
A CNN Viewer Has Questions for Mike Rowe - josephpmay
http://profoundlydisconnected.com/cnn-viewer-has-questions/
======
quaunaut
> Think about it. Universities get to decide how much money to charge their
> students. Likewise, parents and students decide if they can afford to pay
> it. It’s a pretty simple proposition. But when the government suddenly makes
> hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans readily available — under
> the popular (and voter-friendly) theory that “everyone should go to college”
> — we see an unintended consequence.

Well that's also ignoring the point that colleges used to get the majority of
their funding from States, and almost every major University now has the
majority(and sometimes a >90% majority) of its funding coming from other
sources. College used to be subsidized by society, and now it just isn't
subsidized, and in his argument that entire position is ignored.

Like most subjects this is a much more complex problem than either side lets
on, but just because Mike Rowe is eloquent in his response doesn't mean that
it isn't ignoring rather large portions of the facts.

~~~
bcoates
While it's true that tuition is a larger source of revenue than it used to be,
most of that increase can't be explained by falling subsidies.

According to this
[http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=68...](http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=68&year=2011&level=nation&mode=data&state=0)
total inflation-adjusted revenue per student went from $5,846 in 1991 to
$11,016 in 2011.

~~~
barake
I'm not sure the linked data is correct. The charts from the 2012 SHEEO report
[1] shows revenue/student increasing from $10,869 in 1991 to $11,095 in 2012
(these are 2012 dollars).

Here is the page with links to the 2012 report and data:
[http://www.sheeo.org/node/631](http://www.sheeo.org/node/631)

[1]
[http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/All%20...](http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/All%20States%20Wavechart%202012%20REV20130322.pdf)

~~~
bcoates
I think you're right, something's wrong with my source.

I'm not sure the SHEEO number's usable "raw", as it uses its own ad-hoc
inflation calculation (HECA) instead of CPI or GDP, but even correcting for
that I can't reproduce the numbers in the NCHEMS site from its supposed
source.

------
Aloha
He's spot on.

We Americans focus so very very often on how we disagree rather than how we
agree. If you look at both parties, they broadly agree on so many things.
Instead we focus on unimportant social issues, shaving a couple percent off
government spending, and so on.

The educational system we have now is largely a scam, it promises that if you
spend tens of thousands (or more) dollars on a 4 year degree, you'd have a
good job waiting on the other side, and its largely BS. We need vocational
training, we need training for non white collar career options, and no one is
really working on it. I make a salary of that of a skilled professional - with
no formal education beyond high school - it's been a long fight to get here
though, perhaps it could have been easier otherwise. The other problem with
the current college education program is a lack of correlation between cost
and outcome, it's something that needs to be looked into.

He also hits on a point - the government doesnt create jobs, so it doesnt
matter what congress does, or what the president does, its the job of the
government to create a stable environment (regulatory and otherwise) so the
economy can go and create jobs. I believe our government is largely failing at
this.

On to the skills gap - I disagree with him on one point, companies are largely
unwilling to train - there are jobs for which I'm broadly qualified for, but
can't get because I'm missing one specialized skill or another for. If
companies were willing to train, they would be able to fill most of those
unfilled jobs.

~~~
eshvk
> The educational system we have now is largely a scam, it promises that if
> you spend tens of thousands (or more) dollars on a 4 year degree, you'd have
> a good job waiting on the other side, and its largely BS.

So I didn't grow up in the United States so I am not aware of what high school
counsellors teach kids, but are there people really selling the idea that if
you go to Podunk university and study Asian comparative literature, you will
end up with a good job?

The other thing that surprises me about blanket statements like this is why is
personal responsibility missing? Especially in a country with such vast free
flow of information? I am not knocking on the idea of going to college learn
in a structured way anything you like. However, surely complaining you can't
get a job at the end because the market can hire only so many English majors
or Philosophy majors is rather silly?

~~~
wrobbins
Just to demonstrate the answer to your question: I'm currently a junior in HS
and am going through the process of learning about colleges. Last week, our
guidance counselors gave us pamphlets. They were blatantly telling us to
pursue liberal arts degrees (such as art or music) even with low job
prospects. They were reassuring us that we should follow our passions no
matter what. Lots of kids saw right through the promises of success and threw
out the pamphlets right away. They really try and convince you that a four
year university is the only option.

(I go to a very affluent, competitive HS. I think that the counselors want to
maintain their college placement rates even if it means sending kids to
college if they are failing high school classes. The system is completely
broken or just plain ignorant, but that's just my opinion.)

~~~
VLM
" I think that the counselors want to maintain their college placement rates"

Not "want" but are paid to. When you get older you'll see a push toward
metrics in a corporate world. The counselor trying to sell you a liberal arts
degree is evaluated and paid based on some metric like "% of students after 5
years with a 4-year degree" and so forth.

------
al2o3cr
"In the next few years, this company anticipates 15,000 new openings for
welders and pipe-fitters in the southeast. And the head of recruitment has
absolutely no idea where the workers will come from. That should scare us
all."

Oh FFS. If the company can't find 15k workers perhaps they should consider
raising wages. Mr. Rowe's show has clearly demonstrated that no matter _how_
unpleasant 99% of the world might find a particular job there's somebody
willing to hold their nose (or put on a gas mask, etc) and do it for the right
price.

Of course that's not really what most companies mean when they say, "we can't
find workers": it's usually more "we can't find people who've already been
trained who'll work for below-market rates while enduring blazing heat AND
total shitbags for bosses - won't somebody make these uppity workers stay
here?"

~~~
lotsofpulp
Yes, I was disappointed in Mike Rowe that be basically wrote off the whole
problem as people not willing to do hard work. Everyone is willing to do hard,
physical labor where you risk handicapping yourself for life...it just has to
pay comparatively well to office jobs.

Then again, people around the world are competing for the same jobs nowadays,
and obviously those with lower standards of living are going to do them for
much cheaper, and all those manual labor technical jobs that don't require a
mastery of English are going to go to China until the living standards
equalize.

Bottom line is make sure someone in a poor country can't do your job (probably
an intellectual, specialized, English speaking job), otherwise be willing to
compete with China.

~~~
EpicEng
And many people with degrees are delivering pizzas for a living while trying
to pay off their student loans. That _is_ a problem.

------
trekky1700
"Only two countries have done this well: Germany and Switzerland. They’ve both
maintained strong manufacturing sectors and they share a key thing: Kids go
into apprentice programs at age 14 or 15. You spend a few years, depending on
the skill, and you can make BMWs. And because you started young and learned
from the older people, your products can’t be matched in quality. This is
where it all starts."

[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/vaclav-smil-
wired/](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/vaclav-smil-wired/)

------
justin66
Couldn't read the whole thing. I might actually agree with her but the
questioner is strawman-level superficial and trite.

~~~
baddox
I can only imagine how frustrated Mike Rowe was answering those questions.
It's a shame he's too tactful to scream "Maybe if you stop blaming literally
everything on the political party you weren't raised as, you could spend a
minute focusing on real ideas for solving problems!"

~~~
slurry
Not sure why it should bother us that a basic cable celebrity is getting
frustrated with questions. It's not like people are asking Andrew Wiles to
answer long division problems here. Low-to-middlebrow amateur political
economy, by contrast, seems pretty solidly within the pay grade of a spokes-
actor like Rowe.

------
quepasa
It's very telling how Rowe comments on how workers wanting more for less is
the human condition, but then never considers the same about employers.

One example he gives is of one employer who doesn't want employees with a
union mind set. He also cites a "success" where a guy got good pay for working
60 hours per week. What could this mean? He doesn't want workers who want good
benefits and overtime pay? I bet the $50k/year job he brings up expects 60
hours per week under physically demanding conditions without time and a half
and pretty and weak benefits. If you make $15/hour and work 60 hours per week
you start getting really close to $50k/year.

~~~
crazy1van
> It's very telling how Rowe comments on how workers wanting more for less is
> the human condition, but then never considers the same about employers.

Of course its true about employers. They are just humans, too. When they both
agree on an acceptable level of compensation for a given task, you end up with
a job. Just markets and no amount of high-minded legislation will ever change
that.

------
kungfooguru
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/skills-dont-
pay-t...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/skills-dont-pay-the-
bills.html?hp)

~~~
mooreds
I would love to hear Mike Rowe's reply to this. His answers had plenty of
anecdotes, as did this article. My question is, where's the data?

~~~
protomyth
He mentions the data several times, go look at the US Labor stats.
Infrastructure jobs are open and we don't have the skilled workers to fill
them. ND is importing welders from Canada while road work on the eastern side
of the state gets delayed. ND has stats on that too.

Some jobs cannot be outsourced.

[edit: skilled workers are need more in infrastructure / construction then
factories]

~~~
ryandrake
"Number of available jobs" is a meaningless statistic.

HN-ready example: I'd like to do a web start-up, if only I could find skilled
engineers. I'm willing to pay 100 experienced, skilled Java programmers $10/hr
to build the site. What? No takers? Not one?? Well, there you go! 100 jobs
unfilled. Skills gap!

You can't offer poverty-level wages for skilled jobs, then complain that "we
don't have the skilled workers" when college educated workers instead choose
to go sell shoes at the mall.

~~~
Crito
This is a terrible analogy; If I were a Java programmer who was unemployed,
struggling to find any job at all, I would take your shitty $10/hr programming
job in a heartbeat.

Of course I am not under/un-employed, so I have the luxury of telling you to
take your shitty job offering and shove it. Your little scenario seems absurd
to all of us because we all know that there are plenty of far better
programming jobs available. _We_ are not looking at a job shortage.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Unless you were collecting unemployment, in which case the shitty $10/hour job
would result in a net loss.

~~~
Locke1689
Or the Java market is in the process of undergoing systemic changes and you're
not yet a Java programmer, just someone with some technical skill who could
spend time and money to becoming proficient.

------
tlrobinson
MR: [long eloquent response]

JB: "But REPUBLICANS"

Repeat 5x

~~~
leokun
JB wasn't responding, MR had broken up her questions to reply to parts of
them.

------
pivnicek
That font is garbage, hard to read, it's like they'd been downvoted on HN.

Please end the light text trend, let us read.

~~~
tomrod
Yes! So many websites are practically unreadable due to low contrast.

------
pnathan
I hadn't heard about Mike Rowe until he started his program to popularize the
trades. It's an interesting perspective, and I don't really have a beef about
it.

But let me make a few factual points, borne out of my experience and the
experience I have in growing up around tradespeople and being related to
tradespeople.

* The trades are physically hard labor

edit: It might not be clear what this entails, as perhaps not everyone reading
has performed it. It entails working 40-50 hours per week, in nearly all
possible weather (for outside jobs), where you must maintain (in addition to
the work itself) a personal fitness regimen not to be injured through strain.
In the pursuit of this work, you will probably find yourself moving objects up
to perhaps several hundred pounds, with possibly zero help. You will almost
certainly be on your feet (or knees) all day except for breaks.

* The trades expose you to non-negligable levels of risk of injury on a daily basis.

edit: A few examples, taken from real life experiences. Falling off the roof
of a house and breaking vertebrae - lifelong medication after that. Wearing
out knee mechanisms due to going up and stairs with 50+ pounds in your hands
daily for many years - lifelong care required. Heavy object falling onto shop
floor within inches feet - would have chopped feet off or required cutting off
the boots if the steel toes had held. Other examples readily available from
medical professionals and friends in the trades. These risks are systemic in
the trades by and large.

* The trades do not pay well until/unless you specialize into certain areas.

Let me clarify a bit on what I mean by paying well. I mean, bluntly, that
trades frequently pay in (current US dollars) between 12 and 25 dollars per
hour; frequently without benefits and (due to seasonal demand and project-
based nature of the work) frequent lack of steady employment. Mike Rowe cited
a welder's experience as a counterexample of my thesis. The fact that supply &
demand makes certain skilled trades very valuable does not obviate the reality
of the poor pay endemic to the field, _paticularly_ for the semi-skilled and
unskilled areas.

All that being said, it's been documented in both popular culture and research
that self-centeredness is on the rise; it's getting to be well understood that
many modern Americans simply don't want to work hard in unpleasant conditions
(Mike Rowe cited an example of people who quit training programs _en masse_ in
the SE US because of the heat). This has been borne out anecdotally by the
number of immigrants doing these same hard work in unpleasant conditions while
native-born "modern Americans" moan about being unable to find work.

That doesn't meant that it's a particularly pleasant experience to find out
that "pursue your passion" means very little in the broader job market, after
you've pursued your financially negative ROI degree (with the utmost support
of your parents, friends, and other authority figures). And that's something
that I think should be brought out of this debate: don't ruin your life in the
pursuit of a dream - be _responsible_ with your dreaming; fulfil your duties
and calculate your risks.

edit:

I don't have a real conclusion here. But I think it's reasonable to evaluate
the risk/reward payoff for the trades and seek higher education as an
alternative.

I suppose a more knowledgable observer could draw some interesting connections
between what unionization provides and what higher education degree jobs
provide and infer some interesting conclusions. I can't guess as to what those
conclusions are. I'd like to read some discussion on that topic sometime.

~~~
_delirium
> The trades do not pay well until/unless you specialize into certain areas.

A problem that makes this particularly bad is that many now don't pay _at all_
until you manage to become qualified as a high-skill specialist. A lot of the
low-end work has been automated, which has gutted the traditional pipeline
where you start with low-skill jobs and move upwards. It's not just that low-
skill welding jobs (say) don't pay well; they simply don't exist. Only high-
skill welding work is in demand, and a beginning welder is very likely to be
unemployed. He or she might try to get free work to improve, but even that is
iffy. I'm not convinced the odds are actually better here than the (already
not great) liberal-arts degree -> unpaid internship -> office job route. If
you really want to DIY a trade without a college degree, I'd recommend
learning PHP or web design before I'd recommend trying to break into welding.
Or learn something about CNC machines and get a job servicing the machines
that replaced those low-end trade jobs...

I looked into this at some point out of personal interest, and really the
numbers don't bear it out. There are a lot of anecdotes about how we "need
skilled tradesmen", but the pay and jobs just aren't there. When you take into
account the lack of training opportunities, the high risk of injury, the
generally short careers, and the unstable unemployment, the expected earnings
from taking up a trade are much worse than just getting a college degree.

~~~
m4x
My experience as an electrician is that there's work available even for
completely green newbies who don't know _anything_ useful, and once you've
worked for a few years and become a registered tradesman you're pretty much
sorted for life.

I'm not sure where you're getting these anecdotes about poor pay, high risk of
injury, short careers and unstable employment. Most of the guys I work with
have had long careers (often with a single employer for 10-20 years) and
haven't sustained any serious injuries. The ones who don't want to take on
management roles get paid very well even though they're 'just' highly skilled
tradesmen, and the ones who want to go further run their own companies and are
doing very well for themselves.

Ironically, I actually terminated my career as a software developer because I
was developing RSI and found the work rather unsatisfying (despite really
enjoying programming work in general). Working as a tradesman has so far
proven to be far more satisfying and far better for my health - plus it leaves
me free to work on my own projects after hours rather than forcing me to leave
them unfinished since I already spent a full day working inside.

~~~
reeses
> Ironically, I actually terminated my career as a software developer because
> I was developing RSI and found the work rather unsatisfying (despite really
> enjoying programming work in general). Working as a tradesman has so far
> proven to be far more satisfying and far better for my health - plus it
> leaves me free to work on my own projects after hours rather than forcing me
> to leave them unfinished since I already spent a full day working inside.

I'm not sure this is really that ironic. Sitting in a chair for 8-14+ hours a
day, focusing 25" in front of your face, slouching, pushing your hands into an
unnatural position and tweaking your ligaments and tendons, and being stressed
about maintaining a level of production is exactly what I would prescribe for
physical degeneration.

Throw poor nutrition and little to no exercise in the mix and it's amazing how
atrophied the back muscles get. Constant headaches from misusing the
trapeziuseseseses and other muscles around c7, lower back pain, pain between
the shoulders, this is all the type of back pain that gets "blue collar"
workers depending on various analgesics and narcotics.

The fact that it's preventable is especially worrisome, as it's just as
hazardous as shorting live voltage down your arm. You're trained to be
cognizant of the risks and developers are not.

~~~
m4x
The reason I consider it ironic in this context is that a number of people
have claimed trade work is dangerous, yet the worst injury I've sustained
during my career was when I wrote software for a living.

The worst case injuries are certainly worse - a switch room explosion which
kills you and your colleagues on the spot is worse than RSI - but as you say
we're trained to minimize those risks and most people will work their entire
careers without major injury

------
kazagistar
The current situation is somewhat problematic, absolutely. But I am pretty
sure privatization of universities is exactly the wrong way to go. As far as a
society goes, that would be putting the last nail in the coffin for social
mobility... if anyone still believes in that. Prices won't drop. At some
universities, they will just rise to make up for the lower number of students
who are able to afford to pay tuition, and those who are able to afford it
(the upper classes) will be able to attend. At other universities, the prices
will indeed drop, and they will be unable to retain any truly talented
professors, and become a second wave of community colleges and trade schools.
And with that, the ability for children of the lower classes will be even more
entirely cut out of the ability to rise anywhere beyond our shrinking middle
class.

The reason blue-collar work is avoided is that it is a dead end. And as
factories close down, the remaining work is more and more just packing boxes
and stocking shelves at minimum wage.

------
Cowicide
Mike Rowe continuously spouts on a "skills gap" but doesn't seem to know
anything about "job lock".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_lock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_lock)

He keep avoiding the topic of health care in the USA several times in the Q&A.
Frankly, I think Rowe is out of his league here and doesn't understand that we
need a true single payer system for health care:

[http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq](http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-
payer-faq)

~~~
bcoates
Is there some reason to think health-care related "Job Lock" is a thing in the
US after COBRA and HIPPA?

~~~
Cowicide
COBRA is vastly expensive for most Americans and does very little to combat
"job lock" and HIPAA doesn't help the situation.

COBRA:

• COBRA is prohibitively expensive for most people who are attempting to
transition to another job especially with the risks that are often incurred by
switching to another job (see below)

• It has a time limit. If it doesn't work out with new jobs, you can find
yourself without any health insurance. For example, if you're forced to get a
job in the meantime that doesn't provide insurance, COBRA won't qualify you.
Also, even if the job did have insurance and they lay you off, COBRA is
expensive and will drain savings (if one is fortunate enough to have savings
in the first place).

• If things go wrong after your transition to another job and you're expensive
COBRA runs out you may get stuck with State-sponsored high risk pools with yet
even more high costs, waiting lists, poor benefits. Of course, that is IF
you're "luckily" enough to live in a state that has such a things.

• If you dare apply for another job and your current employer finds out you're
looking for another job and find an excuse to fire you, you can't qualify for
COBRA. You're SCREWED.

• Not all states are consistent in applying COBRA. Depending on which state
you're in, if you're denied COBRA, you may be stuck.

• If you want to leave a job to start your own business, you may not quality
for COBRA and/or afford it in the first place.

HIPAA does not ensure that a worker who changes jobs will have access to
health insurance coverage on the new job or that the coverage offered will be
affordable. Thus, neither COBRA nor HIPAA ensures affordability of health
insurance -- the main cause of job lock.

------
rajacombinator
This is incredible. Mike Rowe has a blog and he apparently understands
economics (based on first answer.) once again HN has made my day.

------
lee
One factor of the metric that there're "unfilled skilled positions" is that
the pay for those positions is still incredibly low. Many of those positions
offer compensation near minimum wage, or are laborious enough that it's not
worth working for.

So although there are unfilled skilled labor positions, many of those don't
fit the supply/demand curve.

------
yetanotherphd
On education, Mike Rowe is correct, it's not in the government's hands what
the price of education is. Now the government could choose to subsidize higher
education fees more, but that would cost a lot of money so its a difficult
choice to make.

The problem with all discussion on jobs is that they are treated as a special
kind of market where free market principles don't apply. Rowe doesn't even go
as far as suggesting letting the market determine who works where.

Cracking down on illegal immigration would help deal with the lack of jobs at
the low end of the market, unfortunately hypocritical politicians find
enforcing the law to be an untenable platform.

In general though, jobs should come from having skills that are useful, not
protectionism. We do need to be training people to fill the new class of
technical positions and this includes programmers, even though it will lower
the salaries of existing programmers.

------
gfodor
Skate where the puck is going to be. How much confidence can you have nowadays
that your job isn't one clever-roboticist away from being automated, if your
main value contribution is skilled labor? The same economics that drive high
pay for skilled welders who work in the heat also will drive dollars towards
automating these jobs. If I have to pay a welder 100k a year now, if I can
automate their job away for anything less than that then it's worth it.

The truth is college is a form of leverage. If you get a solid degree you have
basically added a skills multiplier to many things you will encounter in your
career. The same cannot really be said if you become a master tradesman, since
the deeper you go the less transferrable your skills become.

~~~
spc476
MYCIN
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycin)), a
program written in the 70s, was better able to diagnose infections than
doctors. If failed because "in the 1970s, a session with MYCIN could easily
consume 30 minutes or more—an unrealistic time commitment for a busy
clinician."

Now, with most medical information already computerized (or headed that way),
how much better could a modern MYCIN be? What would this do to the career of a
typical doctor?

~~~
kefka
This automation argument applies to everything in the US, and the world.

Previously in the history of the world, we had to do things with our own
hands, or use manual tools that used our hands. (Shovels, spades, rakes,...)

Then we migrated to machines that we could sit in or stand in, that could
greatly magnify our strength (vehicles, trains, gas powered stuffs).

Now, we entered a realm back in the '60s with powerful automation via
computers. And it's only gotten more powerful, smaller, and cheaper. But yet,
computers have always been bad for many types of manual jobs because of
fuzziness.

And now, our computers are dirt cheap and damn fast. And they can handle
fuzziness and broad input. And they are replacing jobs rather quickly. But so
what? Whom does this make money for? Well, people who can afford the means of
production. And that answer takes us back to a treatise that was written back
in the late 1800's: The Communist Manifesto.

But wait a moment... Communism fails because people seek "fair" compensation.
For example, a doctor _should_ get paid more than a burger flipper, right? It
seems logical that the more work you put into attaining the position should be
relevant to the pay of that position. But what happens when those screws are
turned, and you now compete with auto-doc or auto-flipper? You end up with
lowering wages. Most of the times, those wages get lowered directly to 0.

But we then hear the old saying: When the buggy whip manufacturers died out,
it opened up automotive manufacturing. Well, yes. When a segment closes,
another opens, but usually the segment is smaller. For example, when a factory
is mostly laid off due to automation, the few that are kept are the ones that
can program and debug software and hardware. And they then are also
'encouraged' to work harder. Then this harder is the new average.

And these new employees are doing the work of 2-3 people, because it is what
is expected of them to keep their job. And then automation takes over even
these people, because automation can do the job of 10 people (or more!) with
low error rates. But this is a look at an individual.

Now, what happens nationally? Well, we see higher numbers of unemployed and
subsidized users (food stamps, WIC, housing, other means tested benefits). But
why? Because automation does work, and well. But it leads to the ones whom can
afford it more money, and workers without. But is Communism the answer?
Maybe... Or perhaps a post-capitalism answer is needed; one that blends all of
the needs of citizens and some of the wants, whilst not ignoring that those
whom work harder/smarter should also be compensated for their hard work.

And of course, we've heard about the the Canadian program of Mincome, as well
as Switzerland's possible venture into this territory. Is this a solution? I
believe so, even as a simple humanitarian solution of compassion for fellow
man.

------
Fomite
I've always found it puzzling that many businesses believe that if they can't
fill a job, it _can 't_ be because they're offering too low a wage - they
invariably say the pay is fair.

If went around trying to buy bread at what I thought was a fair price, and
found no takers, my immediate reaction would not be "Well, bakers just don't
want to work hard."

~~~
spydum
It's a hard pill to swallow when you realize the cost of your business
critical resources have gone up. I suspect most business sit in denial until
their competitors who are willing to pay it and can figure out a working
business model begin to eat into their wallets.

------
alayne
I don't buy the arguments that trade jobs are a good option. It's especially
hard to swallow from a college graduate who belongs to an anti-union political
party.

Unless you are unwilling or unable to go to college, the numbers indicate
that, on average, you will have much lower unemployment and a substantially
higher lifetime income.

~~~
randomdata
Markets still remain supply and demand driven. Industries that have roots in
college educations have appeared more stable because the number of people with
degrees has historically been relatively low. When we have more educated
people than jobs that benefit from such an education, incomes will drop and it
will become difficult to find work.

The trades are starting to gain appeal right now because people have put more
emphasis on getting a college degree in the past decade or so. That leaves
fewer people able to take on trade work, which pushes for higher incomes and
better jobs to the people who can. At the same time, college educated people
are finding it increasingly difficult to find meaningful employment.

Of course, if people follow Rowe's track in the future, it will swing back the
other way again soon enough. That is why smart investors go to where nobody is
showing interest.

~~~
alayne
Show me any evidence that college educated people, in particular, are having
trouble finding employment. These numbers look extremely favorable
[http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm](http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm).

~~~
randomdata
Seeing as how we're talking about a relative increase in difficulty, I'm not
sure what we're supposed to take away from a single data point?

You can see here[1] that this decade has brought on a distinct change in
unemployment rates for college graduates. The last four years averaged an
entire percentage point higher than the highest rate ever seen before. Since
we both seem to agree that unemployment rates are a reasonable metric for
determining the difficulty of finding work, it seems pretty clear that it is
more difficult now as a college graduate than it once was.

[1] [http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screen-
shot-2013-0...](http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screen-
shot-2013-04-29-at-2-17-28-pm.png?w=1024&h=639)

------
Cowicide
>most of the Republicans I know want the same basic things as most of the
Democrats I know ... They all want a healthy planet

That's a crock of shit right there. Most Republicans put the almighty dollar
ahead of the environment and many still think global warming or climate change
effects are a hoax.

Mike Rowe must live in quite the small bubble.

~~~
bmelton
I'm not a Republican, but I work with mostly Republicans in some of the
charities I'm associated with, and at least anecdotally, that statement seems
completely unsubstantiated, and carries about as much weight as "all
Republicans are racists" or "all Democrats hate the rich".

~~~
Cowicide
Except I didn't say "all republicans" anything.

~~~
bmelton
Nor did I say that you did.

~~~
Cowicide
Please stop being obtuse. You obviously implied it with your post.

>carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists"

~~~
bmelton
What I implied was that a lie about "most" Republicans is just as asinine as a
lie about all Republicans.

Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here, and as pragmatists, we
should all be above them.

~~~
Cowicide
>Undeserved stereotypes don't have any place here

The FACT that most Republicans still consider climate impact and/or manmade
global warming an overblown hoax isn't a "undeserved stereotype" unless one is
to devolve into fantasy.

As a self-proclaimed pragmatist, you should be above this fantasy.

[http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-
ov...](http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-
change/10-31-13-3/)

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-
climate...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-climate-
change-science/)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-
tr...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-
truthiness_b_1379472.html)

~~~
bmelton
The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.

From your link:

    
    
        About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a 
        very serious problem
    

Should we conclude from that they're putting "the almighty dollar ahead of the
environment", or can we agree that whatever they may or may not believe,

1) climate change isn't the sum totality of the environment, and

2) whether one chooses to believe or disbelieve in either its presence or its
seriousness, that does not necessarily bely an ulterior profit motive?

Many Democrats are against the private ownership of 'semi-automatic firearms',
but that doesn't mean that they're trying to disarm the populace so that they
can crush us like Hitler.

Many Republicans are against expanding social welfare programs, but that
doesn't mean that they're trying to crush the poor and kill off minorities
through starvation.

Many Libertarians are against the idea of income taxation, but that doesn't
mean that they want people whose jobs are paid for with tax dollars to be
evicted from their homes and be subjected to the elements.

Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they
hate the environment, and even if it does mean that, it does not mean they're
hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.

In short, you've took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the
importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn
incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying
roughly half the voting population of America.

~~~
Cowicide
>The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.

No, it wasn't. You inferred that I was stating that ALL republicans put money
ahead of the environment by saying:

"carries about as much weight as "all Republicans are racists" or "all
Democrats hate the rich"."

I clearly said MOST and corrected you.

You also presented your own useless, anecdotal experience that's in direct
odds with the empirical evidence I later presented to you.

>The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.

You then go on to present your own false equivalence with Democrats, how
quaint.

>About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a very serious problem

Nice false equivalency cherry-picking. You're ignoring the rest of the
research that clearly shows that most Republicans are notorious for being
deniers of everything from warming itself, to it being caused by human
activity, along with impact denial.

You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as well.
Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while cherry-picking
small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the overall point.

>Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they
hate the environment

Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans. But, the fact that MOST put a
corporatist, profiteering point of view ahead of a vast majority of climate
scientists doesn't actually show a sincere concern for the environment,
either.

Unless, once again, you want to jump into another foray of fantasy.

~~~
bmelton
> You're ignoring the rest of the research that clearly shows that most
> Republicans are notorious for being deniers of everything from warming
> itself, to it being caused by human activity, along with impact denial.

Which doesn't equate to hating the environment, nor does it associate that
{non}hatred into profiteering.

> You're actually very much using the tactics of global warming deniers as
> well. Ignore the vast amount of evidence against your argument, while
> cherry-picking small sections of data in a desperate attempt to fudge the
> overall point.

No, I'm pointing out that your initial statement is meritless, while you
attempt to dilute the issue completely.

> Once AGAIN, I didn't say ALL republicans.

Okay, fine. Even if MOST Republican agree on climate change, that doesn't mean
they hate the environment. Even if it does mean that, it doesn't mean that
they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.

"In fact, in areas where curbside recycling is available, an overwhelming 70
percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans say they “always”
participate."

That doesn't seem very hateful to me, even though it clearly isn't profitable
to either party.

In short, your initial statement was baseless, and shame on you for trying to
dilute the issue into plausibility. That isn't how facts work.

This still holds true.

> In short, you took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the
> importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn
> incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying
> roughly half the voting population of America.

Edit: Typo which, ironically, was quoted from an original typo I'd made, but
which I now can't edit. :-)

~~~
Cowicide
> Which doesn't equate to hating the environment

I didn't say they simply "hated the environment" in the first place. You
steered away from my points and into a silly territory. You're resorting to
goalpost moving instead of just admitting you're wrong.

> Even if MOST Republican agree on climate change, that doesn't mean they hate
> the environment.

Once again, you steered it to this inane direction away from my initial point.

Almost no one "hates the environment" in itself and I never made such a
ridiculous claim. But, many Republicans are clearly more willing to put aside
uncomfortable facts, destructive externalities and live in denial and willful
ignorance if it helps them make a buck.

Sad, but true on many levels beyond the environment. That's NOT to say that
others are guilty of such things, but Republicans are far worse than others on
the left and plenty of evidence backs this up.

It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

> your initial statement was baseless

Only if one is to continue to delve into fantasy (as you obviously do) when it
comes to the modern Republican party and its supporters in regards to
protecting the environment (and lower income class humans for that matter).

~~~
bmelton
Thanks. That last bit of hyperbole was all that I needed to completely
discount your arguments. I'll stop feeding the troll.

~~~
Cowicide
>That last bit of hyperbole was all that I needed to completely discount your
arguments

Translation: Any excuse is a good excuse to discount facts you don't like.

------
wavesounds
Why doesn't he have these jobs listed on his website? I have 2 friends who are
unemployed one with a newborn who would be more then interested in those
welding jobs he mentions. Does anyone have more information? Do you have to
own your own gear? How much is school? Is there a lot of travel?

~~~
nhebb
He does: [http://www.mikeroweworks.com/job-
site/](http://www.mikeroweworks.com/job-site/)

~~~
wavesounds
Thanks, clicking around I eventually found this website too
[http://search.jobsinwelding.com/jobseeker/search/results/](http://search.jobsinwelding.com/jobseeker/search/results/)

But on both of these there are very few entry level jobs and the one I did
find that actually listed the salary was only $22k a year!

------
fotoblur
Notice how the questioner seems to have someone else's actions to blame for
the problems. This is often a narrow way of thinking and can be a deception in
ones own view of the world. What I like most about Mike's responses are that
he doesn't blame anyone, per se, but understands that these problems are best
described by analyzing the current environment in which they become evident.

Who could blame colleges for raising tuition when the current funding
environment begged them too? Who could blame people for not wanting to work
shit jobs in the heat but instead go to college and work at jobs that require
instead a skilled intellect, pay more, and are more comfortable? And why
shouldn't Mike talk about people who work hard, dirty jobs when a show about
them made him famous?

------
infruset
Can someone American explain what the core of the issue is for people like me?

~~~
bcoates
American culture leads kids to believe that trades jobs have low social
standing, so they borrow obscene amounts of money to go to college because
they think it will get them a good job where they do paperwork for lots of
money.

Instead they wind up in debt working in an unskilled retail sales or service
job, or just unemployed. If they had gone to a legitimate trade school[1] or
even just an entry-level manual labor job that trains you they'd be much
better off.

[1] most of the trade schools in America are outright scams, signing up people
for government tuition loans then giving them garbage education. Some of them
are not, and anyone who graduates from them will have valuable skills that can
support a family. Have fun finding out which ones, 17 year olds!

~~~
infruset
Thanks. I was a bit confused.

In my country college is almost free.. I feel for you guys.

~~~
mortyseinfeld
In your country college is not almost free.....think about it.

------
bluedino
Here's maybe a simple solution: Why can't it be made illegal to list 'college
degree' as a requirement for a job? Everyone knows of jobs that any moron can
do, but a college degree is required. Especially for white collar jobs in
large corporations, you can't make it past the first layer of HR without a
degree.

~~~
eshvk
How is this going to solve anything? All this is going to do is bring in a
flood of applicants to the job that has no listing of a college degree as a
requirement. Then HR is going to reject a bunch of applications. At the end
you are just moving the barrier to an internal portal.

~~~
randomdata
What you do, however, is remove the reason job seekers go to college in the
first place. There are not that many jobs that actually require a degree,
other than as a superficial filtering mechanism, so you can take them out of
that system.

The result is that demand for college decreases, therefore the price will
decrease through the properties of supply and demand, which leaves an
education that returns to being affordable for those who actually care about
an education.

You are right that businesses will have to find a new filtering mechanism, but
it can be one that doesn't come at the cost of making education unobtainable
to those who want an education.

~~~
eshvk
> What you do, however, is remove the reason job seekers go to college in the
> first place. There are not that many jobs that actually require a degree,
> other than as a superficial filtering mechanism, so you can take them out of
> that system.

This is a second order effect which I am not so sure which actually happen
reality. I posit that it is also likely that people move the requirements to
an internal portal, everyone gets wind of such a thing, mainly when HR reps
start writing that "breakthrough book" about secrets of getting your first job
and everyone still keeps going to college.

------
ablanton
just to be clear, tuition is inversely proportional to the amount of funding
the government gives to higher education:

[http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html](http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html)

------
transfire
Mike Rowe, advocate for the human machine.

"60hrs? Lazy bums! A good hard working man only need 4hrs of sleep a night,
and can put in 16hr days, six days a week. Just like the Good Book says."
\--Future Middle Class Worker

------
wwarner
In my state of Washington, tuition increased due to a voter approved cap on
taxes, exactly the opposite Rowe's claim.

------
Yuioup
Is this Mike Rowe of Mike Rowe Soft fame? Who got sued by Microsoft?

~~~
possibilistic
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rowe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rowe)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft)

------
mortyseinfeld
For a leftist like Piers Morgan, it was a complete embarrassment to have a
low-information voter asking ignorant questions when Mike Rowe just completely
schooled her.

I think your typical university is in panic mode right now. In 10-15 years,
online will be the norm and these exorbitant tuitions will be a thing of the
past.

~~~
unclebucknasty
She was so low-information that it almost seemed like a setup. I mean, really,
she asked the most superficial, talking-point-like questions that provided him
with _perfect_ runway to espouse his views.

If he was going to write a script to allow him to peddle his world view, then
her part would read exactly as it did. Almost too perfect.

------
revelation
Neocon nonsense. But this just takes the cake:

[http://profoundlydisconnected.com/skill-work-ethic-arent-
tab...](http://profoundlydisconnected.com/skill-work-ethic-arent-taboo/)

~~~
booruguru
Rowe is a bit difficult to figure out. Many of the things he says are are
quite sensible, but they seem to be couched in neocon notions of American
exceptionalism and blame-the-poor economics.

I don't know much about him except from what I say during his appearance on
Real Time With Bill Maher.

~~~
macinjosh
In what part of the linked exchange did he 'blame the poor'?

There are many causes of poverty and I don't think lack of hard work is a big
one. However when it comes to young people deciding how they will make their
way in the world I think a lot choose to go into debt for a four year degree
that won't help them in the real world. That is not a wise decision and so we
should encourage those people to make better decisions even if they don't get
their dream job right out of the gate at least they would be employable.

~~~
taeric
For a few of us, it reads as him basically blaming them for not taking the
jobs he references time and again.

Maybe that is unfair, but it does echo in the rhetoric to me.

~~~
tomrod
I think he'd be more likely to agree that people just don't know, as in there
is an information problem.

~~~
taeric
This doesn't fit with his rhetoric.

    
    
        "Doesn’t it make sense to fill those positions before we start demanding that companies create more opportunities that people don’t aspire to?"  
    
        "And no matter where I went, the biggest challenge was always the same – finding people who were willing to learn a new skill and work hard."
    
        "Because virtually every single trainee decided it was just too damn hot. I’m not even kidding. They just didn’t want to work in the heat. And so … they didn’t."
    

To be fair, he goes well out of his way to not directly criticize everyone.
Only, it reads in the same way that I am going out of my way not to imply he
is being an ass. :)

