
The short list of jobs with high and rising pay - Futurebot
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/26/the-short-list-of-jobs-with-high-and-rising-pay/?mod=e2tw
======
analog31
I've often thought that Physician Assistant might be a decent gig. Pay isn't
stratospheric, but you can work anywhere in the country (a factor for two
career families) and the training costs can't possibly be as extreme as a full
physician.

There may be fewer "insider" investment opportunities available to physicians.
Salary income for physicians is only part of their earning potential.

~~~
jseliger
This is an astute comment. I live with a physician and have met lots of
physicians who wish they'd been PAs instead, for reasons I enumerate here:
[http://jakeseliger.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become-a-
nu...](http://jakeseliger.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become-a-nurse-or-
physicians-assistant-instead-of-a-doctor-the-underrated-perils-of-medical-
school). Even the name is a misnomer, because PAs increasingly practice
autonomously, so the "assistant" part of the job title is increasingly a
misnomer or historical curiosity.

Among policy wonks, there's a meme going round about how healthcare jobs are
the new manufacturing jobs. See here for one example:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/25/decline_of_ma...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/25/decline_of_manufacturing_rise_of_health_care.html).

~~~
GarrisonPrime
I am a physician. Really wish I was a PA instead. In fact, I've left medicine
and would only consider doing it a gain as a PA, not an MD.

~~~
SiVal
Why would you not want to be (practice as) an MD, but _would_ be willing to
consider being a PA, especially when the much higher cost of becoming an MD
(time, effort, money) isn't even a factor for you (you already paid and won't
get a refund)?

(I'm not challenging your choice; I'm hoping to learn something that might be
useful to a younger relative of mine considering a medical career.)

~~~
GarrisonPrime
Mainly because my specialty is collapsing and there are no jobs, so I would
have to retrain in a different specialty. Of course, to be a PA I'd have to go
through training as well, but the hours and stress would be a bit less. The
stakes not as high.

I'm unlikely to do it though. The job market was only part of the reason I
left. The field is so corrupt, political, and biased, the patients often so
arrogant and defensive, I just hated the job.

~~~
SiVal
thanks

------
Madmallard
Mostly manager positions at the top. That's how you know society is falling
apart. When it starts becoming an old boys club with shared resources among
guys that don't do anything useful.

~~~
dimal
Has there ever been a time in which managers weren't making more money than
everyone else? By your logic, society has always been falling apart. Every
generation creates its own old boys club.

~~~
flukus
Making more is expected, that there wages are growing faster than the people
under them is the exceptional part.

~~~
p4wnc6
I'm not sure making more is expected. In my other comment I mentioned e.g.
sports teams or quant trading as examples where even average performing
subordinates can make more than their managers.

But yes, the decoupling of manager pay (fast growing) from subordinate pay
(slow growing) is frightening. I don't see any evidence that the world gets
more value from the activity of management now than previously, and in fact I
see _tons_ of evidence, say even just _Moral Mazes_ to start, that managers
actively destroy value for society in many cases.

~~~
flukus
I'm not worried about them making more than their subordinates so much, it's
not a job I'd want to do.

I've often wondered if we could improve the org charts though, so we don't
have things like managers making technical decisions that should be left up to
there subordinates.

And so they can't push down work that is part of management, like filling out
timesheets.

------
madengr
A link in the article shows a drastic drop in manufacturing during mid-90s.
Ross Perot was spot on about NAFTA and the giant sucking sound:
[http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/as-low-skilled-
job...](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/as-low-skilled-jobs-
disappear-men-drop-out-of-the-workforce/)

~~~
analog31
Did those jobs move to Canada and Mexico? On the other hand, it's my
understanding that NAFTA also provides for cross-border portability for some
occupations, notably engineers.

~~~
joneholland
No, they moved to China.

~~~
adventured
No, China stole few manufacturing jobs.

US manufacturing output is at an all-time high today. It hasn't decreased, it
has significantly expanded since NAFTA was created. Productivity destroyed
those jobs. The US is producing far more output, with far fewer manufacturing
jobs. It's a replication of the productivity gains in farming previously.
Workers have to move to other skill fields with growth, just as they did as
farming's productivity soared.

~~~
colordrops
Do you have some numbers to back this up? I don't recall almost everything in
my house being manufactured in China when I was a child in the 70s. It appears
to be the case now though.

~~~
jdminhbg
Here's a decent summary of the numbers around US manufacturing output:
[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-
outpu...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-
doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28)

I'd say the things around the house that say Made In China on them are largely
things that simply didn't exist in the 70s. I'd like to find some kind of
comparison to look into whether that intuition is correct, but whether it is
or not, the numbers absolutely show US manufacturing is high and growing. It's
manufacturing jobs that are disappearing, mostly due to automation.

~~~
sverige
It used to be the case that the US made the stuff that simply didn't exist
before. (I don't mean apps, I mean tangible goods.)

And lots of stuff that used to be made here is now made in China and other
parts of Asia, like furniture and clothing and phones.

~~~
jdminhbg
Furniture production in the US in 1990 totaled $40bn; in 2005 it doubled to
more than $85bn:
[http://congressionalresearch.com/RL34001/document.php?study=...](http://congressionalresearch.com/RL34001/document.php?study=U.S.+Furniture+Manufacturing+Overview+and+Prospects)

What's being made in Asia that didn't exist before is super low cost
disposable stuff that a lower-income family could buy, or that a middle-income
family could throw in a guest room. I suspect that pattern exists all over --
I have some high-end first-world manufactured goods in my kitchen, but I also
have some crappy junk that I use infrequently or on an almost disposable
basis. Turn the clock back 40 years, and I would just have the high-end goods,
without the pizza cutter or avocado masher or whatever.

~~~
slededit
The increase in inflation adjusted dollars is only $7bn. Absolutely not a
decrease, but saying it more than doubled obscures the situation.

------
beatpanda
At some point, the owners of capital are going to have to just start
distributing a greater share of their profit as wages. Any other solution for
stagnant wages is just making excuses for antisocial behavior.

~~~
mback00
Um... the revolution of productivity that his happening in the workplace will
likely enhance social behaviour and especially creative behaviour. The last
revolution was about applying personal computing to the work environment -
which did eliminate a lot of jobs, but created many more creative ones... and
also brought about a much greater connectedness between human beings - first
through email and then through social media. The next revolution is through
robotics and one that will free many people from mundane tasks to much more
creative ones... Bringing manufacturing back to the garage, and opening the
opportuity for profit to many more people. In the same way, robotics/ai will
also reduce traffic and provide a service where a person can have a physical
presence virtually anywhere on the globe. We do not yet know the implications
of the latest technological innovations - but history has definitely proven
that each one only enhances not only our productivity (and "fun") but also our
social connectedness.

~~~
PakG1
This seems like an overly idealistic perspective.

 _but history has definitely proven that each one only enhances not only our
productivity (and "fun") but also our social connectedness_

I think history has shown that overlords like rent seeking until
disenfranchised poor people revolt violently or nations fall into war, making
all the normal societal conflicts irrelevant.

I am not sure social connectedness has improved. It may have improved in
quantity, but not necessarily in quality. Check out how well people in cities
know each other compared to decades ago. Of course, you need to compare apples
to apples. Comparing disenfranchised situations yesterday to nice situations
today is the same as comparing disenfranchised situations today to nice
situations yesterday. Compare nice to nice.

The whole idea about robotics and AI freeing people from mundane tasks is not
new. Automation throughout history has always had good and bad consequences,
but it's also fairly certain that such industrial revolutions have always been
accompanied by upheaval and uncertainty, as power players try to use new
technologies for both good and bad.

 _The Victorian Internet_ about the invention of the telegraph is an excellent
read for an example of how the more things change, the more they stay the
same.

~~~
mback00
My argument is simply.... If you leave technical advancement alone and provide
people freedom - not government oppression or try to kill innovation
underneath of some set social theory... It works out, and it works out better
in the long run. What would have happened if someone was regulating our speech
right now in this forum? Would you stand for such oppression in the name of
social correctness? It's going to work out... Just not in the old framework of
the way you envision. Have a little faith.

~~~
PakG1
I'm not sure what is this old framework I supposedly envision, and I'm not
sure how the example of regulating speech in this forum relates to or helps to
explain anything. We used to be talking about the effects of new technology by
itself on society, nothing else. Just not sure where you're going with this if
you want to start bringing up all that other stuff.

------
p4wnc6
Love how 10 of the listed job categories are some form of managers. No rent
seeking here folks ... move along.

~~~
douche
Eventually we'll get to a point where it is just a circular hierarchy of
managers managing other managers managing the first set of managers. Emails
and meetings will fly around ceaselessly, while the machines churn away.

~~~
ryandrake
The graphic doesn't say anything about how prevalent these jobs are, just
which ones are high paying and have high pay growth. It should not be
surprising that medical professionals and managers are in these categories.

Trust me, we're far from your world of "managers managing managers all the way
down". These jobs aren't growing on trees. Go look for an actual management
job posting--you'll find that for every 1 management role most companies have,
there are probably 100 non-manager roles open.

