While researching career options, I’ve come to the conclusion that most people believe their industry is in the decline. Accountants, nurses, actuaries, programmers, ESL teachers, oil riggers and Australian backpackers agree that jobs are scarce and their market is flooded with new labor. Pretty much no one thinks that their industry is doing well and now is a good time to enter the job market. This is true even when I look at old forums that pre-date the recession.
I will now heavily discount these complaints when I’m researching whether a career is worth pursuing. Instead, I will seek objective information about entry-level pay and typical qualifications needed to start.
I do hear social workers complain about this, despite the fact that our field is growing. I try to base my idea of growth/decline in a field on the Bureau of Labor Statistics rather than people currently in a field (especially unemployed ones, who are the most likely to be writing about such things online). Plus a general metric than anything that caters to old people will be a good bet for the next few decades.
What makes you think they’re wrong? I could very much believe accountants & actuaries (computerizable to a large degree), ESL teacher similarly face pressure from rising foreign countries (I follow South Korea mostly, and over the last decade they’ve put substantial pressure on foreigners in favor of indigenous teachers); Australian backpackers don’t seem like a job or industry, but to the extent it is, I understand food and other prices have been under pressure in Australia due to the major growth in mining distorting the economy (I forget what this economic effect is called—Dutch disease?). Oil riggers seem unlikely, but the materials I’ve read about working on rigs and drilling pads didn’t sound like declinist so I wonder your basis for this. As for programming, I’m too close to the topic to judge.
It just seems like a large coincidence that I would pick the wrong thing to look at every time. Your justifications sound post-hoc and too specific. Either I’m systematically picking out overrated careers, or people are systematically pessimistic about their jobs. Now I might be inclined to believe the former if the objective sources agreed that these jobs were overrated. But the objective sources (official statistics, articles written by people who have done research) provide some reasons to be optimistic, such as:
Computerization of accounting an actuaries seems to be a non-issue at least, for the moment. BLS statistics indicate that these are still fairly easy jobs to get, if you have the qualifications.
It’s true that the Korean and Japanese ESL markets are getting more competitive, but the Middle East offers salaries that are 50% higher and growing 6% a year. Saudi Arabia said that it was going to place new restrictions on foreign workers “soon”, but that was a year ago and they haven’t made any announcements since.
The Australian government loves backpackers and will probably approve yet another round of WHV deregulation this year. On the table: allowing all nationalities to get a second WHV, raising the age limit to 35, giving backpacker incentives to work in the tourism industry, and lowering the application fee.
Now there is negative evidence too, but the ratio of positive to negative evidence in objective sources seems to have no correlation to how these jobs are discussed among forums and personal blogs. So I conclude that forums and personal blogs probably have little value to someone who wants to know if a job market is doing well.
If I understand correctly, your argument is: (1) People in lots of fields believe employment in that field is in decline. (2) It seems improbable that these fields all just happen to be the ones with the worst prospects. (3) Therefore, many of these people are probably wrong.
But I don’t see how you get to #3, unless you take these people to mean that their fields are in decline relative to other fields. Surely it’s perfectly possible that all fields, or at least a large fraction, are in decline in absolute terms. Economic growth has been bobbling along somewhere between “negative” and “positive but very small” for the last few years, and arguably for more if you take the pessimistic view that much of the apparent growth has been from a series of bubbles, the fall from each being cushioned by the growth of the next, which can’t be sustained.
Since you’re trying to choose a career, then of course relative job prospects are what you mostly want to know about. Fair enough. But all those people complaining that their field is in decline might not have meant that.
I thought about that but then I noticed that forum posts from before 2008 were also pessimistic. “Now” always seems to be the worst time to break into a job market.
Actuaries: you may be right here, although my vague impression of actuarial science was that there should be a squeeze, and I would want to look carefully at the statistics to see how they might be misleading—eg. is there a Simpson’s paradox going on? Are people being squeezed out later in their career? Is the data for a uselessly narrow—or uselessly broad—category of ‘actuaries’? etc.
So you do agree some fields are in decline! When the Japanese and Korean ESLs complain that the field is getting worse for them (=becoming more competitive), you agree they are. I specifically mentioned Korea because of this potential for you to just say ‘ah, but if you look somewhere else....’ See comment #1 about definitions and sizes of categories.
The broader economic point is still true; Australia’s mining rise is the defining characteristic of their economy for the past decade or more. Your regulation points are interesting, though, but point to other possibilities: maybe the complained about decline is precisely the growth or increases—how well do you understand what the existing backpackers value or are complaining about? (A personal parallel that comes to mind is the growth of anime in the late ’90s and early ’00s in the USA: old-time fans were more than a little bitter because the growth shattered the old fanzines and blew up convention sizes and introduced so many people that a kind of Eternal September set in.)
So I conclude that forums and personal blogs probably have little value to someone who wants to know if a job market is doing well.
An unduly harsh appraisal. I’d phrase it more as ‘vague opinion not backed by specifics or statistics are of little value for assessing large-scale trends’, which is not an appraisal I’d consider unjustified in very many areas!
Is the data for a uselessly narrow—or uselessly broad—category of ‘actuaries’? etc.
The actuarial field has a bright line around it’s borders: if you haven’t passed your country’s standardized exams, you’re not an actuary.
So you do agree some fields are in decline!
Well yeah, I’d expect half the fields to be doing worse than median. My point was that it was unlikely that all fields I look at are in decline.
I specifically mentioned Korea because of this potential for you to just say ‘ah, but if you look somewhere else....’ See comment #1 about definitions and sizes of categories.
So.… you got me? I didn’t single out Korean ESL teachers in my OP, so I don’t think can accuse me of broadening the definition.
Your regulation points are interesting, though, but point to other possibilities: maybe the complained about decline is precisely the growth or increases—how well do you understand what the existing backpackers value or are complaining about?
So if Korea makes it harder to enter the job market, that’s bad for workers; and if Australia makes it easier to enter the job market, that’s also bad for workers?
Well yeah, I’d expect half the fields to be doing worse than median. My point was that it was unlikely that all fields I look at are in decline.
I think you’re tying yourself in circles. You can’t argue ‘every field I look at is not in decline’ and then immediately turn around and admit that some fields are in decline. More generally, your median point applies to the self-assessments too: even if self-assessment is completely random and actual field performance is random too, you’d still expect a quarter to be—by sheer luck—above the median in actual performance and self-assessed performance. So if a full quarter are optimistic and outperforming, how did you miss them?
So if Korea makes it harder to enter the job market, that’s bad for workers; and if Australia makes it easier to enter the job market, that’s also bad for workers?
Sure. Someone drowning has too much water, and someone dying of thirst in the desert has too little water; is it really so absurd to say that ‘some people need more water, and some people need less water’?
You can’t argue ‘every field I look at is not in decline’
I never said that. I said the evidence was mixed.
More generally, your median point applies to the self-assessments too: even if self-assessment is completely random and actual field performance is random too, you’d still expect a quarter to be—by sheer luck—above the median in actual performance and self-assessed performance. So if a full quarter are optimistic and outperforming, how did you miss them?
By “self-assessment” you mean forum posts and personal blogs? Well that was exactly the point I made originally. It seems the is bias that causes that vast majority of self-assessment to pessimistic, even when field performance is good.
Someone drowning has too much water, and someone dying of thirst in the desert has too little water; is it really so absurd to say that ‘some people need more water, and some people need less water’?
If I tell you “Sarah will get more water next year.”, it would be absurd to tell me that that is a good thing or a bad thing, unless you have information about how much water Sarah already has. You can’t say that Korea’s stricter laws will be a bad thing, unless you have information suggesting Korea’s. You can’t say that Australia’s more lenient laws will be a bad thing, unless you have information suggesting Australia’s laws were already optimal or too lenient.
Now maybe you have this information about Korea, but I doubt you have it about Australia. And I doubt the that backpackers have this information either, considering that they don’t even seem to know about new deregulation.
While researching career options, I’ve come to the conclusion that most people believe their industry is in the decline. Accountants, nurses, actuaries, programmers, ESL teachers, oil riggers and Australian backpackers agree that jobs are scarce and their market is flooded with new labor. Pretty much no one thinks that their industry is doing well and now is a good time to enter the job market. This is true even when I look at old forums that pre-date the recession.
I will now heavily discount these complaints when I’m researching whether a career is worth pursuing. Instead, I will seek objective information about entry-level pay and typical qualifications needed to start.
I do hear social workers complain about this, despite the fact that our field is growing. I try to base my idea of growth/decline in a field on the Bureau of Labor Statistics rather than people currently in a field (especially unemployed ones, who are the most likely to be writing about such things online). Plus a general metric than anything that caters to old people will be a good bet for the next few decades.
What makes you think they’re wrong? I could very much believe accountants & actuaries (computerizable to a large degree), ESL teacher similarly face pressure from rising foreign countries (I follow South Korea mostly, and over the last decade they’ve put substantial pressure on foreigners in favor of indigenous teachers); Australian backpackers don’t seem like a job or industry, but to the extent it is, I understand food and other prices have been under pressure in Australia due to the major growth in mining distorting the economy (I forget what this economic effect is called—Dutch disease?). Oil riggers seem unlikely, but the materials I’ve read about working on rigs and drilling pads didn’t sound like declinist so I wonder your basis for this. As for programming, I’m too close to the topic to judge.
It just seems like a large coincidence that I would pick the wrong thing to look at every time. Your justifications sound post-hoc and too specific. Either I’m systematically picking out overrated careers, or people are systematically pessimistic about their jobs. Now I might be inclined to believe the former if the objective sources agreed that these jobs were overrated. But the objective sources (official statistics, articles written by people who have done research) provide some reasons to be optimistic, such as:
Computerization of accounting an actuaries seems to be a non-issue at least, for the moment. BLS statistics indicate that these are still fairly easy jobs to get, if you have the qualifications.
It’s true that the Korean and Japanese ESL markets are getting more competitive, but the Middle East offers salaries that are 50% higher and growing 6% a year. Saudi Arabia said that it was going to place new restrictions on foreign workers “soon”, but that was a year ago and they haven’t made any announcements since.
The Australian government loves backpackers and will probably approve yet another round of WHV deregulation this year. On the table: allowing all nationalities to get a second WHV, raising the age limit to 35, giving backpacker incentives to work in the tourism industry, and lowering the application fee.
Now there is negative evidence too, but the ratio of positive to negative evidence in objective sources seems to have no correlation to how these jobs are discussed among forums and personal blogs. So I conclude that forums and personal blogs probably have little value to someone who wants to know if a job market is doing well.
If I understand correctly, your argument is: (1) People in lots of fields believe employment in that field is in decline. (2) It seems improbable that these fields all just happen to be the ones with the worst prospects. (3) Therefore, many of these people are probably wrong.
But I don’t see how you get to #3, unless you take these people to mean that their fields are in decline relative to other fields. Surely it’s perfectly possible that all fields, or at least a large fraction, are in decline in absolute terms. Economic growth has been bobbling along somewhere between “negative” and “positive but very small” for the last few years, and arguably for more if you take the pessimistic view that much of the apparent growth has been from a series of bubbles, the fall from each being cushioned by the growth of the next, which can’t be sustained.
Since you’re trying to choose a career, then of course relative job prospects are what you mostly want to know about. Fair enough. But all those people complaining that their field is in decline might not have meant that.
I thought about that but then I noticed that forum posts from before 2008 were also pessimistic. “Now” always seems to be the worst time to break into a job market.
I suggest asking people why they believe their field is in decline. What’s their evidence and line of reasoning?
Actuaries: you may be right here, although my vague impression of actuarial science was that there should be a squeeze, and I would want to look carefully at the statistics to see how they might be misleading—eg. is there a Simpson’s paradox going on? Are people being squeezed out later in their career? Is the data for a uselessly narrow—or uselessly broad—category of ‘actuaries’? etc.
So you do agree some fields are in decline! When the Japanese and Korean ESLs complain that the field is getting worse for them (=becoming more competitive), you agree they are. I specifically mentioned Korea because of this potential for you to just say ‘ah, but if you look somewhere else....’ See comment #1 about definitions and sizes of categories.
The broader economic point is still true; Australia’s mining rise is the defining characteristic of their economy for the past decade or more. Your regulation points are interesting, though, but point to other possibilities: maybe the complained about decline is precisely the growth or increases—how well do you understand what the existing backpackers value or are complaining about? (A personal parallel that comes to mind is the growth of anime in the late ’90s and early ’00s in the USA: old-time fans were more than a little bitter because the growth shattered the old fanzines and blew up convention sizes and introduced so many people that a kind of Eternal September set in.)
An unduly harsh appraisal. I’d phrase it more as ‘vague opinion not backed by specifics or statistics are of little value for assessing large-scale trends’, which is not an appraisal I’d consider unjustified in very many areas!
The actuarial field has a bright line around it’s borders: if you haven’t passed your country’s standardized exams, you’re not an actuary.
Well yeah, I’d expect half the fields to be doing worse than median. My point was that it was unlikely that all fields I look at are in decline.
So.… you got me? I didn’t single out Korean ESL teachers in my OP, so I don’t think can accuse me of broadening the definition.
So if Korea makes it harder to enter the job market, that’s bad for workers; and if Australia makes it easier to enter the job market, that’s also bad for workers?
I think you’re tying yourself in circles. You can’t argue ‘every field I look at is not in decline’ and then immediately turn around and admit that some fields are in decline. More generally, your median point applies to the self-assessments too: even if self-assessment is completely random and actual field performance is random too, you’d still expect a quarter to be—by sheer luck—above the median in actual performance and self-assessed performance. So if a full quarter are optimistic and outperforming, how did you miss them?
Sure. Someone drowning has too much water, and someone dying of thirst in the desert has too little water; is it really so absurd to say that ‘some people need more water, and some people need less water’?
I never said that. I said the evidence was mixed.
By “self-assessment” you mean forum posts and personal blogs? Well that was exactly the point I made originally. It seems the is bias that causes that vast majority of self-assessment to pessimistic, even when field performance is good.
If I tell you “Sarah will get more water next year.”, it would be absurd to tell me that that is a good thing or a bad thing, unless you have information about how much water Sarah already has. You can’t say that Korea’s stricter laws will be a bad thing, unless you have information suggesting Korea’s. You can’t say that Australia’s more lenient laws will be a bad thing, unless you have information suggesting Australia’s laws were already optimal or too lenient.
Now maybe you have this information about Korea, but I doubt you have it about Australia. And I doubt the that backpackers have this information either, considering that they don’t even seem to know about new deregulation.