Additional trade schools, and not four-year college degrees, may be a better bet for U.S. workers, according to new economic research.
The amount of vocational training available relative to the size of a country's manufacturing sector may reduce income inequality, and improve the fortunes of workers earning below the top 10 percent of household incomes, the data show.
"Pushing more students to B.A. granting colleges may no longer be the most efficient way to deal with the challenges caused by the decline in manufacturing employment," wrote Joshua Aizenman, the economics chair at University of Southern California. He did the research with academics at New Zealand's Victoria University of Wellington.
In September 1977, about 18.3 million people, or more than 18 percent of the U.S. labor force, worked in U.S. manufacturing. Forty years later, that number has since slipped to 12.4 million, or less than 8 percent, even as the general U.S. population has surged to 326 million, U.S. Census figures show.
US workers in manufacturing (in thousands)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
But while one might suspect that fewer workers would mean decreased output, real gross domestic product (GDP) manufacturing has actually risen over the past two decades, leading to a popular conclusion that machines have simply replaced labor in the workplace.
Real GDP: Manufacturing (millions of dollars [chained to 2009])
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, retrieved from FRED
Also of note: Manufacturing's share of GDP trickled downward, as automation spread and the economy shifted toward service.
*The value added of an industry, also referred to as gross domestic product (GDP)-by-industry, is the contribution of a private industry or government sector to overall GDP.
kcox1980 on November 13rd, 2017 at 15:12 UTC »
We need to change the way we look at Trade Schools in general. When I was in high school I wanted to go to the county trade school. I was talked out of it by teachers, the guidance counselor, even my parents because I was "too smart" for trade school. I needed to go to college and be doctor or lawyer. Trade School was for the dumb kids that nobody wanted to deal with so they shipped them off to learn how to do dumb work because that was the best they would be able to do with their dumb life.
As it turned out, I didn't go to college until I was 28. Up until then I was working in dead-end factory jobs for $9-12/hr. When I finally did go back to school, it was to get an Associate's Degree in Electrical Technology, which is meant to be a stepping stone to become an electrician - something I could have learned in Trade School. Meanwhile all those "dumb kids" that went to school to learn how to be welders and masons and whatnot are all doing very well for themselves.
We have a massive divide in this country where we try to push kids with any kind of intelligence towards jobs that they aren't necessarily qualified for or interested in. These trade jobs, while they might be a little more physical labor intensive, are not "low skill" or "low intelligence" and we need to stop treating them as such.
jenskiguide on November 13rd, 2017 at 13:17 UTC »
I think, when discussing this, we need to acknowledge the complexity, too. Trade school isn't a catch all term, and a lot of the "go to trade school" rhetoric doesn't account for your need to understand which trades are in demand. Welders often make a killing, but you might already live in a city that has a boatload.
Furthermore, in America you're talking about the amount of debt required to go into uni. If Americans all flock to trade schools, will they swiftly find excuses for raising fees? Maybe.
Don't wanna tell people not to go, I'm an MSc who basically does low level plumbing for a living and makes good money. Trade school would have helped me no end.
dougbdl on November 13rd, 2017 at 11:48 UTC »
We just gotta figure out a way to make trade schools cost $150,000 then we'll do it.