Blue Collar Careers Aren't as Easy or Available as Some Assume

I recently had to replace our range, as the old one started to produce error messages and the "cheap" repair didn't resolve the problem. Due to the fact that the original owner of this house picked a downdraft, slide-in range, I went with the most recent model of the same range. My hope was that the new range could be installed in the same manner as the old - the ventilation unit itself that sits below the range hasn't been changed. Alas... the new range was wider than the old range (and we have granite countertops) and the amount of clearance beneath the range has been reduced. So... the vent has to be reconstructed to allow for a slightly different placement of the fan and to allow the power cord to clear the vent duct.

I initially called around to try to find a handyman to cut the granite about 1/2 inch so that the oven would slide into the opening. Of the ten or so contractors I called, less than half called back and only one was willing to do (or should I say, subcontract) the work. He didn't want to send the granite subcontractor along unless he came along and, although the granite contractor was willing to charge a $200 flat fee (I expect that was a marked up rate) he wanted to accompany the granite contractor and charge a fee for the trip out and an additional hourly fee. It became pretty clear during our conversation that it was a package deal - he was not going to send the granite guy out unless he got to tag along, and that his fees for supervising were apt to meet or exceed the fees of the guy doing the work.

I took care of the cut myself - I got a dry cut diamond blade for my circular saw, put on appropriate eye, ear and hand protection and a mask, and kicked up a lot of dust. If you're going to try this at home, don't. Or if you do, I suggest using a grinder with a 4" blade instead of a circular saw, for better control. Or maybe you'll be able to rent or borrow a wet saw. The biggest problem I faced was that the guide for the saw sat over the open space, so I had to keep the saw straight and even by holding it that way rather than simply resting the bottom of the saw on the countertop. A grinder would have allowed for greater visibility of the marked line, would have been easier to control (i.e. it's a lot lighter), and likely would have made for a cleaner cut. On the whole, I'll say "not bad for a first job", but not work I'm going to be showing off to my friends. Not that I would have pulled out the range to show off the cut had it turned out better, but you know what I mean. ;-)

I got the range installed and close to level without replacing the vent pipe, but the other day I decided to complete the job. So I pulled out the range, removed the fan, and then removed an aluminum plate the original installer had placed on the wall around the hole for the vent. What did I find? Basically, the original installer had taken a hammer and knocked away the drywall, initially opening the wall in front of a wall stud and drain pipe, and then opening up a large hole to the right of that opening where the vent was installed through the wall. He had pulled all of the insulation out of that space, and cut/hammered a somewhat irregular hole through the wood and brick to the outside. He then used a dryer vent on the outside of the house instead of a proper vent cover for the range. The only thing he did to "seal" his work was to install a caulk line around the dryer vent - which is a good thing, given that he only sank two screws out of the four that were supposed to hold the cover in place. Well, that explains the drafts we would sometimes feel coming out from under the range....

And then I came across this editorial, arguing that "we" dismiss blue collar professions, but that blue collar work can potentially provide better remuneration than a college degree. Let me state up front that I agree with the overall principle - that if you're a student who has significant aptitude and interest in learning a skilled trade, it's perfectly appropriate to consider a trade instead of college - or to not give college a second thought. But at the same time, the conceit of essays such as this tends to be that college is hard but that anybody can learn and perform a skilled trade. So first and foremost, it's important to note that a lot of people in the skilled trades have associates degrees and bachelor's degrees, or have completed training or certification programs. Many skilled trades are physically demanding, and some are quite dangerous. Also, particularly at the laborer level, there's a lot of competition for jobs, sometimes from people who are willing to work for less than minimum wage.

For all I know, the guy who "installed" the vent for my range was paid less than minimum wage, cash under the table. Or perhaps he was paid a hefty installation fee, and chose to shave a couple of hours off of the job by not finishing the job properly. Or perhaps he was paid a substantial hourly wage and took a long lunch. I have no way of knowing. But I will guarantee that the homeowner paid a premium price for the "work". Expanding the pool of available laborers is not a recipe for driving up both quality and wages. It seems more likely to drive wages down without actually creating new job opportunities. You know... like the situation the author is describing for college graduates.

And the math....

At a time when unemployment is at an all-time high and college tuition continues to climb, the old formula no longer upholds. Students emerge with their hard-earned degrees and the college loans to show for it, but for what returns? The majority do not land a six-figure banking job straight out of school. According to the Economic Policy Institute, wages for recent college graduates have not grown over the last decade, and actually dropped from 2007-11. In 2011, that average was just $16.81 per hour, a figure that barely makes a dent into student debt. The average wage for high school graduates is $9.45 per hour, a figure not much lower than that of a newly-minted university graduate, especially after you factor in tuition costs as well as the four years of being out of the workforce.

First, there was never an era in which the majority of college graduates would "land a six-figure banking job straight out of school". Second, $16.81 per hour is roughly $33,620 per year, and $9.45 is roughly $18,900 per year - and the college graduate likely also gets benefits such as paid vacation and health insurance. $9.45 is roughly 59% of $16.81. The author may not see the difference between those two figures as significant, but... I do.

Blue-collar professionals like electricians are enjoying 23% job growth this decade, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They earn on average $52,910 a year, almost $10 more per hour than recent college grads, and the top 10% earn at least $82,680. Welding, light truck driving and plumbing are just some of the blue-collar fields with similar earning potential, and the vocational training required is a fraction of the cost of a college degree.

First, the fact that the average career electrician makes 10% more than a newly minted college graduate does not make for a strong case that the college graduate was foolish to pursue the degree. Also, you need to consider that union electricians earn considerably more than non-union electricians, roughly $14,000 per year more, and we know which way that trend is going. Further, work as an electrician is physically demanding work. And let's just say, the top 10% of wage earners among college graduates earn a lot more than $82,680. On the whole, plumbers earn a bit less than electricians - and let's not forget that the category includes pipefitters and steamfitters. (Talk to some of those guys about their work-related injuries.) Light truck driving pays roughly $13 per hour, without much of a career path. The "master welders make lots of money" argument isn't particularly new, never mind that a master welder has to work many years to reach that level and will have considerable knowledge of metallurgy, and never mind that you're dealing with high temperatures and molten metal, potentially toxic fumes, potentially explosive materials, and are sometimes performing that work in dangerous locations or cramped spaces. It's "blue collar" so "anybody can do it", right?

If financial freedom is your ultimate endgame, then going into business for yourself can increase earnings exponentially, a message Rich Dad, Poor Dad has been peddling since the beginning of this millennium.

In other words, the author thinks its easy to start and market a business in the skilled trades, based upon the facile analysis of a guy who is really good at hawking books? Hey - the author of the editorial is a freelance writer. How's that exponential increase in earnings coming along?

But do these blue-collar jobs lead to fulfillment? It is certainly an argument I'm sympathetic to. We are told to do what we love; the money will assuredly follow.

I suspect that the author dropped a word or two, and intended to argue that she's concerned that blue collar jobs aren't fulfilling. Well, that's going to depend on the job and the individual performing the job. Also, there are plenty of white collar jobs that are nothing but a grind. If work could be presumed to be fulfilling, they would probably call it something else. Also, I'm not sure who is saying "Do what you love and the money will assuredly follow," but somebody needs to smack them upside the head with reality.

The author concludes,

In this tight job market, we cannot afford to ignore the reality that a college degree is becoming a luxury: one that no longer translates directly to success. It is time we shed our stigmas towards "menial" workers. The irony is that their salaries – and accompanying lifestyles – are anything but.

I'm not aware of any era in which a college degree has automatically translated into financial success, which appears to be the type of success the author is focused upon. Certainly there have been times in the past when college graduates had friendlier job markets and more predictable career paths. Yes, with the cost of college education and the changes of opportunity for college graduates, college (particularly at the tuition rates of private colleges) is increasingly a luxury. Those trends should neither be ignored or diminished, and somebody thinking about college truly should consider, "What else might I do with that time and money that could result in an acceptable career and income?" An approach that is far from novel? Get a job and work while completing your education, borrowing as little money as you possibly can on your path to a degree. If you click with your job, you may even find that you don't need the degree - and if you don't, you are preparing for a future in which you have better options - and work experience.

Technically speaking, we wouldn't shed our... let's say prejudices... against blue collar workers. Yes, some people do look down on blue collar work. I recall a conversation during law school when a classmate, who was moonlighting as a janitor, was instructed by another student that people shouldn't have to do "demeaning" work like being a janitor. (Janitors aren't all that important, you know, because floors and toilets can learn how to clean themselves.) Yes, let's respect that people who work hard for a living deserve respect for their effort, no matter what their job. To me, part of that is recognizing that some of the jobs that fall into the category of "blue collar" require a level of knowledge and sophistication that can meet or exceed that of a lot of jobs that require college degrees, while also requiring significant physical effort and presenting significant risk of injury. Yes, pretty much anybody could have pounded that hole in my kitchen wall, and hidden his lousy workmanship rather than completing the job properly, but that's not the ideal.

As for the conclusion that "[blue collar] salaries – and accompanying lifestyles – are anything but".... I suspect the author means to suggest that they're not insubstantial, as opposed to not menial. Yes, you can make a decent income in certain skilled trades, but those jobs are not immune to recessions, nor are they immune to anti-union efforts. I know a lot of college graduates, and a lot of people in the skilled trades. The former group has weathered the "great recession" without much visible impact. It's harder to find a job if you're unemployed, it's harder to find a new job if you want to change jobs, but on the whole they have kept their jobs and wages. The skilled tradespeople on the other hand... a builder who had to reinvent his business, bringing in significantly lower profits, when the new housing market collapsed in his area. A finish carpenter whose business collapsed, and who ended up losing his home to foreclosure (and he does really good work. A painting, tiling and drywalling team that can't earn a living wage, because they are consistently underbid for work by people who barely know how to hold a paintbrush. They would have done an immaculate job installing that vent, were they around at the time, but... it's not only private customers who want to pay the lowest bid. Try starting and maintaining a business in that environment.

Romney Must Not Get to Michigan Very Often....

Via TPM,

This feels good being back in Michigan. Um, you know the trees are the right height. The, uh, the streets are just right.

This for a state in which people joke that that there are two seasons: Winter and "orange barrel" season. If potholes, crumbling cement and detours are your thing, yeah, "just right".

The Downside of Building Codes

The question, "Are we really better off with building codes", has spawned an interesting discussion. "Yes, but...."

The best built house on my street sold last year for considerably less than it cost to build. (I'm not sure when the last house on this street sold for more than its replacement cost, but that's another issue.) The second-best constructed house sold more recently, also for less than it cost to build. They did both sell for more than the house my wife and I purchased last year, but they're selling on par with what you would expect on a "per square foot with finished basement" basis. If you choose to build a house above and beyond code, you can't expect to get much (if any) of that investment back when you sell.

Building codes represent the minimum standard of construction, and in many ways are to home construction what domestic cars in the 1970's were to advanced automotive engineering. Yes, code improvements have increased amounts of insulation typically used and, despite it being true that there are some astonishing homes built over a century ago that put most modern homes to shame, for the most part homes are actually more solid and comfortable than they were a century ago. (It's like music - you focus on the works of art of past generation, but forget how much ended up as noise in history's scrap heap. A lot of older homes exist only due to significant renovation or have been replaced, and it's pretty easy to find older homes that are barely standing.) But if you build to code you're getting a house that's substantially less solid, less energy efficient, and less likely to last than a house that could be built based upon readily available knowledge, materials and building technologies.

I do agree that part of the problem is that it's easy to become a builder, and up until the housing crash was pretty easy to make money building and selling homes on a "maximum square feet for the money" basis using semi-skilled labor. I personally would like to see a concerted effort in developing and implementing new construction technologies that can help make housing better, longer-lasting, more energy efficient and less expensive. But I see little sign that the residential construction industry will collaborate to make that a reality, or that the government will impose something analogous to CAFE on home builders, requiring them to build better homes and thus creating an economic incentive to use, develop and implement better techniques and technologies.

Structural Unemployment vs. Structural Underemployment

A few days ago Paul Krugman made a good point on his blog, and more recently in his column, that even if you believe that structural changes have arisen that will affect the employment market, there's no basis for believing "that structural unemployment is our main problem right now".

Is it possible that there has been some rise in structural unemployment that’s swamped by a much larger rise in cyclical unemployment? Yes, conceivably. And let’s talk about that when unemployment gets below, say, 7 percent — which at current rates of progress will happen, well, never.

He draws on some depression-era analysis to support his position,

I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression; it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now. Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the work force is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs — and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.

In a big picture sense, I believe Krugman is correct. The economy will recover and unemployment will drop to a more acceptable level. The government may be able to accelerate that process through additional stimulus spending. But that said, let's not disregard the differences in the job market between the U.S. as it entered WWII and the post-war boom years and the job market of today.

Kruguman refers to a couple of studies that suggest that the collapse of the housing market did not create structural unemployment, despite the loss of jobs in the construction trades representing 25% of private sector job losses. That is, construction workers for the most part were able to find work in other fields or have left the country. But the picture is more complicated than "employed vs. unemployed". Are workers who have been displaced from relatively well-paid jobs able to find similarly paid employment? For those who have found work, the trend appears to be toward significantly lower pay and fewer benefits. Atrios has pointed out that many employers have unrealistic expectations, wanting fully-trained, experienced workers to apply in droves for jobs offering rather pathetic compensation. But let's be honest about this - the era of a blue collar middle class appears to be ending. Whenever possible, manufacturers will relocate to the nation with the lowest cost of production - and that's not ours.

Even when times are relatively good, the issue of retraining displaced older workers is problematic. The idea of transitioning from a job in which you had a decent salary to one in which you're an entry level worker is difficult enough. Add to that the fact that younger workers, new or recent entrants to the job market, may have superior skills, are on the whole healthier, and may be perceived as more flexible and less likely to resist or question management, and... it's no surprise that retraining produces weak results. Add to that the fact that retraining is often hit-or-miss - if you project future need based on present need you can quickly create a glut of workers, and if you try to guess the future needs of the job market you'll probably guess wrong.

So no, let's not throw up our hands and pretend that nothing can be done about the unemployment rate. Let's hold accountable those who prefer to do nothing, whether it's because of institutional bias, because developing solutions is hard, or because they see personal or political benefit in perpetuating the economic crisis. But at the same time, let's take a hard look at the structural issues that are eroding the middle class, and appear to be creating a population of older workers who are chronically unemployed or underemployed. To the extent that structural problems exist, Krugman's point still holds - we shouldn't shrug and say, "It's structural, so we can't change it." We should instead take a serious look at how we might create new opportunities.

The Joy of Housework?

While others (such as mythago) are lambasting Michael Pollan for his various assertions about the decline of cooking, this one caught my eye:

Curiously, the year Julia Child went on the air — 1963 — was the same year Betty Friedan published “The Feminine Mystique,” the book that taught millions of American women to regard housework, cooking included, as drudgery, indeed as a form of oppression.

Ah, yes.... 1962, the last year of the joyous scullery maid.

From the first day a rich, powerful person said, "Wow - I can hire (or force) somebody else to do this for me," few truly wealthy people have taken time out of their day to empty bedpans, beat rugs, or hover over a hot stove. The scullery maid, pretty much at the bottom of the hierarchy of household staff, would spend her entire days cleaning and scrubbing... 14, 16, 18 hour days. But until Friedan came along, how was she to know that hers was an unhappy lot, as opposed to a life of endless joy? I mean, c'mon.

I don't so much mind people being wistful for "the good old days", and Pollan's hardly the first to imagine a version of "the good old days" that never actually existed. But seriously - has he ever picked up a broom, changed a diaper, cleaned a toilet, mopped a floor? Did somebody have to teach him that housework can be drudgery, and that as you approach scullery maid level it's unquestionably oppressive? If so much joy is to be found, why didn't men step in the moment women gave them the opportunity?

Pollan describes glorious memories of watching his mother cook, something he sees as more elevated than watching a cooking show on television, but something that apparently didn't inspire him to pick up a spatula or a mixing spoon. Watching my mother cook (I joke cruelly) was a bit like watching one of Snape's potions classes in a Harry Potter movie. Okay, I exaggerate, but I did pick up that mixing spoon, and made my first scratch cake from a Betty Crocker recipe when I was seven. (And yes, it was good.) Pollan suggests that cooking is like an alchemic science that can be lost in a generation. But recipes are plentiful, and honestly, following one isn't particularly hard. What we truly lack, as Pollan concedes, is time.

I don't watch cooking shows as a general rule, but I have occasionally been drawn in, and have at times picked up ideas or techniques that have improved my own cooking. I enjoy cooking. But that's not to say I easily confuse the type of cooking I enjoy with the type of cooking Pollan describes - planning a dinner party, picking recipes, doing something creative or difficult, and having everything come out beautifully can be incredibly rewarding. I don't claim to be a chef - I'll stick with "cook" - but as mythago (who makes my kitchen skills look downright pedestrian) points out, real people don't have the time, money or energy to cook like that every day, let alone three times per day.

Pollan does know that - he lovingly describes his mother's Chicken Kiev, but implicitly acknowledges that it's a "special occasion food" that can be eaten every day only when you outsource the labor - and even then, shouldn't be eaten every day ("When we let corporations do the cooking, they’re bound to go heavy on sugar, fat and salt".) But that means, outside of those special occasions, we're not really following Julia Child's lead. We're talking about cooking that's much more ordinary.

When you map out the week by "spaghetti night, meat loaf night, chicken night," etc., week after week, the joy of cooking quickly dissipates. (In Pollan's view, where making sandwiches isn't "cooking", should "spaghetti night" count as cooking? When Pollan's mother made spaghetti, did she make her own sauce? Her own pasta?) It's difficult to come up with a creative, flavorful succession of recipes that you can prepare in the thirty or forty minutes between when you get home from work and when you need to get a plate of food in front of your kids. When you work as much as we do in this culture, sometimes it's hard to scrounge the time and energy to boil water for the spaghetti and warm up a jar of sauce. It's no wonder, and no fault of women, that we turn to convenience foods.

The question is, Can we ever put the genie back into the bottle? Once it has been destroyed, can a culture of everyday cooking be rebuilt? One in which men share equally in the work?

Why am I asking if spaghetti night counts as cooking? Powell alludes to something he calls "real scratch cooking", a concept he doesn't define but that he clearly sees as excluding certain cooking short-cuts - perhaps not Minute Rice, as he excused his mother for using that product, but including unspecified prepared ingredients that make cooking faster and easier. I made chicken, broccoli and quinoa for tonight's dinner. Was it "real scratch cooking" even though I used a commercial marinade? If not, would it have been "real scratch cooking" had I made my own marinade, but included a commercial soy, teriyaki or Worcestershire sauce in the marinade? I added some garlic powder and chicken bouillon to the quinoa; should I have used fresh garlic or made my own chicken stock to make it "real scratch cooking"? Should I be embarrassed that I know what quinoa is, even though I learned about it from a nutritionist and not a TV show? I put some butter on my daughter's broccoli, but to my shame I didn't churn it myself.... (I'll leave to mythago the discussion of whether I should have slaughtered and plucked my own chicken.) Seriously, at some point everybody tries to save time and labor. Even grandma had somebody else grind her flour.

With a definition of "cooking" that includes making sandwiches and grilling burgers, Pollan tells us that men "are cooking more today than ever before: about 13 percent of all meals". If he can get that number up to 50%, while women hold steady, won't his goal pretty much be achieved? If only Betty Friedan hadn't convinced, um, men that cooking (and housework) are drudgery. I'm personally of the opinion that the dominance of men in the kitchens of fine restaurants has nothing to do with innate skill, and is primarily the result of a culture that expects women to cook food to feed a family while allowing men to approach the kitchen as experimenters and hobbyists. If you want more Americans to return to the kitchen, you need to be honest about what you're asking them to do, and that includes being honest with yourself that there's drudgery involved (even if you can convince your spouse or kids to wash the dishes).

Powell is correct that today's food culture is aimed at mass market consumerism and instant gratification - which means it's not really different from anything else in our consumer culture. If you think about cooking, there's a huge component of chemistry. (Switch alkalized cocoa for natural cocoa in a typical recipe without adjusting the rising agent, and you'll see what I mean.) Modern corporations have turned food production into something that doesn't really resemble cooking, but produces (artificially) flavorful, (artificially) aromatic food items that are incredibly calorie dense. (Absent artificial odors and flavors, I suspect the typical fast food burger would smell and taste like cardboard, if that good.) No, our nation's diet is not on a healthy course, but the solution is not to besmirch sandwich-making as "not really cooking", to guilt-trip women or to pretend that we can recapture either the hours in a day we spend at work or a bygone era that exists primarily in rebroadcasts of 1950's-era TV sitcoms and our imaginations.

I don't feel guilty that for lunch, yesterday, I bought a salad composed of locally grown, flavorful vegetables (that I did not grow myself) with fresh feta (that I did not make myself), nor that the day before, when a visitor and her children unexpectedly desired a meal, I made sandwiches - good ones - from what I had on hand. (Pollan's correct that the "make a meal in thirty minutes out of the ingredients at hand, whatever they happen to be, perhaps including string cheese" situation doesn't arise in a professional kitchen, but it sometimes does arise in mine - and I wouldn't be surprised if it arose at times in his mother's.)

Let me offer Pollan an idea for his next column. It used to be common for men to build their own homes, often with the help of neighbors. There are a ton of shows on home improvement all over the networks, and between the Internet and television you can easily collect the information you need to build your own home from the ground up. Yet somewhere along the line, men apparently decided it was drudgery, or even oppressively difficult and time-consuming, to build their own homes, and now pretty much everybody busy homes built by others. Was this due to the release of Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House - shame on Cary Grant? Did "This Old House" transform home building "from something you do into something you watch" - shame on Bob Villa?

Or perhaps it's that with increased specialization of labor, diminished spare time, a desire to have a home that's nicer than you could build yourself, and the ready availability of builders to whom you can outsource your construction and home renovation needs, people have chosen an easier, less time-consuming, more gratifying path. If you don't like to cook, or simply don't have the time, you shouldn't be expected to feel guilty about it.