Wow, the entire article doesn't mention once what the average wage for entry-level construction workers is. That's probably a huge part of the puzzle -- to omit that seems almost intentionally misleading, or at least bad journalism.
Also, construction is a job that's notoriously hard on your body. You can't count on being able to do it into your 60s like office work, and one bad accident can end your career in construction (or just flat out end you). And the work itself is hard. Pay needs to be higher than other jobs to compensate for this. I know I'd rather be, say, a Starbucks barista than a construction worker, even if the latter paid a little bit more.
[1] Construction Equipment Operators ($22/hour median)
[2] Carpenters ($22/hour median)
[3] Construction Laborers and Helpers ($16/hour median)
[4] Food and Beverage Serving ($10/hour median)
The longevity argument ignores the fact that many careers today are focusing on younger and younger workers as a means of effecting cheap labor. Easy to measure labor costs, not so easy to measure labor skill. How would you put the prospects of a 60 year old software developer looking for work?
What's the endgame for construction workers? Everyone can't move into management. Many people's bodies can't handle that kind of manual labor for 40 years, and even if they could construction jobs tend to be insecure.
If you want people to make those trade offs you have to pay more.
This kind of rhetoric from companies drives me nuts. They push to remove regulations, but when the free market says they have to pay more for labor, suddenly it's not the free market driving up wages, it's a worker shortage. Now we need the government to step in and fix it. You see it most obviously with tech companies pushing for STEM in public schools and the push for more H-1Bs.
The end game used to be wealthy retirement because it paid extremely well. And on a side note people's bodies can and do handle that kind of manual labour for 40+ years. Not all of course, some get hurt, some are not cut out for it, but go to any manual work site and you will see older people in their 50's and 60's still in excellent physical shape doing it and younger people doing the really hard shitty jobs since time immemorial.
I think this depends a lot on what type of construction you're talking about and also what trade.
Residential SFHs is different to low-rise buildings, which I assume is different again to building high-rise buildings.
It also depends on what skill you have. General labourers are likely going to be lifting heavy things a lot but I don't think that's universally true. Bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, tilers, etc all have different profiles.
I actually think that for a lot of these kinds of jobs that you could be doing them well into your 50s just fine. Being active makes it easier to stay active.
Also, if you do pursue a trade you will likely have apprentices eventually. Part of what they're for is doing the heavy lifting.
Experience in construction will eventually open up avenues such as being a general contractor, property inspection, construction management and so on.
Maybe it would be something like Tesla's model (highly automated assembly line) but for homes. Manufactured homes have been around for a long time but it's not cool. I would buy a eco-friendly modular home if were awesome.
Most of the people I know that did construction worked like dogs for six months of the year on the road, then took most of the rest of the year off. These were mostly workers for largish construction contractors, so they would go into a plant during the biannual shut downs, tear the thing apart and put it back together over the course of three weeks or a month, then move onto the next job. They tended to work a lot of hours, since it's a very tight schedule with deadlines - it costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars every day these kinds of plants aren't operating - so they'd rack up a ton of overtime, plus living on the road with housing taken care of or a per diem. It's not really that bad a gig, especially if you can live somewhere cheap the rest of the time. In a lot of ways it's very similar to people I know who are merchant marine.
After a few years they tended to have specialized into something, so they'd get a more regular job or go into business for themselves.
I'd love to work construction. But every time I've mentioned it to my family they tell me about how it will destroy my knees and back, I'll lose fingers, get hearing damage, head injuries, and the pay is crap compared to the risk.
If there was decent workplace safety (my hometown is infamous for it's poor safety standards), and a good pension program where you're expected to want to quit and do something else after 10 years or so, before your body is ruined, then I'd be all about it.
This is a big reason why unions were created in the first place. Create safer working conditions, and make it possible for people who wear their bodies out can retire.
Good point about the pension (or other retirement provision).
You won't lose fingers or lose your hearing if you take proper care. You won't destroy your back if you stay in shape. There are pressures to do the wrong thing. People can resist them. There are risks; this is why people wear hardhats and steel-toed boots on worksites. But the risks can be managed.
Many of these news stories about labour shortages could alternatively be summarized as "Company expects perpetual huge profits and people to continue to work for next to nothing"
These types of jobs eventually burn out your body.
You used to be able to buy a house and grow a family on these wages, and eventually retire. With that no longer being the case, why would anyone with choice choose this option?
My dad did these jobs his whole life. He's in still in better shape than I've ever been and has a union pension better than anything any company has ever offered me.
I've been wondering about the long term sustainability of the rise of service jobs in the developed world. If you can work in finance, law, medicine, or tech that's great. Those are all high skill, high paying jobs. Unfortunately, most people aren't cut out for them, largely due to genetic and environmental factors that they have no control over. So what is the rest of the workforce supposed to do? Work in restaurants and other low-skill, low-paying service jobs?
That doesn't seem sustainable long term. I worry that by losing goods-producing jobs like manufacturing and construction we are creating a long-term problem where people who can't produce high value services end up living an impoverished life. To some extent you could address this problem by making immigration easier which would help create more low-labor cost, goods-producing jobs, which would in-turn lead to more low-skill service jobs.
Three seconds on google suggests that they make <40k in my area, typically. That's definitely not well paid, especially for a job that's fickle and physically demanding. Hell, that's barely above minimum wage (I'm in a $15/hr area, minimum wage is $32k) - I can get an office job tomorrow paying close to the same with basically no effort.
As usual, whenever someone blames labor for labor shortages, just look at the wages. If you pay less than a waiter earns with tips while demanding more out of your workers, don't expect people to be lining up at the door. Same goes for farm labor. Same goes for teachers. Same goes for truckers. And so on.
[1] - taken from the Non-WSJ alternative in the comments below
Good point about the employment being fickle. Construction workers get screwed in pretty much every recession, the previous one being particularly bad. The only negative that happened to me in 2008 was we didn't get an annual bonus. The average construction worker saw much reduced hours over a period spanning years, or lost their job entirely. There was a huge outflow from the construction sector during that recession, disproportionately large compared to almost every other employment sector.
I love all these "Young people don't want $job_type any more". And then go on to talk about how the jobs don't pay enough, or aren't attracting talent because it's not interesting.
Over the past couple of decades the percentage of young people getting degrees has swelled, we've been encouraging everyone to get a degree. Did we expect people to remain in low paying jobs when they can do something else? Those student loans payments aren't making themselves.
The funny thing is, growing up, construction is awe-inspiring.
In my last position, I worked across the street from where they were putting up two buildings. We'd gawk over how brave they must be to be up that high on the rafters.
Same. I always love looking at buildings in various stages of construction. I designed and built a shed from scratch five years ago and it was highly enjoyable (and of course a lot of hard work). Just the amount of research to figure out how to do everything properly really satisfies that "geeking out on a new hobby" urge.
I think people underestimate how bad the whole "being outside during all four seasons" aspect of these jobs is, though. Most other jobs are indoors, whether they're highly skilled (e.g. SWE) or not (e.g. fry cook).
This seems to me primarily about the wages versus cost of living in the places where construction demand is high. I would also point to this as a death spiral for a housing bubble.
The article mentions labor commuting from Sacramento to SF where the wages are higher, thus driving up prices in Sacramento due to lack of supply. That kind of domino effect eventually makes it so SF can't get labor because the labor has shifted to live 90' outside of Sacramento and commute there instead. At some point wages do have to go up, driving up costs further in a vicious cycle.
I don't know when but I believe another broad housing market collapse is coming.
Why would they? You've spent the last 30 years telling them not to do those jobs, devaluing them with globalization and de-unionizing them to make sure those jobs don't create any kind of sustainable lifestyle for the people that do them. Someone on HN a while back gave some good advice: whenever you see "people won't do X job", append in your mind the qualifier "for Y underpaid salary/benefits package".
And part of telling them not to do those jobs was the college for everyone idea. It was a good ideal, but the problem is, going to college and getting that English 4-year degree doesn't really help you get a job that pays enough to pay off those student loans and save for retirement.
What they said on Prairie Home Companion was correct, everyone does thing their child is exceptional and should go to college instead of trade school.
The truth is, some of those people working at Starbucks for minimum page, with huge debt, would be far better off had they gone to a trade school and be pulling down serious money as an electrician, etc.
[+] [-] CydeWeys|7 years ago|reply
Also, construction is a job that's notoriously hard on your body. You can't count on being able to do it into your 60s like office work, and one bad accident can end your career in construction (or just flat out end you). And the work itself is hard. Pay needs to be higher than other jobs to compensate for this. I know I'd rather be, say, a Starbucks barista than a construction worker, even if the latter paid a little bit more.
[+] [-] wccrawford|7 years ago|reply
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Construction_Labore...
Even "Construction Worker" doesn't bring it up much ($14.75), which means there's nothing in that career directly.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Construction_Worker...
The next step in that career is to be a manager or foreman. The Foreman only gets $22.36. ($38k/yr)
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Construction_Forema...
What does a college grad make? $50k/yr.
http://time.com/money/collection-post/3829776/heres-what-the...
Carpenter, handyman and general contractor do better than construction.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Industry=Home_Renovatio...
So yeah, I'm not surprised that people aren't excited about a career in construction.
[+] [-] TangoTrotFox|7 years ago|reply
[1] Construction Equipment Operators ($22/hour median)
[2] Carpenters ($22/hour median)
[3] Construction Laborers and Helpers ($16/hour median)
[4] Food and Beverage Serving ($10/hour median)
The longevity argument ignores the fact that many careers today are focusing on younger and younger workers as a means of effecting cheap labor. Easy to measure labor costs, not so easy to measure labor skill. How would you put the prospects of a 60 year old software developer looking for work?
---
[1] - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construc...
[2] - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/carpente...
[3] - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construc...
[+] [-] burlesona|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tw1010|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] learc83|7 years ago|reply
If you want people to make those trade offs you have to pay more.
This kind of rhetoric from companies drives me nuts. They push to remove regulations, but when the free market says they have to pay more for labor, suddenly it's not the free market driving up wages, it's a worker shortage. Now we need the government to step in and fix it. You see it most obviously with tech companies pushing for STEM in public schools and the push for more H-1Bs.
[+] [-] OldSchoolJohnny|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|7 years ago|reply
Residential SFHs is different to low-rise buildings, which I assume is different again to building high-rise buildings.
It also depends on what skill you have. General labourers are likely going to be lifting heavy things a lot but I don't think that's universally true. Bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, tilers, etc all have different profiles.
I actually think that for a lot of these kinds of jobs that you could be doing them well into your 50s just fine. Being active makes it easier to stay active.
Also, if you do pursue a trade you will likely have apprentices eventually. Part of what they're for is doing the heavy lifting.
Experience in construction will eventually open up avenues such as being a general contractor, property inspection, construction management and so on.
[+] [-] Bluecobra|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megaman22|7 years ago|reply
After a few years they tended to have specialized into something, so they'd get a more regular job or go into business for themselves.
[+] [-] Kluny|7 years ago|reply
If there was decent workplace safety (my hometown is infamous for it's poor safety standards), and a good pension program where you're expected to want to quit and do something else after 10 years or so, before your body is ruined, then I'd be all about it.
[+] [-] 49531|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PantaloonFlames|7 years ago|reply
You won't lose fingers or lose your hearing if you take proper care. You won't destroy your back if you stay in shape. There are pressures to do the wrong thing. People can resist them. There are risks; this is why people wear hardhats and steel-toed boots on worksites. But the risks can be managed.
The pay remains .. a challenge.
[+] [-] OldSchoolJohnny|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tekstar|7 years ago|reply
You used to be able to buy a house and grow a family on these wages, and eventually retire. With that no longer being the case, why would anyone with choice choose this option?
[+] [-] yellowcherry|7 years ago|reply
So.
[+] [-] jeffreyrogers|7 years ago|reply
That doesn't seem sustainable long term. I worry that by losing goods-producing jobs like manufacturing and construction we are creating a long-term problem where people who can't produce high value services end up living an impoverished life. To some extent you could address this problem by making immigration easier which would help create more low-labor cost, goods-producing jobs, which would in-turn lead to more low-skill service jobs.
[+] [-] null000|7 years ago|reply
Three seconds on google suggests that they make <40k in my area, typically. That's definitely not well paid, especially for a job that's fickle and physically demanding. Hell, that's barely above minimum wage (I'm in a $15/hr area, minimum wage is $32k) - I can get an office job tomorrow paying close to the same with basically no effort.
As usual, whenever someone blames labor for labor shortages, just look at the wages. If you pay less than a waiter earns with tips while demanding more out of your workers, don't expect people to be lining up at the door. Same goes for farm labor. Same goes for teachers. Same goes for truckers. And so on.
[1] - taken from the Non-WSJ alternative in the comments below
[+] [-] CydeWeys|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mamurphy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crooked-v|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhexs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mozumder|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] conanbatt|7 years ago|reply
If land were cheaper you would see rising wages.
[+] [-] chuckgreenman|7 years ago|reply
Over the past couple of decades the percentage of young people getting degrees has swelled, we've been encouraging everyone to get a degree. Did we expect people to remain in low paying jobs when they can do something else? Those student loans payments aren't making themselves.
[+] [-] TheCoelacanth|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craig1f|7 years ago|reply
In my last position, I worked across the street from where they were putting up two buildings. We'd gawk over how brave they must be to be up that high on the rafters.
[+] [-] CydeWeys|7 years ago|reply
I think people underestimate how bad the whole "being outside during all four seasons" aspect of these jobs is, though. Most other jobs are indoors, whether they're highly skilled (e.g. SWE) or not (e.g. fry cook).
[+] [-] burlesona|7 years ago|reply
The article mentions labor commuting from Sacramento to SF where the wages are higher, thus driving up prices in Sacramento due to lack of supply. That kind of domino effect eventually makes it so SF can't get labor because the labor has shifted to live 90' outside of Sacramento and commute there instead. At some point wages do have to go up, driving up costs further in a vicious cycle.
I don't know when but I believe another broad housing market collapse is coming.
[+] [-] platz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linksnapzz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dccoolgai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e40|7 years ago|reply
What they said on Prairie Home Companion was correct, everyone does thing their child is exceptional and should go to college instead of trade school.
The truth is, some of those people working at Starbucks for minimum page, with huge debt, would be far better off had they gone to a trade school and be pulling down serious money as an electrician, etc.
[+] [-] cimmanom|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gldev3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minikites|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stealthmodeclan|7 years ago|reply