own comment
The truth is, there are some people who go to college who should have gone into the trades in stead. I’d go on a limb and say I’m sure of it. (And the answer isn’t purely based on intelligence which the author touches on condescendingly)
Similarly, I’m sure a lot of kids who go into the trades would have been better off going to college
What’s missing imo is guidance
What kids imo need is guidance, someone to give them exposure to what’s out there in some way, lay out options, pros, cons and help kids make an informed decision
The real problem is that there are so many professions that people simply don’t know about - instead of telling people to go to college or scare them away from trades, I’d be pushing to introduce more of these resources to high schools. No kid at my high school would have ever known what a business systems analyst is or what firmware is.
Yes I agree with this. There's often a culture among trades people of cutting corners on safety (sometimes they get pressured to do it but sometimes it's just out of over confidence or machismo), eating poorly and drinking too much, and so on.
I have a feeling the guys who could have gone to college but picked trades for some reason (like maybe a brush with the law), end up owning businesses. My friend dropped out of college after the first year and now he owns a thriving home renovation business, for example.
Personally I find a lack of curiosity to be prevalent among trades people, like asking a home builder about Spanish persianas, or why we don't put drains in bathroom floors in America like is prevalent in Asia, or trying to get an HVAC guy to install a split type heat pump, you often just get a sense of annoyance rather than a willingness to learn anything new. They just want to stamp out the job the same way they do every job so they can get to the next one. In some sense I understand it, but you have to think there's space for people who apply more thoughtfulness to the space.
>why we don't put drains in bathroom floors in America like is prevalent in Asia
You've touched on my pet peeve. I've believed ever since I bought my first and only house in 1983 that EVERY room or space that has running water should have a floor drain. Oh, the messes I've cleaned up because they don't....
I've worked a variety of manufacturing jobs; from medical manufacturing of catheters the size of fishing lines with three inner diamters, running 5 story oven stack extrusion lines, laser etching tooth insert threading, and suface coating PTFE into sheet material for military radar and industrial applications, to grunt work factory assembly lines making the rubber gun butts for Ruger.
They all carried serious risks of bodily injury, and some far more so than others - but this is what's crazy to consider: the difference in wages we are talking is no more than $3 per hour. Meaning, that grunt work where you could lose your hand to a steel injection mold was $9, the teflon coating job where someone working third shift on the machine I ran was struck in the skull with the peg-end of a steel 72+ inch roller pin holding a full 300 yard roll of coated fabric, nearly (millimeters from), resulting in her having a steel plate surgically placed - that position paid a whopping $12 in 2014.
I've worked as a line cook, over 5 years, and as a driver, 6 years. None of these paid well, and all are inherent of risks. It's always seemed silly to me when you zoom out of this picture and see it like this; the more your job pays the less it exposes you to physical harm.
>It's always seemed silly to me when you zoom out of this picture and see it like this; the more your job pays the less it exposes you to physical harm.
I've worked physical labor too, though never in a factory. More like lugging baggage and cleaning toilets. Still, people got hurt doing it, especially over a lifetime of labor.
It comes down to rarity of skill. Not to be to crass about it, but when your primary value is that you're willing to put yourself in physical harm, the market for your offering has a lot more supply than demand.
For example, I spend a lot of time in hotels when I was young. Just finding people who were reliable and trustworthy enough to drive the airport van without wrecking it were like 1 in 10 of the people who were potentially eligible to do it.
Being the one driving the important people, I can tell you from my experience, is one of the most eye opening of my eclectic history up til now, in that context. After doing it for 6 years, I can't imagine really voluntarily accepting that large pill to swallow of "lacking the skill."
Good points, I figure it's interesting from both sides hearing the others' perspective.
Not totally sure I understand your comment, but I wouldn't say the issue with drivers was "lacking skill"...it was more about dependability and reliability (though maybe this can be considered skill).
Finding employees who were legal to drive, insurable, at least somewhat able to avoid accidents, and reliable enough to show up to work was a constant hassle.
I think you misinterpreted, I only meant the discrepancies between social/working classes becomes more obvious as you are exposed to clientele representing higher-ups and large spend limits. "Important people" I mean as what the industry itself terms them; VIP's. the clients who contribute towards a sizeable chunk of the owners business.
Not a coincidence they are also known as the clients with the longest driveways.
When you consider the commute to work as part of the work day itself, most people are nowhere near compensated for (A) the time and money spent to and from workplace, (B) their inherent risk exposure to non-work related damage / injury etc., it just becomes clear, in my opinion.
The long driveway folks have mitigated these risks to the point companies will pay nothe time spend not to mention travel costs, meals, and add to that the willingness to pay for professional limousine service to take them to and from the airports.
> Still, people got hurt doing it, especially over a lifetime of labor.
The number of programmers I know with back issues like herniated discs is larger than those without. It's a different risk, no doubt, but it's real nevertheless.
Most if not all programmers certainly would have the time to do stretching, gymnastic, sport - develop and maintain the right muscles and take brakes when needed. Most are just too lazy.
A guy breaking his back on a construction site does not have this choice - if the job requires him to lift heavier things than he safely can carry - then his only real choice is to quit.
Of for fucks sake, this comment is so backwards, it reminds me of an ex of mine who refused to brush his teeth because doing so caused his gums to bleed.
> guy breaking his back on a construction site does not have this choice - if the job requires him to lift heavier things than he safely can carry - then his only real choice is to quit.
Or to build muscle to avoid the issues. I know it first hand, herniated disks and no working out while people who do work out turn out ok. Gene and other variance to be taken into account.
Heavy physical labor with no place for rest and stretches in between is however much better at messing you up, than a work when you can pause every 15 min and do 60s of stretching. + Do 5 min of yoga before and after work. + A standing desk to stand 15min per hour. + A HÅG Capisco style chair that forces you to change position every 10 minutes (it's somewhat uncomfortable), but due to its build, allows like 4-5 different positions out of the box.
I'd like you to show up on site and let everyone with shoulder and back issues (which is everyone) that you've cracked the case wide open and it's their own fault.
It's wild sometimes the level of man child bubble the average HN poster lives in.
In order to do everything needed so that no one calls you lazy, the day would need 80hous.
Otherwise said, if you called a hard working guy who also cooks and spends time with kids lazy, because they also did not do yet another optional activity on the regular, maybe you should not.
Hey, mentioned it above, assuming your making $80k, it's a one time cost of non expensive standing desk and ergonomic chair, plus 5 minutes of workout before and after work. And stretching brakes during.
Those 15 min is actually quite a lot if you don't have the habit yet. But you're in a better situation than someone working at a slaughter line, with no time to scratch your nose for 2h15min in between brakes not long enough to eat, use bathroom and sharpen your knives for the next 2h15min run.
I still feel sorry for your herniated disk, I don't think it's just your laziness, but more ignorance and equally lazy ignorant surroundings normalizing unhealthy lifestyle.
But you can't say someone that can get up and stretch for 30s every 15 min has it as bad as people running to the toilet and eating by swallowing big bites just to make it in time before the next animal comes to their position in line.
I did not call you lazy, or a hard working guy with kids and no time, but specifically those IT guys who I know, who definitely have a unhealthy lifestyle and do not care about their health as much as they could (or rather not at all, until it is too late).
So I could have probably made it more clear that my judgement was not absolute, but anecdotally. But I have seen many IT guys.
Of course it does. It alone does not make you a body builder, but compare the average person who does regular cooking with those who do not but eat fast food.
Neither does the police stop murders from happening, but if your employer demands you haul around 50 kg of bricks around by hand, you have legal recourse.
Do you really? How many people working the type of job that would ask such a thing can afford the lawyers or even know they can, or haven't been conditioned by society to feel like doing so is shameful?
No, especially with stress, even carrying relative light things can cause lasting damage with one moment of not paying attention. Nevermind all the other dangerous things. Also I thought laws were tough for safety in germany, but they restaurated a big railway bridge right next to where I lived (years ling project) - and they worked even in icy, windy conditions with fog. You know those fog, that combined with freezing conditions will cover everything with a slipery wet ice layer. And this with heavy wind. No wonder people literally died there in accidents. (And officially this was not mentioned ever, DB rather celebrated themself for this project often. It was mostly east europeans working there).
Injuries happen most often because the rules or best practices weren’t followed (ignored safety to meet unrealistic quota, cut corners to leave work early, and why not, sometimes just being lazy, etc.) and less often because of some really unexpected condition (invisible defect in the safety equipment).
The difference between office and construction workers is that the former probably have more control over the situation but the damage is so slow they only realize too late, while the latter have too little control most times even if they are acutely aware of the immediate risk. They are the people who can’t afford to protest, lose the job, go to court, etc. and usually the informal requirements are shaped in such a way that in the end it looks like their own decision to forego safety concerns.
But an office worker can be under similar pressure to deliver day after day, and ruin their muscles, spine, eyes, joints in the process. Just less abruptly.
Indeed, but about the exact case I talked about - I doubt the construction workers were fine with going to work in those conditions but they were pushed into it (they were behind schedule). I am a climber - and icy windy foggy conditions are not when it is safe to be in heights.
And that was my point, a office worker can get stressed a lot - but when they make a misstake they have to compile again(and maybe consider quitting), not go to the graveyard, because they fell to death.
Otherwise sure, heart attacks can happen as well. And burn out is real, too. But the work itself is not physically dangerous.
I was the Health and Safety Representative at a previous job site, with a lot of different nationalities. Of course I can't generalise all of them, but I noticed that eastern europeans usually had way more disregard for job safety than Danes. There was one guy from Hungary especially who I had to reprimand at least weekly for doing stupid acrobatic shit on ladders. And we usually weren't even under time pressure, he just had barely any regard for his own safety. It was maddening. I would have fired him if I had authority to do so.
Maybe so, but at this site they did not even stopped working for the day, after a deadly accident happened. I assumed they do and do a proper investigation how it could happen, but nope. Body was removed and work proceeded.
In the US if you aren't union (which most people aren't) you will be fired and blacklisted by anybody and everybody if they find out you called OSHA. And if you are union they will probably be pissed you didn't contact the union first. It also likely won't result in any real changes, just some paltry fine and pissed off lead men. The exploted worker themselves will likely take a lot of the financial hit. (wages theft in the US dwarves all other theft combined)
Atleast half of trade jobs in the US expect you to break OSHA and labor laws regularly as part of the job. If you don't there are enough other desperate people to replace you.
Lazy is not a very nice way of putting it, but I would urge anyone without a simple stretching routine to develop one.
Five to ten minutes a few times a week, and I've not had a back problem in years.
It's a simple and easy way to keep a healthy baseline. Good for all sorts of physical and mental issues. I feel like shit if I've not done them for a while.
> Five to ten minutes a few times a week, and I've not had a back problem in years.
It helps, no doubt.
But it's not bullet proof either. A buddy of mine, very active guy, runner, cyclist, rower, tennis, swimmer, works out 10x a week, hikes 2 weeks in the rockies every summer. If anybody knows about warmup and stretching and all that, it's him. Has been a programmer for 20 years. Herniated disc took him out a year ago, still recovering.
When I had no exercise routine, my back acted up. I think distilling it into laziness is, well, a lazy take on it. It’s very hard to make proactive actions and work off delayed gratification. Especially when you are in pain. Pain is often all encompassing and you can’t perform long term thinking, and when you are out of pain (laying in bed) then you are just so happy to be relieved. It’s hard
You do have some choice on a construction site. Physical activity depletes nutrients. You can choose to replenish them. Strength and obesity is also a choice.
I once had a coworker 24 years old but he barely ate and barely slept. In a few years he has injuries everywhere that didn't go away.
One guy I know fell down 10 meters onto his back then got up and went back to work. He looks exactly like someone like that.
I've met a surprising number of manual laborers who seemed to believe you can build or repair something without materials.
Much like office workers who think ergonomics is something that comes after ruining your body.
There is no comparison between a programmer who chooses not to concern himself with ergonomics and a labourer who must put his health on the line daily or be fired.
Then there are quite a few essentially workplace injured programmers who are dismissively called "burnt out". Unable to work, unable to claim workers comp.
It seems that both blue and white collar jobs have their share of workplaces where in a do-the-task-or-maybe-get-fired situation, it's up to the employee to enforce their own boundaries and decide when saying no is a safer choice for their long term physical/mental safety. (Of course, sometimes you only realise this when it's too late.)
Classifying burnout as a dismissive term is a problem in and of itself. It's a real thing, but I also understand that people who have never experienced it can have a hard time taking it seriously and would be tempted to dismiss it. To be honest, I was one of them, until it happened to me a few years ago. It took me 5 months to recover and be able to go back to work. Since then, everybody in those shoes gets my support.
This reminds of the scene in The Office where Micheal Scott tries really hard to show how office work was just as dangerous as working in the warehouse with heavy machinery.
The comments here are confusing risk with health consequences. Whereas working in construction or with heavy machinery poses much higher risks than sitting at a desk for 30 years the results may be just as bad in both cases.
Just like a construction worker should observe H&S to minimize accidents, the office worker should get up regularly and exercise but, again in both cases, ignorance, carelessness or a heavy handed boss are rampant.
Yes, I did this, but I could still work as a programmer. My dad on the other hand was a painter and decorator, he fell off a ladder, hair line fracture in his back. Couldn't work to provide for his family. Fortunately he had critical illness cover. He never did painting and decorating again, but did start a building firm.
>relying on supply and demand leads to unfair outcomes
And I don't think anyone here is unaware of this either. Peoples abilities (actual or potential) will forever be variable and fall on some sort of standard distribution.
This is not about abilities at all though, compensation shouldn't be tied to just "ability" either. My point is that it should to some extent depend on the risk a person takes on as well.
No matter how many people are are able and willing to do some "low-skill high-risk" work, their salary should reflect the fact they are taking on a risk. Taking that risk should be valued and rewarded by society.
This is not about equal outcomes, it's about fair compensation. If someone risks their life and damages their body in a mine every day, it's absurd and insulting that I make more than them sitting in an air-conditioned desk typing on a keyboard.
What’s the point of this? Talking about fairness or how things should be doesn’t do anything. How do you actually accomplish it? Without some notion of what could be done, it’s akin to complaining about the weather.
Well recognizing the problem is the first step, no? If you scroll up you'll see that this is what this was about. There are plenty of people who haven't even gotten that far and think supply and demand is the perfectly fine and the only option.
But sure, if you want, there are plenty of ways. Mandatory bonuses for higher-risk or generally physical labour would be one easy start, although it likely wouldn't be as effective in practice as one would like it to be. Restructuring the way people are paid as a whole is a more effective solution, which could cover other aspects too, although it would obviously be less popular with The Shareholders™ and therefore more difficult to pass. It's all a matter of legislation - every sane country has a law that says what the salary may or may not be based on, various limits (e.g. minimum wage), bonuses and modifiers... Maybe take inspiration from some countries' public sectors and make salaries fully standardized with a big lookup table and a bunch of modifiers based on objective or at least measurable parameters?
I don’t see anyone not acknowledging the problem. Some don’t see a solution.
You propose a legal requirement to pay these people more. That will indeed solve the problem of unfairly low pay for these jobs. It will also create a problem of reduced hiring for those jobs and reduced output, possibly substantially reduced depending on how much more they have to be paid.
In short, you can mandate that lumber mill workers must be paid more, but you have to accept that less lumber gets produced.
Less lumber gets produced, luber prices get higher or lumber productions profits get smaller, yes. Ideally it's a mix of the three.
But this isn't nearly as bad as you're making it sound. Lots of things used to be done by extremely low-wage workers or even slaves, and haven't gone away now that workers have to be paid better (or at all). Obviously many of those people are still paid very poorly and there's lots of work left to do there, but we improved things to a noticable extent and we didn't really suffer any bad effects. We can go further.
A lot of that was automation rather than legislation. You could use this as an automation push. That could work well. My main point is that this should be something like “legislation should mandate higher wages for riskier jobs and push for automation to control costs and reduce risk” rather than “it’s unfair.”
You're mixing up two parts of the discussion. This is unfair, THEREFORE we should ____. You need to agree on what the problem is, why it's a problem and what the outcome should be, then you can get to the methods.
And no, not that much. Automation is of course a factor, but it came at different times for different things and don't forget that it often made things worse for workers, at least where or when they didn't have institutional support.
Having institutional support for workers (unions and a pro-labour government) is what ultimately matters. Even if some prices go up and some jobs are lost, such institutions help smooth out the transition and put pressure on businesses which would otherwise jump at the opportunity to also increase their margins.
Pretty much everyone will agree that, all else being equal, it would be good for riskier jobs to pay more. Higher pay is pretty much always better than lower pay if that's the only difference. Where it breaks down is that all else is very much not equal. Whatever method you use to increase pay is going to have other consequences and people disagree about what those will be and whether they're worth it.
My problem is that "it's unfair" turns it into a value judgment. Then when someone is skeptical that it can be improved without making things worse overall, or worse when someone is skeptical of a particular proposed solution, that gets turned into a moral failing.
If you perceive disagreement over the fairness of paying people badly for risky jobs, I think it's because it's so basic that people just skip over that. A small child can identify unfairness. The interesting and difficult part is what to do about it.
You'd be surprised. People regularly say that this is completely fair because the higher-paid people worked harder to get their education/skills/whatever, or that they literally just paid more for their education and that investment should be returned. I've head many other roundabout ways of basically saying "it's a fair system, people just need to work garder/smarter/whatever" and they actually believe it.
Equality in outcome doesn't need to be the goal. I much prefer the idea that someone who puts in (40|30|20) [0] hours a week of actual work gets some sense of dignity and purpose from that work along with a reasonable standard of living, no matter what the work involves.
[0] actual number would vary by culture, nation and technological time period
No?? I'm sorry but that's an insane comparison. We live in countries that have laws. Those laws are what applies the "law" of supply and demand to wages. We could alternatively have laws that say all human labor is paid equally per hour worked, or have a master table of types of work to monetary amounts, or some complex formula that takes various measurable factors into account.
I'm not saying any of those specific examples would be better than the current, but they're definitely options that exist and they're just words on a page passed by parliament, just like the current system is.
Hell, some of those things already exist in the public sector [0]. My base salary is calculated based on my job title and level of education, automatically adjusted with cost-of-living inflation, with modifiers for years of experience, job performance, being on-call, mentoring, working non-standard hours or weekends, dangerous conditions...
[0] I'm only familiar with some EU countries, not sure how this is done in the US or wherever else
I read a book called "Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea" by Barbara Demick, about North Koreans in the 1990s that escaped into China and told their story. One of the interesting parts of it is about the planned economy, and all the control the government exerts over the economy in NK.
There was a massive famine I didn't know about in the mid-to-late 1990s in NK, and millions died. During this period, an underground capitalism took over, where people were producing food in various ways, often grown in their own gardens, and then buying and selling from each other, with barter rates / prices determined by availability.
While I agree with you that countries can make rules that fix prices (or do whatever they want), there is an underlying set of mechanisms to supply and demand that are not derived from law, but logic. If I have 5 cupcakes, and there are 100 people that want them, unless someone points a gun at me and says "Sell them each for 5 cents" (while the 100 people all fight over who gets to pay), the natural incentive structure would essentially be an auction to figure out who is willing to pay the most, and then sell it to them. That's not some legal theory or set of laws, but rather the human condition.
Of course, it doesn't play out this way in reality. In reality, it all comes down to power, and those with power take whatever they want, but my point here is that supply and demand exist outside of a legal structure, and if there's only one electrician, and there's enough work for 10 electricians, that one electrician can server the richest 1/10 of those in need (and charge accordingly to select that 1/10), and it is rational to do so independent of any laws made. So much so, in fact, that laws are advisory, but the fundamental incentives are inherent.
This is why I like incentives more than rules: they're less brittle.
There are many inherent incentives that we correct for with laws. The incentive for people to shoplift is high, but we counter it with the threat of fines or jail. Similarly, the incentive is to raise prices / undercut wages / do arbitrage... and we can counter that with similar punishments.
I'm not saying I have the magic formula for how to codify such crimes and what punishment would be appropriate, but it took us hundreds of years to figure out how to effectively deal with even very basic crimes (and some countries still struggle with those).
Why does a kid in kindergarten that hoards all the crayons for himself get told off, but buying all the masks during a pandemic to sell at an insane profit was considered valid economic activity? We have arbitrarily decided that various tiers of "being an asshole" are somewhere between ssocially unacceptable and criminal, but if you're making money, being an asshole is fine. We can change that.
This whole discussion is about the fact that it isn't paid well but it should be paid well.
But yeah, if "as far as you're concerned", what defines value is only the price under an unconstrained suppy-demand system, then this discussion won't go anywhere.
If by "supply and demand" you mean all supplies have positive and reasonably sized elasticity, and all demands have negative and reasonably sized elasticity, through all reasonable price ranges...
Some niche cases include any kind of labor, anything that comes out of a factory with economies of scale, and anything that involves land or extraction of natural resources.
I had a roommate who was mentally and physically injured by his military service, and only worked cash menial labor - roofing, insulation, etc.
He'd call in sick about once a week, but because he wasn't an opioid addict, his boss considered him "the reliable one".
I worked in an engine-casting plant where a klaxon would warn before molten steel was dumped, covering walkways with spark-like droplets. Loud AF in that facility, BTW, so the klaxon was near-deafening.
Meanwhile, I met a programmer who insisted that a games area (ping pong, etc) was normal in a workplace, as he'd never worked anywhere without one (says he).
Many of us sitting with poor posture in our climate-controlled offices really don't touch earth with the wide range of job reality out there.
One of the common defenses of capitalism is that the capital owner is risking capital so should get to enjoy a disproportionate amount of their profits. The standard rejoinder is: "what exactly are they risking? If the capital owner is wiped out, they simply become a worker like everyone else".
I remember reading about the life expectancy of people who have worked construction all their working lives. The life expectancy in this same was (IIRC) 59. The life expectancy of the guy who owns the construction company was over 80.
So who exactly is taking a risk here?
To your point, you can look at an awful lot of incredibly dirty and dangerous jobs in undesirable locations and they pay surprisingly bad. As an example, underwater welding on North Sea oil rigs pays $100-160k. That is an incredibly dangerous job that wrecks your health. Even if there isn't a risk of acute injury or death, often it wrecks your body. And this fact also gets lost every time the idea is resurrected of raising the retirement age. How exactly is a construction worker or an airport baggage handler meant to work until 68 instead of 65 exactly?
On top of all that, the people who are getting paid very little in a possibly dangerous job can often cost a fortune if they screw up. International shipping tends to use fairly low paid sailors from countries like The Phillipines. The cost of a screw up can be hundreds of thousands of dollars a day when they might be earning as little as $30.
I'm not arguing either perspective but being 59 and out of money looks very different than being 80 and out of money. If you have built up capital and that's how you make your living, you become very dependent on that capital.
I've known people who believed they would never live past 20. I've also known people who want to live to 200. The difference in mentality between the two as well as the different approach to life is large. IMHO, the difference is directly comparable to working for what you need for the day/week vs saving for when you are 80.
Frankly, if you had just enough money to simply retire, would you risk it on employing folks who drink themselves to death, wreck expensive equipment, take responsibility for as little as possible and generally don't care about your bottom line? ... or would you retire?
Most "capital" used to be workers who risked everything they've worked for because they thought they could do a better job than their boss. People mortgage their homes to get their businesses through hard times.
It's easy to frame the owners of capital as the bad guy when you act like they are the Monopoly man but most businesses are small businesses and sole proprietorships.
That is not true tho. They did not risked "everything". That is super exaggerated framing. They risked not succeeding and being slightly worst off then other guys at most.
And big capital people risked "becomming a middle class" at worst.
It is. That is the whole thing where American setup is supposed to be better then European - you can fail, fail again and then again with little punishnent or consequence. And it is not like European consequences were grave, you are just less likely yo get another investment once you failed.
Frankly, too many people like to talk about risk taking in fairly low risk situations.
When you look at capital and risk, the risk are not that large. And economic policy favorwed capital over labor literally for decades on top of it.
> One of the common defenses of capitalism is that the capital owner is risking capital so should get to enjoy a disproportionate amount of their profits. The standard rejoinder is: "what exactly are they risking? If the capital owner is wiped out, they simply become a worker like everyone else".
That standard rejoinder is completely dismissive of how the capital owner came to be in the position of owning capital in the first place. That capital owner - or his ancestor - either worked exceptionally hard or took exceptional risks to get into that position.
Not trying to argue on the downsides of capitalism, but what comes to mind is the Endicott Johnson Corporation. They payed decent wages to their workers during 1950s, but got overcompeted by Nike partly because they were unwilling to lower their wages to stay in business
> That capital owner - or his ancestor - either worked exceptionally hard or took exceptional risks to get into that position.
That’s nuts. The industrial barons of 19th century America neither worked hard nor took amazing risks. They were lawyers and bankers who manipulated stocks and broke unions.
When you suddenly limit a discussion to a very specific time and place, sure, you could discount any point ever made.
I live in neither the 19th century nor in America. The wealthy people I know all earned everything over the past three generations - three generations ago my people were completely devastated and many started off with no more than the single torn shirt they fled with.
"Or his ancestor"? What are we, an aristocracy? Personally I don't think there should be any inherited wealth beyond a few million dollars but that's another story. Luckily, this hasn't been a big problem yet. The heirs tend to be very bad at maintaining or building their inherited wealth. Cornelius Vanderbilt II is an obvious exception.
But in the middle we do have an increasing problem of trust fund kids dominating industry. Hollywood is an obvious example. But even in the startup world, your education matters an awful lot. And you going to Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Yale has a lot to do with elite private schooling and all of it has a ton to do with the luck of birth not merit.
I'm actually curious who you think risked their fortune? Is it anyone in particular or is it just some romanticized idea? Bill Gates came from a privileged background. Jeff Bezos's parents had a quarter million in retirement savings to lend him in the 1990s and he was playing with investor money after that.
Now wealth creation seems to be taking other people's money and buying up industries with inelastic demand to extract wealth from ordinary people. Housing, medical care, vets, utilities, that sort of thing.
And then there's slavery and its aftermath. How much generational wealth was created from slavery? Even a century after Emancipation, we had the government creating wealth for white people with the GI Bill post-WW2. Free college and cheap mortgages. Who was taking a risk there?
You get sufficiently wealthy and you aren't allowed to fail. The government will bail you out.
I feel like James Cameron has never tried anything safe. He was a truck driver early on. Some dentists took a risk and financed a truck driver to make a movie.
That’s the thing about pension schemes like American social security: they were originally set with a retirement age that matched mean mortality, so half of potential recipients would die before drawing on them. In other words, half of workers were not meant to retire, and the half that did would be protected by the contributions of all. Modern medicine completely changed those expectations, keeping the elderly alive twenty years longer and making twenty years of unproductive, publicly funded retirement an expectation and entitlement for everyone. It’s political suicide to discuss whether something should change about that.
> the capital owner is risking capital so should get to enjoy a disproportionate amount of their profits
Anyone who advanced that ‘defense’ has a poor understanding of economics.
Risk is not an essential element of capitalism. Some investments are effectively risk free. ‘Disproportionate’ return seems to be something you’ve just made up. There’s no mention of the proportionality of returns in any economic treatise I’ve ever read.
Lastly, there’s nothing to defend. There’s simply the observation that if there is no return on capital then there’s no reason at all to provide capital. Nobody has ever come up with a working alternative.
In that case most capitalists and owners don't understand capitalism, because there are only two standard arguments - one is the one about risk, and the other is that everyone should be grateful when a capitalist creates jobs at all.
As for defences - capital is just political power by other means. If the capitalist is wasting money on yachts while workers can't afford food and housing, the return is morally disproportionate, and the usual outcome is socially catastrophic, in various possible ways.
Capitalism reduces every transaction to personal opportunism, with no concept of broader consequences. That's a shockingly stupid way to run anything - as we're all about to find out.
> Capitalism reduces every transaction to personal opportunism, with no concept of broader consequences
It is people who ALWAYS reduce everything to personal opportunism (no matter capitalism or not). Capitalism is the smartest way to run anything exactly because it is build on concepts of broader consequences of that fact.
> if there is no return on capital then there’s no reason at all to provide capital.
Untrue. Capital accumulates. People have desires for their world/society/community beyond their own wealth. They want to see certain things happen, and owning capital puts a person in a position to influence whether it does (or does not).
Risk is absolutely, essentially part of capital investment. The only reason to invest in capital over bonds is higher returns, with corresponding increases in risk.
> Some investments are effectively risk free.
Yes, and the returns on those are close to inflation (that is: minimal). A high risk investment like an IPO might return 300% in its first quarter, but it is far more likely to falter or fail (-100%).
> There’s no mention of the proportionality of returns in any economic treatise I’ve ever read.
The problem is that "the owner can simply become a worker" doesn't really work like that because they likely sacrificed career advancements, education, time, saved up money, etc.
If someone starts running a company at 20 years old and goes bankrupt at 40, they can't simply go back to working a regular job. They don't have a resume, they sacrificed 20 years of career progress. They'll be working at Walmart while their peers who got the same education and have the same intelligence are becoming partners at law firms or investment banks.
Precisely the same objections can be made about someone who takes one particular job instead of another. There's an opportunity cost to deciding to go and work for company/person X instead of company/person Y (or maybe to not work at all, and instead study, or raise young children etc. etc.)
Yeah completely unlike the regular worker whose factory gets shut down or gets injured on the job or any of a million things that breaks the fragile little house of cards that gives them any kind of basic human dignity at all.
The capital class doesn't need you to defend them. You're embarrassing yourself.
I'm failing to see your point. A $9 /hr job that risks serious bodily harm vs a $12/hr job where the level of risk is say 5-10x greater? Where's this safe job you speak of?
Oh you're right, I misread. But in that case isn't it even less crazy? Different levels of risk pay different amounts, up to 33% more in the cases documented above?
My mom insisted I got a job the summer after my freshman year in high school and I didn't want to. We lived in a small town and there was a small new French restaurant about to open just down the street so she walked me down there and talked the owner-chef, Franc into giving me a job. I ended up working there all throughout high school (washing dishes and eventually cooking) and the education was arguably as valuable as what I learned in college. I was studying French so Franc and I only spoke in French. It was incredibly helpful but I also learned a lot of words and phrases that weren't useful on the AP French test. Working in the kitchen I got exposure to people and lifestyles that I didn't know existed and it was eye opening in the best possible way. One time when I was home from college I got a frantic call from Franc to see if I could fill in because his sous chef had been busted with a kilo of coke.
I worked at a deli from age 16 to 18. Working alongside people 2 and 3x my age who had been doing that their whole working lives taught me more about life than almost anything since.
I think it’s just that the dangerous jobs are avoided y those who can avoid them. So they are left to those who have little choice, which depresses wages. This is rather immoral, but Covid made quite clear that the essential jobs weren’t the high-status or high-paying ones.
I find this worrying because the entire economy is built on the idea of cheap physical snd cheap unskilled labor. So if we do a good job educating, we’ll need to fill these jobs by paying more rather than preying on the desperate. And I don’t see the current world being willing to pay more.
Was this all in the US? If so, that's broken. I've been permanently employed since 1998 in Australia and I've never earnt less than about $27 per hour, and even that was only in the very early / junior days. The exchange rate (US$ to $AU$) has always been approximately $0.60 to $0.80 US to $1 AU for almost all of that time, so I wonder why the US pays so little when you also don't get the benefits of affordable healthcare etc?
I’m pretty sure today entry level (non-union) factory work is around $15-$20 USD ($21.62-$28.82 AUD at current exchange rate) in most parts of the US. I wouldn't be surprised if it’s lower though in very rural, low income parts of the country like West Virginia.
Federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr, hasn't changed in years but very few jobs today pay less than about 2x that, as people simply won't work for less. Even fast food pays about $15 in most places.
its ok.....i got a diploma from a prestigious music school at the age of 18 and still spent the large chunk of my 20s working my way from busboy to assistant kitchen manager at a variety of classy restaurants, culminating in about $12/hr.
During the restaurant years I was also going to college for computer science and ultimately dropped out halfway through to do remote R&D work for a silicon valley gig making a whopping 500 bucks a week (living in FL)...Than covid hit and the boss went back to Korea.
Now I make 12.50 an hour repairing and designing boutique tube amps in KS
Yep. Mostly perform for my self and friends and family now...I can improvise on the piano for 8 hours at a time sometimes (very cathartic for those emotional days)
This is my first composition (in the merrie melodies style). Inspired from getting drunk and watching my ferrets play around the house and "hunt" the cat and lose.
That's great; thank you. I listened to some of your other recordings too. Out of curiosity - you can and do play so why use MIDI for that recording?
I don't know your experience but I wish I could have gone to a serious music school even if I never played professionally. I suppose you've heard that before. A cousin of mine did that for piano - they knew they weren't good enough for the very few performing jobs in their instrument, hadn't started young enough, etc., but they pursued it through the undergraduate level and lessons beyond that. (I wasn't nearly good enough for music school.)
I was shocked when I learned about the age thing. I thought my cousin was exaggerating and asked an accomplished professional musician and teacher at a leading music schol about it. They agreed with my friend absolutely - unless someone starts as a child, they couldn't advance far enough.
I've been a welder, a machinist of exotic metal orifice plates holding ten thousandths of an inch, a lowest level carpenter, got a college degree in horticultural science (pretty useless degree IMHO), became an entrepreneur,a licensed sprinkler pro, a landscaper, an executive running a mail order company, and the most successful of all: An installer - servicer of underwater pumps on the area lakes for the wealthiest waterfront property owners. It was dangerous, indeed. Working with 230 V electricity at all times (been shocked multiple times), diving alone in almost constant zero visibility water at depth, up and down hillsides where a mis-step could cripple you and end your career (or worse), driving 100 miles or more RT 3 to 4 times a week for 15 years+.
Luckily, I survived it all without serious injury. What I discovered affected me the most was business OVERHEAD, the cost of doing business. I had 8+ employees in the mail order business plus a lease space, numerous expenses, huge overhead. With the lake pump business I had day labor guy I paid only on days I needed him. I was quite able to be the chief salesman, website creator and manager, head diver, head electrician and plumber, etc. Lowest overhead of anything I ever got involved with, consequently the most successful. Huge savings for retirement, mortgage paid off, no debt, got a Rivian on order. Rec diving in Asia and the Caribbean with my son, kiteboarding in Costa Rica. Blue collar made me successful.
On the other hand, my son is a degreed comp. sci grad who got hired just before machine learning became a thing, his company gave him the title of "senior engineer" recently instead of a raise, in fact, his salary raises have stopped, luckily he still has a job.
> the more your job pays the less it exposes you to physical harm.
the high-paying jobs are for reliance under obscurity: part of a very big deal, and if you screw up you ruin everything, and it's hard to know if you screwed up. That's everything from CEO's to investors and researchers, teachers, and yes, some tradesmen.
If you want to reduce wages, increase transparency.
Not always the case. You can make almost as much money as I did as a programmer, working the most dangerous and life-risking jobs. For example being out on an oil rig, or construction, power line repair, etc. in hostile locales. (Extremely cold weather, out on cliffs, etc.).
When I lived in Portland there was a bloke in my building who did this—cutting trees over the edges of cliffs to make way for construction of some sort—and got paid a grip for it. Then he'd come back and for two weeks blow his wad on weed, alcohol, and women—only to go out and do it all over again on the next job.
Guy I knew once was the son of a nuclear physicist. While maybe not quite as smart as his Dad, he was still pretty bright. He started his career as an apprentice plumber. His plumbing career got cut short by a serious back injury so he went back to the books and got himself a degree in mining engineering. Long story short he had a great career in mining and ended up as the wealthy CEO of a listed mining company.
Another guy I know started his career as a cabinetmaker but dropped out of his apprenticeship to go into software development. He didn't have what it takes for that and now he is unemployed.
Moral of these stories? Everything depends on your abilities and interests. Hitting the books and going after a white collar job works well if you're smart. But there a lot of frustrated white collar workers out there doing meaningless work or (with AI at the moment) getting laid off. Many would be better off doing a trade.
That part is very important. I have seen very smart people failed to understand how truly software developer works. They just do not care. They try, as it is a good profession, but deep inside they cannot care less.
They do well. It is not like they cannot do the job. But here is no passion, they know the basics, and were they shine is in solving business problems even if their code/architecture is not very good.
In Sweden companies sometimes forbid employees of doing passion projects. They kill that same drive from the inside, but their desire for controlling workers is bigger than to actually have a successful company.
Picking up a trade like that I believe also requires a much more practical and hands-on mindset, which said kids of white-collar parents might have had less opportunity to develop in the first place.
I'm often in awe when I have these guys here, doing stuff and being allowed to observe, ask questions and learn (as much as that is possible, passively).
They just do things. An obstacle appears and it is just gone within minutes and with some clever workaround.
The white-collar corporate mind cannot comprehend.
__
The downside of that of course is that things get done no matter what. Common sense not necessarily included.
Which is a different style of dysfunction compared with 5 alignment meetings that go nowhere.
Electricians are a bit like airline pilots in that they are paid for knowing what they know, the limits, and making timely decisions. Good ones are paid well, and bad ones kill people. Other tradies have super skills. Welders - who knows how they (reliably) do what they do.
5 years ago everyone knew that human thinking was the last thing to get automated. Now everyone knows that physical labor is an impenetrable fortress against AI.
The hardware is already there waiting for the right model to direct it. If GPT 7 or Claude 6 is a true AGI we'll be months away from the same type of blue collar automation. The fact that the models are already building with blender demonstrates a growing understanding of the necessary spatial awareness and reasoning.
405 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadThe part about blue collar jobs being inherently more deadly doesn't feel right to me. For one, I want to believe we have collectively gotten better in avoiding "dumb" deaths and injuries, these, that could have been prevented by inventing and following safety procedures. The health risks certain profession implies is certainly to be considered when choosing one, white collars included. Desk job kills slowly, but surely.
So, answering to the title, which doesn't seem to be related to the article contents, I absolutely do. Qualified engineer knows enough to be able to double off as a technician, and missing monthly payments is much scarier than high voltage, so if my entire job field was to become obsolete due to AI or any other reason, I would absolutely consider getting out of desk and getting my hands dirty.
The expensive part is usually just showing up ready to work, with a marginal cost for each additional tree. If you had 15 trees taken down in one day, the cost per tree would work out to seem much more reasonable.
My neighbors were having a bunch of tree work done, and I asked the supervisor what it would cost to take a big dead one down on my property. I planned to do it myself, so I had a strong haggling position, and I got him to $400, which felt worth it to save me a day's worth of hard labor. If they weren't already onsite with all the gear, that would've been $2K+ easy.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes373013.htm
better, yes, but there will always be inherent risk. even if you don't die, there will often be injuries from years of strain
There is the house wirer, the panel builder, automotive electrician, HV, marine, drilling, industrial, maintenance etc etc.
Some kinds pay better, others yield work almost wherever you go, others lend themselves to starting your own business better.
It is nowhere near as homogenous as often described.
A good many I've known have pulled cable and slogged for several years, invested in shitty old house after another (renovating and flipping), transitioned into running electrical subcontracting companies, and "retired" out of trades and into software careers (in GIS or other domains) in their mid thirties to early forties.
Neither trades nor university education are lifetime commitments or mutually exclusive.
look my brother is an electrician. I do this work too, but for a different reason: in my area they make as much or more than mid level software engineers, so when it's about adding a breaker box they want 8k and if it's not absolutely perfectly easy they might still drop the job. enough of them do and eventually you do it yourself.
obviously, it's quite different for the ones that gotta go daily for a lot less pay, like my brother, and while it doesn't tax your mind as much as tech companies, you do have a tax on the body. plus, they always do quite a bit more than just the electrical wor
If you’re in the US, the top 10% might. But the median residential electrician certainly does not.
Where's that? In the US the median annual wage for electricians was $63,190 in May 2025 whereas it's $135,980 for software engineers.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/electric...
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
Back in the mainframe days the power supplies for computers were pretty substantial and it was deemed that special certification was needed.
I guess things have come full circle with water cooled data centres and massive power circuitry though I haven't been under the covers of anything but an x86 machine for some time.
Larger organizations come with more specialization and greater resources, but you will never find a jack of all trades there.
Had a kitchen fire caused by an appliance in the middle of the night a couple of Januaries ago. Was a complete nightmare to deal with which basically ended up redoing much of my interior because of smoke. Insurance covered a lot, but it took a lot of time and something north of $50K out of pocket.
In other words, the customers are awful. I sell and run commercial and industrial electrical work, I’d rather go do something completely different as a career than deal with homeowners, flippers, and residential GCs. The work itself has zero challenge and requires almost no thinking, it’s not hard to pull and fish romex through finished walls.
Working for BigCo you never get that stuff because anyone who wants to screw you has to go through BigCo's legal team to do it.
The speed needed by a residential electrician is very different than the long-term outlook you hear from industrial electricians (“label that box because the next guy to service it could be you”).
Another recurring trope is the perceived hierarchy between the trades. I lose it when a plumber is described as a “turd herder.” And drywallers get no respect.
I find this especially unfortunate given that, in my experience, drywallers understand the rest of the trades far better than vice versa, since they're in the position of being able to see everyone else's completed work.
In my apprenticed ignornance, I figured I was "doing the gypsum guys a favor" (by not cutting large holes everywhere) but it turns out cutting larger holes made both trades' lives easier.
Making a large cut-out "disappear" is actually much easier to conceal than a smaller opening.
----
That, and wet sanding (it's incredible how many people dry sand - all the dust!).
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing contractors need to understand the most since their work goes all over the building and they’re on the project from start to finish.
Drywallers just come in and put up gypsum once walls have been framed and MEP has been roughed in.
I’ve done dozens of tenant improvement projects as an electrical PM.
This is incorrect; they know what my hammer means. Not just anybody's, mine.
–(former data center) Electrician
“This is my hammer, it would do you well to remember it. If you don’t bury my boxes, you will not see my hammer again. If you bury my boxes, I guarantee you will see and feel my hammer. The decision is yours.”
Any attitude (or challenges e.g: "there's no j-box there meeeeester") and out comes my Dead-On™ clawhammer (it's over 2ft long) -- "there it is!"
It’s dead ass simple when 95% of the walls extend beyond the grid, there’s very little hardlid ceiling in most commercial spaces.
Professional drywallers have panel hoists that can lift drywall 12’ tall.
I became a licensed ship's electrician a decade and change after doing my MSc in RF design - turned out that in the line of work I stumbled into, doing control systems for heavy offshore equipment, it was a massive benefit to be able to work hands-on on the systems during commissioning, rather than pointing at the stuff which needed doing and trying to agree with some poor guy I more often than not did not share a language with as to what I meant.
The supervisor at the local trades office had a laugh at that when I called and asked if I could get to take the test(s) based on relevant work experience rather than by having served a conventional apprenticeship.
Most often, the ones asking to take that path had started working as cable pullers and helping hands at fifteen; having an MSc ask was... ...uncommon.
It was quite the experience learning HOW to do all the stuff I knew needed doing.
Anyway - I can now do all sorts of rather competent work on a ship.
I'd be utterly useless (as well as in violation of the law) if I ever attempted to do anything in a house.
The latter has been very helpful - seeing as I've been asked often whether I can help out friends and relatives with electrical installations at home, seeing as I'm an electrician and all.
Sorry. Against the law. Phew.
And the skill you learn, you can use it to build your own house and save money.
White collars usually aren’t that good at manual work, at least not to professional levels.
Those who can, will, those who can't won't - and in response to the question posed, those who can no longer afford will either have to learn how or put up with decay creep.
Obviously there are practical limitations to how fast things can rearrange but there's no reason in principle you couldn't have an economy where everyone retrained into blue collar work, and all white collar job needs were handled by the magic internet box.
For those people, trades are absolutely a better choice - it's not like becoming an HVAC dogs body prevents you from later going to school if you decide it's not for you.
What gloves? For 110V? Bah!
Unless you’re a complete idiot and try to cut both wires at once with a conductive cutter, nothing happens when you snip them one by one.
And selection bias means we don’t see those guys around for long.
2. You are thinking of survivorship bias, selection bias is a different thing.
Critical caveats: Residential 120V/15A, familiar wiring, dry wood frame buildings, proper equipment, and we knew what we were doing. If you can't tick all 5 of those boxes, my advice is that you hire an electrician to do the work.
But I really wouldn't recommend doing that. There's a wide and complex canyon of consequences between "that little blue arc won't hurt me" and "triggering a fault current will not damage anything, anywhere, either short- or long-term".
Perhaps once there was a high demand for good SWE coming out of 4 years of $$ tuition uni.
Personal anecdote: Got a buddy who dropped out of Bible school, worked at a auto shop while getting his certs. After 2 years about any dealership would hire him.
He moves, lands a 100k+ job. 2 years later, switches to a dealership in San Jose, earning 150+.
6 months later, he gets an offer to become foreman at a dealership in gilroy with a $5/h raise + foreman benefits. How it works is techs are paid flat rate: Paid per job, not per hour. So if youre good, you can really rake in the money.
Its been wild to see his career arc in real time.
He's highly trained, very handy, Nd he's damn smart at debugging.
Basically doing CAN bus diagnostics with an oscope and logic analyzer.
He earns more than me who got a MS in ECE.
On the flip side, his job is physical and he works more hours than me.
I get to so R&D, think about cool math, and code. But in another life I'd love do be a tech.
All that said, there's a lot of demand for good auto techs.
I feel bad for mechanics in the rust belt getting paid what another mechanic gets paid for much more effort
They are using an OEM diagnostic tool and following approved shop procedures.
I agree with the below poster, this reeks, no one is doing o-scope level debugging on a production vehicle.
https://www.snapon.com/EN/US/Diagnostics/Products/TRITON-D10
It’s slow but it’s an oscilloscope. It graphs electrical measurements over time. They sold CRT scopes on carts for years and years.
Maybe you should move the goalposts and demand FFT or higher bandwidth.
I'm skeptical about this; I can run my 'scope on the CAN bus and decipher the output, but there's no point. I'll use the CAN bus diagnostic reader to determine which of the 27 or so modules are sending malformed messages.
And that, itself, is theoretical - a broken module or poor wiring is still not going to result in messages so fucked up that the diagnostic reader can't read them.
It's like pulling out the 'scope to diagnose your LAN issues; you can do that, but you'd be a moron not to use a network packet sniffer instead.
In my city the pay scale for the first 5-7 years of a grad software engineer and grad electrician careers are comparable and I expect that to be the case in most of the world outside the handful of American bubbles. One thing I enjoy is that the minimum pay is regulated by a union so I don't have to hop job every year to make sure I'm not underpaid.
After that the salaries diverge quite quickly and the ceiling is much much lower as an electrician.
It's still pretty good money, though, so I don't think that's really a con to this career.
I see this happening very soon- already, in some cases, for some applications. And I worry that it will be another way for capital to deskill and disempower labour; see Doctorow's "chickenized reverse centaurs" with Amazon drivers and warehouse workers being the classic example.
That technology is now creeper Ray Bans serving ads.
However the main point is: just pay attention to who is telling you to get a job in the trades instead of a knowledge one.
And the conclusion is...?
But now that you're asking:
It's the ones that need to make wild claims like that your brain is obsolete so they can continue operating at a huge loss.
It's the ones that have multi-year investments in data centers so would very much love a discount on the trades price tag.
It's the ones that want to monopolize and control the price and value of intellectual work.
It's the ones that have been claiming that engineers will be out of a job in 3 months for the past 3 years.
I can keep going but I think that's enough.
Perhaps the only thing to note is that you should pay attention to your long term health. You can definitely stay fit if you don't grind on when you shouldn't. No job and no amount of money is worth destroying your body.
Oh, and desk workers die from lack of activity. If you sit for more than an hour you gradually start dying.
However the risks compared to physical jobs are not even close, they're at two different levels.
There's many, many things that can kill you instantly in the trades. Then there's stuff that may ruin your body no matter how careful you are.
Example: doing roofing means you're walking in a sloped plan all day long, every day. After 20 or 30 years, you'd barely have usable knees.
So far, I like it a lot. The work is physically demanding but the colleagues are nice, down to earth and come up with good jokes (I also see this a lot when I watch trades videos on YouTube). Also nice is the feeling of having made something at the end of the day and the lack of office politics. I didn’t do any extra education, they say I’m picking it up fast so it seems I can go without. I think that would hold for most programmers since it’s a very similar mindset that you use especially when you start troubleshooting.
The confounding factor is lifestyle. Kicking back after a hard day of physical work with a huge meal and a few beers feels amazing, but that's going to wreck somebody's health if that turns into a lifestyle. And similarly, a gym rat who works a desk job is going to probably be in excellent shape.
*Edit : though/tough, not native
I know 5 people closely that have had long careers in the trades.
They are all physically damaged in ways I am not from sitting at a desk.
What I notice about the trades is that the conversation from the inside is mostly about retirement because the work is not fun the way I find my white collar work to be fun.
You also have to appreciate one other thing about health. 30-40 years ago digital work was a very small part of the labor force. Today it's a large part. So we're only starting to see the long-term consequences of sedentary work, on a large scale in relatively recent times. Then you also need to pair this with the emergence of endless entertainment of the internet to also create the possibility of sedentary work paired with sedentary lifestyles. I expect we'll find that the aggregate health outcomes of this are going to dwarf even smoking.
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr74/nvsr74-02.pdf
> lack of office politics
Why is there any less?
> ship construction
Your story is interesting. I read articles by Gary Kim about Kim's theory of why the US has a shortage of workers for well-paying shipbuilding jobs - it's a dangerous job and the pay doesn't per Kim, compensate enough. [0] I wonder what your experience is?
https://garykim0505.substack.com/p/the-brutal-reality-of-bui...
Yes.
> Why is there any less?
Smaller company and down to earth attitude.
> I wonder what your experience is?
It's less safe than an office that's for sure. But the biggest accident in the company of 100 people has been due to arc flash and not due to walking across the shipyard. In general, the older colleagues seem physically as healthy if not healthier than average for their age; some having worked there for more than 20 years. I'm also surprised by this. The shipyard looks very dangerous but somehow not much happens to the electricians it seems from what I hear and see in the older colleagues.
My carpenter buddy sets his own schedule, spends his time pulling his camper, works extra when he wants to, floats in and out of his union asks (exploiting their rigidity).
He’s been at it for years, so he’s a qualified instructor for anything he can get his hands on, even esoteric stuff like pouring concrete for nuclear facilities.
His job is hardly comparable to an Amazon driver, like this article conflates. Bro makes more than an equiv exper and age software dev, but with no glass ceiling.
He had to spelunk under the house to run new lines, cut concrete, dig trenches, and scuba (yes, SCUBA!) with tools to get everything done.
Maybe 5% of his time had to do with electricity. In my mind, I really paid him to dive into 55f degree water.
I have some electricians that work for me with rope access training and certifications, sometimes we bid a job using rope access instead of a hydraulic lift if it’s cheaper to do it that way. It all depends on the project and your competition.
Most of the work is opening walls, closing them, running cables, etc.
I'm an electrician in Canada and my favourite part of the job is actually this construction type work. I probably should have just been a carpenter but the job prospects aren't nearly as strong.
I’m not saying it should be that way, but people need to be clearheaded that a top blue collar job is not as easy as showing up. There are real performance differentiators - reliability, judgement, skill, etc - and the numbers touted often belong to the top performers.
And anyone who thinks office politics go away in a family owned shop is extremely naive. Nepotism is default (and frankly reasonable. Why wouldn’t someone leave their business to their daughter if they were interested?). Large places are like that, too. Someone on a union job asked me point blank who I knew, the implication being that I’d have to know someone to get hired on.
I loved the camaraderie, being on the move, and building something physical. But it wasn’t a nice relaxing stable existence, either.
This is quite obviously true whenever you hire trades people. I had a guy just cut into a pipe behind some dry wall. I’m uncertain how after looking at hole and the pipe.
I remain convinced that anyone enterprising could build a very lucrative trades business simply because so many trades people are bad.
Maybe we just live in world where every time when there is advantage gained from quality it is later destroyed to make slightly more for bit of time...
So you end up with a ton of unreliable reviewers online.
These days I take recommendations from people who are picky and when I can see the results myself.
If you take good care of your body and health, it doesn’t have to be as bad as you think. But a lot of tradies think eating healthy, stretching, eye protection, gloves, etc. are “gayyyyy”.
On one hand it's been incredibly enriching and rewarding. I'll never look at a room the same again. Some areas, like woodworking, also surprisingly required much more deep thinking than I'd anticipated.
On the other hand, I couldn't imagine going through half the nonsense I went though for someone else, especially an ungrateful/fussy/penny-pinching customer.
You can do physically demanding jobs without embracing every stupid meme of blue collarism. You don’t need a mullet. You don’t need to waste your money on lifted trucks. You don’t need to hate liberals. You don’t need to claim electricians have “women’s hands”, etc
The trades are full of crabs in a bucket.
The demand will also drop through the floor because the people who previously had the well-paying white collar jobs who are a large amount of the non-corporate customers for trades people will be gone, so they can no longer afford to hire you. The corporate customers will have less need for facilities other than data centers because they won't have employees to house, so the demand craters there too.
And some amount of the other people fleeing to the trades will have taken up your specific trade too, so why would they pay someone to do something they can do themselves.
So you'll have massively increased labor supply as everyone flees to these "AI safe" jobs and massively decreased demand due to a flattened low-wage economy where almost everyone is trying to scrape by on a trades job.
I mean then they will start to sell their homes and situation for those who can buy them cheaply and renovate will become even better, no?
Also the COVID part is a false analogy / non sequitur. COVID was expected to end. Surviving COVID doesn't mean the economy can survive permanent shocks.
That is pretty obvious and mostly correct idea. I don't understand why people who have even a little bit of common sense about how the economy works thinks that mass layoffs of programmers or office workers will destroy the economy.
The value of human labor is going to the price of electricity and raw materials outside of a few, small realms and people are not ready for that fact.
These can be trucked or flown into place.
Factory built simplifies full trade critical path, with pipeline schedule of custom variations moving through to be wired, plumbed, built out and finished.
Also opportunity for automation streamlining.
Simpler offerings of that market look like: https://modularwa.com.au/
That's why I differentiated between robots working on new construction sites, where I do think that a 15-20 year timeline is entirely feasible (not necessarily desirable, but feasible). That's an entirely different task than renovations in an existing building, which is much *much* harder even for humans.
Also note that there's another way of thinking about where technology will take housebuilding that already exists: more factory-assembled modular cosntruction. That's less popular in the USA, with its focus on single family "unique" homes, but is taking off elsewhere and is already highly automated.
For wiring/plumbing/ducting runs ... not so much.
The dynamics of blue collar employment would obviously be changed as a second order effect of white collar worker displacement
Construction and other labor also have the highest suicide rates among occupations. [1] [2]
> ... Rowe has something in common with most people selling this popular narrative: a college degree.
Yes indeed - those senators and governors promoting trades jobs and cutting higher education funding, do you think their kids join the trades or do they go to college?
The pitch for the trades is an abomination in America (the pitch, not the trades) - telling kids to stay in their socio-economic class and do jobs appropriate for it. Don't think of college, think of where you belong. So much for 'all are created equal' in the 'land of opportunity'.
> potential missteps. Social work majors on average earn much less than their college peers
That assumes that college is about income, when it's about far more - personal development which will aid your life and your roles in family, community, citizenship, and yes, career.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7250a2.htm
[2] https://mhstats.org/blog/suicide-statistics-by-profession/
That’s the real comparison in my opinion
I get the whole apprenticeship route, but even that isn’t the same
Specifically what I mean is what if a teenager took 4 years to really home a skill before even looking for a job?
If you wanted to be an electrician and spent a couple years really learning from somewhat first principles up and keep yourself in good shape, you’d be set up for success
The article makes it seem like someone who would be smart enough to go to college and graduate wouldn’t be smart enough to navigate how to get an electrician job or pass those aptitude tests?
Also, a lot of trades people simply don’t take care of themselves. I’m not saying the job isn’t hard, because it is. My dad was a contractor and I worked on the sites every summer til I graduated college
But these dudes would eat like crap, skip ear protection, prove how manly they were by working to exhaustion - this only makes the “these hands” lectures worse
All in all the article felt scattered much like my own comment
The truth is, there are some people who go to college who should have gone into the trades in stead. I’d go on a limb and say I’m sure of it. (And the answer isn’t purely based on intelligence which the author touches on condescendingly)
Similarly, I’m sure a lot of kids who go into the trades would have been better off going to college
What’s missing imo is guidance
What kids imo need is guidance, someone to give them exposure to what’s out there in some way, lay out options, pros, cons and help kids make an informed decision
The real problem is that there are so many professions that people simply don’t know about - instead of telling people to go to college or scare them away from trades, I’d be pushing to introduce more of these resources to high schools. No kid at my high school would have ever known what a business systems analyst is or what firmware is.
I have a feeling the guys who could have gone to college but picked trades for some reason (like maybe a brush with the law), end up owning businesses. My friend dropped out of college after the first year and now he owns a thriving home renovation business, for example.
Personally I find a lack of curiosity to be prevalent among trades people, like asking a home builder about Spanish persianas, or why we don't put drains in bathroom floors in America like is prevalent in Asia, or trying to get an HVAC guy to install a split type heat pump, you often just get a sense of annoyance rather than a willingness to learn anything new. They just want to stamp out the job the same way they do every job so they can get to the next one. In some sense I understand it, but you have to think there's space for people who apply more thoughtfulness to the space.
You've touched on my pet peeve. I've believed ever since I bought my first and only house in 1983 that EVERY room or space that has running water should have a floor drain. Oh, the messes I've cleaned up because they don't....
They all carried serious risks of bodily injury, and some far more so than others - but this is what's crazy to consider: the difference in wages we are talking is no more than $3 per hour. Meaning, that grunt work where you could lose your hand to a steel injection mold was $9, the teflon coating job where someone working third shift on the machine I ran was struck in the skull with the peg-end of a steel 72+ inch roller pin holding a full 300 yard roll of coated fabric, nearly (millimeters from), resulting in her having a steel plate surgically placed - that position paid a whopping $12 in 2014.
I've worked as a line cook, over 5 years, and as a driver, 6 years. None of these paid well, and all are inherent of risks. It's always seemed silly to me when you zoom out of this picture and see it like this; the more your job pays the less it exposes you to physical harm.
I've worked physical labor too, though never in a factory. More like lugging baggage and cleaning toilets. Still, people got hurt doing it, especially over a lifetime of labor.
It comes down to rarity of skill. Not to be to crass about it, but when your primary value is that you're willing to put yourself in physical harm, the market for your offering has a lot more supply than demand.
For example, I spend a lot of time in hotels when I was young. Just finding people who were reliable and trustworthy enough to drive the airport van without wrecking it were like 1 in 10 of the people who were potentially eligible to do it.
Good points, I figure it's interesting from both sides hearing the others' perspective.
Finding employees who were legal to drive, insurable, at least somewhat able to avoid accidents, and reliable enough to show up to work was a constant hassle.
Not a coincidence they are also known as the clients with the longest driveways.
The long driveway folks have mitigated these risks to the point companies will pay nothe time spend not to mention travel costs, meals, and add to that the willingness to pay for professional limousine service to take them to and from the airports.
The number of programmers I know with back issues like herniated discs is larger than those without. It's a different risk, no doubt, but it's real nevertheless.
Most if not all programmers certainly would have the time to do stretching, gymnastic, sport - develop and maintain the right muscles and take brakes when needed. Most are just too lazy.
A guy breaking his back on a construction site does not have this choice - if the job requires him to lift heavier things than he safely can carry - then his only real choice is to quit.
Most programming folks I know sit so long, it screws up their back and ability to exercise. Rinse, repeat.
It’s a common issue for drivers too.
Or to build muscle to avoid the issues. I know it first hand, herniated disks and no working out while people who do work out turn out ok. Gene and other variance to be taken into account.
Heavy physical labor with no place for rest and stretches in between is however much better at messing you up, than a work when you can pause every 15 min and do 60s of stretching. + Do 5 min of yoga before and after work. + A standing desk to stand 15min per hour. + A HÅG Capisco style chair that forces you to change position every 10 minutes (it's somewhat uncomfortable), but due to its build, allows like 4-5 different positions out of the box.
R in RSI is for repetitive.
It's wild sometimes the level of man child bubble the average HN poster lives in.
In order to do everything needed so that no one calls you lazy, the day would need 80hous.
Otherwise said, if you called a hard working guy who also cooks and spends time with kids lazy, because they also did not do yet another optional activity on the regular, maybe you should not.
Those 15 min is actually quite a lot if you don't have the habit yet. But you're in a better situation than someone working at a slaughter line, with no time to scratch your nose for 2h15min in between brakes not long enough to eat, use bathroom and sharpen your knives for the next 2h15min run.
I still feel sorry for your herniated disk, I don't think it's just your laziness, but more ignorance and equally lazy ignorant surroundings normalizing unhealthy lifestyle.
But you can't say someone that can get up and stretch for 30s every 15 min has it as bad as people running to the toilet and eating by swallowing big bites just to make it in time before the next animal comes to their position in line.
So I could have probably made it more clear that my judgement was not absolute, but anecdotally. But I have seen many IT guys.
And I also know plenty of ripped folks who hardly ever cook. Granted, they don't only eat fast food, but quite a lot of it.
Civilised countries have laws prohibiting this. Here in Denmark it's arbejdsmiljøstyrelsen (bless you), and OSHA in USA.
The difference between office and construction workers is that the former probably have more control over the situation but the damage is so slow they only realize too late, while the latter have too little control most times even if they are acutely aware of the immediate risk. They are the people who can’t afford to protest, lose the job, go to court, etc. and usually the informal requirements are shaped in such a way that in the end it looks like their own decision to forego safety concerns.
But an office worker can be under similar pressure to deliver day after day, and ruin their muscles, spine, eyes, joints in the process. Just less abruptly.
And that was my point, a office worker can get stressed a lot - but when they make a misstake they have to compile again(and maybe consider quitting), not go to the graveyard, because they fell to death.
Otherwise sure, heart attacks can happen as well. And burn out is real, too. But the work itself is not physically dangerous.
I was the Health and Safety Representative at a previous job site, with a lot of different nationalities. Of course I can't generalise all of them, but I noticed that eastern europeans usually had way more disregard for job safety than Danes. There was one guy from Hungary especially who I had to reprimand at least weekly for doing stupid acrobatic shit on ladders. And we usually weren't even under time pressure, he just had barely any regard for his own safety. It was maddening. I would have fired him if I had authority to do so.
Worker in the US do not have substantial protection. It's limited to penalizing employers and even that almost never happens.
Atleast half of trade jobs in the US expect you to break OSHA and labor laws regularly as part of the job. If you don't there are enough other desperate people to replace you.
Five to ten minutes a few times a week, and I've not had a back problem in years.
It's a simple and easy way to keep a healthy baseline. Good for all sorts of physical and mental issues. I feel like shit if I've not done them for a while.
It helps, no doubt.
But it's not bullet proof either. A buddy of mine, very active guy, runner, cyclist, rower, tennis, swimmer, works out 10x a week, hikes 2 weeks in the rockies every summer. If anybody knows about warmup and stretching and all that, it's him. Has been a programmer for 20 years. Herniated disc took him out a year ago, still recovering.
What I'm saying is that stretching is going to give you a very good defence against back problems. Been totally life-changing for me.
I once had a coworker 24 years old but he barely ate and barely slept. In a few years he has injuries everywhere that didn't go away.
One guy I know fell down 10 meters onto his back then got up and went back to work. He looks exactly like someone like that.
I've met a surprising number of manual laborers who seemed to believe you can build or repair something without materials.
Much like office workers who think ergonomics is something that comes after ruining your body.
This doesn't even look real
https://youtu.be/7bXNCrGc0Ro?is=zCL-1ARUzygbdSqS
The roof is on. The driveway is poured. Those have obvious beginnings, ends, and results
Vs something like cybersecurity? Great, we made it through today, tomorrow will be worse. Repeat until something bad happens.
Just like a construction worker should observe H&S to minimize accidents, the office worker should get up regularly and exercise but, again in both cases, ignorance, carelessness or a heavy handed boss are rampant.
I don't think anyone here is unaware of this, it's more that maybe, purely relying on supply and demand leads to unfair outcomes...
And I don't think anyone here is unaware of this either. Peoples abilities (actual or potential) will forever be variable and fall on some sort of standard distribution.
There will never be equality in outcomes.
No matter how many people are are able and willing to do some "low-skill high-risk" work, their salary should reflect the fact they are taking on a risk. Taking that risk should be valued and rewarded by society.
This is not about equal outcomes, it's about fair compensation. If someone risks their life and damages their body in a mine every day, it's absurd and insulting that I make more than them sitting in an air-conditioned desk typing on a keyboard.
What’s the point of this? Talking about fairness or how things should be doesn’t do anything. How do you actually accomplish it? Without some notion of what could be done, it’s akin to complaining about the weather.
But sure, if you want, there are plenty of ways. Mandatory bonuses for higher-risk or generally physical labour would be one easy start, although it likely wouldn't be as effective in practice as one would like it to be. Restructuring the way people are paid as a whole is a more effective solution, which could cover other aspects too, although it would obviously be less popular with The Shareholders™ and therefore more difficult to pass. It's all a matter of legislation - every sane country has a law that says what the salary may or may not be based on, various limits (e.g. minimum wage), bonuses and modifiers... Maybe take inspiration from some countries' public sectors and make salaries fully standardized with a big lookup table and a bunch of modifiers based on objective or at least measurable parameters?
You propose a legal requirement to pay these people more. That will indeed solve the problem of unfairly low pay for these jobs. It will also create a problem of reduced hiring for those jobs and reduced output, possibly substantially reduced depending on how much more they have to be paid.
In short, you can mandate that lumber mill workers must be paid more, but you have to accept that less lumber gets produced.
But this isn't nearly as bad as you're making it sound. Lots of things used to be done by extremely low-wage workers or even slaves, and haven't gone away now that workers have to be paid better (or at all). Obviously many of those people are still paid very poorly and there's lots of work left to do there, but we improved things to a noticable extent and we didn't really suffer any bad effects. We can go further.
And no, not that much. Automation is of course a factor, but it came at different times for different things and don't forget that it often made things worse for workers, at least where or when they didn't have institutional support.
Having institutional support for workers (unions and a pro-labour government) is what ultimately matters. Even if some prices go up and some jobs are lost, such institutions help smooth out the transition and put pressure on businesses which would otherwise jump at the opportunity to also increase their margins.
My problem is that "it's unfair" turns it into a value judgment. Then when someone is skeptical that it can be improved without making things worse overall, or worse when someone is skeptical of a particular proposed solution, that gets turned into a moral failing.
If you perceive disagreement over the fairness of paying people badly for risky jobs, I think it's because it's so basic that people just skip over that. A small child can identify unfairness. The interesting and difficult part is what to do about it.
[0] actual number would vary by culture, nation and technological time period
It would be akin to saying its unfair humans can’t fly due to gravity
I'm not saying any of those specific examples would be better than the current, but they're definitely options that exist and they're just words on a page passed by parliament, just like the current system is.
Hell, some of those things already exist in the public sector [0]. My base salary is calculated based on my job title and level of education, automatically adjusted with cost-of-living inflation, with modifiers for years of experience, job performance, being on-call, mentoring, working non-standard hours or weekends, dangerous conditions...
[0] I'm only familiar with some EU countries, not sure how this is done in the US or wherever else
There was a massive famine I didn't know about in the mid-to-late 1990s in NK, and millions died. During this period, an underground capitalism took over, where people were producing food in various ways, often grown in their own gardens, and then buying and selling from each other, with barter rates / prices determined by availability.
While I agree with you that countries can make rules that fix prices (or do whatever they want), there is an underlying set of mechanisms to supply and demand that are not derived from law, but logic. If I have 5 cupcakes, and there are 100 people that want them, unless someone points a gun at me and says "Sell them each for 5 cents" (while the 100 people all fight over who gets to pay), the natural incentive structure would essentially be an auction to figure out who is willing to pay the most, and then sell it to them. That's not some legal theory or set of laws, but rather the human condition.
Of course, it doesn't play out this way in reality. In reality, it all comes down to power, and those with power take whatever they want, but my point here is that supply and demand exist outside of a legal structure, and if there's only one electrician, and there's enough work for 10 electricians, that one electrician can server the richest 1/10 of those in need (and charge accordingly to select that 1/10), and it is rational to do so independent of any laws made. So much so, in fact, that laws are advisory, but the fundamental incentives are inherent.
This is why I like incentives more than rules: they're less brittle.
I'm not saying I have the magic formula for how to codify such crimes and what punishment would be appropriate, but it took us hundreds of years to figure out how to effectively deal with even very basic crimes (and some countries still struggle with those).
Why does a kid in kindergarten that hoards all the crayons for himself get told off, but buying all the masks during a pandemic to sell at an insane profit was considered valid economic activity? We have arbitrarily decided that various tiers of "being an asshole" are somewhere between ssocially unacceptable and criminal, but if you're making money, being an asshole is fine. We can change that.
As far as I am concerned unskilled labour always has a lower value than skilled labour due to supply and demand.
Layering on laws and regulations does not change that.
But yeah, if "as far as you're concerned", what defines value is only the price under an unconstrained suppy-demand system, then this discussion won't go anywhere.
If by "supply and demand" you mean all supplies have positive and reasonably sized elasticity, and all demands have negative and reasonably sized elasticity, through all reasonable price ranges...
Some niche cases include any kind of labor, anything that comes out of a factory with economies of scale, and anything that involves land or extraction of natural resources.
There was a great tweet recently:
"There is a reason the babysitter that shows up 100% of time makes more than double the babysitter who only shows up 80% of time"
He'd call in sick about once a week, but because he wasn't an opioid addict, his boss considered him "the reliable one".
I worked in an engine-casting plant where a klaxon would warn before molten steel was dumped, covering walkways with spark-like droplets. Loud AF in that facility, BTW, so the klaxon was near-deafening.
Meanwhile, I met a programmer who insisted that a games area (ping pong, etc) was normal in a workplace, as he'd never worked anywhere without one (says he).
Many of us sitting with poor posture in our climate-controlled offices really don't touch earth with the wide range of job reality out there.
I remember reading about the life expectancy of people who have worked construction all their working lives. The life expectancy in this same was (IIRC) 59. The life expectancy of the guy who owns the construction company was over 80.
So who exactly is taking a risk here?
To your point, you can look at an awful lot of incredibly dirty and dangerous jobs in undesirable locations and they pay surprisingly bad. As an example, underwater welding on North Sea oil rigs pays $100-160k. That is an incredibly dangerous job that wrecks your health. Even if there isn't a risk of acute injury or death, often it wrecks your body. And this fact also gets lost every time the idea is resurrected of raising the retirement age. How exactly is a construction worker or an airport baggage handler meant to work until 68 instead of 65 exactly?
On top of all that, the people who are getting paid very little in a possibly dangerous job can often cost a fortune if they screw up. International shipping tends to use fairly low paid sailors from countries like The Phillipines. The cost of a screw up can be hundreds of thousands of dollars a day when they might be earning as little as $30.
I've known people who believed they would never live past 20. I've also known people who want to live to 200. The difference in mentality between the two as well as the different approach to life is large. IMHO, the difference is directly comparable to working for what you need for the day/week vs saving for when you are 80.
Frankly, if you had just enough money to simply retire, would you risk it on employing folks who drink themselves to death, wreck expensive equipment, take responsibility for as little as possible and generally don't care about your bottom line? ... or would you retire?
It's easy to frame the owners of capital as the bad guy when you act like they are the Monopoly man but most businesses are small businesses and sole proprietorships.
And big capital people risked "becomming a middle class" at worst.
Frankly, too many people like to talk about risk taking in fairly low risk situations.
When you look at capital and risk, the risk are not that large. And economic policy favorwed capital over labor literally for decades on top of it.
The standard answer is: but the others could do the same thing. Well, if everybody tried to become a capitalist then we'd be in a pretty bad place.
That’s nuts. The industrial barons of 19th century America neither worked hard nor took amazing risks. They were lawyers and bankers who manipulated stocks and broke unions.
I live in neither the 19th century nor in America. The wealthy people I know all earned everything over the past three generations - three generations ago my people were completely devastated and many started off with no more than the single torn shirt they fled with.
But in the middle we do have an increasing problem of trust fund kids dominating industry. Hollywood is an obvious example. But even in the startup world, your education matters an awful lot. And you going to Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Yale has a lot to do with elite private schooling and all of it has a ton to do with the luck of birth not merit.
I'm actually curious who you think risked their fortune? Is it anyone in particular or is it just some romanticized idea? Bill Gates came from a privileged background. Jeff Bezos's parents had a quarter million in retirement savings to lend him in the 1990s and he was playing with investor money after that.
Now wealth creation seems to be taking other people's money and buying up industries with inelastic demand to extract wealth from ordinary people. Housing, medical care, vets, utilities, that sort of thing.
And then there's slavery and its aftermath. How much generational wealth was created from slavery? Even a century after Emancipation, we had the government creating wealth for white people with the GI Bill post-WW2. Free college and cheap mortgages. Who was taking a risk there?
You get sufficiently wealthy and you aren't allowed to fail. The government will bail you out.
That’s the thing about pension schemes like American social security: they were originally set with a retirement age that matched mean mortality, so half of potential recipients would die before drawing on them. In other words, half of workers were not meant to retire, and the half that did would be protected by the contributions of all. Modern medicine completely changed those expectations, keeping the elderly alive twenty years longer and making twenty years of unproductive, publicly funded retirement an expectation and entitlement for everyone. It’s political suicide to discuss whether something should change about that.
The number of men who make it to 65 after having made it to 21 is about 20% higher than it was in 1940.
And the average remaining lifespan for men reaching 65 is about 3 years higher than in 1940.
These factors certainly change the calculations, but the size of the baby boomers is a much larger factor.
Anyone who advanced that ‘defense’ has a poor understanding of economics.
Risk is not an essential element of capitalism. Some investments are effectively risk free. ‘Disproportionate’ return seems to be something you’ve just made up. There’s no mention of the proportionality of returns in any economic treatise I’ve ever read.
Lastly, there’s nothing to defend. There’s simply the observation that if there is no return on capital then there’s no reason at all to provide capital. Nobody has ever come up with a working alternative.
As for defences - capital is just political power by other means. If the capitalist is wasting money on yachts while workers can't afford food and housing, the return is morally disproportionate, and the usual outcome is socially catastrophic, in various possible ways.
Capitalism reduces every transaction to personal opportunism, with no concept of broader consequences. That's a shockingly stupid way to run anything - as we're all about to find out.
It is people who ALWAYS reduce everything to personal opportunism (no matter capitalism or not). Capitalism is the smartest way to run anything exactly because it is build on concepts of broader consequences of that fact.
Untrue. Capital accumulates. People have desires for their world/society/community beyond their own wealth. They want to see certain things happen, and owning capital puts a person in a position to influence whether it does (or does not).
> Some investments are effectively risk free.
Yes, and the returns on those are close to inflation (that is: minimal). A high risk investment like an IPO might return 300% in its first quarter, but it is far more likely to falter or fail (-100%).
> There’s no mention of the proportionality of returns in any economic treatise I’ve ever read.
Time to read your first one, then.
If someone starts running a company at 20 years old and goes bankrupt at 40, they can't simply go back to working a regular job. They don't have a resume, they sacrificed 20 years of career progress. They'll be working at Walmart while their peers who got the same education and have the same intelligence are becoming partners at law firms or investment banks.
Capital has no special position here.
The capital class doesn't need you to defend them. You're embarrassing yourself.
That's power for ya. It comes with all kinds of perks.
What's crazy about it? Do you mean it's crazy that people chose to work a dangerous job when a safe job was available for not much less?
I find this worrying because the entire economy is built on the idea of cheap physical snd cheap unskilled labor. So if we do a good job educating, we’ll need to fill these jobs by paying more rather than preying on the desperate. And I don’t see the current world being willing to pay more.
During the restaurant years I was also going to college for computer science and ultimately dropped out halfway through to do remote R&D work for a silicon valley gig making a whopping 500 bucks a week (living in FL)...Than covid hit and the boss went back to Korea.
Now I make 12.50 an hour repairing and designing boutique tube amps in KS
This is my first composition (in the merrie melodies style). Inspired from getting drunk and watching my ferrets play around the house and "hunt" the cat and lose.
https://youtu.be/IsNzHpYnIPk?is=RNU0OnKmpscJVDOR
I don't know your experience but I wish I could have gone to a serious music school even if I never played professionally. I suppose you've heard that before. A cousin of mine did that for piano - they knew they weren't good enough for the very few performing jobs in their instrument, hadn't started young enough, etc., but they pursued it through the undergraduate level and lessons beyond that. (I wasn't nearly good enough for music school.)
I was shocked when I learned about the age thing. I thought my cousin was exaggerating and asked an accomplished professional musician and teacher at a leading music schol about it. They agreed with my friend absolutely - unless someone starts as a child, they couldn't advance far enough.
Luckily, I survived it all without serious injury. What I discovered affected me the most was business OVERHEAD, the cost of doing business. I had 8+ employees in the mail order business plus a lease space, numerous expenses, huge overhead. With the lake pump business I had day labor guy I paid only on days I needed him. I was quite able to be the chief salesman, website creator and manager, head diver, head electrician and plumber, etc. Lowest overhead of anything I ever got involved with, consequently the most successful. Huge savings for retirement, mortgage paid off, no debt, got a Rivian on order. Rec diving in Asia and the Caribbean with my son, kiteboarding in Costa Rica. Blue collar made me successful.
On the other hand, my son is a degreed comp. sci grad who got hired just before machine learning became a thing, his company gave him the title of "senior engineer" recently instead of a raise, in fact, his salary raises have stopped, luckily he still has a job.
This is a big part of the reason you see so many successful immigrant owned businesses. The owners (and family) work nonstop.
the high-paying jobs are for reliance under obscurity: part of a very big deal, and if you screw up you ruin everything, and it's hard to know if you screwed up. That's everything from CEO's to investors and researchers, teachers, and yes, some tradesmen.
If you want to reduce wages, increase transparency.
When I lived in Portland there was a bloke in my building who did this—cutting trees over the edges of cliffs to make way for construction of some sort—and got paid a grip for it. Then he'd come back and for two weeks blow his wad on weed, alcohol, and women—only to go out and do it all over again on the next job.
Another guy I know started his career as a cabinetmaker but dropped out of his apprenticeship to go into software development. He didn't have what it takes for that and now he is unemployed.
Moral of these stories? Everything depends on your abilities and interests. Hitting the books and going after a white collar job works well if you're smart. But there a lot of frustrated white collar workers out there doing meaningless work or (with AI at the moment) getting laid off. Many would be better off doing a trade.
That part is very important. I have seen very smart people failed to understand how truly software developer works. They just do not care. They try, as it is a good profession, but deep inside they cannot care less.
They do well. It is not like they cannot do the job. But here is no passion, they know the basics, and were they shine is in solving business problems even if their code/architecture is not very good.
In Sweden companies sometimes forbid employees of doing passion projects. They kill that same drive from the inside, but their desire for controlling workers is bigger than to actually have a successful company.
Passion is hard to come by, enjoy it.
I'm often in awe when I have these guys here, doing stuff and being allowed to observe, ask questions and learn (as much as that is possible, passively).
They just do things. An obstacle appears and it is just gone within minutes and with some clever workaround.
The white-collar corporate mind cannot comprehend.
__
The downside of that of course is that things get done no matter what. Common sense not necessarily included.
Which is a different style of dysfunction compared with 5 alignment meetings that go nowhere.
The hardware is already there waiting for the right model to direct it. If GPT 7 or Claude 6 is a true AGI we'll be months away from the same type of blue collar automation. The fact that the models are already building with blender demonstrates a growing understanding of the necessary spatial awareness and reasoning.