pappyo's comments

You're not capturing all the expenses to car ownership:

Insurance Fuel/charging Excise tax Parking Maintenance Cleaning

And most importantly, the hassel to deal with the above.

Any cognitive advantage that is abused will be seen as manipulative, absolutely. The way to make "the illusion of choice" work is to be selective about it. You start out by giving the 4 year old the illusion of choice (the jacket or the sweater), but what you're really doing is coaching the child to make appropriate decisions. After a few times, you won't have to give the child the choice anymore, because they will know the parameters of the choices for the challenge facing them. You could simply say "let's get ready to go out."

Same thing with a boss. (S)he can use this cognitive tool to coach good decisions. People like choice and they like being right. Using this method allows for both.

I wonder though, how much influence fake news had on people, not help people choose who to vote for, but to dissuade them to vote at all. A sort of unpropaganda, if you will. This election got so far into the Tyson Zone[0] that the headlines of fake news became hard for even well informed citizens to parse. Fake news could have provided a chilling effect that influenced the election.

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

[0] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tyson%20Zone

You said you were a financial adviser to blue collar field owners. I'm presuming past tense (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious as to when your experience with blue collar professionals happened if not currently.

I say that because pre 2007, the picture you paint with the experiences you had with these people seem accurate and in lock step with their employees. Those were the same interactions I had working a blue collar job during that time. The housing bubble was the gravy train. Pay was good. Work was plentiful. Raises were frequent. Perks were ample. I heard that across housing related fields.

Post recession has been a different story altogether. And it's been these times which caused me to spit vitriol and emotional strawmans at less than well-thought-out statements.

While I agree with you that we have no idea what has caused a stagnate wadge among many blue collar industries, the "why" is something for academics. It is, we agree. And there isn't much to evidence to refute it. Which is why I find your argument confusing. You readily admit that wadges stagnate, yet are befuddled as to why the unemployed don't flock to these available jobs. An information gap? These days? Seems dubious.

It would seem you have your riddle to solve.

One step you could take towards solving that riddle is ask those in your circles (and yes, I'm sure our circles are different) what their entry level employee turnover rate is. There will be a lot of revealing information in that question, provided they answer you truthfully.

And maybe you can square this circle for me.

Wadges have stagnated (agreement). Housing market turned around in 2012 and is now booming in most parts of the country (my assessment, but if you need proof, I'm happy to provide).

Where did that money go if not to the laborer? Rising costs ate away at everything? Really? I guess I'll need sources for that.

And look, I've heard many a story from many an owner/job provider. My experience has been, the true craftsmen who made it, work in small skilled teams and had (admittedly) good breaks. I love those guys, and am genuinely envious.

The financially successful ones are innate salesmen and have no qualms with watering down the product to boost profits. They're the ones quick to tell you their tale of perseverance and self-sacrifice (maybe these guys are in your circles?). They could also teach Machiavelli a lesson or seven.

So forgive my experience. It's all I got.

Oh heavens...where to start.

> 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.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

Right, and I think you've pointed out the real problem...impending inflation.

> But no one seems to want them, and the reasons have nothing to do with low pay, poor benefits, or a lack of available training.

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.

[0] http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472152.htm [1] http://city-salaries.careertrends.com/l/116610/Plumbers-Pipe...

I haven't had the opportunity to have a seven bone chuck steak. I'll have to give it a try. Thanks!

> The top of the SUV analogy is nice, but realistically most burgers are not terribly subtle flavor experiences coming from the brilliance of the meat substrate.

Are we talking about fast food burgers? Then yes, flavor country lives in the lab, not the burger. But this article seemed to be strongly hinting at a meat substitute, not just a burger substitute for fast food chains (which I agree with you, would be wonderful). If the flavor experience isn't coming from the meat, than why is it so hard to find a widely excepted meat substitute?

That's why it seems strange the author loaded up their burger with exquisite toppings to taste the meat.

Ho! A learning opportunity. I know you're a vegetarian, but maybe this might interest you...or someone.

The chuck sub-primal cut is the shoulder of the cow. As you can imagine, the shoulder gets a lot of use while the cow is alive, so there is a lot of connective tissue which makes the cut tough (fwiw the muscles that are rarely used are the most tender to eat) However, a cow being a cow and not a horse, there is a good amount of fat interspersed within the cut. So while the cut is hard to eat like a typical steak, it has a wonderful meat to fat ratio which gives it good flavor if cooked properly (think stews and roasts). That ideal fat to meat ratio, combine with the grind making it more palatable, the ease of (mass) producing, and low price point for the cut, make it the cut of choice by distributors.

I know why chuck, I was just being snarky. :)

I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know what, the good people of Impossible Foods, are doing. Way over my head. What I do know is recreating nature is hard work, with limited success.

Meat enthusiast here. There is no one who wants a viable meat alternative for meat eaters than me. The bleeding heart (pun intended) in me cares about the sustainability of meat and the sheer cost of ethical farming. Fact of the matter is though, I won't give up eating meat. I love it, so so much. And I have a leery eye towards meat substitutes. This product for example:

- How well does this product replicate the Maillard Reaction [0]? This is key when we're talking about taste and texture.

- Why did the author taste the burger with 82 toppings slathered on top by a professional chef? That's like testing out a new 21 speed, strapped to the top of an SUV.

- Why are they (presumably) trying to recreate chuck? Ground chuck is a terrible thing to replicate. It's like burger meat designed by committee[1].

- Is the sizzle coming from only extracted water from the plant burger (water vapor, decreasing heating temp)? Or are their lipids present spiking the flame, positively contributing to the cooking process?

That said, I'd love to give it a shot. Proper seasoning, a nice medium rare with a slice of American. But I'm not holding my breath. Meat is very hard.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction [1]: http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2009/10/the-burger-lab-b...

Not what I'm saying at all. Although...maybe at some point in the future, a CS degree will be useless. It's certainly not now, nor will it be in the near future. But it certainly could happen.

Regardless, I'm pointing out the problems with the push for wide spread vocational education. My worry is the usefulness of such an education will have diminishing returns over the life of the recipient of the education, and that decay will be wide spread among many industries.

Look how fast industries and markets change now. Compare that to how long any given vocational education takes to accomplish plus the working lifespan of its recipient. The math doesn't add up to me.

Right, so my hypothetical was more to show the lack of ability for the average person to predict the future...not actually predicting it.

And that's the biggest flaw I see with a vocational education. It's preparing yourself tomorrow for the workforce of today. It can work, but be ready to be out of a job in an instant.

I think you just pointed out the problem with vocational education. Going to law school is a vocational education, as is getting an education to become a mechanic. Vocational educations take years (sometimes almost a decade) to complete. From the time you start your vocational education to the time you finish it, the market can drastically change (see Law and nursing). That lucrative job that you thought was waiting for you...isn't. What then?

What happens to mechanics if cars become fully automated? Will we need that many mechanics?

As it turned out, a lot stayed with me. I got the basics down so I know the general plight of a programmer. I understand how long things can take to fix. I know what it means to be working with someone else's code. I run a linux machine. I hit ctrl-u from time to time. I set up the occasional CRM with ease. I'm not scared of the command line. I can more or less slog my way through fixing my machine through google searches if need be.

So..you know...some.

Because you've turned a "neighborhood" into an "investment property." Neighborhoods develop culture. Investment properties develop nothing other than capital that leaves the neighborhood.

What happens when the Silicon Valley boom is over? What happen to those neighborhoods? I guess that's not your problem.

Here's what I don't get. In previous versions of HN, my submission would be directed to the original. Why doesn't that happen any more?

There is something to be said for in person peer to peer learning.

My biggest problem was, I'd get hung up on a problem in some bizarre way. Often times when I'm learning in teacher to student only environment (or machine teacher and student), the teacher will notice the mistake, but have a hard time identifying the train of thought that got me there in the first place. Students have an easier time identifying mistaken amateur thought processes and fixing them. A typical (or automated) teacher is so far removed from amateur thought processes, they have a hard time empathizing.

Where online learning systems fall short is the peer to peer. Yes, there are usually forums where students can communicate with each other. But it is lacking. The biggest problem students have with each other is misunderstanding. In a classroom, sitting next to another student, that misunderstanding usually only takes a few minutes, tops, to resolve. In an online forum, that misunderstanding could take days, frustrating students and forcing them to drop the class.

I'm not sure if a video would help for someone like me. The problem is you're trying to streamline a process in how people learn. But people learn in all different ways. Accounting for all the different ways is hard. While I'm sure your video would work for some, chances are it won't work for most.

I agree, but we as a society should still have a say in how we curtail our wildness. It would appear that our say has been taken away, or at least hijacked, recently.