pappyo

Of course I have no data to support this, but I think it would be a fascinating case study / sociological experiment.

> 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.

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.