3 ms·

> The trades are physically hard labor Mike Rowe agrees with you, so what's your point? Of course it is hard. Mike's point is our culture is becoming increas

by walkon 13y ago

> The trades are physically hard labor Mike Rowe agrees with you, so what's your point? Of course it is hard. Mike's point is our culture is becoming increasingly averse to engaging in hard, physical labor, even in the cases where compensation greatly exceeds that of many other fields.

bmelton 13y ago
Wall street jobs are super stressful. Stressful enough that people not properly suited for it might kill themselves. Programming jobs are mentally taxing. Mentally taxing enough that people not properly suited for it might become depressed, decide that they're a failure, and/or have a very hard time. Jobs in science require math skills that are hard / expensive to acquire, which one might never master or become good at. Jobs in law require very expensive educations, passing an extremely hard bar exam, years of work for low pay and long hours, for a job that only might prove to be good paying after the fact. Becoming a doctor requires expensive education; Surgery require that plus steady hands. Etc., etc. Jobs and trades have different pros and cons. I agree that yes, trade skills are physically demanding, but having done them before, they aren't that physically demanding. It isn't the same as being on a prison chain gang, and an average work day is less intensive than a couple of hard hours at a gym. Obviously, this varies from trade to trade, but the I agree with you that the idea that trade skills should not be considerable because they require physical effort is fairly silly, unless the suggestion is that we should all eschew all forms of work, because every job has some sort of down side. I don't know of any high pay, low skill, low stress, cushy jobs in the world. If someone knows of one that doesn't have some other downside I haven't listed, feel free to let me know. Email address is in my profile.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Actually when you measure stress it turns out that high-flying jobs are not that stressful. It's having no control over your life that causes stress, and being an underpaid peon is the most stressful situation to be in.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    That's an interesting stance. I admit that I was speaking generally, but I've had a high-stress job, and left it, because it was insanely stressful. It was exceedingly high paid, and leaving it was indeed a difficult decision, but I definitely felt the stress. Conversely, I've had a trade skill position, and considered it neither high-stress nor low paid. There are obviously higher paid positions out there, but there are also a bevy of far lower paid positions out there. I'm curious as to how you discount the stress of high stress positions though. Not necessarily doubting it, but my personal anecdata contradicts it.
    - Tloewald 13y ago
      I've worked in high paying "high stress" jobs (indeed, my current job probably qualifies). The stress of not knowing whether you're going to be promoted or fired is certainly horrible, but you still get to eat good food and sleep in a nice bed. I can't find the studies right now, but I was simply quoting results from research from memory. Frankly, I call BS on the typical idea that higher paid jobs are more stressful in general. Sure, you can find examples to suit an argument, and I'm sure many of us have had a high paid job that is stressful, but we've also probably had a high paid job that isn't stressful, or isn't stressful most of the time. Being poor and having no control over your day is far worse, and I say this as someone who has only had brief bouts of financial stress.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        Oh, agreed. I'm not trying to imply that all high-paying jobs are stressful... not at all. I'm just saying that there are indeed jobs that are high-stress, and that typically, the trade-off for that stress is in higher pay. There are certainly high paying jobs that aren't inherently stressful, and I'd wager that most of us, as programmers, enjoy them quite a lot. There are also certainly low paying jobs that are extremely stressful -- state level politics, social workers, etc., are likely to fall within those demographics. Just as certainly though, there do exist high-stress jobs that also are high pay, and that said high stress is a check mark in the con column against it, just as 'physical labor is hard' is a valid check mark in the con column against trade labor.
taeric 13y ago
Wasn't my post, but I believe the point is that the vast majority of people can't physically do some of these jobs. This is an interesting parallel to the fallacy that many fall into in trying to get really good at sports so that they have a straight path to a lucrative career. Simply put, statistically you are not likely to be able to cut it in that industry.
- Crito 13y ago
  I don't think inability to perform these jobs is the limiting factor. In the past, larger percentages of the population have had hard labor jobs. Maybe we're all fatter, but if we are talking about 18 year olds getting into a physically demanding job, that should be far less of an issue (less of an issue as it would be for, say, a 35 year old, who has had 17 more years of their body decaying and 17 more years of eating too much).
  - taeric 13y ago
    My guess is that the ages of the people involved in many of these situations is a touch higher than 18. Also, beware considerations of the past. In the past, larger percentages of the population died before hitting 15 years of age.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Yes, most unemployed people are probably much older than 18. However most people making the decision to go to college, or go into various trades, are 18 or younger. That seems to be the age bracket Mike Rowe is primarily talking about.
      - taeric 13y ago
        The specific example was about a large influx of trainees into post Katrina Louisiana. That is the scenario I was mainly talking about. The general point about kids not necessarily needing to go to college, I 100% agree with. Though, all of the numbers I've ever been shown do paint a picture that statistically you are better off doing so than not.
pnathan 13y ago
I'm not disagreeing with Mike Rowe there in the least. His point is very well taken, and people without a yen for the academe or the STEM world should very carefully consider a tradesperson's life. But, it's a far cry from the hard work in college compared to the hard work on a construction site. Construction work is, in a very primal way, harder work[1]. I do not see any rational reason not to engage in skilled tradeswork if one has the desire to. It's not my path, but I respect it. [1] I am so not getting into an debate over this, having done both.

by walkon 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago

Wall street jobs are super stressful. Stressful enough that people not properly suited for it might kill themselves. Programming jobs are mentally taxing. Mentally taxing enough that people not properly suited for it might become depressed, decide that they're a failure, and/or have a very hard time. Jobs in science require math skills that are hard / expensive to acquire, which one might never master or become good at. Jobs in law require very expensive educations, passing an extremely hard bar exam, years of work for low pay and long hours, for a job that only might prove to be good paying after the fact. Becoming a doctor requires expensive education; Surgery require that plus steady hands. Etc., etc. Jobs and trades have different pros and cons. I agree that yes, trade skills are physically demanding, but having done them before, they aren't that physically demanding. It isn't the same as being on a prison chain gang, and an average work day is less intensive than a couple of hard hours at a gym. Obviously, this varies from trade to trade, but the I agree with you that the idea that trade skills should not be considerable because they require physical effort is fairly silly, unless the suggestion is that we should all eschew all forms of work, because every job has some sort of down side. I don't know of any high pay, low skill, low stress, cushy jobs in the world. If someone knows of one that doesn't have some other downside I haven't listed, feel free to let me know. Email address is in my profile.

Tloewald 13y ago
Actually when you measure stress it turns out that high-flying jobs are not that stressful. It's having no control over your life that causes stress, and being an underpaid peon is the most stressful situation to be in.
- bmelton 13y ago
  That's an interesting stance. I admit that I was speaking generally, but I've had a high-stress job, and left it, because it was insanely stressful. It was exceedingly high paid, and leaving it was indeed a difficult decision, but I definitely felt the stress. Conversely, I've had a trade skill position, and considered it neither high-stress nor low paid. There are obviously higher paid positions out there, but there are also a bevy of far lower paid positions out there. I'm curious as to how you discount the stress of high stress positions though. Not necessarily doubting it, but my personal anecdata contradicts it.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    I've worked in high paying "high stress" jobs (indeed, my current job probably qualifies). The stress of not knowing whether you're going to be promoted or fired is certainly horrible, but you still get to eat good food and sleep in a nice bed. I can't find the studies right now, but I was simply quoting results from research from memory. Frankly, I call BS on the typical idea that higher paid jobs are more stressful in general. Sure, you can find examples to suit an argument, and I'm sure many of us have had a high paid job that is stressful, but we've also probably had a high paid job that isn't stressful, or isn't stressful most of the time. Being poor and having no control over your day is far worse, and I say this as someone who has only had brief bouts of financial stress.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Oh, agreed. I'm not trying to imply that all high-paying jobs are stressful... not at all. I'm just saying that there are indeed jobs that are high-stress, and that typically, the trade-off for that stress is in higher pay. There are certainly high paying jobs that aren't inherently stressful, and I'd wager that most of us, as programmers, enjoy them quite a lot. There are also certainly low paying jobs that are extremely stressful -- state level politics, social workers, etc., are likely to fall within those demographics. Just as certainly though, there do exist high-stress jobs that also are high pay, and that said high stress is a check mark in the con column against it, just as 'physical labor is hard' is a valid check mark in the con column against trade labor.

taeric 13y ago

Wasn't my post, but I believe the point is that the vast majority of people can't physically do some of these jobs. This is an interesting parallel to the fallacy that many fall into in trying to get really good at sports so that they have a straight path to a lucrative career. Simply put, statistically you are not likely to be able to cut it in that industry.

Crito 13y ago
I don't think inability to perform these jobs is the limiting factor. In the past, larger percentages of the population have had hard labor jobs. Maybe we're all fatter, but if we are talking about 18 year olds getting into a physically demanding job, that should be far less of an issue (less of an issue as it would be for, say, a 35 year old, who has had 17 more years of their body decaying and 17 more years of eating too much).
- taeric 13y ago
  My guess is that the ages of the people involved in many of these situations is a touch higher than 18. Also, beware considerations of the past. In the past, larger percentages of the population died before hitting 15 years of age.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Yes, most unemployed people are probably much older than 18. However most people making the decision to go to college, or go into various trades, are 18 or younger. That seems to be the age bracket Mike Rowe is primarily talking about.
    - taeric 13y ago
      The specific example was about a large influx of trainees into post Katrina Louisiana. That is the scenario I was mainly talking about. The general point about kids not necessarily needing to go to college, I 100% agree with. Though, all of the numbers I've ever been shown do paint a picture that statistically you are better off doing so than not.

pnathan 13y ago

I'm not disagreeing with Mike Rowe there in the least. His point is very well taken, and people without a yen for the academe or the STEM world should very carefully consider a tradesperson's life. But, it's a far cry from the hard work in college compared to the hard work on a construction site. Construction work is, in a very primal way, harder work[1]. I do not see any rational reason not to engage in skilled tradeswork if one has the desire to. It's not my path, but I respect it. [1] I am so not getting into an debate over this, having done both.