
Apprenticeships: Useful Alternative, Tough to Implement - CapitalistCartr
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/apprenticeships-useful-alternative-tough-implement
======
awinter-py
I taught after-school programming in a large city and got the opportunity to
ask a lot of ed insiders why they don't teach more 'skills' rather than
'subjects'.

People usually answered 'we don't want to sacrifice general problem solving
skills'. (This is what I would say if I were getting paid to do something with
no measurable output). Some said 'Vocational school is perceived as not
getting you into college', which is true but bad.

The missing third answer is 'there's no system for bringing people with fresh
job skills into schools'.

There's a great atlantic article about swimming lessons vs math lessons that
said 'at the end of the exercise if you can't swim something is wrong'. The
bulk of education by $ value in the US doesn't have a deliverable. (Not so for
sports and music).

I've seen research which claims that parental involvement is a significant
factor in the quality of public schools (though this is hard to separate from
real estate prices or any other proxy for wealth/education). Maybe the right
way to add a 'deliverable' to education is to treat parents as the consumer
instead of students or testing authorities.

~~~
jawns
Yet general problem solving skills _are_ extremely important (which is why a
lot of employers test for them during the interview).

And the nice thing about them is that if you're a good problem solver, you can
apply that to a lot of different careers. Whereas teaching a specific set of
skills (e.g. pipe welding) may make you a great pipe welder, but guess what
happens when you decide to change careers.

So I'd characterize the trade-off as:

\- Focusing on general problem solving skills (assuming they can be taught)
opens a lot of doors, but doesn't get you very far inside any one door.

\- Focusing on trade skills opens a far more limited set of doors, but can get
you farther inside the door you choose to enter.

What makes the trade-off extra tricky is that it's possible general problem
solving skills cannot be taught, in the same way a high IQ cannot be taught.
And, as you point out, it's much trickier to measure problem solving capacity
than it is to measure whether a pipe was welded correctly.

~~~
Inconel
I agree with what you've said but I would add that as someone who works in the
trades, and who knows quite a few welders who run the gamut from barely
competent to "great", one attribute that all of the ones I would classify as
great have in common, in addition to very high technical welding skill, is
general problem solving ability.

I think many people, somewhat unfairly, view the path towards gaining trade
skills as a case of simply showing up to work or class, going through the
motions of practicing your specific skill, and after some period of time you
simply become a master at your profession. Now, doing the aforementioned will
probably get you to the competent level, but to be great at something like
welding requires quite a bit of general problem solving ability in addition
technical skill.

This is doubly true for those who end up starting their own businesses. I know
a few welders/machinists who are working on their own now. The vast majority
don't come from monied backgrounds and have a hard time raising startup
capital so they end up doing things on a shoestring budget. The ones I know
end up having to become at least mildly knowledgable in accounting, taxes,
business regulations and things like fire code and labor laws, business
contracts and sometimes even the local commercial/industrial real estate
market. They do these things because they don't have the capital to hire
others to do them. Despite in most cases having nothing more than a high
school diploma, or some community college coursework, I would definitely say
they excel at general problem solving.

------
nickthemagicman
College is another antiquated system that needs to be burned to the ground by
disruptive technology and lime seeded on the earth where it grows.

Most professions used to have ways OUTSIDE of the college track to enter those
professions until fairly recently.

There's tons of exceptionally smart people who could study at night and
weekends and pass the Bar or the CPA exam but can't afford massive tuition to
get the college approved pre-reqs for this.

And there's tons of startups who are frothing at the bit to make amazing
online institutions for these people to be successful.

But thanks to regulations, some rich kid whose parents pay the tuition gets
that spot because the smart but poor person doesn't have time to attend a
1:00-3:30 class because he has a job.

We complain about the health care lobby, the oil lobby..etc.

In the coming years as the only available jobs will be accessible to people
with advanced knowledge and licenses..the higher education lobby is going to
be a serious problem.

------
fatdog
What is hilarious about "general problem solving skills," is that when you
actually master something with instruction, the person who teaches it to you
tends to tell you the reason something works in a specific way is because of
the general principle at work. Actually doing things gives you general problem
solving skills.

A lot of people believe, "everything happens for a reason," but people with
practical experience don't need to believe that because they know everything
happens for a reason: it's called "the cause."

Apprenticeships are the most valuable education anyone can get, but the
practical aspects fly in the face of pseudo-intellectualism that passes for
modern non-STEM scholarship.

~~~
Jugurtha
> _A lot of people believe, "everything happens for a reason," but people with
> practical experience don't need to believe that because they know everything
> happens for a reason: it's called "the cause."_

Yes. It's all in the formulation. It's not _for_ a reason, but _because_ of a
reason.

Using "for" is misleading and puts the horse before the cart: If you went to a
café and met the love of your life, it's not "you went to that café _for_ you
to meet the love of your life", it's more "you met the love of your life
_because_ you went to that café".

I don't exclude the existence of things beyond the limits of my knowledge,
though.

------
nik736
What's the point of this article? There is no real problem I can see. I made
an apprenticeship in Germany and for most jobs you have to work 3 years to get
it done. 3 years is plenty of time to make money out of the apprentice, even
if he/she is underperforming. Most apprenticeships only pay around 500-800
bucks a month, so even if you have a bad apprentice you can still let him/her
do unthankful jobs and he is worth it.

Also, the apprentice is teached on the job which is a huge benefit, since it's
a real environment. Every day you learn things and how they are done in the
real world.

~~~
snrplfth
Paying that little is generally illegal in the USA. At minimum wage, a worker
working 37.5 hours a week will earn $1087 a month. If they're underperforming
that price, it doesn't make sense to hire them.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I'm not sure about the USA, but here in Australia apprentices pay rates are
different from the adult minimum wage rate.

The current national minimum wage in Australia is $17.70 per hour[1], where as
the 1st year apprentices in our metal fabircation workshop are on something
like $12 an hour, the minimum is $10.31 for a first year in our trade. If the
apprentice is over 21 they rates are different again. Apprentice pay rates
increase each year.

Edit: as a sibiling comment mentioned, apprentices in Australia spend part of
their work-year in school. This can either be weekly, or more typically in one
or two week blocks.

Also, I should add: at least half of the 1st year apprentices I've worked with
are _useless_ for about the first six months, they're a massive time sink if
they're not doing something completely repetative like cutting a thousand
pieces of steel the same length, and then they'll still find a way fuck that
up if you don't keep a close eye on them.

1\. [https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-
and-g...](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-
guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages#current-
national-minimum-wage)

~~~
snrplfth
Yes, that's the thing. Total compensation for apprentices (for most employees
really) is their pay, plus the experience gained, which can be considerable.

But US wage law very rarely makes any exceptions for apprentices like this, so
it's rarely worthwhile to bring them on unless they already have some
training.

Unfortunately, much of the legislative consensus in the US is that minimum
wages do not have _any_ effect on employment levels, even of the young and
inexperienced. Many municipalities and states are in the process of raising
their minimum wages (for all ages) to $20 AUD.

~~~
rvail2
Can we just call them interns? I've known many people who got paid nothing
while in an internship, so paying them $800/mo shouldn't be a problem.

~~~
snrplfth
The problem is that, generally by law, you can either pay them $0, or minimum
wage, but not in-between. This creates a gap in the market, and generally
skews internships towards people who can afford to make $0 for an extended
period.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The problem is that, generally by law, you can either pay them $0, or
> minimum wage, but not in-between.

I don't think that's true; if wage and hour laws apply, you must pay minimum
wage ($0 is not an option). If the relationship isn't covered by wage and hour
laws, you can pay them negative amounts (charge for training), $0, or pay a
positive amount above or below the minimum wage (though in the latter case it
will have to be framed as something other than pay for work, such as a stipend
of some kind.)

~~~
snrplfth
That would be in a logically consistent world. We are not in that world.

The main rules are here, for unpaid internships:
[https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.pdf)

So unpaid ($0) internships are permitted for certain restricted circumstances.
But if you fall outside this category, you jump right up to 'employee', and
have to be paid the minimum wage. Basically, once you start paying, you have
to pay all the way. (Now, there is a subminimum scale of 75% of the minimum
wage, but it's only available for high school enrolees above 16 years of age,
for vocational training, and is granted at the discretion of the Department of
Labor:
[https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm](https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm))

~~~
dragonwriter
Actually, what I said is consistent with your link: where wage and hour laws
apply, you must pay at least minimum wage. Where they don't, you can charge
for the service of training, provide it at no charge, or provide a stipend
(which on a hourly basis may be less than the equivalent of minimum wage)
along with it.

~~~
snrplfth
Hmm...I do not see in those links where a sub-minimum stipend is allowed
except in the case of high school vocational training. Can you quote it?
(Criteria #6 appears to indicate no wages permitted.)

~~~
dragonwriter
Theres a distinction between stipends and wages, and while I can find lots of
third party sites whose general character and other information suggests
general reliability referencing the option to pay a stipend to trainee interns
(while also warning of the need to assure they aren't structured as wages), I
cant find an authoritative DoL source articulating a standard or test (or
giving examples) distinguishing them.

~~~
snrplfth
Thanks for looking. I've never heard of it happening, but all sort of
arrangements happen in the grey areas of the law. I've been stipended before
as an intern, but under the understanding that my hourly "wage" would not drop
below the minimum.

------
Animats
So the Cato Institute wants to re-introduce slavery, or at least indentured
servitude. Amusingly, the German approach is unacceptable because it involves
unions.

The author is Gail Heriot, an academic lawyer who is also on the United States
Commission on Civil Rights, appointed by Congress. Strange.

~~~
snrplfth
Did you even read the article? From the text:

"It is entirely clear that 21st century Americans have no interest in jailing
runaway apprentices. A legislative proposal calling for the arrest and
detention of individuals in breach of their apprenticeship contracts would
rightly be met with jeers and guffaws."

The big reason they don't like the German approach is because it excludes from
the trades those who don't have the "appropriate" licenses. This shuts those
of little means out of these jobs. They proposed, as possible solutions,
vouchers, loans, and possibly permitting non-compete agreements.

Your accusation of "re-introducing slavery, or at least indentured servitude",
is deeply dishonest.

~~~
Animats
_" One partial solution might be to ensure that apprentices can borrow money
(e.g., through student loans) to pay for their own instruction or to post a
bond that would be forfeited if they left their stand-alone or school-
sponsored apprenticeships before their employers had recouped their
investment."_

That's effectively indentured servitude.

The big difference between union-run apprenticeships and employer-run
apprenticeships is that the union represents the employee's interest, not the
employer. This results in a much more formal educational arrangement. It's not
just "cheap workers with a little training now and then".[1]

[1]
[http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/article...](http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articles/working-
conditions/germany-working-conditions-in-apprenticeships)

~~~
snrplfth
A forfeitable posted bond is not _indentured servitude_ any more than student
loans are. (EDIT: It's really just a way to prepay for training without
falling afoul of wage laws.) Now, I would rather that such loans were
harmonized with the bankruptcy law for other types of loans, but it's not
servitude. (If it is, then there's a whole lot of people indentured to their
bank for a house. Is that how far we want to expand this definition?)

Sure, the union-run apprenticeship represents the employee's interest - but
only by excluding others from that position. If the only way you can get a
license into a trade is to complete a union apprenticeship, then the union is
effectively shutting out people from that trade. That's the complaint; not
that it's bad for the apprentice, but rather that it's bad for those _not
permitted_ to be apprentices.

~~~
Animats
Wikipedia: _" An indentured servant or indentured labor is an employee
(indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a contract
(indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed period of time.
Indenturees usually enter into an indenture for a specific payment or other
benefit or to meet a legal obligation, such as debt bondage."_

Student loans aren't indentured servitude because they're not tied to a
specific employer. H1-B visas are so tied, but there's the option to quit and
go back to one's own country. But the Cato Institute proposal describes being
"bound by a contract to work for a particular employer for a fixed period of
time" enforced by a debt obligation. That's indentured servitude. Probably
illegal in the US.

~~~
snrplfth
I think the problem of definition is that you opened with "slavery, or
indentured servitude", and the article here referred to previously existing
indenture systems where servants breaking their contracts would be jailed.
Your wikipedia definition (which I find overly broad) doesn't include what is
the salient part, which is what the consequences of breaking a debt bond are.
(EDIT: I would say the caveat "within a system of unfree labor" would get the
closest, but still leaves this unclear.)

A system where you take on a debt, and are jailed if you renege it, is _very_
different than a system where you take on a debt, and can discharge it in
bankruptcy. That's the crucial difference, and I think the text makes it clear
that Cato are not advocating the former.

And I don't see how employment/training is so different from anything else for
which you might take out a forfeitable loan. If you're saying that all debts
payable to a single creditor are "indenture", then so are mortgages and car
loans. The "servitude" part would come about solely as a consequence of it
being a loan based on work, rather than anything else.

------
jadell
I wonder if the answer to the "runaway apprentice" problem is a subsidy of
some sort. Give the employer a monthly stipend per apprentice to cover the
cost of time, tools, part of the apprentice's wages, and a bit leftover. The
employer is incentivized to train the apprentice regardless of whether the
apprentice sticks around, because if thee apprentice leaves, they potentially
still earned money during the training. And if the apprentice stays, they have
a ready-made employee on someone else's dime.

This could be combined with something like a below minimum-wage for
apprenticeships, with the reasoning that an apprentice is being paid in both
money and in training they would otherwise have to pay for themselves.

------
beat
Apprenticeship is useful mostly for craftsman professions. But craft-driven
paths have been hammered relentlessly for over a century by two related forces
- the relentless advance of technology, and the Taylorization of jobs from
complex work that required skill and experience to documented "scientific
management" processes that a monkey can do if it can follow instructions.

In other words, either jobs become dumber, or jobs become obsolete.

I don't know what can be done about either of those forces. This isn't about
college, it isn't about some lost art, it isn't about microeconomic market
forces. It's about craftsmanship becoming much more rare.

~~~
lima
Not true. You spend three years "on the job", and the result is the same for
blue- and white collar work.

Most sysadmins in Germany that I know (some of them the best I ever met) did
an apprenticeship.

~~~
beat
I'm not saying craftsmanship no longer exists. Computer ops in particular is a
strong source of craft. But in general, my point holds. Many jobs that once
had a strong craft tradition have been rendered obsolete by technological
advance, or fragmented into meaninglessness by scientific management
principles.

My wife's grandfather has a stunning 19th century grandfather clock. It's made
of beautifully carved wood, handmade gears, gorgeous engraving and inlays, the
obvious result of hundreds of hours of highly skilled labor. It's huge,and
it's not very accurate. Moreover, the fine craftsmanship is nowhere near as
precise as a cheap kid's watch today. At this moment, I have three different
clocks within reach of my hand. They're all synced to millisecond accuracy
against an official atomic clock. They all cost pennies at most, and cannot be
made by human hands. There is no point in grandfather clocks today, except as
family heirlooms or decoration.

That's what I'm talking about. Jobs like clock-making have been obliterated.
Whole industries. Most "jobs" today are either white-collar brain work, or
mere cogs in a wheel developed by someone else.

------
jaggederest
I've been seriously considering starting a nonprofit to do something like
this.

Many jobs require "two years" of experience, which makes getting a first job a
difficult catch 22.

As a non-profit you could reasonably hire and employ these folks to do
productive business at below-market rates and be more or less unconcerned with
them leaving once they finished.

Anecdotally, I know quite a few people with good skills who are stuck working
retail/service jobs, chronically underemployed, because they simply can't get
into a position to demonstrate excellence and get the experience to get a job
in their trained field. I consider that a waste of human potential, and quite
sad.

~~~
andrewflnr
Maybe that's a good model for sponsoring open source apps?

------
cmdrfred
>"Any American-style apprenticeship model will need to deal effectively with
the age-old problem of the “runaway apprentice” — the apprentice who leaves
his employer after the employer has invested time and energy in training him,
but before the apprentice has been useful enough to make the employer’s
investment worthwhile."

How is it that they are skilled enough to be useful at one employer but not
the other?

~~~
snrplfth
The point is that they _are_ useful at multiple employers. An employer, when
training an apprentice, incurs a cost in doing so, but cannot be sure that
they'll be able to recoup the cost if the apprentice leaves soon after
finishing training.

~~~
cmdrfred
That's a tricky line to tread when you think about it. Who decides when the
employer has met his costs?

~~~
snrplfth
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? At the outset, not only is it hard to tell
whether an apprentice will stay once trained, but also whether they'll be any
good at what they're being trained to do. It's doubly risky, which explains a
lot of the reluctance to take on apprentices.

