Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pappyo 3577 days ago
> But no one seems to want them, and the reasons have nothing to do with low pay, poor benefits, or a lack of available training.

This is laughable. The average plumber makes around $50,000 and will top out around $80,000[0]. And those wadges have flat lined over the last 15 years[1]. Not to mention, it's painful work climbing under cabinets, kneeling down and standing up with heavy work belts, and contorting your body into every little nook and cranny. It takes its toll on your body over a period of time, as does the vast majority of manual labor jobs that are out there. So why would the son or daughter of a plumber go into the work when (s)he sees her dad complain about how the industry has gone to hell? I guess this is confusing to Mike Rowe.

Let's imagine for a minute that an entry level plumber could make $250,000 a year after a year long apprenticeship that paid him/her $60,000. There would be zero problems filling these position with top notched candidates. Zero. So to say pay and benefits are not the problem, misdiagnoses skills gap.

[0] http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472152.htm [1] http://city-salaries.careertrends.com/l/116610/Plumbers-Pipe...

3 comments

I feel like many HN readers may have a non-normal view of reasonable wages - given that boot camp graduates can get absurd money relative to their knowledge/experience/contribution level.

Those figures you quote (50-80k) are starting right at the median income (around 52[0]). Assuming they're decent with money and limit their debt, that's a pretty decent living for moderate stress (granted health tolls are a valid concern, but for all the bending/lifting they're probably not suffering some of those health issues associated with high stress and crazy hours - it's all a trade off). It's also only including salary income, do they get defined benefit retirement plans? 401k? I was a financial advisor at one point and worked for a lot of these skilled jobs - most of them had pension plans that were funded (e.g. Guaranteed income for life, a non-included figure in "income" typically)

That median is also taking into account all workers, so that's people early in there career just as it is those late. If starting is actually around 50, it's not a terrible deal.

Over time though the issue should be solved as a shortage tends to drive up prices and demand follows suit. Of course throwing money at people to take a job may help in the short term, but that's not really a maintainable way to handle these issues. That money comes from somewhere, so either prices need to increase or costs need to decrease (at the risk of it going to a consumer fewer may be able to afford other things, thereby possibly costing other markets - whether or not that is good is likely contingent on the market).

[edit]: It's also worth considering that, while they may be paid low during their training, they aren't paying for it. Alternative careers may demand paid for training (boot camp, college, masters, whatever). There's not only some opportunity cost but also debt likely in this consideration.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_Unit...

> Those figures you quote (50-80k) are starting right at the median income (around 52[0])

Just to emphasize, as I think it might be easy for other readers to overlook: That figure is median household income, which can include multiple earners. Individually, the median income is closer to $30K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...).

Good call, that definitely seemed like a high figure relative to what I recalled. That actually looks even better for an individual laborer! 50k looks much better
Oh heavens...where to start.

> I feel like many HN readers may have a non-normal view of reasonable wages...Those figures you quote (50-80k) are starting right at the median income

Probably, although that ignorance cuts both ways. Like if you were to think a family of four can live off of $50k anywhere in the US, when that won't be a struggle you'll ever face. And throwing around stats like "$52k" is the median US income, when conveniently ignoring, on the very source you cited, that the median income has dropped 8% since 2007 and is still not close to it's high in 1999 ($57k)[0].

I know it's safe and pleasant to hide behind macro economics, but those are real pains blue collar workers feel. Because of this, those aging blue collar workers tell their kids and their kids friends that their profession is in the toilet, and to get a 4 year degree. So here we are.

> they're probably not suffering some of those health issues associated with high stress and crazy hours.

Ever handed a customer a bill, knowing she had to choose between this and paying the mortgage? Ever had that customer flip out at you(and I'm talking the real rage, not MBA fancy boy hissy fits)? Ever get called at 2:30am because you're the one on call and someone's pipes burst, and knowing this emergency will cause a cascading effect of lateness (and angry customers) for the 7 appointments you have that day? Or have you ever worried, daily, if they'll be work tomorrow? Or worry about your physical health, because any illness or injury could put your out of work and screw up your finances.

Just because someone doesn't take their work home, and doesn't have a take home as large as yours, doesn't mean they don't work crazy hours or have huge stresses in their lives. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

> most of them had pension plans that were funded

Go down to your local union and ask them about their pensions. Pro Tip: bring a lunch, you'll be there a while.

> If starting is actually around 50, it's not a terrible deal.

$50k wasn't the starting, it was the US average. So very few plumbers start making that kind of money.

It is, in fact, a terrible deal. One thing they don't tell would be blue collar workers is, the profession's a dead end. Every.Single.One. You are employable for that vocation, and that vocation only. True, you could start your own business (and many do), but it is nearly impossible to land a new job out of industry without a huge personal investment. Most blue collar workers aren't technically savvy (like can't operate MS Word savvy), so their is a lot of ground to make up. Any job they train for and start is starting over with huge pay cuts (like over 50%). Almost all successful blue collar workers figure this out after a while. So very few actually switch. And those that do are GD heroes.

That's the whole problem I have with Mike Rowe's piece. Wages for blue collar works have stagnated over the last 15 years. The work has left them with little wiggle room to make major career advances. So it's very hard to convince someone to invest their future livelihood into a profession that might not reward them with a comfortable lifestyle.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

Sure wages may have fallen, and the reasons for that I am not sure either of us fully understand (perhaps you have background I don't know).

> those aging blue collar workers tell their kids and their kids friends that their profession is in the toilet

This wasn't my experience with my clients, I am guessing again you have had some experience I haven't - I am sure that is the case for many positive/negative effects of this! For those I know - it was extra reason to build their business on top of their skill. I highly respected their attitude and how they utilized their more limited financials than I do making more (frankly it's embarrassing sometimes thinking back to how frugal and wise they were relative to myself).

> Ever handed a customer a bill, knowing she had to choose between this and paying the mortgage? Ever had that customer flip out at you(and I'm talking the real rage, not MBA fancy boy hissy fits)? Ever get called at 2:30am because you're the one on call and someone's pipes burst, and knowing ...

This seems kind of straw man, have you? I can relate to having to, at times, chose one thing over another - e.g. I gave up my successful startup for a family member's mental illness. I'm far in the hole as a result of that. Sure it's a different form, but the feeling is certainly real and similar.

> Just because someone doesn't take their work home, and doesn't have a take home as large as yours, doesn't mean they don't work crazy hours or have huge stresses in their lives. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Again, straw man. I wasn't denying external pressures and stresses, I was suggesting work related stresses. This may be different if you are a 24/7 shop. But otherwise those are inherent in most peoples' lives, it has little to do with vocation and much about those in your life. Anyone working crazy overtime will suffer similar mental drains, never meant to suggest otherwise.

> It is, in fact, a terrible deal. One thing they don't tell would be blue collar workers is, the profession's a dead end. Every.Single.One. You are employable for that vocation, and that vocation only.

You realize that is the dream for many people right? It's one thing to say "I need a job until I figure what I want to do", others have the attitude of being happy with that kind of work - and loving the fact that they can master a domain and own it. Many of my friends fall in that and they despise the concept of my job. Conversely I feel the same way about theirs.

You seem to be attributing the way you feel to all these other people. If anything over the last several years of dealing with the challenges of "gender identity", "opinion" and other post-modern concerns - we have learned that many people's opinions diverge from our own. It's unfair to say "these people feel this way" - when Mike Rowe's assertion may indeed be real, people may not know this opportunity exists. I want to see stats on who knows about it and chooses to ignore it.

Again, you may likely know many people that I don't - but after I spoke with many I know in these circles, they seemed to confirm much of my understanding (perhaps that's a selection bias, as you may have as well).

Granted we can both agree, falling/stagnating wages is an issue (though I would cite other macro issues of rising costs - whether that be land, fuel, supplies) that the owners pass to the laborers. In those cases, I have witnessed that it's not just the laborers that hurt but also the owners (they typically get paid last...). It's easy to hate the "owner"/job provider when we don't hear their story (which is an underrepresented group when there's probably 10+:1).

You said you were a financial adviser to blue collar field owners. I'm presuming past tense (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious as to when your experience with blue collar professionals happened if not currently.

I say that because pre 2007, the picture you paint with the experiences you had with these people seem accurate and in lock step with their employees. Those were the same interactions I had working a blue collar job during that time. The housing bubble was the gravy train. Pay was good. Work was plentiful. Raises were frequent. Perks were ample. I heard that across housing related fields.

Post recession has been a different story altogether. And it's been these times which caused me to spit vitriol and emotional strawmans at less than well-thought-out statements.

While I agree with you that we have no idea what has caused a stagnate wadge among many blue collar industries, the "why" is something for academics. It is, we agree. And there isn't much to evidence to refute it. Which is why I find your argument confusing. You readily admit that wadges stagnate, yet are befuddled as to why the unemployed don't flock to these available jobs. An information gap? These days? Seems dubious.

It would seem you have your riddle to solve.

One step you could take towards solving that riddle is ask those in your circles (and yes, I'm sure our circles are different) what their entry level employee turnover rate is. There will be a lot of revealing information in that question, provided they answer you truthfully.

And maybe you can square this circle for me.

Wadges have stagnated (agreement). Housing market turned around in 2012 and is now booming in most parts of the country (my assessment, but if you need proof, I'm happy to provide).

Where did that money go if not to the laborer? Rising costs ate away at everything? Really? I guess I'll need sources for that.

And look, I've heard many a story from many an owner/job provider. My experience has been, the true craftsmen who made it, work in small skilled teams and had (admittedly) good breaks. I love those guys, and am genuinely envious.

The financially successful ones are innate salesmen and have no qualms with watering down the product to boost profits. They're the ones quick to tell you their tale of perseverance and self-sacrifice (maybe these guys are in your circles?). They could also teach Machiavelli a lesson or seven.

So forgive my experience. It's all I got.

I started in the field just before the crash and left the field in 2013 after realizing it wasn't what I wanted in my life. Great experience, but the career wasn't what I wanted to do every day.

> An information gap? These days? Seems dubious.

I've often thought this too, but I've been surprised how many people still aren't great with consuming information with tech. Even thinking about my users (we have a bunch of internal apps we develop) - I am often blown away with how they can hardly use a computer beyond the basic few things (Facebook and, to a small extent, their email).

I enjoy hearing your experience too, thanks for commenting on it :)

This. And it'll be addressed naturally once plumbers retire. The existence of fewer plumbers means that their prices will go up, which will attract more people into the trade. The fact that there is a "shortage" of plumbers means that the pay isn't high enough for ambitious people to drop what they're doing and get into plumbing.
Right, and I think you've pointed out the real problem...impending inflation.
According to this site an apprentice plumber's pay starts at 13k-25k.

http://www.eplumbingcourses.com/plumber-salary/