This looks like a slam book. Or that’s what girls called it when I was in high school. Basically just a place where you write mean things about people you don’t like. And those people don’t get to see it.
I do think this is true. I'm 46 and I find myself wondering when things are going to "return to normal". But I can't really define what that is besides saying "2019". I'm not even sure what I'm referring to other than I hate short form video. I don't know how I feel about AI. It does seem like something that has a lot of promise though if we can figure out the context issues.
That’s what happens when you commit a crime. It doesn’t matter who you kill or who you are when you do it. If the CEO had killed this guy in the same manner, he’d be facing the same consequences.
I'd be surprised if they NYPD and the FBI spent anything even remotely close to e.g. 10% of what they did in this cases to investigate any random average murder.
If he just shot someone randomly in a poorer neighbourhood he likely would still be free.
This is generally true for something like gunning down someone in the street.
(Even then: being a cop or the President helps...)
For almost all other crimes, no, probably not.
Even for murder, it's not entirely true; https://nypost.com/2024/12/05/us-news/teen-killed-another-wo... happened on the same day, but certainly didn't see the level of police resources involved in finding the killer. Teams of cops with drones weren't searching large swathes of NYC for those perps.
This isn’t surprising. It’s also not an indication that women are doing better than men writ large. Most degrees are not worth the investment. A few high performing ones hold the average up. Trades are desperate for workers and have above average pay. Men are much more likely to do those jobs. The risk is that women are going to be left with more debt and will be less employable in the long run.
But for a society that acts like everyone’s worth is wrapped up in whether or not you have a degree, we should be a lot more concerned about this than we are.
This would make sense if college degree requirements weren't rampant for tons of jobs that shouldn't require them.
It's a hard requirement a lot of the time in tech as well. Doesn't matter anymore whether you have 10+ years experience at a large company in <very fancy subfield that requires at least grad school level expertise in something very academic> like compilers or something. You'll be viewed as a neanderthal that probably can't or didn't pass Calculus.
In the past, that was less of an issue. A culture of self study (on prerequisite academic topics) was more prevalent. Now the base assumption is that you stumbled into your position and have been flying under the radar as a dimwit changing the color of buttons.
Theories as to why this is now the case:
- Increased competition and rise of CS enrollment and improved perception of CS degrees.
- Bootcamp grads giving recruiters and hiring managers a bad impression about everyone self taught.
- Overhiring in certain subfields and at certain large tech companies causing a reduction in the signaling value of experience.
- Age discrimination
So in other words, with the exception of physical trades, credential inflation is definitely a real thing and it definitely has an impact on how easily you can move positions and/or negotiate compensation.
And if you couldn't tell, yes I'm salty on account of having had to waste time and money going back to finish a degree that I was overqualified for just in order to not immediately get lumped in with bootcamp grads. The entire ordeal was academically worthless. Don't make my mistake kids...stay in school even if it feels like you aren't learning anything so that you don't have to go back and do it while also juggling adult responsibilities. I think this is a mistake that men are probably more likely to make than women as well, which could help explain some of the gender discrepancy in graduation rates. Call it overconfidence fueled by testosterone or something.
> You'll be viewed as a neanderthal that probably can't or didn't pass Calculus.
Funny you say this 1.5 months after I find out that the university where I got my master's dropped calculus classes (from the bachelor subjects, there never was much non-applied math in the master years). Logic (mathematical logic), discrete math, combinatorics and theoretical statistics have been dropped years past (more than a decade for logic). Applied statistics and "Math I + II" (essentially revision of high school calculus, practical only, no theory, e.g. no more treatment of the difference between Riemann and Newtonian integration) are all the math that's left.
Master degree holders starting 4 years from now will all be "neanderthals that probably can't or didn't pass Calculus". Or at least know little of the theoretical underpinnings of calculus.
That is a shame. My degree required advanced topics at the undergraduate level particularly because of the subject matter (think aeronautics and aerospace). In many ways I’ve found that this knowledge has made life a lot easier in surprising ways. It also tends to be surprisingly transferable in unexpected ways.
Yep, this is credential inflation in a nutshell. Don't fall through the cracks in the future, if you do then maybe you'll wind up as a neanderthal that couldn't pass college algebra.
I think that you’re missing out on the fact that you’re an outlier. Most people in tech do not get there by hacking away at their computer as a teenager on up, or as a hobby (or work related self education). That’s why companies use a college degree as a filter, especially in jobs that are heavily theoretical and not “we’ll just grind on it with man hours until it’s finished”. It suck that you are an outlier but that doesn’t mean companies have to take a chance on you. Life isn’t fair very often, that’s why it’s extremely important to network, go to conventions or trade shows, or volunteer if a company wants someone on site at a 3rd party. I’m in your boat as well. All I have is an undergrad, but I work with PhD’s because I have niche knowledge and experience that a lot of them do not, and after being in the industry for a while I can hold my own, even though this job tends to require PhD as a degree filter.
> It's a hard requirement a lot of the time in tech as well
I've always seen "or equivalent experience". I'd assumed that including that alternative was mandatory-ish for the same reason that explicit intelligence tests are reportedly lawsuit magnets.
Absolutely, a lot of companies include that, but that isn't binding on how individuals evaluate resumes.
However, when I say it's often a hard requirement, I do mean that literally. The "or equivalent experience" bit isn't there a significant percentage of the time for the sorts of jobs I typically apply for (nothing that has actual regulatory reasons to require a license or degree). Then you wind up with the person that was trying to hire you having to petition up to the division executive for an exemption to company policy or something ridiculous like that. If you aren't really really good, that's often a dealbreaker. I suspect I lost out on many opportunities that way because I can only really evaluate the instances where they tell you about the petition and then tell you it went well (if it went poorly, might as well tell you "we decided to go with another candidate" or just not tell you about the policy).
Additionally, sometimes the lack of strict degree requirement doesn't mean a lack of paperwork that could be prohibitive. Or they'll say something like "every three years of professional experience will make up for one year less of education", which besides being a silly ratio, is essentially a prohibition on hiring people without a degree because I'm not about to accept a very underleveled offer due to how they arbitrarily weight years of education vs years of professional experience. I've been desperate before but never that desperate thank goodness.
As far as being a legal standard, I'm not aware of and have probably never lived in an area where an "or equivalent experience" statement was actually required, on account of it being missing for maybe ~50% or so of the jobs I've applied to or been hired for. If companies are being sued and losing over the lack of that statement, absent other evidence of discrimination based on applicant membership in a protected class, that would be news to me.
I am not an expert in this, but I think that the “trades pay above average” argument has become accepted as fact when the data isn’t so clear. BLS average wage in 2023 was $64,000 and change. Plumbers, carpenters, and electricians were $67k, $60k, and $67k, respectively. Solid money, but not easy or well above average. Tradespeople who work in high demand sectors, run their own businesses, or become masters can certainly be compensated well, but they are not the norm, and it takes a long time to get there.
I’m with you on the moral argument. My dad was a master carpenter and is one of the smartest people I know. And his work will be around long after mine has become obsolete.
BLS figures show tradeworkers make about the median salary in the US - it isn't above average. In the Occupational Outlook handbook, The mean annual wage for all occupations is $65,470. The trades:
Plumber - median $61,550 per year
HVAC tech - median $57,300 per year
Electrician - median $61,590 per year
Framer(Carpenter) - median $56,350 per year
Bricklayer(Mason) - median $53,010 per year
Job demand also seems to be about average compared to overall jobs.
I agree that investing heavily in many degrees is probably ill-advised.
Union plumbers, electricians, pipefitters, and sheet metal workers all make more than $50/hr on the check and $100/hr with fringes in my metro area with a population of 3 million.
You can see what union trades make in a specific area by searching for “prevailing wage [city name]” and looking at the wage tables.
is that 50-100 as a 1099 contractor, where they have to pay their own payroll tax, plus unemployment insurance, and their own healthcare and retirement?
or are these full-timers.
I'm sure they're almost certainly the former, and that 77/hr doesn't look so amazing after taxes and other overheads. I'd bet that gets down closer to 40/hr actual spending money, and that's not as amazing around big cities like DC, NYC, or SF.
The former, these are W2 full time union tradespeople. The only thing taken out of the $53/hr wage is income tax and payroll tax, everything else is rolled into the fringe package.
Journeyman electricians get $53/hr wage in Mpls/St Paul, total package is around $100/hr (includes health insurance, defined benefit pension, employer FICA, unemployment insurance, union dues, apprentice program funding, vacation pay, etc) Foreman get an extra $5 an hour and a general foreman gets another $5 on top of that.
NYC and SF electricians get around $70-75/hr wage, DC is around $65/hr.
Trade unions are so hard up for new members that they’ll educate you while you’re an apprentice, so after 5 years you’re a journeyman with no education debt making $100k+ a year. It takes a while for a college educated person making $100k/year to catch up to the electrician in lifetime earnings.
If you’re a non-union residential electrician in say, Alabama or Kentucky, you’ll probably make $60k a year. If you’re a commercial union mechanical or electrical tradesperson in a decent sized metro area, you’ll make significantly more.
>You can see what union trades make in a specific area by searching for “prevailing wage [city name]” and looking at the wage tables.
From the linked BLS report:
>These estimates are calculated with data collected from employers in all industry sectors in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in every state and the District of Columbia.
I'd take country wide figures from government agencies over haphazardly doing your own research for a few cities on google.
I wasn’t questioning the median, I was simply stating that you can make much more than the median in certain areas, or in any area by simply joining the trade union for your trade. The south is what drags down the median construction wage numbers.
Employee tradeworkers make good average money, self-employed trades people make a ton more money.
I think the silver-lining here is: be competent at your job and all aspects related to it, but do that while being your own boss.
Not much different from other areas but in this case, trades are in high demand and the initial investment in terms of capital is very little compared to "start a company and hope to break even in an year or two".
So you're prone to falling into survival bias, while also needing skills beyond just being good at your job in order to sell yourself so you can get customers to begin with.
>the initial investment in terms of capital is very little compared to "start a company and hope to break even in an year or two".
2-3 years of apprenticeship is "very little"? In addition to however much experience you need to be trusted as a business? And who's to say you will break even in a year or two?
It's very little capital investment, yes. In both absolute terms (like a few thousand dollars of school, sometimes paid for by the employer), and relative to starting a non-trade business (rent, equipment, etc).
> Seems plausible. If you click around you find the report explicitly excludes self-employed workers.
Probably because they are entirely different jobs. The “tradesmen” making the big bucks are actually business owners, who are hiring others to clean the toilets and wire circuit breakers. This makes them more like CEOs than individual plumbers. It would not make sense to lump their salaries with employed trade workers.
Doesn't necessarily have to be business owner with employees. Could be like one person self employed, maybe with a brother or something.
The last plumber I hired was two brothers, who do good work, charge like $100+/hr on labor, but are considered self employed and thus don't show up in that dataset.
If it’s both brothers for that hourly rate, then that is only $50 an hour; and probably also has to cover expenses like business insurance, car insurance, gas, tools/equipment, car and equipment maintenance, certifications and contractors licenses, etc, etc.
And I’d bet their rate even has to take into account the time in their “off” hours when they are writing estimates, invoicing, communicating with clients, marketing, and so forth.
They don’t just clock out when they finish fixing your plumbing. Even at $100 each, it’s not pure profit. Running the business probably eats into a big chunk of their hourly rate.
I don't know what its like it the states, but many household Plumbers and Electricians are actually running their own small company and work very hard to minimize their take home salary.
But regardless of career path, the real trick is to raise your children to aim higher than median. :)
You don't want to be a plumber, you want to run a plumbing empire!
In the Bay Area and other places where tech workers congregate, trades people make far above these numbers. These numbers are kept low by the south, which might as well not count for the purposes of the average demographics of this website.
Most every job's wage is on average higher in the Bay Area than the South. The South also has some of the lowest cost of living vs the bay area some of the highest. Nobody specifically mentioned tech but it's perhaps not the regional relative-income trend you're expecting https://www.business.org/hr/benefits/highest-tech-salaries/
We're just in a really bad "liquid" economy right now, so it's easy to feel that narrative of "college degrees are useless".
They aren't useless, but as tuition rises it is inevitably going to be a worse investment. Not to the point where trades are worth its equally annoying but different kind of annoyance, though. Pay depends on unions, and get into trade unions is anything but a meritocracy.
Well, there's a couple different things a degree can be used for.
If you actually use specific things you learned, it's useful in the way that training and certification is useful.
If you don't, it's mostly just an indicator of "this person is at least this smart". Which only really matters to the extent that employers use it to save time on interviews.
The fundamental challenge with the trades is that some of them are extremely hard on your body. I know roofers who've taken multi-story falls and gotten put back together with steel pins. Plumbers often have issues with their knees or back. If you're lucky or you pick a good specialty, you can make it to your 40s in OK shape. But I've seen a lot of people with chronic problems, and a few with serious disability.
One of ways that I've seen middle-aged people succeed in the trades is to hire a crew and turn it into a business. But by definition, not everyone can be the boss.
It can be a great career if you stay healthy! But I think we should be careful about answering every employment or education question by immediately saying "trades."
Younger women in urban/metro areas are doing significantly better than their male peers economically (higher employment rates and income). This gap is increasing.
Young women are doing worse than their male peers in rural areas economically. This gap is closing.
What implications this has for society at large I can only speculate.
> Overall, about 16% of all young women who are working full time, year-round live in the 22 metros where women are at or above wage parity with men.
Thats only sixteen percent of women. Or put another way, 84% of men still make more than women.
> Younger women in urban/metro areas are doing significantly better than their male peers economically (higher employment rates and income). This gap is increasing.
In 22 metro areas.
You’re framing your argument in a way that seems especially combative and antagonistic towards women gaining a level playing field. It’s not a zero sum game, but men will absolutely lose privilege as women even the playing field. There will be cases where women make more, and that’s life. And if women as a whole for a while make more than men, big deal, it’ll eventually even out.
In addition to not being surprising, it also isn't news. These trends appear to date back more than 30 years, so they were around when pretty much everyone in the workforce was college-aged. The people who haven't lived through this, if they exist, are on the verge of retiring.
As a non US citizen, can you tell me how much a computer science degree costs? I've heard students are left with hundreds of thousands in debt when they graduate.
Also, can you pay student loans with pre tax income?
I've worked with many talented engineers over the years who didn't have degrees and have had no trouble finding jobs and moving around. I imagine a degree might help you get a foot in the door, but once you can demonstrate you can do the job, seems to be easy to pick up more work.
I really wonder how damaging that debt would be for a young person who is also trying to save for a house and start a family.
You have to be pretty reckless to graduate with that much debt - most states have fairly affordable in-state tuition for their citizens. So pick a random state like Nebraska (https://admissions.unl.edu/cost/) and you can see that the premier public state university charges $10,400 per year for tuition and then they estimate housing and food at $14,000 more. So if you don't contribute at all in the mean time, you'll likely graduate with about $100k in debt. More commonly, students work summer jobs or on-campus jobs, receive scholarships to reduce the cost, and then many have parents who help with the cost which is reflected in the average student debt of about $35k for all college graduates (https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-state#nebrask...).
If you go to a private school, or a public school in a state you don't live in, you can easily double or triple those costs, but there are routes for bright students to study at excellent schools for pretty low cost.
man, graduating with 100k debt from a low CoL state like Nebraska is absolutely depressing :(. I remember my tuition being $6/year from 15 years ago, and was lucky military benefits covered that. Rent, textbooks and "other expenses" still had me end up with roughly 60k in debt, but that's not bad at all for California, even back then.
College costs in the US are similar to US healthcare costs in that they’re very dependent on both the school/program, whether it’s private or public, and individual circumstances.
For example, many top private schools have tuition+board costs upwards of $90k/yr, now— yet if you (or your parents) bring in less than $100k-$200k/yr (again, depends on the school), tuition is completely free, with a sliding scale on incomes based above that threshold. Stanford does not even publish their total cost for a degree any more so much as a matrix to provide a ballpark estimate.
State schools often provide massive discounts for their tax-paying residents to attend. In California, that could be the difference between $20k/yr versus $70k+/yr for UCLA or Berkeley. University of Texas just announced tuition will be free for all in-state families earning less than $100k/yr going forward.
Then of course, there’s the need-based and/or merit-based scholarships, which schools may give out to entice someone they particularly want to attend, or through blanket policies to incentivize their student body: e.g. University of Southern California (tuition with board around $90k/yr now) still gives out 50%-tuition scholarships based on an objective SAT score cutoff.
That’s not to say paying full sticker price for college never happens, but there’s many options before taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. I believe the average amount of total debt per student is something like $40k, or ~10k/yr.
EDIT: most of these discounts usually only apply to US citizens; international students are often paying full sticker price, and ineligible for government-backed student loans. Some schools use this policy to have international students subsidize their domestic students, to the point that the UC system got in trouble for prioritizing international students over US ones because it was better for the balance sheet.
>I've heard students are left with hundreds of thousands in debt when they graduate.
That's very atypical. The average student loan size at graduation is around $33k to 41k. The only way you get "hundreds of thousands in debt" is if you go to an expensive private university and pay full price.
I think it's only looking at grad+. The chart right below the summary says total average loans are $60k. and that's nationwide. You need loans for more than tuiition, after all.
The answer is “it depends”. Could be zero dollars, could be $250K. Most people probably pay around $50K to get one, assuming it’s a public university and you pay the in-state tuition rate.
>So why aren’t we applying the same logic to this?
because you're going up a whole waterfall to convince anyone we live in a matriarchy. Teachers are majority female because sexism as well, on both sides (nothing gets more of a sideeye from judgy peers than being a male and saying you work with kids). and loads of DEI programs have focused on helping female student succeed. So I'm not surprised that can tilt the scales in an environment that already benefitted feminine disposition (a quiet, orderly environment that you need to sit calmly at and listen for an hour or 2).
>But if men invented all of it, why are women outperforming men? That’s the nuance that needs to be answered here. It’s not solely just intelligence. Wokeism prevents you from reasoning from the dark side, to be able to see the fundamental fact that men are the creators of tech, science and civilization.
Well if you want an inconvenient truth: men in general care a lot less about men than women about women. That's part of why that whole "sigma male grindset" and divisions within men of "alphas and betas" was able to work so easily. Men see men as competition, and there's no easier way to get blind acceptance than to pick a target and tell them that they are the reason you are miserable.
All that happens and we suddenly wonder why men are undergoing a loneliness epidemic and why its not uncommon to not hear from friends for weeks, months on end and treat that as normalcy.
