>Who considers 55-60k "high paying" especially when the job contains potential life threatening risks and other health issues.

These interviews are with apprentices! They're still in training and they're make $55k+ with benefits.

Depending on the trade, an apprenticeship usually lasts 3-5 years, with pay increasing along the way. By the end you'll be a journeyman, earning probably 50% more per hour. If you're a specialist or a leader (foreman), you'll get more pay on top of that. Call it an average 4 years, that's a six-figure advantage over someone who went to college, assuming they invest nothing and the college student pays in cash.

Being union and hourly also means they will get overtime when the crunch comes. And it will. An executive somewhere will always change their mind and decide they want Y instead of X.

>I wouldn't do much of that dangerous and exhausting work for double that pay range and I would still make less money than I do sitting at a desk now.

Industrial construction work in particular can be hard, but I wouldn't call it exhausting. You get less of a workout than you would in the gym—you need to be able to do it 40 hours a week, after all.

>I can put in <35 hrs a week, run errands during the day, work from home in my underwear, meet friends for long lunches.

Back when I was in an industrial trade, I could show up to work, do my job and that was it. I'd go home with a nice gloss of sweat on me, take a shower, and feel good. I took zero stress home with me. I looked damn good.

Most importantly to me, though, at the end of the job, when I was talking to someone or just reflecting on my own work, I could point to a hotel, an office tower, a bridge, a federal building, and so on, and say, "We built that. I built that." And I did. And it felt good.

Median (personal) income in the US is $31,000:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

So approximately everybody should consider twice that "high paying".

(fixed the number, was $32,000)

Using national numbers isn't really useful. The case study of the $50k ironworker in Seattle is well below the median for that city which has a median income of $80k.

And the 50k worker in the story is 20 years old. I'm sure he has a lot of potential salary growth.

Or a chance at destroying their body by the age of 35.

That $80k is household income.

Keep in mind the median full-time income is about $52,000 for a 40 hour per week job. The median full-time income for average hours (which is lower than 40), is about $45,000.

That $31,000 median figure includes all the people working part-time. It substantially disorts what your expectations should be for full-time labor in the US.

But presumably some of these are bright kids who could make that rate on their sophomore year engineering internship. It'd be silly not to attend university and instead do the $60k trade route for most of the HN audience.

The type of kid that can make $30k in a sophomore internship is the same type of kid that will end up running their own $TRADE company making a 6 or 7 figure annual income.

What makes you think the skills required for both of those are the same?

At a certain level of abstraction, intelligent and sociable people who can get things done have the capacity to rise to the top in any occupation they choose to enter.

Without debating the specific skill sets needed in each (of course they vary based on field of choice, this is obvious), all of the “blue collar” multimillionaire business owners I know have the three traits I listed above. Ditto for the “white collar” multimillionaires.

It’s also interesting that they have similar problems (again in abstraction) — hiring, training, and retention. The nitty gritty details differ, but the problems sound awfully similar to me.

There are probably a few more characteristics and problems that I could list, but these were the ones that came off the top of my head.

At a certain level of abstraction, everything is an idea and therefore the same.

Are we from the same planet? I've met more than a few people that went to top 10 CS schools and couldn't get a girl's number to save their life. Barring disfigurement, if you can't manage something as basic as getting a girl's number, you simply don't have the requisite social skills needed toget survive in that type of business world.

Being smart at one thing doesn't mean you can be smart at anything you apply your mind to; there are cultural and biochemical reasons that can be preventing you from being good at something. Because I dont have the time right now, I'll leave an excerpt that might help to elucidate what I'm saying:

When the animals decided to establish schools they selected a school board consisting of Mr. Elephant, Mr. Kangaroo and Mr. Monkey, and these fellows held a meeting to agree upon their plans. “What shall the animals’ children be taught in the animal school? That is the question,” declared Mr. Monkey. “Yes, that is the question,” exclaimed Mr. Kangaroo and Mr. Elephant together.

“They should be taught to climb trees,” said the monkey, positively. “All my relatives will serve as teachers.” “No, indeed!” shouted the other two, in chorus. “That would never do.” “They should he taught to jump,” cried the kangaroo, with emphasis. “All of my relatives will be glad to teach them.” “No, indeed!” yelled the other two, in unison. “That would never do.” “They should be taught to look wise,” said the elephant. “And all of my relatives will act as teachers.” “No, indeed!” howled the other two together. “That will never do.”

“Well, what will do?” they asked, as they looked at each other in perplexity. “Teach them to climb,” said Mr. Monkey. “Teach them to jump,” said Mr. Kangaroo. “Teach them to look wise,” said Mr. Elephant.

“intelligent and sociable people who can get things done”

i think he’s more taking issue with the fact that you said anyone pulling that internship could start a business. i’ve met a lot of laughably socially inept people with Big N gigs

Exactly

$30k in 4 months is practically a 6 figure income already, and not uncommon for CS sophomores working at larger tech companies. I think you're really overestimating the skill needed to get that level of pay.

I think if you rule out CS majors at top 20 (ish) schools/progams, I think that you will find the number of CS major sophomores getting these types of summer internships rounds to zero, and the exceptions exist largely due to pre-existing personal contacts.

I would suggest that most CS majors at top 20 schools/programs grossly underestimate how hard it is to do what they have done.

I know plenty of Cal State CS majors who only dream of jobs like this. These relatively lucrative jobs aren’t really that common for mediocre students at mediocre programs.

Selection bias. You're also assuming that those people are even interested in engineering.

That includes people who don't work at all and people who only work part-time. When looking at a full-time job, it would be better to compare only to other full-time workers. Last quarter the median weekly wage for full-time workers was $873[1]. That's a bit over $45k/year. I would not consider 20-30% above average particularly high-paying for a job that is difficult and physically dangerous.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm

But where are those high paying trade jobs located? For high paying construction trades, it's going to be in the big cities where the high rises are being built. $55,000 may be way above the median for the country but it's barely getting by in places like SF, NYC, LA, Seattle, etc.

You know that in all those cities there are people living on minimum wage right?

Those people living on minimum wage in big cities tend to have a lifestyle we don't even want to talk about. They tend to be immigrants who cram themselves with a large group into tiny apartments where everybody sleeps in the same room.

If you don't want to do that you're going to end up paying way more, hence barely getting by with $55k.

Median household income for NYC is $50k https://project.wnyc.org/median-income-nabes/

The problem is that there has been a long ongoing systematic suppression of wages and professional salaries. I make less today as a senior engineer than my first job out of school with no experience after adjusting for inflation and COL. Remember, $65,000 today was only $45,000 in Y2K dollars which was middling to low-ball for entry level engineering work at the time. Would that be considered high paying for a doctor or lawyer?

It’s probably above average for an entry-level American lawyer, once you cut out the tiny number of graduates who make it into the big law firms with fixed starting salaries of $160,000: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/the-toppling-o...

Some of these people are farmers living in Bumblefuck, IO, though, where $31,000 can mean you live like a king.

Not everything is available to the rich. I work at an infinitely rich tech company (as many do) and we still can't find people to fill positions, 'cause they don't exist.

Similarly, a poor person and rich person in middle of nowhere Iowa can get the same amount of Iowa (though whoever's less time-poor wins) but neither of them can buy living in NYC.

My point still stands. A dollar isn't worth the same anywhere you go. Looking at national median income isn't really useful.

You have to realize, only a third of American have bachelor's degrees. Many of them from schools you've never heard of, not MIT, not Penn State. If you and everyone you know are college-educated professionals, you're in a bubble.

It's projected to be half sometime soon.

As a society, we should probably be targeting more like 10% for 4-year degrees and higher.

Many jobs that are requiring or preferring 4-year degrees need at best a 2-year degree, and more likely no degree (maybe a 1-4 month focused training course).

The college degree requirement typically serves as either a vanity requirement or a filter to reduce the number of applications.

> As a society, we should probably be targeting more like 10% for 4-year degrees and higher.

You may correct regarding education and how it relates to marketable skills. However, a good tertiary education is so much more than that. It also teaches (ideally) the ability to think critically that is the foundation of an advanced society - especially a democracy.

That said, higher education costs spiraling out of control have corrupted the entire system. There is a solution though, I'm certain of it.

I mostly agree with that, but I would change it to “a good tertiary education has the potential to teach people to think critically.

If you look at the bottom half (or more) of the students at most good schools, and maybe the bottom 80% or so of the students at most not-so-good schools, you will find that the desire to learn does not extend much beyond “what do I need to do to get $GRADE?” Often the desired grade is merely a passing grade. If the answer is some variation of “learn to think critically”, expect extremely poor evaluations at the end of the term and low enrollment in future semesters.

The problem as I see it is that many people do not learn the value of critical thinking skills until later in life — typically after they have actually had to use them (and noticed that they were lacking) in critical life situations. In my experience, this is why vets (as one simple example) tend to outperform non-vets with similar entrance stats (e.g., grades, SATs, etc.) at highly competitive schools.

I would prefer to see our society have a reasonable means for people to engage in proper tertiary (and actually secondary) education on a continuing basis rather than just before he age of 22.

Do we really want to keep people in classrooms all their life up until 21, as if that's needed to give them critical thinking? Doesn't that make teaching sound inefficient?

Some people are ready to function in society younger than that, but they can't build savings for the rest of their life, do anything productive, or even have fun if you're making them spend another few years doing homework problems fulltime.

Unfortunately that isn't what higher education is today, because it's become so much a business/customer relationship from being tied to employment.

I think we could see a lot of benefit from separating an institute for higher academic pursuits from the employment and status market entirely, though I don't really have a good idea for how to go about doing that.

Does the education system only exist to train future workers? Should it?

That seems to be a non sequitur — I suggested no such thing.

In abstraction, I will say that there always is an education system of some sort that trains workers, but that system may be formal, may be informal, may be public, may be private, etc. acknowledging what role the citizens want a formal education to serve is an important discussion, imho. This is a discussion we are not really having in the US right now — at least not in a frank way.

That said, I think education should exist to train future members of society. Work training is a part of that, but there are other elements as well (social skills, communication skills, life skills, etc.).

Can a question be a non sequitur? Asking a question does not imply an accusation, not sure why you read it as such.

I completely agree with your last statement, I have been troubled by America's recent move towards viewing education simply as training future workers.

An example from Wisconsin [1]:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker submitted a budget proposal that included language that would have changed the century-old mission of the University of Wisconsin system — known as the Wisconsin Idea and embedded in the state code — by removing words that commanded the university to “search for truth” and “improve the human condition” and replacing them with “meet the state’s workforce needs.”

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/...

> Who considers 55-60k "high paying"

Wow - HN at its best, folks.

Just because it's not high where you are (Somewhere probably really nice, honestly) doesn't mean that's not a good living in 90% of the rest of the country.

Well this is place where $400K worth of salary and perks at Google are brushed of as 'Oh, but bay area is so expensive'. 55-60K for them would be like kids' private schooling.

> Who considers 55-60k "high paying"

the state's average annual wage of $54,000.

That accounts for all cost of living adjustments, since it is the same state. I wouldn't consider 2%-10% above average "high paying"

Just because they're trade jobs doesn't mean they're located in "90% of the rest of the country." All the good paying construction trades are going to be in places where they're building lots of high rises; places where rent is high enough to warrant such construction. If you're living in San Francisco as an ironworker then $55,000 means you're barely getting by. Construction jobs tend to start really early in the morning so long commutes are pretty much off the table, too.

You've got a very myopic view of the US if youthink construction is only happening in expensive coastal cities. Also, 'trade jobs' are not limited to construction.

Everywhere I look land is cheap and lifestyles are good. They can’t build SFR houses fast enough.

And I’m ignoring downtown Renaissances happening all across the Midwest.

Back home in the rust belt, you can get a 2,000+ sq. ft. home for like $100k (no, really), so $60k/yr there is actually a pretty sweet gig. Doubly so if your spouse also earns that much.

Here are some deals for you:

2680 sq. ft., $44,900 -- https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1-Hillcrest-Dr-1-Marysvil...

2268 sq. ft., $37,000 -- https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/505-Francis-St-Daykin-NE-...

2187 sq. ft., $39,900 -- https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1941-S-Broadway-Ave-Wichi...

4462 sq. ft., $400,000 on 5 acres -- https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6472-N-431-Pryor-OK-74361...

pssh, that's nothing:

2208 sq. ft., $14,900 -- https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/353-E-24th-St-Erie-PA-165...

What I meant was that you can get a big gorgeous home on a nice lot in a great neighborhood for $100k.

I've never managed more than 28000 in my life and that was a year that I was working 60hrs a week between two jobs for half of it.

For 30k plus benefits I'd strangle puppies.

I hope no one is offering that job.

I've asked around, no one has responded yet.

You can get that with some packing jobs in some places. You might have to start off as a temp.

What do you do?

Well at the time I was working as a stock boy at Target on the weekends (with a couple shifts during the week during Christmas when we moved to a 2am start time) and warehousing (later junior locksmith) at a door company (Hull Supply in Austin).

Currently just a stock boy while I add a second BS onto my useless resume.

What was your first BS? What prevented you from getting a better degree or going to a better university?

Physics, minor in math from New Mexico Tech.

Money, youthful ignorance (and a desire to get the fuck out of Florida) and an inability to fill out an application probably due to my truck load of self esteem issues (though there is always the possibility that I fail not because I think I'm garbage but because I actually am).

Hey, I just read through all your replies and I just wanted to say that I sincerely hope you find a way to overcome your obstacles and realize your full potential some time.

Have you tried applying to engineering jobs? I have a degree in physics (minor in math), and that's what I did (as well as many of my friends). Or tutoring? That can pay pretty well and give you flexible hours. This type of movement is extremely common for physicists.

Grad school is also an option, and you don't have to go for physics (which is fairly competitive). I got into a CS program, have a friend doing EE, and know of plenty of people doing ME, AE, CE, etc. People will read "Physics degree" as "smart" or "worked hard".

> not because I think I'm garbage but because I actually am

Sounds like imposter syndrome. It is extremely common, though I know it is extremely difficult to deal with (coming from personal experience).

"inability to fill out an application"

No really the last time I filled out an application it took me two months from start to finish and I considered it progress because I wasn't crying by the end of it. January 2017 ish a Prof offered me several research projects, after not responding to him for two weeks I am now hiding from him for the rest of my life.

I am absolutely aware that I am on paper qualified for all sorts of shit.

That doesn't change the reality that I am emotionally incapable of doing anything with it.

Which goes back to my coworkers who are all absolutely capable of better paying jobs but at some point you just stop believing that something else is possible. Then what?

> January 2017 ish a Prof offered me several research projects, after not responding to him for two weeks I am now hiding from him for the rest of my life.

Sounds like you might want to message them. Small progress is still progress. Some days you make leaps and bounds, but most days we barely make a step. And that is okay.

> I am absolutely aware that I am on paper qualified for all sorts of shit.

>> For 30k plus benefits I'd strangle puppies.

Anxiety and writing an email sounds better than strangling puppies for a (low wage) living.

> That doesn't change the reality that I am emotionally incapable of doing anything with it.

Get a therapist.

> at some point you just stop believing that something else is possible. Then what?

GET A THERAPIST

Seriously, if you are at the point where emailing someone is causing you so much anxiety that you are literally sabotaging yourself to work jobs that you are way over qualified for (and thus make you clearly miserable), you need to see someone professional. Because you said it yourself:

> I am qualified for all sorts of shit.

a) I'm not in a place where even if I emailed them and they did understand I would be any more likely to actually follow through the second they stopped looking over my shoulder.

b) 30 grand and benefits in Albuquerque isn't a low wage it's god damned pinkies out upper class.

c) I am not over qualified to be a stock boy (though I am damned good at it) I am orthogonally qualified for other jobs.

d) yeah I am aware that a therapist would help but that self sabatoge came after 6 months of counseling and antidepressants... More effective therapy is either non existent or out of my price range.

Being active and yet totally incapable of doing anything that makes you feel bad might be depression but actually sounds like an ADHD symptom people don't talk about.

https://www.additudemag.com/rejection-sensitive-dysphoria-ho...

Unfortunately I've never heard about therapy for this - there's just a different medication than antidepressants - but maybe reading that would help you.

I have absolutely been there. (Especially the "now in hiding for the rest of my life because I forgot to respond to someone for a week" part and the "two months to fill out an application" part and the "emotionally incapable of doing anything, stopped believing anything else is possible" part... so, well, all of the parts actually.)

For me, what worked was getting another human being (my parents, in this case) to help me through getting the applications done, and following up with people I'm being avoidant about, and generally reminding me that I was being ridiculous. Also, it helped to find out that these were all really common manifestations of certain kinds of Brain Problems(tm) (anxiety in particular), which made me feel like less of a lazy worthless piece of shit and more like just a dude with a problem, and also directed me to various kinds of therapy & medication which have been helpful at fixing the issue.

My reflexive... Muy Thai is often referred to as the art of eight limbs because it uses everything to fight...

Everything against everything, is me. If someone even just super passively tries to support me in an endeavor I am 1000% more likely to not do it. If they try to push me to do it I absolutely will not out of spite.

I harbor no illusions that I am particularly unique so I'm willing to bet you, or some one reading this, was exactly the same, until they weren't; unfortunately for me I am me until I'm not.

Also to push this away from me personally: not only is the % of people with depression increasing but also the mean age at which it affects people is creeping down. When I was a kid it was like 30 now it's like 20.

A shit ton of theoretically attainable jobs seem out of reach to even the emotionally healthy. When your 20 and you just want to go to sleep and never wake up: every job seems out of reach and that number is going up.

And again I can't stress this enough. Even when healthy many many jobs seem out of reach.

  Fella 'cross town said he's   lookin' for a man
  To move some old cars around
  Maybe me and Marie could find a burned-out
  Van and do a little settlin' down
  Aw, but I'm just dreamin', I ain't got no ride
  And the junkyard's a pretty good ways
  That job's about a half week old besides
  It'd be gone now anyway

Speaking from personal experience, in order to improve one’s life, you need to make incremental improvements. It could be as simple as going to the gym and doing one rep. Then the next day you do two reps, etc.

It requires a paradigm shift in the way you think, which is not easy. The first step is making a commitment to change.

You would think that managing to save up enough money to pay for a second degree in cash and then achieving that degree (well in the fall but 8 credits away), seeing a counselor and getting on antidepressants would count.

Turns out it doesn't and I'm going to spend the next umpteen years saving up again for a third useless degree.

C'est la vie.

Talk with your doctor to ditch the antidepressants ASAP, and make sure your doctor tapers your dosage.

I’d recommend mindful breathing exercises and meditative practices. CBT may also help you. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. Hope that helps, and best of luck to you.

2008-2010 I wanted to do nothing. 2010-12 I wanted to hide in a closet. 12-16 I wanted to die.

On medication I don't want to die. It's not great but it's a damn sight better than the decade preceding it.

Went off medication for the summer and fall after 9 months. Failed 4 of 5 classes.

Doing the meditation and breathing and shit too. Turns out that in order to make positive changes in your life you have to be willing to make positive changes in your life. Which I'm not currently.

Like I said: c'est la vie.

From your trainwreck description of existence, I think you'd like the life of a yogi (and the required ability to stomach a bunch of pain while in mayurasana).

Checkout 'inner engineering' on audible.com,

also try a grounding mat

I've got a couple years of yoga as interpreted by basic-AF white ladies under my belt, turns out being in a room with a dozen other people just breathing is in fact my jammy-jam. the Bagavad Gita, the sutras though...

I'm pretty hardcore existential-naturalist (existentialism actually was a reaction against naturalism by I am a born syncretic) and as a result the anarchy of LeGuin's the Dispossessed or Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread present more or less identical praxis but with out the need for faith in anything more than my neighbors.

What I'm about to suggest isn't for everybody, but it might help you out. There are actually 2 ways to be rich: make more money than you need, or need less money than you make. There is an inherent risk with the second (because there are some things where you can't control costs), but it offers some advantages as well.

Making money is a stressful endeavour. Everybody deals with stress differently. Some people like a lot of stress. Other people have a lot of difficulty with it. Often it's hard for people to understand others who are in the opposite condition (Those who have difficulty with stress are seen to be weak or lazy, those who thrive on stress are seen to be manic or even evil). It's great to at least understand yourself, and while it should not stop you from trying to become the person you want to be, it's pretty damaging to ignore who you are now.

Making money is stressful because you have a lack of control. You are either spending your time doing what others want you to do (always hanging that carrot in your face), or you are spending your time doing high risk things in the hope that it will pay off (always flirting with failure). In contrast, not spending money is an exercise in control. Everything comes from you because you do not have enough money to depend on others.

In many ways it's the complete opposite of trying to make money. You need to move to a quiet location where the cost of living is as low as possible. You have to prioritise time working for yourself over working for others. You have to cook, clean, sew, grow your own food, etc, etc for yourself. It's not easy (and not at all for everybody), but for someone who is capable it's a way of simplifying your interfaces and giving you back a sense of control.

I can't really give you specific advice because we are different, but the main thing is to view spending time for yourself as more profitable than working for someone else. For example, spending an hour making dinner for yourself is more valuable than spending an hour working to pay for going out to a restaurant. Spending time growing herbs on the windowsill (or even building a makeshift hydroponics system out of spare parts) is more valuable than buying herbs (or whatever) in the store.

It's easy to get into the mindset that $100 is an hour's work if you are paid $100 per hour. Can you generate $100 in an hour of your own time? But $100/hour is $200K per year and that $100 becomes really devalued. If you are living on $10K per year, the same $100 has a completely different value to you. At $5/hour it makes enormous sense to leverage your own time rather than collecting peanuts from others. In that very strange way, the less you make, the more valuable your time is to you -- because what you do with it becomes much more important.

I don't want to discourage your from finding ways to get past an issue that is obviously causing you a lot of pain. However taking a time out to work for yourself, rather than for others may help you get some breathing room.

I saved 30k in three years while working at Target. I am world class at needing less than I make.

But being able to save money doesn't change the ability to see possibilities as actually possible which is the fundamental reason so many people are not going into "skilled labor" trade jobs.

Congrats! I have a couple of friends that are "professional students". Not a lot of security in that, but is it any worse than "starving artist"? I'm reading what you are writing and I see nothing wrong except that you are unhappy. I don't think you need to fix what isn't broken. I hope that helps a bit, but I'm sure it doesn't :-) Good luck!

In as much I'm not starving it's amazingly better than being a starving artist. In as much as I wake up everyday feeling like I am in exactly the same place as I was yesterday regardless of objective achievements... I'm still counting down the days until I die (17562 days according to wolfram alpha).

I'll wake up tomorrow and take a step. The upside to knowing there is no destination is that while no step takes you forward, no step takes you back either?

The opportunity cost of university getting up there:

  $60k salary x 4 years = +$240k
  vs
  $25k tuition X 4 years = -$100k (state school [1])
  $50k tuition X 4 years = -$200k (private school)

So total opportunity cost is around $340-440k and four years, assuming you can go straight into the $60k/yr job from high school. If you finance school with debt, then you have interest as part of the calculation.

Of course there are other intangibles to be had from working, such as learning personal responsibility at a younger age ;-)

[1] https://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tm...

But if you make more than $60k because of your college degree, then you are in the black in not too long. Let's say you make $80k, then you are break even at 17 years. If you are making more like 100k, then you break even at only 8.5 years. Considering that the retirement age is around 70, this means that even a small increase in salary leaves a good chunk of money on the table by retirement (or allows an earlier retirement).

Of course, there are the other factors that others are discussing. Plus things like interest (on loans and investments).

$25k in tuition, room & board, and fees. You are not making a fair comparison as you need deduct living costs from the former or exclude them for the latter. You also don't consider the average aid package that one is likely to obtain, nor any monies that the latter makes.

There are also risks. Recessions hit trades much harder than anyone else, as they tend to be affected first and recover last from them. Construct unemployment is a leading indicator of recessions.

There are some skilled trades that companies, even during a recession, can't get around...fire alarm/suppression system inspectors/technicians, elevator inspectors/technicians, electricians, electrical code specialists, OSHA compliance specialists, etc...

You can get around those by not building. New construction is a considerable portion of work in these trades. My family owns a construction company and my father is an electrician. They have three times as many employees in installations as they do service.

It's the nature of the business.

> "...three times as many employees in installations as they do service"

This is more in the compliance sector, but I get what you're trying to get at.

Young high-school grads for whom that's a lot of money and for whom the health risks are not quite as bad.

High-school grads are not immune to injuries and don't have savings to pay for healthcare if they get injured. They might be less risk averse on average, but that does not make health risk not relevant.

Also, adults in their life who are older are likely to caution about occupation that is health risk even absent injuries - and although all wont listen, some will.

Did I say somehow that they were immune to injuries? I said the risks are not as bad. For example, they are, overall, statistically less likely to suffer any on-the-job injury attributable to inflexibility of muscles and tendons, obesity, loss of bone density/strength, Alzheimer's, arthritis, or dizziness from diabetes-related blood-sugar problems. Those are all risks that go up with age.

They are also less likely to suffer any injury caused, or made worse, or made more likely, by some past injury they've already had, because they're likely to have had fewer of those.

Also, even given the same exact injury, they will likely heal faster & better than someone even 10 years older.

Black & white thinking doesn't really serve here. There's not some age before which 100% of people have none of the problems and after which 100% of people have all the problems. It's a continuum.

What are they going to do when they age? These risks apply to people choosing profession even as they are in the future. No one is young forever and there is no promotion from these jobs to another job.

Cumulatively, during career, the longer you work there the more likely injuries happen to you. And the more physical work, the more catastrophic consequences (I can code with two broken legs).

All that must be factored in for young people too.

Yes, as you age, the risk/reward balance begins to shift - sometimes slowly, sometimes all at once. There are paths out of the trades though. You can start your own small (plumbing/building/etc.) company, hire people (younger ones) to do the heavy lifting, and essentially "move into management." Or you can take some of the money you earned, go back to school, and change careers. I know someone who injured his back digging trenches, and while recuperating from that injury, started teaching himself computers. Now he works for a state agency and sits in a chair.

Nothing is guaranteed of course, but the question was "Who considers 55-60k 'high paying' especially when the job contains potential life threatening risks and other health issues?" and the answer was "Young high-school grads for whom that's a lot of money and for whom the health risks are not quite as bad." That's a very general answer that deliberately doesn't offer any opinion on whether they are right or wrong in thinking that way. And obviously the less young they are, or the more money they want, or the less risk they tolerate, the less true the statement is.

First of all, 55k isn't the ceiling. My dad is a union carpenter and made about $50/hr ($104k). Electricians make even more, and are paid decently throughout their 5 year apprenticeship (which is half classroom half job site).

Secondly, depending on where you live that is a lot of money. I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and my parents home is only worth $250k. It's 4 bedroom, 2 car garage, finished basement, on a 1/2 acre.

I made $7 an hour when I was 20

I made $20ph bartending. My only qualification when I started at 19 was being an alcoholic who liked cocktails.

Except there are not alternatives around every corner :)

That's just hubris on your behalf. Regarding 60k being high paying - for a job at 20, that's A LOT. For a job at 40, that's pretty good.

Commenters are being overly critical. Isn't ~80k when people get to a point of "relaxment". I'd say "high pay" would start there.