A couple of things:

First, it is great that he didn't bypass education; he bypassed a "traditional liberal arts" education. And it is great that his mother recognizes that, instead of pushing the 4-year degree which too many young people are getting without having a clue as to what they really want.

Second, I think he is doing the smart things by building up a savings which he may use later to pursue an further education in his chosen field. That is far better than going into debt getting a degree which doesn't take him anywhere. And he may or may not pursue that further education; but, he will have that as an option. Kudos to him for creating his own opportunity!

Lastly, yea, it is a bit of a fib to call his annual salary that much when they don't reveal his overtime right away. But, still . . . How many other young people with a 4-year degree actually have the option of earning that much? I'd bet that those who graduate with degrees in fields where they can earn that much their first year have 2 issues to deal with; huge student loan debt and a lot of unpaid overtime because their jobs are salaried and in fields where the new guy has to prove himself with a lot of overtime.

"The headline bills his welding job as a $140K-a-year deal, but the guy's working 72-hour weeks, so that seems a bit of a fibby. "

True but so is when teachers complain about low pay, but leave off that they only work 9 months a year.

At $25/hr his base pay is $52K . . . so yes the money is great but it all based on overtime. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Professional salary based jobs not eligible for overtime often expect 60-80hr work weeks as a matter of course to succeed & move up. So . . . great? But overtime availability can vary, and those kinds of hours get old, especially in a very physically demanding job (to maximize the overtime, he's working on weekends and overnights too). And putting in that kind of time early in his career is not necessarily going to help him move up to a higher paying job later (in the way that you hope a professional job will). So I guess make hay and save you money while you can do it? and plan for later when maybe those hours don't sound so awesome anymore.

While I'll admit that not everyone needs to go to college, my advice to that child would be that not everyone needs to do real well in college, especially if they've just started their freshman year.

Like you, Amy, I coasted through grade school. But I started out with bad grades in college because I hadn't developed good study habits. (I'll also admit that my writing stunk from getting A's from teachers who didn't really know how to grade just because my writing was better than the other students.)

My parents did get mad about me making C's and D's my freshman year, but I was able to get things in gear my sophomore year and made all A's and B's.

I would ask that student if he was having a good time at college outside of the classes. If so, I would encourage him to stick with it. I now view college as more of a bridge between childhood and adulthood rather than a ticket to a successful life afterward, because goodness knows I didn't have that.

There are misleading statistics that a college degree increases lifetime earnings by $1 million. That is producing all of the crazy policy surrounding college. People want to buy college at almost any cost to get that $1 million. It is supposedly a win for both society and the student. Those statistics count only people who complete their degree. They include the very highest salaries to bump up the average. They likely count every increased dollar in wages at full value, although 2/3 comes from 10-30 years in the future.

Many unlucky individuals won't be able to repay their college loan. We're still trying to figure out why. So, they will only need to repay 15% of their income, and the taxpayers will pick up the rest. Overall, we are all going to be rich. I'm looking at the statistics right now on my cocktail napkin.

Maybe the taxpayers can't pay. They already have to come up with $100 trillion in previous loans and political promises. Bummer.

I could use the same bad statistical reasoning to show that owners of expensive cars earn much more than owners of economy cars. All we must do is lend money so everyone can buy an expensive car.

So, we will print up the money in the back room and hand it to the car manufacturers (universities). They have already signed up for the deal. They are true patriots who want to help the public to enjoy the success it deserves. Selling a lot of high profit, expensive cars is almost a sacrifice to the common good.

Modern finance is truly wonderful. We print up pieces of paper, or create money by typing in an amount at the FedReserve, and real resources spring up to match the number. We're not sure how this works, but we aren't worrying about it. This will all work out because our investment in more cars will lead to more income for the populace, and that income will pay off the loans. The statistics say so.

We had a guy Mike who argued that there would be no significant increase in incomes. He said that we had reversed cause and effect. Funding cars would cost much money with no way to repay the investment. Expensive cars were the result of high incomes, not the cause. They are associated with high incomes, not the cause of high incomes.

Mike argued that college degrees from exclusive institutions were associated with high incomes, but actually resulted from choosing the smartest people to attend those institutions. Those smart people went on to success. The schools selected smart people, but couldn't make anyone smart. Fortunately for the statistics, the failures do not graduate, so they don't pull down the earnings average.

Motto: If you average only the successful, you get a successful average.

The last straw was Mike arguing that the housing collapse came from the same sort of misguided statistics. He said that home ownership is associated with middle class success, but it doesn't cause that success. We lent money to almost everyone for buying houses. For some reason a large number of them couldn't make the payments. If we can't trust statistics, then how are we suppposed to run things, like the world?

We never liked Mike. He didn't want to get with the program. I couldn't tell you where he is working now.

Motto: Formal education is the key and we are turning that key, no matter what the cost.

"Lastly, yea, it is a bit of a fib to call his annual salary that much when they don't reveal his overtime right away."

I posted that in the comments at the WSJ and a bunch of nimrods went after me.

There are only two reasons to go to college. One is to get an education and the other is to get trained in something that will make it possible to earn a living. Both are important in building citizens of a democracy.

Neglecting either can have consequences down the road.

The education part consists in being immersed in the things that make us civilized (mathematics, science, art, history, literature, music, etc.) as well as the things that help us better understand ourselves and our society (anthropology, archaeology, psychology, sociology, economics, etc.).

The training part consists in being exposed to and trained in those things that employers demand. Depending upon the job, the two can overlap. These fields often involve a deeper dive into one's education.

There is no reason a person cannot get both trained and educated while in college. Unfortunately, we have too many people who got neither coming out of our schools, even (maybe especially) our elite ones.

Generally, college can only start one down the path to being educated or trained and the rest of the journey is up to the individual.

Often one can forego college and get trained. However, getting educated without college can be more difficult - but not impossible. One must tackle Homer, Euclides, and Nietzsche on one's own. And, judging from what is emerging from our colleges and universities today, that might be a better way to do it.

This young man has elected to forego college and get trained elsewhere. Let's hope he doesn't neglect his education.

==============================

And, yes, overtime does count toward a salary figure, but it is in fact a bit disingenuous to not disclose that the $140,000 consisted of 32 hours per week above and beyond straight time.

Still, that's a pretty good living for a 20-something.

My husband supported our family of (eventually) 6, making right about what this guy does an hour, with nowhere near the OT. My husband let the air force pay him to get a 2 year degree AND train him in his tech job. That hourly wage is a good living, even if this guy's hours drop, and he (like my hubby) has no school debt. Nurses start (here in central texas) at $30+ an hour with a 2 year degree, and the sky's the limit on the OT you can earn. I really think 2 year degrees, at least as intros, are the way to go for a LOT of people.
I really enjoyed my (first time around) college years, but they did not make me employable in any meaningful way, and I'm still paying for them. I'm not sure $50k worth of "socializing" debt is a good idea, for any but the richest kids. Our kids are certainly not getting the "college at any cost, any degree, just GO!" speech I grew up hearing.
Mike Rowe does great work getting kids scholarships for the trades, and encouraging them as careers.

is a bit of a fib to call his annual salary that much when they don't reveal his overtime right away."

I posted that in the comments at the WSJ and a bunch of nimrods went after me.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 8, 2015 9:52 AM

Or you could be like my husband, and work a salaried job that pays about 90k a year where you regularly put in 12 hour days, and weekends with no overtime.