Hold on now, it was you making the claim that Smokie's article was erroneous and hack journalism. I do believe that the onus is on you to prove it. I have read many articles talking about a lack of good labor in good paying (but difficult) jobs. I have also heard personally of people who have spent a small fortune on "the college experience", getting a degree in something that has limited prospects (such as humanities, arts, philosophy, anthropology, or art history), and needing decades to pay off their debt. There is has definitely been a looking down the nose of skilled labor jobs for decades, and I think that might be slowly changing now that people are starting to realize that lots of white collar jobs might be outsourced to India or lost to AI. That's really as far as I feel like going on this, as I think the thesis of Smokie's post is on solid ground, and I am not as emotionally invested in this particular topic as you seem to be. If you feel strongly to the contrary and have the receipts, have at it.
Didn't I? I said that Rowe is not a credible source (should be obvious), and I explained the CIS's issues. If you want more information on how the CIS is a junk organization, check out the Wikipedia page. Let me assume this question is being asked in good faith. If you look at the award dataset from IPEDS and the income dataset from NCES, roughly 5 million degrees were awarded in 2023. Subjectively, I found roughly 1 million as "useless" degrees. Natural Resources and Conservation Architecture and Related Services Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services Engineering Engineering/Engineering-related Technologies/Technicians Legal Professions and Studies Biological and Biomedical Sciences Mathematics and Statistics Military Technologies and Applied Sciences Physical Sciences Science Technologies/Technicians Psychology Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, Firefighting and Related Protective Services Public Administration and Social Service Professions Social Sciences Construction Trades Mechanic and Repair Technologies/Technicians Precision Production Transportation and Materials Moving Health Professions and Related Programs Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services "Useless degrees": Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, and Group Studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Communication, Journalism, and Related Programs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Communications Technologies/Technicians and Support Services 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Culinary, Entertainment, and Personal Services 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Education 1, 3, 4, 6 Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Family and Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 English Language and Literature/Letters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Liberal Arts and Sciences, General Studies and Humanities 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Library Science 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Parks, Recreation, Leisure, Fitness, and Kinesiology 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Philosophy and Religious Studies 1, 3, 6 Theology and Religious Vocations 1, 3 Visual and Performing Arts 3, 6 History 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 1 = At age 40-44, median makes more than the median non-college 2 = At age 40-44, median makes more than the 90th percentile non-college 3 = Median lifetime net worth > median lifetime net worth non-college (projected) 4 = Median lifetime net worth > 80th-percentile lifetime net worth non-college (projected) 5 = At age 40-44, 20th-percentile makes more than median non-college 6 = 20th percentile net worth > median non-college net worth (projected) Keep in mind that many of these people will pursue higher degrees. I couldn't find exact numbers on this (because datasets on graduate enrollment use different categories), but liberal art students make up at least 70% of JDs, 30% of MBAs, and shockingly, 18% of MDs. Roughly 6% of those students will complete a Ph.D., which I consider to be inherently valuable. Notes: 1) I had to collapse certain majors under NCES for it to match IPEDS 2) A potential flag is that the income numbers are cobbled from different datasets. However, for various reasons, I think this actually inflates the non-college number. 3) Note that immigrants who went to an American university and subsequently worked in America are included in the college dataset. But for has "high school diploma but no college degree", I'm not sure how they are handling foreigners. I don't think it's just "American high school diplomas." 4) Obviously, I am looking at past earnings to make claims about future earnings, but any projected earnings would have their own issues and problems. 5) For net worth, I could only find projected data. Instinctively, I feel it's too sanguine (but all the way down). But using backwards data would also be skewed; how comparable is the net worth of a V&P graduate who turned 65 in 2013 to someone who graduated in V&P that year? Honestly, the methodology in this section was too much, and I'm not going to go into it for an internet post. 6) Regarding trends, 8 years ago, I did an analysis of degrees awarded by major for the 2015 year, and the numbers track favorably in the sense that the "non-useless" degree number appears to be going down, with most categories going down in number. It appears that gender studies degrees peaked in 2015! 7) The numbers do surprise me a little; not sure if they "make sense". How can people with degrees in education be doing so well? Brian Caplan's point that college can largely function as a signaling exercise could provide some insight there. 8) Debt numbers were shockingly low. Average graduate with debt is somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000, depending on the source. 9) Graduate degrees FTW. You get a graduate degree in anything, and you are multiple standard deviations ahead of the median non-college earner. Says the guy referring to anecdotes and feelings...
This feels like you are searching for a way not to have a discussion. Oh well! I don't think I've been rude to anyone; I think Smokie misunderstood my point, which is understandable since I wasn't super clear in my criticism, and you were the one who fired the first barb at me.
You were a dick to both of us. Whether you think so is immaterial. You may think Smokie's post is crap. Good on you. The FACT remains that there is a shortage of skilled labor in this country, and any attempt to achieve what Trump is trying to do will require massive change in that area. Whatever you think of Mike Rowe aside, he's right. You wanna zero in on my "useless diploma" comment like a bloodhound? I could not care less. I might have been a bit carelessly vague with my examples, but I am not here to get into a big pedantic pissing contest with you. I have better things to do.
No, I wasn't focusing on your useless diploma comment. I was making my own comment (useless degree)! I was using it in quote because I didn't want to offend people but didn't know what other terminology to use. I didn't want to use non-STEM because many non-STEM degrees are obviously useful. And I only phrased it that way because I wanted to establish that some degrees are obviously worth it and hence I didn't have to prove it. Would you consider that you have the chip, tendentiously analyzing any comment as some insult against you? It's like you are looking to get offended... I agree the US lacks skilled labor, but that includes skills which require a college degree or more. I'm honestly not sure about a lack of plumbers, electricians, welders, etc. I fear that automation, robots, and AI are coming for those jobs. Maybe it's the artists who will thrive...
Well....when I created this little thread my reservation was it might slip into a politics focused topic vs a policy topic. I clearly never thought an article with some guy named "Mike Rowe" would be the flashpoint. To maybe help diffuse the issue, I appreciate rolexian responding to clarify what he meant and at least offering the olive branch. Also, RTN for defending the original posted intent that I put up as a general discussion. I appreciate both of those things.
I think maybe we are possibly getting some layers peeled back on the "trade deals." This is just my opinion on observing and reading some of the information. Of course, that information changes often and sometimes is not real clear. Obviously, "trade deals" are extensive, time consuming documents. I think what we are seeing is early "framework" for actual official trade deals to be considered/negotiated over time. This is not to suggest that the framework is futile, but even an official trade deal has to start somewhere and have a starting point. When you look back at the description, comments by staff, the large number of countries involved, and the timeline involved....it really can't be anything else. My takeaway so far. These will be initial offers by countries of what they may/may not be willing to do. I think the administration will review those and determine what "rate" they will work towards based on whatever the offer contains. These will be referred to as "trade deals", but in reality will just be the framework to work towards a more official document. The official deal may take many, many months. It may take some years. There may even be some that never get followed up on. It will be the intent of countries putting forth those ideas on paper with a "commitment" to work further on the issue. It is also important to remember these are in force by executive order....I believe. This could very well mean their lifespan goes only as far as the executive who issued them. Somebody else may feel differently down the road. Maybe they will live with them or maybe they will not. Depends on the outcome. The other lever is the economy here and elsewhere. Will these tariffs change the implementation as designed? In other words, whether we or the administration think they are good/bad, will the economy, consumers, and businesses really be the ultimate jury? My answer....I think so. If it turns out these things begin to work their way into the data and things begin to have a negative outcome, it will be hard for the politicians to want to own that and have it branded to their hide. To also be fair, if it turns out to be a boom for us and others, they can spike the football and take a victory lap.
This thread is now the perfect example of why I will not discuss politics on this broad. That did not take long. it never does. Sorry I could not resist. And......sorry to butt in on this thread and the interesting discussion. That said....I am glad to see this thread on the board for anyone to discuss tariffs in detail and with all the nuances......and I have been reading it. So please continue.
If you want to bring back manufacturing, then cut regulations, reduce taxes, and increase infrastructure spending. Even though this may not be sufficient, it would be the best path forward. Tariffs or trade bans for moral or FP reasons could be understandable, but we know by now that they always increase economic inefficiency. When trying to bring prosperity (to a country that is already very prosperous, with low unemployment and a system that benefits massively from cheap foreign goods) via tariffs, you are implicitly hoping to get a bigger piece of a smaller pie. I repeat: tariffs and trade bans are doing to ourselves what we do to our enemies.
An article about the first containers arriving with the 145% tariff. Looks like Home Depot, Amazon, Samsung, LG, Tractor Supply, IKEA, Procter/Gamble and Ralph Lauren all have freight on this one. Some interesting items....and expensive at this point. State of Freight First Chinese freight ship goods hit with Trump’s 145%-plus tariffs arriving at U.S. ports (CNBC) The first shipping containers carrying Chinese products that are subject to President Donald Trump’s 145% tariffs have begun arriving in U.S. ports. Seven container ships that sailed from China after those tariffs took effect have arrived at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, in California. Five more such ships are scheduled to arrive there in coming days. Amazon, Home Depot, Ikea, Ralph Lauren and Tractor Supply are among the companies with Chinese goods in these containers, spanning a wide range of consumer items. In addition to housewares, apparel, and furniture, Amazon imported a wide variety of products on behalf of sellers, including refrigerators, deep fryers, mousepads, bookshelves and living room sofas. Tractor Supply shipments include portable drum fans, garden tools, and men’s work boots. Lamps and ceiling fans have been processed through customs for Home Depot. A Tractor Supply spokesperson referred CNBC to its recent earnings call on April 24 when the company pointed to “notable uncertainty” as a result of the tariffs. “Tractor Supply is actively working with its vendor and supply chain partners to navigate the impact of recently announced tariffs, while also monitoring the broader macroeconomic factors impacting its customers,” the spokesperson said. Ikea furniture; Speedo swim goggles and swim caps; Procter & Gamble tissue holders; Samsung printed circuit boards, microwaves and refrigerator parts; Ralph Lauren sweaters, cashmere, and blazers; Dr. Martens Airwair footwear; Samsung microwaves and refrigerator parts; LG washing machines, air conditioners, ranges, refrigerators and dishwashers; Bauer Hockey sporting goods; Lenovo computer parts; auto parts for Valeo North America; and headsets and computer keyboards for Polaris, were all among the Chinese container goods. For many of the companies, products in categories deemed as essential to replenish are brought in despite concerns about consumer demand and an economic slowdown. Amazon said in a statement sent by email that it is working with its “broad, varied range of valued selling partners in our store to support them in adapting to the evolving environment while maintaining broad selection and low prices for customers.” Home Depot is in a quiet period ahead of announcing its quarterly results, and referred CNBC to an existing statement citing “a fluid environment.” “We, together with our vendors, are monitoring developments and will work closely to manage with the goal of being our customers’ advocate for value,” a Home Depot spokesperson said. Chinese freight container traffic decline Trump suggested on Friday, ahead of key trade talks, that he was willing to lower tariffs on China to 80%, a rate many businesses would likely still consider to be extremely high. “80% Tariff on China seems right! Up to Scott B,” Trump said in a Truth Social post, referring to a planned meeting between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and counterparts from China in Switzerland this weekend. Brian Bourke, global chief commercial officer at SEKO Logistics, told CNBC that his clients continue to struggle in understanding how all of the various tariff provisions are stacked, or in some cases cancel each other out. “This confusion has led them to continually alter and update their scenario planning, freezing any other decisions for the business they would be making,” said Bourke. “Many of our clients priced and sold their products or projects prior to the tariff amounts being announced, and with the speed and severity as well as the quantity of new tariff provisions being announced, they are not able to change the pricing on items that have already sold and are arriving in May and June, or beyond.” The number of freight vessels and shipping containers headed to the U.S. from China has plummeted since the tariffs announcement in early April. Across the Asia-North America West Coast and Asia-North America East Coast trade routes, there was a total of 90 blank sailings across April and May, according to Sea-Intelligence. The Ocean Alliance (a freight consortium including Chinese-owned and operated COSCO and OOCL, Taiwan-based Evergreen, and French-owned CMA) accounted for 48 of those canceled sailings. Bookings are down anywhere from 30% to 50%, according to logistics providers and ocean carriers. According to the Global Port Tracker report released on Friday by the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates, import cargo at the nation’s major container ports is expected to see its first year-over-year decline since 2023 as a result of the tariffs. In addition to decreased vessel sailings as a result of paused manufacturing orders from shippers and fewer containers to fill, ocean carriers are using smaller vessels to move trade. MSC, the largest ocean carrier in the world, along with the Gemini Alliance (comprised of Maersk and Hapag Lloyd), are among the freight companies using smaller vessels between the Asia-North America West Coast routes. MSC has reduced its container capacity by 28% year-over-year, according to Sea-Intelligence data analyzing the impact of canceled sailings and vessel changes, while Ocean Alliance container capacity is down by 26% year-over-year. Bourke said once shippers have finished bringing in what they consider essential stocks, they are in various degrees of “wait-and-see” mode with their supply chains, and continuing to cancel orders from China, which has led to widespread fears about product shortages and the potential for empty shelves. “What happens when safety stocks that had been built up disappear?” Bourke said.
The US-UK "trade deal." This is a bit interesting, and is a "non-binding agreement." Kind of underwhelming to say the least. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/fi ... v%20v2.pdf And if anyone wants to check out the source or check up on some of these things at some point, I suppose this link might help. https://ustr.gov/
