I'm more talking about situations where it's not mostly for the money but rather continuing the things people have enjoyed doing professionally without doing it full-time and without most of the downsides.
We're probably just nit-picking over definitions but a career, in my opinion, is not "having the same job for decades." A career is a decision to specialize in a particular craft, trade or profession. The opposite of a career is someone who takes odd jobs. Hospitality one day, transportation the next, might dabble in manufacturing. These jobs pay the bills, and there's nothing wrong with "just" doing that, but they are disconnected jobs; not a career.
I consider myself to have a career in software engineering but I have had multiple "jobs" over the decades that have contributed to that career. The career is the knowledge, the experience, the speciality, the reputation, the time spent focusing... all accumulated over my time developing that career. A career could be made by having a single job lasting from graduation until retirement, or it could be a handful of jobs that put to practice and develop the same skillset and knowledge.
No, that's fair. Like "carpenter" and "programmer" are both very broad professions of course. I think there's something about the way various industries get hit by down turns more or less visibly (like when construction goes down it feels like it's everybody, and so every framer, every concrete layer) that creates an (often false to be sure) sense of narrowness.
But also Plumber, Electrician, Carpenter, etc. are very broad trades and even though articles get written using those words because everyone knows what they do, the articles are often really talking about the lack of elevator technicians, crane operators, industrial HVAC, PLC programmers, train conductors, air traffic controllers those more niche trades. A lot of machine operators end up so niche that their current company is the only one in a state that could employ them. My sister makes M&Ms, other than company policies about like sanitation she'd be no better than a new hire on the Twix line.
Blame Reagan. Seriously. I am not joking. Blame Reagan. These need to be union jobs. These used to be union jobs.
For a more nuanced history read https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/
^ That was how I was imagining it. Am I wrong in thinking this way? Or is the argument that the urge to specialize is independent of wage?
Let's look at ATC as an example:
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/a...
> Their work can be stressful because maximum concentration is required at all times. Night, weekend, and rotating shifts are common.
Well, maybe there could be better agreements than rotating shifts on a very stressful job, don't you think so?
Generally, the more specialized labor is, the higher wage and benefits they can demand in a capitalist labor market. Supply and demand. For less skilled labor like general electricians I can understand the role of the union in negotiating for wages, benefits, and safety standards. For highly skilled labor like an HVAC tech, I don't see it.
Back in the day you could live a comfortable life off of your 40-odd year job, nowadays the advice given is to change jobs every few years because the increase in wage will outweigh any raises at your current job. Cost of living is going up faster than annual wage increases. Minimum wage in the US hasn't been updated since the 2000's, and if you do get paid minimum wage, it's your employer saying "I'd pay you less if I was allowed to". But a lot of wages will be based on minimum wage, so if that stagnates, so will other wages.
this actually brings to mind something else:
I think the idea of a career is dead for a lot of the 40 and under set. The idea that you'll have the same job for decades is just nonsense so any job that feels too specific also feels like a it'll bite you in the ass in 5 years.