5 ms·

>> To put this in comparison, my nephew at 17, was a deckhand on a tugboat in a mining port making $120K+. Now that he has a license to captain a vessel up to 2

by jshowa 14y ago

>> To put this in comparison, my nephew at 17, was a deckhand on a tugboat in a mining port making $120K+. Now that he has a license to captain a vessel up to 25 metres I believe he's rapidly approaching if not exceeding $200K. I think the major problem is salary. Who the hell pays a captain $200K a year? Managers at high end companies don't even make that much, especially mine. Its not just that, celebrities, sports coaches, and the entertainment industry in general are over paid. Its only a lucrative business because most people don't care about being smart or learning things, they care about their next fix of football or basketball or any other stupid game or TV show that does absolutely nothing for society. The pay structure isn't aligned with education and experience and that's what promotes high standards of living and a lot of the problems with jobs. People that aren't well educated and have limited experience (like in a trade), probably don't spend their money wisely. Not only that, the cost of training for a tradesmen vs. a college grad is next to nothing because a college grad, like a computer science grad, doesn't need to be taught how to program, design, or use software development tools because there is already a general foundation of understanding. As a tradesmen, there is hardly any foundation. For example, this girl has be taught how to read blueprints and run machines on the job where I don't have to be taught any of that (outside of internal company knowledge) because of my engineering education.

tjic 14y ago
> Its not just that, celebrities, sports coaches, and the entertainment industry in general are over paid. These people deliver value to someone. I'm not a fan of sports, but I trust a few million people who enjoy watching sports as to what the proper allocation of that money is than I trust you. > The pay structure isn't aligned with education and experience Who cares? The pay structure is aligned with value delivered and the rarity of the skills in question. Your opinion that education is what should get compensated is deeply uninteresting. > People that aren't well educated and have limited experience (like in a trade), probably don't spend their money wisely. Baseless assertion. A plumber making $90k/yr may not have the exact same IQ you have, but he's likely smart enough to buy a house, save for retirement, etc...and a lot less likely to gamble his entire future on one "hot" startup. I've known a lot more tradesmen with second and third houses (for the rental income) than I've know engineers. > As a tradesmen, there is hardly any foundation. Have you met many tradesmen? Any?
- jshowa 14y ago
  >I trust a few million people who enjoy watching sports as to what the proper allocation of that money is than I trust you. What value do they deliver that requires them to add several more zeros to their income? Do you really trust people that waste their time paying hand over fist, listening to the next person sing when there are real problems in the world worth solving? Actors aren't rare. Singers aren't rare. I can do tradesmen work with less training that's needed to start someone from square one like this article suggests. If companies are in real need of tradesmen, why not just convert engineers over? > The pay structure is aligned with value delivered and the rarity of the skills in question. Your opinion that education is what should get compensated is deeply uninteresting. I never said people should be compensated based solely on education. Nice strawman. But the fact that you find the value of education "deeply uninteresting" just tells me that you're lazy and really shouldn't even be making claims about tradesmen who require at least some form of education. Its just there education is extremely compartmentalized. Their job isn't meant for design, innovation, and flexibility. > Baseless assertion. A plumber making $90k/yr may not have the exact same IQ you have, but he's likely smart enough to buy a house, save for retirement, etc...and a lot less likely to gamble his entire future on one "hot" startup. I've known a lot more tradesmen with second and third houses (for the rental income) than I've know engineers. Notice I said probably, as in I'm not really sure, but since you trust a few million people that spend tons of money on sports than myself, it makes your position debatable. So it leads to the question, does a plumber need to make $90k/yr to buy a house, save for retirement, etc? And by the way, just because you know more tradesmen with retirement homes than engineers, doesn't make it true unless you perform a study with appropriate sample size and statistical rigor to suggest a correlation. Something usually done by college grads. > Have you met many tradesmen? Any? Yes I have. In fact I came from Flint, MI. You know that city that use to have a bunch of trades and union workers making cars? You know that city is pretty much dead and infested with crime. You know why? Because such workers walked out of high school, demanded high wages for menial work, and coupled with GM's miss management, caused the plants there to be wiped off the map. And, unfortunately, because the people who worked at those plants decided to forgo the "deeply uninteresting" education and just walk into the plant to get a job, they've screwed themselves.
drcube 14y ago
1) Are you from Australia? I'm not, so those numbers looked high to me, until I remembered that Aussie dollars are worth about half of American dollars. 2) People, in general, don't spend their money wisely. 3) Unlike a college grad, tradesmen work during their training, so they are productive for the company from day one. It is a win-win situation that should be a model for jobs everywhere, not just technician jobs.
- jshowa 14y ago
  Since when did people going to college not "work"? Have you even been to college?
  - drcube 14y ago
    My point is that apprentice technicians and tradesmen offset the cost of their training by working for the company that trains them. Maybe not entirely, but if not, they make it up by being more productive after training than someone who was trained elsewhere. Ultimately, these companies wouldn't invest in training if there wasn't a return on that investment.
    - jshowa 14y ago
      > Ultimately, these companies wouldn't invest in training if there wasn't a return on that investment. Possibly, but its hard to see a ROI in this situation considering they are paying for training and giving the kids a full-time job, possibly with benefits. That's a couple thousand a person in training + 44,000 salary + a couple thousand in benefits and possibly a union membership. I don't see how there is cost offset over converting engineers who have a base knowledge. Not only that, where are they going to go if they lose their job? We're also talking about high school students here. They've had stuff taken care of for them all their life (baring extenuating circumstances). Not exactly the most responsible bunch I would guess.
      - drcube 14y ago
        Dude, they aren't "giving" away jobs. This isn't a charity. You don't hire people unless you need them to make money, and then you do whatever it takes to help them make you money. If it wasn't in the best financial interests of the employer, they wouldn't do it. Why would you prefer engineers take a pay cut to do technician work rather than the engineering they are trained for and experienced in? If an engineer can do it, I bet it would be even easier to transfer VPs and executives to these lucrative technician jobs, right?

by jshowa 14y ago

tjic 14y ago

> Its not just that, celebrities, sports coaches, and the entertainment industry in general are over paid. These people deliver value to someone. I'm not a fan of sports, but I trust a few million people who enjoy watching sports as to what the proper allocation of that money is than I trust you. > The pay structure isn't aligned with education and experience Who cares? The pay structure is aligned with value delivered and the rarity of the skills in question. Your opinion that education is what should get compensated is deeply uninteresting. > People that aren't well educated and have limited experience (like in a trade), probably don't spend their money wisely. Baseless assertion. A plumber making $90k/yr may not have the exact same IQ you have, but he's likely smart enough to buy a house, save for retirement, etc...and a lot less likely to gamble his entire future on one "hot" startup. I've known a lot more tradesmen with second and third houses (for the rental income) than I've know engineers. > As a tradesmen, there is hardly any foundation. Have you met many tradesmen? Any?

jshowa 14y ago
>I trust a few million people who enjoy watching sports as to what the proper allocation of that money is than I trust you. What value do they deliver that requires them to add several more zeros to their income? Do you really trust people that waste their time paying hand over fist, listening to the next person sing when there are real problems in the world worth solving? Actors aren't rare. Singers aren't rare. I can do tradesmen work with less training that's needed to start someone from square one like this article suggests. If companies are in real need of tradesmen, why not just convert engineers over? > The pay structure is aligned with value delivered and the rarity of the skills in question. Your opinion that education is what should get compensated is deeply uninteresting. I never said people should be compensated based solely on education. Nice strawman. But the fact that you find the value of education "deeply uninteresting" just tells me that you're lazy and really shouldn't even be making claims about tradesmen who require at least some form of education. Its just there education is extremely compartmentalized. Their job isn't meant for design, innovation, and flexibility. > Baseless assertion. A plumber making $90k/yr may not have the exact same IQ you have, but he's likely smart enough to buy a house, save for retirement, etc...and a lot less likely to gamble his entire future on one "hot" startup. I've known a lot more tradesmen with second and third houses (for the rental income) than I've know engineers. Notice I said probably, as in I'm not really sure, but since you trust a few million people that spend tons of money on sports than myself, it makes your position debatable. So it leads to the question, does a plumber need to make $90k/yr to buy a house, save for retirement, etc? And by the way, just because you know more tradesmen with retirement homes than engineers, doesn't make it true unless you perform a study with appropriate sample size and statistical rigor to suggest a correlation. Something usually done by college grads. > Have you met many tradesmen? Any? Yes I have. In fact I came from Flint, MI. You know that city that use to have a bunch of trades and union workers making cars? You know that city is pretty much dead and infested with crime. You know why? Because such workers walked out of high school, demanded high wages for menial work, and coupled with GM's miss management, caused the plants there to be wiped off the map. And, unfortunately, because the people who worked at those plants decided to forgo the "deeply uninteresting" education and just walk into the plant to get a job, they've screwed themselves.

drcube 14y ago

1) Are you from Australia? I'm not, so those numbers looked high to me, until I remembered that Aussie dollars are worth about half of American dollars. 2) People, in general, don't spend their money wisely. 3) Unlike a college grad, tradesmen work during their training, so they are productive for the company from day one. It is a win-win situation that should be a model for jobs everywhere, not just technician jobs.

jshowa 14y ago
Since when did people going to college not "work"? Have you even been to college?
- drcube 14y ago
  My point is that apprentice technicians and tradesmen offset the cost of their training by working for the company that trains them. Maybe not entirely, but if not, they make it up by being more productive after training than someone who was trained elsewhere. Ultimately, these companies wouldn't invest in training if there wasn't a return on that investment.
  - jshowa 14y ago
    > Ultimately, these companies wouldn't invest in training if there wasn't a return on that investment. Possibly, but its hard to see a ROI in this situation considering they are paying for training and giving the kids a full-time job, possibly with benefits. That's a couple thousand a person in training + 44,000 salary + a couple thousand in benefits and possibly a union membership. I don't see how there is cost offset over converting engineers who have a base knowledge. Not only that, where are they going to go if they lose their job? We're also talking about high school students here. They've had stuff taken care of for them all their life (baring extenuating circumstances). Not exactly the most responsible bunch I would guess.
    - drcube 14y ago
      Dude, they aren't "giving" away jobs. This isn't a charity. You don't hire people unless you need them to make money, and then you do whatever it takes to help them make you money. If it wasn't in the best financial interests of the employer, they wouldn't do it. Why would you prefer engineers take a pay cut to do technician work rather than the engineering they are trained for and experienced in? If an engineer can do it, I bet it would be even easier to transfer VPs and executives to these lucrative technician jobs, right?