Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, which is why everyone would be foolish to not spend 5-10 hours/week studying and learning new skills in their free time. People who do things like that get the tier 1 jobs. People who expect to stay in the same job for 30 years without learning new skills solidify a place in tier 2.
The only problem with this is that learning skills will always be a game of Three-Card Monty. One day you'll think being an IT guy is where the money is, only to find out is over-saturated. We are trying to follow the Queen and somehow it is either put under the table or we lose sight of it.
That said, Autor is right and I don't understand why it is only now we are realizing it. Then again, some people think this is a feature, not a bug or still think it isn't happening...
The only problem with this is that learning skills will always be a game of Three-Card Monty. One day you'll think being an IT guy is where the money is, only to find out is over-saturated. We are trying to follow the Queen and somehow it is either put under the table or we lose sight of it.
That said, Autor is right and I don't understand why it is only now we are realizing it. Then again, some people think this is a feature, not a bug or still think it isn't happening...
...yes...that's the point in continuously learning. That's not a problem. It's not a "bug" or "feature". It's reality. That was the point in me saying you need to continuously study and learn. You should never get comfortable in a job where you do the same thing for years. You should always study at night/weekends to keep up with new trends, or you will fall into the second group of people this article talks about.
The concept is that a generation ago, it was good advice to move to the city for your career. Even if your career was a service economy job, such as gas station attendant, elevator operator, telephone operator, waiter, or retail clerk, you likely earned more money in the city than you would in the country, and the differential for cost of living was not that different. Essentially, the city cost a little bit more than small towns, but everybody made a lot more than in small towns.
That has changed for many people. Those service jobs often don't exist, or no longer pay commissions, or simply pay only minimum wage. Meanwhile the cost differential for living in the big city is substantial, so that on balance, the lesser skilled jobs are better positioned in small towns. The skilled jobs meanwhile make considerably more than they have in the past, so have kept up with the increased COL in large cities, or even exceeded it.
The exceptions to the rule, or the surviving members of the shrinking middle class that you point out, are in fact irrelevant to the study. The fact remains that the lowest tier of employment no longer enjoys an advantage in earning power by moving to a big city.
Keep in mind that I'm from a rural/small town background, but it's still advantageous to move to "the city" if you're on any sort of white collar/professional track.
When I graduated college with an economics degree back in 2010, you couldn't even land a bank teller job here. Hiring had completely seized up. I took what I could get, and it took me four years to get a career track, entry level, white collar job. After I had gotten some more experience, I was able to land a professional job in my hometown.
By and large, the white collar people I grew up with all left town and moved to a bigger city (not necessarily a superstar city like SF/NYC), at least for awhile. You simply can't get the skills needed here to land one of the few good jobs here.
Sure, if you're a low paid service industry worker, it may not make sense to move to a big city. It's pretty much a requirement for anyone on a professional track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
The only problem with this is that learning skills will always be a game of Three-Card Monty. One day you'll think being an IT guy is where the money is, only to find out is over-saturated. We are trying to follow the Queen and somehow it is either put under the table or we lose sight of it.
That said, Autor is right and I don't understand why it is only now we are realizing it. Then again, some people think this is a feature, not a bug or still think it isn't happening...
When I started college in 2004, finance looked like a solid major. We all know what happened four years later. What was a perfectly reasonable plan in 2004 with the information available at the time looked extremely stupid a few short years later.
That's an extreme example, but it's all a moving target.
I know many tier 2 people who manage to be middle class by doing an extra 10 to 15 hours a week of "side hustles" [walking dogs, selling baked goods, selling homemade soap, house-sitting, and so many other things] that they do not report and do not pay extra taxes on. Also, bartering has made an enormous comeback in recent years. People who take part in small ways in the "underground economy" often find out that is the only way they can get by. Just like any emerging third world economy.
That's reasonable in my neck of the woods where you can find an apartment for $500/month.
In a major city, it means a lot of roommates, multiple jobs, etc. It's not a pretty picture for a lot of people.
Wow....where were you living that 120k is bordering on poverty? I live in the Midwest too and 120k is considered upper middle class in my area.
My household of 6 has a combined income of 60-70k and according to this chart we're way above the federal poverty limit. I've never felt like I was living in poverty. Yes we have debt (student loans and mortgage) but it's pretty doable to be able to pay that off within 15 years.
I make around $70k with bonus. I live in a low cost of living area. While I have a lot of "lifestyle expenses," having a kid or two and a partner at the same income level would be lean. I'd have to chop out pretty much anything lifestyle related. Rice and beans. The cheapest of everything. No vacation or a minimal one every couple of years.
I wouldn't feel comfortable with kids making under $100k HHI, even in my local area.
It’s not just automation either. We have a rehab aid at one of the nursing homes where I work who went back to school and got a degree as a phlebotomist and medical assistant. It’s been two months and she has not been able to find a full-time job, in an area where healthcare is one of the two biggest employers. The biggest chain of labs, where she had her clerkships and where they did offer her part-time work, apparently hires everyone part time. She said all the employees are scheduled for five or six hours a day, so no one gets benefits. So even with her new degree, she remains a rehab aide making nine or $10 an hour. Except now she’s paying student loans off too. Because she needs healthcare for her and her daughter.
Even when people try to do the right things, the system seems designed to screw the lower and middle class now. It’s gotten much much worse than it was when I was young. I feel like we’re all the frogs in the pot just letting the water get hotter and hotter and accepting it. In the meantime, corporate profits and CEO and executive salaries have never been higher.
That's typical of what I've seen in other industries too. It really is no one's fault. And it's not about screwing people, it's about getting the most amount of labor for the least amount of money from each worker.
Employers want to make money and are designing different ways to save on labor costs. It is their right. The progressing gig economy is just one example. The elimination of pensions is another. The creation of part time jobs to avoid paying benefits is still another, as was mentioned. The aim is to cut labor costs to the bone.
However, because of these changes, workers are now finding it more difficult to earn a good living. Sure, they can dance around and learn new things and try to reinvent themselves as doors keep closing in their faces, but the bottom line is that it is becoming harder and harder to do that compared to years past. It is indeed like a frog in a pot where the water is getting hotter and hotter. It is in the employer's interest for no one to notice this. That's right move along, nothing to see here, folks.
...yes...that's the point in continuously learning. That's not a problem. It's not a "bug" or "feature". It's reality. That was the point in me saying you need to continuously study and learn. You should never get comfortable in a job where you do the same thing for years. You should always study at night/weekends to keep up with new trends, or you will fall into the second group of people this article talks about.
I think the problem is following the trend in skills. You follow a trend and often you are too late to the party and get burned. College is enter in one economy, graduate in another. However most people don't realize that until they get out. I think that going into STEM jobs is a trap at the moment. Why, because the entry level is saturated with the nairdoelles whom are ROTC and so companies can lowball even in STEM fields. I'm not knocking STEM, it just is gonna be the next flooded area of study, if it isn't already. In this way I think the feature is a bug even if it is reality.
I do think you shouldn't get too comfortable in a job, the problem is some jobs don't allow too much for growth. Education is a big one. You rarely have teachers who become leads and department chairs and then principals despite all the constant debt they enter to chase that opportunity. Instead they get complacent which isn't a bad thing for teaching, I mean by staying 10 years at a single district they match your retirement in my state so barring moving to state, the most you can do is change schools. Especially compared to the alternative of burning out and leaving the profession entirely. I see this especially in states that entirely undercut the funds for schools whether you talk wages, facility issues or lack of supplies.
The other thing I notice is that the world is constantly changing. It is easy to project but often it is a loose one like Nastrodomus rather than an on the money Back to the Future Grey's Sports Almanac used for sports betting. A professor I had about 13 years ago talked about small computers we would just plug in. Smart phones are kind of that but he was talking about nanocomputers. The problem is smart phones overtook what he thought nanocomputers would do. A further off example is how everyone in the 1900's thought we would have flying cars (still a good ways off) and driverless vehicles (at least we are getting places here.
So no, I don't disagree with you, but instead I think it is a buyer beware situation. I think far more people did this than you realize, but you only hear about the success stories, not the failures. It is a lot like the Richard Simmons infomercials for his latest workout tape and fitness program, they only show those who lost the weight, but those that fell off for whatever reason...
Blue collar trade is still heavy in demand. Automation isn't going to solve the shortage in many trades. There are people making over $100/hr doing masonry work and operating heavy machinery. Automotive techs are making $100k+ annual salary. Executive chefs are making over $80k
I was speaking to a lady and her dad is waiting to retire and can't just yet because people are still calling him left and right for elevator repair work. So many buildings being built and not enough experienced workers.
The concept is that a generation ago, it was good advice to move to the city for your career. Even if your career was a service economy job, such as gas station attendant, elevator operator, telephone operator, waiter, or retail clerk, you likely earned more money in the city than you would in the country, and the differential for cost of living was not that different. Essentially, the city cost a little bit more than small towns, but everybody made a lot more than in small towns.
That has changed for many people. Those service jobs often don't exist, or no longer pay commissions, or simply pay only minimum wage. Meanwhile the cost differential for living in the big city is substantial, so that on balance, the lesser skilled jobs are better positioned in small towns. The skilled jobs meanwhile make considerably more than they have in the past, so have kept up with the increased COL in large cities, or even exceeded it.
The exceptions to the rule, or the surviving members of the shrinking middle class that you point out, are in fact irrelevant to the study. The fact remains that the lowest tier of employment no longer enjoys an advantage in earning power by moving to a big city.
I'm one person that would be glad to see a change from everyone needing the highest education and skills to a society of mostly self employed people. College is not for everyone and most already low income people who take that chance just end up in debt with no job. Do you want a person who is severely learning challenged to fly your plane or be responsible for the design of that new bridge? Do you want them becoming CEO if they truly cannot handle it long-term?
I think it's time to stop feeling sorry for people in Tier 2 and also stop pushing them into lifestyle choices that will never be right for them or higher learning that will eventually leave them broke and living on the streets. Yes, some will do well with the opportunities given to them, but it is just about impossible for most. Self employment and other assistance for those who cannot take it out of Tier 2 is good enough. Isn't the high rate of homelessness and high numbers of college grads in debt proof enough that making everything available to everyone doesn't work?
I'm one person that would be glad to see a change from everyone needing the highest education and skills to a society of mostly self employed people. College is not for everyone and most already low income people who take that chance just end up in debt with no job. Do you want a person who is severely learning challenged to fly your plane or be responsible for the design of that new bridge? Do you want them becoming CEO if they truly cannot handle it long-term?
I think it's time to stop feeling sorry for people in Tier 2 and also stop pushing them into lifestyle choices that will never be right for them or higher learning that will eventually leave them broke and living on the streets. Yes, some will do well with the opportunities given to them, but it is just about impossible for most. Self employment and other assistance for those who cannot take it out of Tier 2 is good enough. Isn't the high rate of homelessness and high numbers of college grads in debt proof enough that making everything available to everyone doesn't work?
There is way too much focus on sending everyone to college.
My aunt's stepson was like this. She wanted him to go to college immediately after high school. He flunked out, but joined the military and ended up working with the county sheriff's department. He's not the "sit still" type at all. College is the wrong choice for a kid like that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
