
It’s a Tough Job Market for the Young Without College Degrees - Futurebot
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/business/economy/its-a-tough-job-market-for-the-young-without-college-degrees.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
======
bpchaps
In interviews, the second most common question I get asked is, "Why don't you
have a degree?" followed by "Are you planning on going back?". More than
often, the questions have a strong No True Scotsman feeling to them. My
experience is solid and my personal projects are fun and reflect passion. Yet,
not having a degree is a detriment to me somehow still. Why? I can't think of
a single good reason why so many employers would think that way.

Hell, friends and family still try to get me to go back to school, too. I've
yet to find a good way to explain why school isn't useful and an enormous
waste of time for me. It's always, always followed up with the argument that I
have less job opportunities, which is fine. I wouldn't want to work at a
company that would limit me like that, anyway.

If it happens to me with a good background and strong skills set, then it
happens to others, but worse - especially if you're just starting out.

~~~
gozur88
>Yet, not having a degree is a detriment to me somehow still. Why? I can't
think of a single good reason why so many employers would think that way.

Since employers can't give IQ tests any more, they have come to rely on your
college _alma mater_ as a proxy for an IQ test. If you don't go to college,
they don't know how you fit in with other candidates.

Yes, college has become a $100k+ IQ test.

~~~
michaelbuddy
Employers will learn soon enough that the best and brightest in IT think
actually think critically and know that university education is a negative,
and probably will be for at least the next 5 years to a decade. Tech schools
and accomplishments are where it's at.

~~~
adrianN
I disagree. What makes you think that the best and brightest don't go to
college and do a PhD? Not everybody wants to make as much money as possible as
soon as possible.

------
0max
What America needs are institutions similar to that of the apprenticeship
programs of Western Europe. I came out of a one year job training program
operating out of a non-profit with corporate partners (similar to the way it
works in parts of the EU) that consists of college credit classes and industry
experience. This lowers the barrier to entry for most young adults (like
myself) to get into the job market and jump-start a career without going into
debt.

After three years of graduating this program, I've now gone full circle
working for a startup that supports the process of grant-making for
foundations. That all being said, I recently put my income into fusion.net's
millennial wage gap calculator to find that I come out into the top 6% of my
generational cohort at a gross wage of 72k (at 23, I realize I'm an outlier).
When I take into account that the majority of my friends around my are are
still working service/retail jobs, I feel like something in our system needs
to change before we experience a reckoning with a generation of kids with
dead-end jobs.

~~~
punk-coder
I went to University back in 89-90 in Munich Germany while my dad was in the
military. When the first Iraq war broke out he went and I ended up heading
home. I did some night schools, but never got a degree. In 96 there was a
program in Columbus, Ga, called ICAPP. It was sponsored by Synovus, Aflac and
Blue Cross Blue Shield. Thousands tried out for it, and after much testing,
interviewing, etc it came down to about 60 of us making it in. We got paid to
go through a program that taught us Assembler, COBOL, IMS, DB2, and other
mainframe development skills for 6 months. After that we were guaranteed a job
at one of those companies. If you worked in Georgia for 4 years your loan was
forgiven. I took a job in Atlanta at Total Systems, a company owned by
Synovus. 20 years later I'm an application architect making $155k at a
different company in Atlanta. I have no degree. When I finished the program it
counted as college credit and I was 11 credits shy of a Bachelors, but I don't
see what that will do these days. I have 20 years real world experience, and
in case you're wondering, the latest project I'm leading is a NERD stack app
(Node, Express, React, Database). I quit the mainframe job back in 99. I wish
there were more programs like that.

------
on_
Curiously, the breakdown of degrees by demographic doesn't include employment.
The article seems to make the case that people should seek institutional
education. Broadly, that makes sense, there are pretty traditional(ancient)
precedents for apprenticeships and there are newer alternatives in the
education system. Vocational schools were mentioned, and are also a good way
to learn a skill.

The weird thing about the article, or at least, with a title like _It 's a
Tough Job Market for the Young Without Degrees_ is it seems to imply that the
job market is tough for people without degrees, but is otherwise healthy. That
doesn't seem correct, and there does not seem to be any information in the
article indicating that Vynny Brown's (interviewed in the article) 20 year old
peers are faring much better than he is. So, the article isn't incorrect in
some points it makes like retraining the workforce is important, university
education isn't the only type of education, ect, however it doesn't really
explain the meta-problem.

The job market is tough because there is increased outsourcing in
physical/human-centric work and simultaneously(even in manufacturing) improved
technology, step-changes in process engineering and the electronic automation
of simple tasks have removed a lot of jobs from the economy and for some that
do exists, significantly limited the perceived value society has for them,
limiting earning potetnial.

------
fishtoaster
> Among 17- to 24-year-olds, just over 10 percent have completed college or
> achieved an advanced degree.

This seems like a weird statistic to highlight. Even if everyone were going to
and completing college, wouldn't you expect that most of this group (eg those
under about 22) to have not yet completed their degree?

~~~
Alex3917
> This seems like a weird statistic to highlight.

Not unless the job market is easier for 17-year-olds without college degrees.

------
valar_m
I don't understand the 17 to 24 age range for the college degree statistic.
Isn't the percentage for anyone under 21 practically zero? Seems like that
would be skewing the statistic pretty dramatically.

~~~
true_religion
They didn't take a study specifically to find out how many people have a
college degree, they likely did a study of studies tracking all the studies
(of which there are many) that _somewhere_ ask people their age and education
level.

Mapping all that together gives you this result.

Most studies that aren't about age-specific tasks or topics will gradiate on
17-20 / 20-24.

Remember all those studies that look at teenage pregnancy rates in the 17-20
age? Heh, studies of studies.

------
Sukotto
For another perspective, Mike Rowe (of "Dirty Jobs" fame) has a foundation to
promote blue collar jobs. They even provide scholarships for training in a
trade:
[http://profoundlydisconnected.com/](http://profoundlydisconnected.com/)

It seems like a great idea to me.

------
alistproducer2
A college degree is the new high school degree. You pretty much top out in the
upper teens per hour without a degree: and that's if you're lucky.

I've been on both sides. Since getting my undergrads in Comp Sci and MIS I
make more money than I ever thought I would. Before this I got a job driving
buses for the city making ~$10.50/hr and I thought that was all the money in
the world.

~~~
some-guy
Same boat here. High school dropout, semi-professional musician / food-service
worker, then got my CS degree at age 27.

Being on both sides is interesting, and in some ways I'm thankful I lived off
a low without even a high school degree just for the life experience. I still
ride the same bicycle, drive the same car, etc. I try not to forget how much a
dollar is worth but it can be hard sometimes.

My life back then was far harder and far more stressful. It's hard being in
front of people (food service worker) and dealing with customers for a lot of
us -- it takes an emotional toll. I have a fairly lax schedule now and make
almost eight times as much money. I hope that someday anyone can make a living
wage if they work hard, whether they flip burgers or write enterprise Java
spaghetti code.

~~~
askyourmother
Surely flipping burgers is a step up from Java coding? Asking if they want
fries with that is better than having to endure the shit-fest of eclipse, and
the horrors of Java development

~~~
strictnein
To be fair, if you get to use IntelliJ it's on par with working at Olive
Garden, or working as a garbageman.

------
ngokevin
"Among 17- to 24-year-olds, just over 10 percent have completed college or
achieved an advanced degree."

Why would we expect 17 to 21 year olds to have completed college? The common
trajectory is to complete your degree by 22, 4 years after high school.

------
jayess
The higher the minimum wage gets, the harder it'll be for those with little or
no skills to get a job.

~~~
ahoy
What a goofy thing to think. Effective minimum wage(that is, min. wage
adjusted for inflation) has been slowly declining for decades. Minimum wage
isn't getting higher, it's getting slowly lower.

~~~
Alupis
> Effective minimum wage(that is, min. wage adjusted for inflation) has been
> slowly declining for decades. Minimum wage isn't getting higher, it's
> getting slowly lower.

This is simply not true.

Minimum wage was introduced in 1938, and was for a whopping $0.25 per hour.
This is about $4.22 per hour in 2016 dollars. Federal minimum wage is
currently at $7.25. Some states have even higher minimum wages, with
California coming in at $10.00 (soon to coast up to $15.00 per hour in the
next few years).

So no, the purchasing power of minimum wage is not getting lower, quite the
opposite.

~~~
Retric
In 1969 the minimum wage was 1.4$/hour which works out to $10.34 in 2012
dollars. You can go back to 1956 and see eq $8.29 or forward to 1972 @ eq
$9.10 vs now at less than 7.25$ in 2012 dollars. More recently it peaked in
2009 and has fallen every year after that currently it's down 15%.

PS: In fact you need to go back to 1949 to find a worse year than 2006.

~~~
Alupis
What you are tracking (and cherry picking) is the inflation rate, which
naturally goes up and down over time. My point was, and remains, people are
paid more today on a minimum, than they ever were intended to be when this
program was created in 1938.

Minimum wage was intended as a baseline for unskilled entry-level jobs. Our
issue today is we have a tremendous amount of folks, more than ever imagined,
attempting to survive on minimum wage.

The solution is staunchly not to just give folks more money; we've been trying
that for 78 years and we still have the same problem.

The solution is to enable people to support themselves off and above a minimum
wage. We do this by empowering folks to get higher education and/or highly
skilled job training.

We should not have 50+ year olds working the cash register at Walmart. That's
a failure of society... and we're not working on solving that problem.
Instead, we just want an easy out; toss cash at them so we don't have to think
about this for another couple of years, never-mind that same 50 year old is
still working the cash register at Walmart! That's a flat cop-out.

~~~
Retric
Inflation rate is just that a rate, not adjusting for it after 7 years because
fuck people with limited mental capacity is sick.

As to trying things for 78 years we have very different problems now vs 78
years ago. To pretend otherwise is to simply act the fool.

There are many popular ideas that simply don't work. Pretending everyone is a
healthy, intelligent, well educated, and they can just make everything better
by working harder is one of them. People have been working harder,
productivity keeps growing but for a huge chunk of the population things have
been getting worse over time. And that my friend is a very dangerous trend.

~~~
Alupis
> because fuck people with limited mental capacity is sick.

Handing people more money for nothing does not solve their problems in the
long term. If anything, 78 years of minimum wage has definitively proven this.

When inflation goes up, as it does, they'll all be right where they are today.
Why solve today what you can solve tomorrow? Now, that's truly sick.

> we have very different problems now vs 78 years ago

We don't have different problems. Minimum wage was implemented to help prevent
folks from working all day only to not be capable of affording life... this is
exactly what we're debating today. So, 78 years later, we still haven't solved
this issue...

> People have been working harder

Have they? Working harder today is a different notion than working harder in
1938. Today, we require education and highly skilled workers. Yet, we have a
major shortage of exactly that. Why is this? Well, many reasons, but among
them is our societal indifference to encouraging or mandating folks get high
skilled training or a higher education. There's a big push today exactly
against folks getting education and/or high skilled training, and you seem to
be arguing this as well.

More money is a short term solution. It doesn't solve anything long term. It
hasn't worked for 78 years, and it won't work for another 78 years. To use
your words... "To pretend otherwise is to simply act the fool".

~~~
Retric
Your confusing politicians letting inflation kill minimum wage with having
minimum wage fail.

Second you completely ignored millions of people who can't be significantly
educated or handle significant responsibility, but can hold down low skill
repetitive jobs.

Put down your blinders and try looking at the real world.

~~~
Alupis
> Second you completely ignored millions of people who can't be significantly
> educated or handle significant responsibility, but can hold down low skill
> repetitive jobs

You seem to, at the core of your argument, have little faith in people's
capabilities.

> Put down your blinders and try looking at the real world

I've done just that. We have an evolving economy, and we need to put things in
place to enable a successful transition. Handing people money for nothing is
not part of a successful transition; it only postpones the proper solution.
That's wrong.

~~~
Retric
> have little faith in people's capabilities.
    
    
      2.2% of the US population has an IQ below 70.
      8.9% of the US population has an IQ below 80.
    

Not all of these people are capable of being even minimally productive, but
some are on the line where they are productive but only in a limited fashion.
IQ is of course not the only limitation, intelligent people also often have
issues.

~~~
Alupis
> Not all of these people are capable of being even minimally productive

IQ is a horrible indicator, and while influenced by genes, it is also biased
by a number of factors, including upbringing environment.

As the son of a teacher, I refuse to accept the notion that our "dumbest"
folks aren't capable of learning great things. It's attitudes like the one
you're presenting that keep these folks down in the dirt. "They just aren't
capable of complicated things!"... what hogwash. Even a person with diagnosed
learning disabilities can accomplish great tasks given the proper guidance and
training. You would have us just give up on them!

The devil in me questions the point of life if you just sit around and
exist... nothing more.

I think we need to agree to disagree here.

~~~
Retric
Even the Army has long held minimum standards for mental capabilities. This is
backed up by a lot of research.

I am also a _son of a teacher,_ but that's very different than an actual
teacher. I can't picture using that to try and argue from authority.
Especially when the lowest end of the scale is segregated from everyone else.

Though, I guess wallowing in your ignorance is par for the course.

~~~
Alupis
> I guess wallowing in your ignorance is par for the course

I don't know why you choose to be so hostile? It's a bit condescending, and
your position is not any more correct than I.

> Even the Army has long held minimum standards for mental capabilities. This
> is backed up by a lot of research

And the same was said about women serving in combat roles... until recently.

I also happen to come from a military family, and can attest to the bar being
very, very low regarding mental capabilities. I grew up around these folks.
It's actually who the military seeks for low rank positions - not independent
thinkers, they want compliance without question. You don't get that with
highly educated individuals. I know this is anecdotal, but it does have value.

Change your outlook, because it's awful. Having zero faith in people's
abilities to rise to meet new challenges is odd, to say the least. You seem
content to keep people poor, dumb, and useless. A new economy requires higher
level of skills and thought. The time to start brewing that ecosystem is now,
not later.

~~~
Retric
Someone who makes into the Army _is a high achiever._

A friend's child is sufficiently handicapped that at 20 he is incapable of
speech more complex than grunting. He is still capable of relativly simple
tasks. But to asume there is a binary choice where every person is either
totally disabled or capable of becoming a fortune 500 CEO if they just worked
harder is both idiotic and common.

There are many people with hopes and dreams who are worthy of respect, but
simply can't function at a high level. Increasingly we simply throw them to
the wolves as even if they can hold down a simple job that's not enough for
rent, which starts a cycle of homelessness and often prison.

A living wage is about human decency even for those who have trouble with
tasks more complex than mopping a floor.

~~~
Alupis
> Someone who makes into the Army is a high achiever

This is a laughably absurd statement. Majority of enlistees are there exactly
because they are not high achievers... A major benefit of the military is the
opportunities it provides. They hammer into you responsibility, education, and
highly skilled training. Even the lowest performers learn very complex tasks,
making the military a fantastic example of what I'm advocating. Perhaps we
need programs like this for the general public.

> A friend's child is sufficiently handicapped that at 20 he is incapable of
> speech more complex than grunting

I feel for your friend, as this is truly an awful thing to have to deal with.
However, this is a false dichotomous claim. This scenario does not apply to
any majority of folks in this country (or the world), and you're transforming
this into a black and white scenario. In addition, certain types of ailments
will permanently necessitate assisted living, even in adulthood, which makes
your anecdote even less relevant to this discussion.

> is a binary choice where every person is either totally disabled or capable
> of becoming a fortune 500 CEO if they just worked harder is both idiotic and
> common

Of course it's not a binary choice. I never asserted as such. What I have
asserted is, the future of the economy will depend on highly skilled and/or
highly educated workers. The idea of the "working class" must shift -
otherwise there's no purpose for them... and an economy cannot function with
50-80% of it's workforce only consuming via funds not earned nor supported
(via taxes, because taxing a BI is sort of a ridiculous idea) by them.

> A living wage is about human decency

No it's not. It's about making folks as yourself feel good temporarily. A
living wage is never enough. Why not make minimum wage $30 per hour today? It
surely would postpone other necessary measures for longer! Inevitably though,
we'll have to re-address this issue in a few years time, as we have been doing
for 78 years. We have got to figure out a better solution, because the one we
have right now is simply not cutting it. Even you agree to this, surely.

So no, I won't accept your defeatist attitude. Give up on the poor and stupid
because they'll never amount to anything. Don't bother increasing education
and training, because they'll never be capable of anything more than mopping
floors. Just give them money and don't think about their problems for a couple
of years.

What absurdity.

With this said, we really should end this. You will never agree with me, and I
the same with you.

~~~
Retric
> Of course it's not a binary choice. ...the future...

This is clearly cold comfort to people who went homeless despite multiple full
time jobs.

Minimum wage can be tagged to inflation just like Social Security and like all
laws it can be changed in a few weeks. Your projecting a future that does not
currently exist and many never exist and ignoring millions that are at the
border right now.

~~~
Alupis
So what do you propose? Small business should front this enormous burden
because society won't install a better solution?

Small business make up 99.7% of all companies in the US, and account for 65%
of all jobs created since 1995. [1][2][3][4]. But that's not to say big
businesses aren't impacted by this.

The more expensive you make human labor, the more of these unskilled and low
education jobs disappear (McDonald's automated kiosks, for example). Small
businesses just can't afford to employ as many people, and big businesses turn
to increased automation... which is the exact problem you're describing.

This seems to pivot your point to suggesting a BI. If so, then you'll need to
adopt the plan I've been advocating this entire time - increased (and/or
mandatory) higher education and/or highly skilled training. Otherwise BI falls
apart as it won't be a self sustaining economy. Federal revenue is paid for by
the workforce in majority (payroll tax + income tax equal about 80% of federal
revenue[5]). If the workforce shrinks (and it doesn't make logical sense to
tax a BI), then we have a problem.

The plan I've advocated can be adopted and be successful with or without a BI
economy. I don't see a better plan coming from you, however.

[1] [http://www.inc.com/jared-hecht/are-small-businesses-
really-t...](http://www.inc.com/jared-hecht/are-small-businesses-really-the-
backbone-of-the-economy.html)

[2] [http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-
data/](http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/)

[3]
[https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf](https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf)

[4]
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surpris...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surprising-
statistics-about-small-businesses/#c9409a63078c)

[5] [http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-
federal-...](http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-
revenues-come-from)

------
Overtonwindow
This is because we have spent decades conditioning employers to view a college
degree as the deciding factor of intelligence and capability. Which is
completely and horribly backwards. Now that we have a lot of people with
college degrees, employers are looking down on that and saying now you have to
have a masters in order to be considered worthy of a job. It's all crap.

------
idbehold
It's a tough job market for the young with college degrees, too. So it's
really just a tough job market for the young.

~~~
on_
Strong case could be made for 1946.

~~~
protomyth
I doubt the House will impose the budget and tax cuts the they did from
1946-48.

------
jupiter90000
Was it ever a good job market for the young without college degrees?

~~~
dugditches
When you could walk off the street(with no Highschool diploma) into a
Manufacturing job with good pay, benefits, etc.

And if they mistreated you, you could leave and go to another Factory in-town
that did treat you well. So they tried to retain employees by treating them
well.

Versus today, where if you can manage to find a Manufacturing job you're under
the thumb of the bosses. Because they know you have a mortgage, a family, and
other expenses and that you _need_ the job. And they know you can't just walk
down the street to another factory because it's not there anymore.

The thing thrown around is that a College Degree is the equivalent of an
Highschool Degree 20-30 years ago when finding a job.

~~~
jdminhbg
> When you could walk off the street(with no Highschool diploma) into a
> Manufacturing job with good pay, benefits, etc.

This sounds more like a good-ole-days fantasy than reality. Can you quantify
when and what good pay and benefits were for someone without a high school
degree who walked off the street?

~~~
mgkimsal
I can't speak specifically to walking in off the street with _no_
diploma/education at all, but I'll share this.

25-30 years ago some of my friends could fairly easily get line jobs at
Ford/GM/etc with just a HS diploma. Of course, from what we were told, it
wasn't as easy as _way_ back in the 50s, but it was still a possibility in the
80s, and some of my friends did. In addition to direct work, there was a
moderately large ecosystem of auto suppliers to work for, and many of them
would still hire with a HS diploma.

Friends of mine were starting in 1990/91 at $17/hr with some benefits and
usually some overtime available. Min wage, at that time, was... IIRC,
$3.35/hr. So.. 5x min wage with just a HS diploma was possible. That's not to
say it's not possible _now_ , but I don't think there's many _employment_
situations like that (certainly much fewer than 50 years ago). You'd probably
need to be self-employed to pull in $35-$50/hr with just a HS diploma these
days, and you're then having to cover your own insurance and perks and
whatnot.

Hope that helps.

------
dfar1
No college? No problem. Google how to make websites and start making websites.
There's an infinite number of small businesses, grandpas and grandmas needing
a website for whatever reason. Learn html and css, which are probably the
easiest languages to know, and you can already start making money. No
computer? No problem, go to a public library.

------
imtringued
I'm wondering if the purpose of most non STEM degrees is to reduce the supply
of labor for the duration of these four years. At an estimated 50 years of
work that's a decrease by 8% slightly increasing competition and wages.

~~~
dvtv75
Since an increase in labor supply would reduce likely reduce the cost of wages
due to oversupply, I can't imagine that would be the reason. Could be wrong,
though.

------
Tycho
Eventually employers are going to stop valuing college degrees and paying
wages that justify the student debt. A new model of education/certification
and hiring will arise. Especially if tech becomes the dominant sector (in
terms of work).

------
nparsons08
I've successfully obtained several positions at notable companies as a
software engineer and I don't have a degree. Hasn't set me back a bit. Self
taught is the way to go if you ask me.

------
nxzero
Measuring if someone is able to get a job based on if they have a degree is a
meaningless, since generally speaking the fact the someone went to college
means that they push harder on average to get stuff done than those that don't
get a degree.

Only way to tell what the difference is if applicants and employers were not
allowed to ask or require a degree, but instead were only able to test
knowledge.

------
askyourmother
Speaking of working conditions, food for thought when you need that next apple
shiny product:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582640/](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582640/)

~~~
venomsnake
While worthy of its own submission, I think it is somewhat irrelevant of the
current topic.

