PHeller wrote: What I was getting at is that it seems both a cushy office job and a blue-collar hands on job can have negative affects on our physical health.
So, you're saying that work in general can have a negative effect on health? Once there was a time that not working had a negative effect on health, but I think that was in "the olden days."
'A little hard work never killed anyone.' -My dad, numerous times.
Not necessarily work, but lethargy of both body and mind. I'm sure back in the olden days, they didn't consider sitting in office, regardless of salary, as "hard work."
Being only 29 I haven't been able to decide which I like more, sitting in office or digging holes. I do know one thing, I certainly enjoyed getting paid (pennies) to walk around for an entire summer.
GameboyRMH wrote: Don't go into anything IT/CompSci related unless you live in one of the "hot spots" (SF/NY/Austin/Boston) and have "connections." Total E36 M3show otherwise, as BoxheadTim pointed out.
That's not quite true - with the right skills, you're still able to earn more than the local average. I'd actually advise against the hot spots, mainly because the salaries reflect the cost of living, but not necessarily to the full extent. I can probably earn about 30-40% more if I moved to Silly Valley, but the difference in cost of living is considerably more than that.
The problem is that the entry level with associates degrees and those "coding schools" (learn how to be a hot coder in 6 six months!) churn out a lot of graduates that compete with the entry level developers who have BA/BSc/MS degrees and that's how you end up with the shoddy jobs for not much pay.
UPS driver. You'll bust your butt, but you'll make $40-$60K per year and get great benefits.
PHeller wrote: Where did you hear that? I've worked with quite a few Surveying Techs turned drafters. They didn't care for working out in the weather. Felt they were underpaid and doing drafting paid better and was easier. The other thing is the time needed to reach various licensing requirements. From what I can tell its at least 4 years as a SIT after passing an SIT exam.
I've heard that both from the surveyor I worked for in Davidson, NC and the guys I work with now across WV, PA, and OH. Very few people are willing to sit for the exam. Which I understand from my EIT experience. For me, it was the perfect job while in college. Decent pay, constantly outside, a lot of in-state travel, and honestly not a ton of "hard" work. A lot of walking and standing. It did require more than one brain cell to do the work however. I called every surveyor in the phone book when I was looking for summer work back in '04. One called me back, and I worked with him through college. He basically told me that finding decent people willing to work, and learn the trade was next to impossible to find.
Downsides was angry land owners, the extreme NC heat/humidity, bees, snakes, poison ivy.
I have dug holes for a living for 17 years. Now I manage people that dig holes for a living. I'm still out in the field 90% of the time but I don't have to actually dig the holes anymore. My body is used up though, I'm not sure I could cut it if I had to go back to doing the actual work anymore.
If this job disappears I'm not sure what I'll do. Start over in another field at less than half the money I've been making for the last six years?...I don't know...
PHeller wrote: I want a job that involves walking. Not turning wrenches or swinging hammers. Not crouching or kneeling. Not digging holes or lifting heavy objects. Just walking. Our bodies are made for lots of walking. I'm sure neolithic man probably spent as much time walking as he did sleeping and probably more time doing both than sitting. I thought about what types of jobs are out there that are most natural. Hand farming, probably. Hunting, definitely. Personal trainer, maybe. Surveying is probably pretty natural. Carry gear while walking, occasionally sit to draw up some plans, and then its back to walking again, and occasional use of hand tools. That sounds a lot like a primitive lifestyle.
Not hand farming for sure. That was one of the first highly "unnatural" things mankind did. Gathering, sure, but not actual farming.
Dr. Hess wrote: OK, mfennel, I'll Call: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-17/what-san-fran-fed-did-not-tell-you-about-student-debt and raise you: and http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-18/net-worth-college-grads-student-debt-20-less-high-school-grads-no-debt
Zerohedge, huh? All big and bold and stuff at the top:
the median net worth of "young" households, those where the head is younger than 40 years old, is $8,700, or 20% less than not college educated households with no student debt.
Which is a completely useless, out of context data point. TWO thousand dollars separate the net worth? BFD. At 40, we're talking about people with 25 years of earning potential. What are their current salaries? Their standards of living?
So I looked at the SOURCE the zerohedge document used.
Sure, the net worth was worse (TWO whole thousand dollars) for college educated with student debt but those same people were making EIGHTY PERCENT MORE INCOME. I suppose pointing that out doesn't fit the zerohedge author's narrative.
College is part of the long game. I'm sorry you feel like you got a raw deal.
You'll need to log in to post.
