According to the official labor statistics, people with advanced degrees (especially Ph.Ds) are making 2-4 millions $ more per their life time than HS graduates. I find it hard to believe. In my modest experience Ph.D. jobs in sciences will pay LESS than truck driving/electrician/skilled labor (on the average of course) in ones lifetime.

Consider two 18y.o. folks A and B (both equal in their development). A decided to get a Ph.D., for example in microbiology, = 4 years in college to earn a BS (-$50K, at least). +5-8 years more in a graduate school to get a Ph.D. (if he's lucky he'll be on some kind of assistantship, so let's assume Ph.D. cost him just -$10k). A has got his Ph.D., he's found no "real" related job upon graduation (60-80% of the recent graduates could not find anything good too), he's forced to accept $26k/year postdoc and do mainly brain numbing technician job (his boss cannot hire a technician with Community college diploma for 26K; so he's using cheap Ph.D.s instead). Things turned ugly, no "real" job could be found for years, A is jumping from one 30K/no benefits postdoc to another for 3-10 years (majority of the stubborn ones do the same; those who got tired quit). Hurrah, after say 4 years of postdocing (optimistic estimate) 33y.o. A has gotten his first (optimistic estimate, most of the Ph.D.s never get to this stage) assistant professorship (roughly 50K/no life/constant stress/insane hours job/excellent weight loss). A needs to work like a horse for 6-7 years to get his tenure or get hell out. Getting a tenure is a tricky ruthless business, 30-40% of aspirants will not make it, failure to earn a tenure will make them almost unemployable in any area of the economy. Let assume A is a lucky one, he's got his 60k something associate professorship job and kept it for a while. Note, that majority of research universities pay only 30-50% of the 60K salary, the rest comes from grants A has won. In lean years (no fresh grants were won), salary of an unlucky professor may actually be on the level of that of McD worker. Then rough times has come multiple grant applications fell through, personal friction, etc. In two words, he’s forced to quit and look for another job. Bad luck here (in the best case) job search takes 1 year or more (-60K in the lost income). Finally, 45 y.o. A has landed his final 80k job (very optimistic). Note that A is an average WINNER of the Ph.D. rat race. There are roughly 3-4 LOSERS with Ph.D. for every winner. If A is doomed to be a loser (No "real" job ever was found or tenure fell through) he’ll be postdocing for 10 years until his middle aged ass will be unemployable (new fresh Ph.D. meat is ready for the consumption), he’ll be temporary lecturer for the rest of his miserable life (pays even less than postdocing), he’ll switch careers (very hard to do. Despite all education hype, real world is avoiding hiring Ph.D.s for non R&D positions at all cost.).

Let’s look at equally gifted and hardworking B (who has an ass of steel to boot). He’s started his driving career at 18y.o. (small delivery vehicles, he’s too young to drive big rigs) his salary is roughly $10/hr (24k/year). He’s out of debt. He’s made 96k while A was taking loans to get his BS. B turned 22 y.o. he’s got his first big truck and makes $35k/year for 3-4 years. Having experience, 27 y.o. B may make up to 60k + benefits (person A is making 26k/no benefits at the same time). B is making investments, contributing to his retirement funds while A is thinking how to survive on his 26k. Add here that person B will be able to find a new job in several weeks without relocating, the person A will need to spend 1 year or more on the job search and he must relocate.
If person B has chosen to be an electrician, he has very high chances to make 100K when he’s 33 y.o. (he’s as smart and industrious as the person A, after all).
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

There is no way that the average WINNER of Ph.D. employment game (person A) will make more $ per life time than the average person B. If we will count all the losers with Ph.D., the income picture will become even more unfavorable towards the average folks with Ph.D. That is why statistics is misleading. It associates incomes with education only. It does not differentiate HS graduates according to their IQ, ability to work hard, people skills, etc. In other words the saying “the is a lie, a huge lie and statistics” proved itself correct again. You may say “But person A had more interesting job than person B”. I’ll say bull. 80% of Ph.D. job is much more brain numbing than truck driving. Considering rampant misuse of the fresh Ph.D.s to provide cheap laboratory labor, the % of brain numbing job is much higher for the recent victims of university industrial complex.

Actually the high paying positions require degrees unless you own your own business and thats all brain/innovation :P The scrubs just getting by working in factories or fast food places dont have education imo :P

Actually the high paying positions require degrees unless you own your own business and thats all brain/innovation :P The scrubs just getting by working in factories or fast food places dont have education imo :P

I was "inspired" to write the above message by the sad life story of my 47 y.o. friend (Ph.D. in biochemistry). Basically, she's never made more than 40k per year in her educated life, doing educated jobs. 40k was a short lived peak before her bottom was kicked out on street (in very ugly way). Now, she's too old to do pretty much anything (yes she was postdocing until 47y.o. And 47 y.o. postdoc has not a single change on profesorship, etc.) , she's being rejected from anywhere she applies, even HS do not want her. Basically her life is seriously screwed and she'll be flipping burgers very soon (if lucky) with all her advanced education and experience. And, most sadly, she's not alone. There are tens of thousands like here in the USA. Her husband also a Ph.D. was postdocing in his 50 th. Now he's unemployed for 4! years and has cancer (no insurance too). He had been unemployed for 2 years before he knew he had cancer. Misery attracts misery, heh?

The question is not that high paying positions require some level of education (even though simple RRR is sufficient to do most of those high paying jobs). The question is that, on the average, education (especially advanced one) is more like a gamble. If one will lose the game, the loss will be huge. If one will win game, the gain will be modest (on the average). There are many "uneducated" options for smart, industrious people (which Ph.D.s usually are) which promise more certain, more generous pay offs. For example, a brother of my friend is a salesman with HS diploma, he's making well into $100k/year (according to her). Truck drivers, electricians, plumbers, machinists, craftsmen..... may make more than 90% of the educated folks make without having their own business. If electrician career (for example) will come to the sudden halt, one may relatively easily switch careers. If Ph.D. career will not pan out (6 chances out of 10), one is screwed BIG time. I do not understand the reason why government is keeping education hype fire burning by playing with statistics. Is it just to redirect unemployed people to universities?

According to the official labor statistics, people with advanced degrees (especially Ph.Ds) are making 2-4 millions $ more per their life time than HS graduates. I find it hard to believe. In my modest experience Ph.D. jobs in sciences will pay LESS than truck driving/electrician/skilled labor (on the average of course) in ones lifetime.I think the problem here is the typical problem with statistics: you have to be very careful how you derive them or they won't yield the perspective on the truth that you're looking for.

For starters, just stop and consider the number of Americans who would be on the street without public assistance, and those who get it and are on the street anyway. Yes of course there are some PhDs and other college graduates in that mix -- mostly people who need psychiatric care or at least serious help, but are too "smart" to get it. Either because they think they know better than the shrinks or because they think we have the problem, not them. But speaking from the experience of decades of government work, I can assure you that about 99 percent of the people on public assistance do not have college degrees. I'd say half of them don't even have high school educations -- they may have the diplomas but they just got cranked out by the assembly line with no real learning.

Now of course many of the people you're talking about are not on public assistance. Many are too proud, some just fail to qualify for bureaucratic reasons (unmarried men with no children might as well emigrate), some got the maximum help and once you're off the rolls the government doesn't count you in the total any more. I agree that many of that group of down-on-their-luck people are college graduates. But as big as that group is, it's nothing compared to the larger first group who is on the radar.

I don't agree that a college degree is a handicap, especially if you pick the right major. Too many kids expect to be investment bankers, even though they can't make change for a dollar bill without a calculator. Millions are studying IT, as if they can't read the newspaper and notice that all of those jobs are rapidly migrating offshore as the American cowboy way of developing software becomes increasingly outdated. And kids who get degrees in philosophy or English or history are living in the genteel past and had better have rich parents.

Chemical engineering is a hot degree, with biotechnology poised to become the leading industry of this century. The more technical facets of computers, such as computer science as opposed to software engineering, are also good because of the rise of nanotechnology.

One major with an absolutely woeful need for students is the various Middle Eastern languages. I doubt very much that the world political order is going to change much in the next couple of decades, and the CIA has a several-year backlog of documents in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Pashto, etc. waiting for translation. People whose opinion I respect have said seriously that there's probably a document in Arabic describing the 9/11 operation in complete detail, dated August 2001, still sitting in some overworked CIA translator's in-basket.

Isn't it interesting that people are griping that the government is basing its current anti-terrorism tactics on four-year-old information -- but nobody is asking why four-year-old information is just now being reviewed? It was all hidden in Baghdad and we just found it. Yeah sure.

Yet I don't deny that there is way too much emphasis on a university education. It's supposed to be for the brightest and most ambitious students. If 30 percent (or whatever the number is) of high school graduates can qualify for college admission, it means the standards are way too low. You can verify that statement by noting that today the average American college graduate reads at what we used to call the sixth-grade level -- if it's something he's really interested in like sports -- otherwise fifth-grade.

So I agree that kids should not be shoved into college as if there's no other rational choice. You suggest a job as an electrician or truck driver. Those are good choices. But I still say the number one choice for your children if you want them to have a job that in all likelihood will never be automated or offshore-outsourced is to apprentice them to a plumber. The richest man in our small town who didn't inherit his money is the oldest plumber. One of my uncles was a plumber and he was the most prosperous man in our family.

Sure it's dirty work, but there are different kinds of dirt, and office politics and butt-kissing can get mighty dirty too. Besides, after you get established in a business of your own -- probably by buying your own master plumber's shop because he's desperate for a buyer -- you can hire your own apprentices to do the crawling and snaking while you do the skilled above-ground jobs like soldering or simply supervise.

As someone famous said, "The society that rewards shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted occupation but ignores excellence in plumbing because it is a humble occupation is doomed. Neither its theories nor its pipes will hold water."

For starters, just stop and consider the number of Americans who would be on the street without public assistance, and those who get it and are on the street anyway. Yes of course there are some PhDs and other college graduates in that mix -- mostly people who need psychiatric care or at least serious help, but are too "smart" to get it. Either because they think they know better than the shrinks or because they think we have the problem, not them. But speaking from the experience of decades of government work, I can assure you that about 99 percent of the people on public assistance do not have college degrees. I'd say half of them don't even have high school educations -- they may have the diplomas but they just got cranked out by the assembly line with no real learning.

I’d like to make it clearer. I do not argue that quitting without HS diploma is the smartest financial move one can make (sure, sometimes it’s the best move if you are Britney or clearly gifted in some other area). I’d agree that a simple BS will pay for itself in 9 out of 10 cases (eventually, at least). I am speaking about the advanced degrees (Ph.D.s). In the majority of cases getting a Ph.D. is the 2nd dumbest (after quitting HS) career/financial move one can make in the modern world. Ratio efforts/pay off, probability of success is definitely too low (on the average) to risk the best years of ones life as well as to risk the rest of your productive life (in the case of failure). That is why American graduate schools in sciences are mostly filled with foreigners from relatively poor countries (who have no better choice). Sure, if one’s dream is to become a lab rat/ famous (in very limited circles) scientist, career prospects is of secondary concern. However, for the majority it’s a primary concern. Contrary to my observations, government statistics claims that the higher your educational level the higher your lifetime earnings. Which, I deeply believe, is not the case. Rare Ph.D. will make more $ per life time than the average BS will.

As for your example with public assistance: are those 99% without HS education on public assistance because
a) They are “normal” humanoids but they do not have HS diploma because of the family circumstances, for example. I believe there are not many of these. One can get a GED under the adverse circumstances provided the will and $1000.
b) they are too dysfunctional to get HS diploma in the first place. In the second case, their being on public assistance is not directly related to their educational level. Sure, probability of finding a partially dysfunctional person among people with advanced degrees is much, much less (after all, getting those degrees is a hard job requiring lots of self-control).

I don't agree that a college degree is a handicap, especially if you pick the right major. Too many kids expect to be investment bankers, even though they can't make change for a dollar bill without a calculator. Millions are studying IT, as if they can't read the newspaper and notice that all of those jobs are rapidly migrating offshore as the American cowboy way of developing software becomes increasingly outdated. And kids who get degrees in philosophy or English or history are living in the genteel past and had better have rich parents.

I did not claim that. College degrees still pay for itself. However, advanced college degrees bring much more modest return on investments than simple BS (in my opinion. US government has different opinion.) Penalty for failure is much more severe for the people with Ph.D.s than that for the people with BS.

Chemical engineering is a hot degree, with biotechnology poised to become the leading industry of this century. The more technical facets of computers, such as computer science as opposed to software engineering, are also good because of the rise of nanotechnology.

I have some firsthand knowledge to disappoint you. Chemical engineering is/was relatively hot. In the best Clinton’s years 50% chem. Eng. Grads could NOT find a job related to their education (I even do not want to think about that % in the current economy). Secondly, engineering is a game of relatively young people (i.e. rampant age discrimination). In the chemical engineering, cut off age is around 40 y.o. (and then kick in the ass). Not more than 20% of 40 something y.o. Chem. Eng. Grads (lucky to find a related job upon graduation) are still employed as Chem. Eng. It’s not that bad. If one has chosen electronics design field, his ass will be kicked out of the engineering business when he’ll turn “ripe” 35 y.o. It ‘s rough out there. As for biotech, sorry to disappoint you again. Biotech is a “mature” field it grows very slowly (in the selected job markets only). Considering looming outsourcing, even modest growth will come to the halt soon.

If one wants seriously screw up his life, my advice: get a Ph.D. in anything with “bio” in the front (biochemistry, biology, molecular biology, whatever (except biostatistics)…..). I guarantee you (for 85% ) employment misery, 5-10 years of 26k/year postdocing, and no life outside of the lab for 15-20 best years of your life. Bio fields are the most glutted, the least paid (except few jobs in big pharma). But maybe on the bachelors level things are different.

Despite all I said, engineering degrees still pay for itself (if one will find a related job). Even if you’ll be fired when you’ll hit 42 y.o. (with little hope of finding an engineering job again), you will earn roughly 55-60k/year (on the average) for 20 years. And then you can always drive a truck.

One major with an absolutely woeful need for students is the various Middle Eastern languages. I doubt very much that the world political order is going to change much in the next couple of decades, and the CIA has a several-year backlog of documents in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Pashto, etc. waiting for translation. People whose opinion I respect have said seriously that there's probably a document in Arabic describing the 9/11 operation in complete detail, dated August 2001, still sitting in some overworked CIA translator's in-basket.

I do not see how USA will be able to support its world empire considering its current and future economic woes. USSR could not. There is at least 1 million of Arabic speakers within USA borders already. It seems US government did/does not trust its citizens of certain origin. United we stand? Yeah right.

jumping to the end here...

Why should the basic worker not get as much as some dude that has been sitting in a university half his life?
Its said workers that allows those ph.d to do there job, because without the commen workers there would be no food, no power, no housing ect, does the highly educated worker realy deserve more?

okay, I may be making 45k as a Ph.D., but I enjoy it... i'd rather being doing this then driving a truck getting paid 60k a year.

good points good thread. I have seen those stats I think too Massey, but I thought they were in referrerence to earning power as opposed to actual income earned.

Some things to consider though:

like you said 18 yr old kid with hands is earning money right away while kid in college is not earning much and is incurring a lot of debt.

You will be hard pressed to name a blue collar job that can be outsourced with the exception of farming.

The fail rate at the college level is high (not sure about post grad or dr levels).

blue collar skills are very specific whereas most college skills are general and need further training to specialize them

In the time it takes to get even a four year degree many people could have learned 3 + blue collar skills making them multi-marketable

blue collar skills are task oriented white collar skills are planning and strategy oriented.....one job per task but one plan for larger group.

blue collar skills have a narrower pay scale meaning lowest paying jobs closer to higher paying jobs than white colllar job. There are some really high paying white collar jobs that blues can't match but the median and mean for blue is much stronger number wise than white

many people with blue collar skills seem to have more transferable skills than their white collar counterparts.

Yes, it’s true that you can get a PhD and end up working very hard for little pay, or be unable to find a job at all. However it’s undeniable that on average, people with PhDs make significantly more money than people without them. Yes, you can come up with anecdotal examples of people with PhDs who are poor and people with only a highschool diploma who are wealthy; but that isn’t representative of what’s likely to happen. Consider two 18y.o. folks A and B (both equal in their development). A decided to get a Ph.D., for example in microbiology, = 4 years in college to earn a BS (-$50K, at least). +5-8 years more in a graduate school to get a Ph.D. (if he's lucky he'll be on some kind of assistantship, so let's assume Ph.D. cost him just -$10k).That's an extreme worst-case scenario. My undergraduate education had a net cost of about $21,000. I’m making money while getting my PhD, so by the time I graduate (assuming it takes me 4-5 years) I’ll have completely paid off my student loans and will have saved enough money to support myself for a while if I have trouble finding a job I like.A has got his Ph.D., he's found no "real" related job upon graduation (60-80% of the recent graduates could not find anything good too), he's forced to accept $26k/year postdoc and do mainly brain numbing technician job (his boss cannot hire a technician with Community college diploma for 26K; so he's using cheap Ph.D.s instead). I don’t know what the labor statistics are like for other fields, but for newly-graduated chemistry PhDs in 2003 96% were able to find work within a year of graduating, with a median starting salary of $63,000/year – which is very acceptable for a 26-27 year old, by any standard. 35% of them got jobs in academia, with a median starting salary of $41,000/year. 65% of them got jobs in industry, with a median starting salary of $73,000/year. The average salary of a PhD chemist with more than three years experience (in both industry and academia) is $77,000/year.

The vast majority of people without higher education aren’t likely to make anywhere near that amount of money. Even people with a bachelor’s degree aren’t likely to do so well by that age.

Yes, it’s true that you can get a PhD and end up working very hard for little pay, or be unable to find a job at all. However it’s undeniable that on average, people with PhDs make significantly more money than people without them. Yes, you can come up with anecdotal examples of people with PhDs who are poor and people with only a highschool diploma who are wealthy; but that isn’t representative of what’s likely to happen. That's an extreme worst-case scenario. My undergraduate education had a net cost of about $21,000. I’m making money while getting my PhD, so by the time I graduate (assuming it takes me 4-5 years) I’ll have completely paid off my student loans and will have saved enough money to support myself for a while if I have trouble finding a job I like. I don’t know what the labor statistics are like for other fields, but for newly-graduated chemistry PhDs in 2003 96% were able to find work within a year of graduating, with a median starting salary of $63,000/year – which is very acceptable for a 26-27 year old, by any standard. 35% of them got jobs in academia, with a median starting salary of $41,000/year. 65% of them got jobs in industry, with a median starting salary of $73,000/year. The average salary of a PhD chemist with more than three years experience (in both industry and academia) is $77,000/year.

The vast majority of people without higher education aren’t likely to make anywhere near that amount of money. Even people with a bachelor’s degree aren’t likely to do so well by that age.


I really do not know where you have discovered your chemistry Ph.D.s statistics. Probably university counselor's info. tuned to make a sale, or some professional association's info (which, by definition, counts only those who's doing OK and better than OK). Nobody is doing universal statistics like that in the USA, nobody. Whatever data are out there are very skewed, incomplete and not reliable. I rely solely on my personal experiences.

I have worked in a national lab. Dozens of chemistry Ph.D.s were postdocing there for quite a number of years before going to yet another postdoc (mostly). Such a "love" to the $40k-something postdocing is explained only by the lousy job market. I can count very few folks who have gotten a real job after 2-4 years of the slaving. Consider for the future the "rule of thumb": national labs pay (much) more to postdocs (+benefits) than universities do (usually without benefits), so $41k/yr median salary for the fresh chemistry Ph.D.s in academia (mostly in postdoc spots, where else?) sounds totally unrealistic. if postdocing in a national lab does not do people much good (careerwise) after 2-4 years, I just can imagine the plight of those in some G*d forgotten 2 nd tier universities. It could be that they almost all were foreign born, it's tougher for foreign born folks to find a real job.

Science world (in Academia, at least) has been divided/is being divided in two uneven parts: tenured nobility and peons (much more numerous). Examples of Ph.D.s career going sour are not anecdotal they are everywhere. Space on the top is limited, as you know. You'll live, you'll see.
BTW, 50% of teaching/ research staff in American universities are temporary low wage (on par with McD) adjuncts, lecturers, constantly visiting something researchers, etc. Sure, smart hardworking people usually find a way to jump the Ph.D. career boats one way or another and make a decent living eventually (there is even book publishing industry associated with making such a jump). But, what does their eventual success have to with their Ph.D.s? Pretty much nothing. Had they avoided Ph.D. programs in the first place, they could have been x times more successful (financially).

The world of higher paying/harder to get ino industrial research has its own pitfalls. #1. Frequent layoffs/year long job searches. #2. Age discrimination #3. Shrinking Private R&D and outsourcing. #4. Lots of pressure to deliver results. No time/resources to make sense out of results i.e. trial and error science (to do which one does not really need to have any Ph.D. or even BS, just common sense + some experience). it's hard to believe in the bright prospects of chemistry Ph.D.s knowing that Dupont/General Electrics/GM/Bell Labs cut their R&D stuff almost each year.


Rare Ph.D. (in the Ph.D. career track) will make more than equally talented BS (who had senses to stop at BS or masters). Your statistics is quite unreal and goes against common sense. Let’s not compare 2.0 GPA BS with a Ph.D. Let's compare bright 3.9 GPA BS with the average Ph.D. I am quite sure who'll lose. Simply consider this: fresh BS in engineering (lucky to find a job) will most likely make more $ then an assistant professor who taught him (not to speak of lecturers, adjuncts, and other miserable beings). Lucky/smart 21 y.o. BS can earn 50K-60K; his more evolved, average Ph.D. minded friend will make $50K in his 30th or even 40th, or never. Depending on a field. For example, Ph.D.s in biology with 15 years of experience make whopping 48k/year on the average. Better type "Ph.D. glut" or a similar search phrase in google and expand your horizons. Search in googles groups if you want more informal info.

Consider universities as big sweatshops, which need cheap labor=graduate students, postdocs, etc. to keep grant getting/teaching machine running. Universities simply do not give a damn about job market. Output of Ph.D.s is completely disengaged from market. It's related only to NSF budget (which never was cut yet). Say, this year a university departments needs 20 Research assistants and 10 teaching assistants to keep the research cheap, publish more papers, and get more $ in the future. That means that 30 new graduate students will be enrolled and graduated. Luckily, there are plenty of foreign applicants to fill the spots. As a result, Ph.D. glut is growing every single year. Notice, job market does not grow. So, where do those extra souls go? Basically, advanced diplomas are becoming "quasi" money universities pay to their TA/RAs in addition to their meager assistantships.

96% of the fresh Ph.D.s in chemistry were able to find a RELATED to their education, Ph.D. requiring work within a year of graduating??? That number is totally unrealistic. Quite a number of Ph.D.s settle on the jobs which do not care (luckily) whatsoever about their Ph.D.s. ALL but one of my acquaintance have gotten good jobs which did not require their Ph.D.s, period. Is their income due to their Ph.D.s? Hell no. It was butt pain for them to get those jobs namely because of their degrees. (Real world does not like Ph.D.s in any but lab rat capacity, remember about that).

Here comes another group of well paid Ph.D.s. Folks who's made their careers (and $) in a non Ph.D. capacity sometimes feel urge to earn a Ph.D. Sometimes companies send their good older employees to get a Ph.D. and pay for it (but those times are almost gone). Is their income due to their Ph.D.?


If you are a Ph.D. student in chemistry, if you are not a full time student on assistantship doing research "24/7", 4-5 years is somewhat optimistic estimate (if you are in a good school). But maybe you'll manage. You should have some residency time, when you are not allowed to keep a job outside of the university. But people find ways how to circumvent that rule. Ph.D. will cost you some $ ($400-.../credit hours x 50..hrs, at least). You must be doing quite OK to live well (I guess), pay off your loans, save $, and pay for your Ph.D. If you are doing that good, I doubt possessing a Ph.D. will change your life much to the better (financially). Sure, if you like chemistry more than your life, monetary/career considerations are not #1 concern (for some time, at least). Just remember, providence (by means of me) warned you (just kidding).

Personally, I have problems with "what kind of jobs" Ph.D.s, on the research career track, are forced/encouraged to do. For me, monetary considerations are not #1 yet. However, I cannot stand deliberate futility, doing meaningless research solely for the milking of a grant cow, wasting lots of time on multiple proposal writing, writing countless semi-useless papers to survive, hyping BS up, continuous "used car sales". In two words, I do not belong to the world of the government sponsored research and academia where the skills in the above mentioned fields are a must. May be my judgment of the research field is tilted somewhat. But, I have tried to be objective in my writings.

Resources for Sci & Tech Jobs, Careers, Career Transitioning, Graduate School, and the PhD Degree
formerly scientistlifeboat.com
Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs, 4th Edition

(Excellent source of real career info for aspiring scientists. Read it now, it will help to clear things out, to plan career , etc. No matter what one will decide (to jump the Ph.D. boat or rough it through), the info is useful.)

http://scijobs.freeshell.org/ (http://scijobs.freeshell.org/)

Ph.D. will cost you some $ ($400-.../credit hours x 50..hrs, at least). You must be doing quite OK to live well (I guess), pay off your loans, save $, and pay for your Ph.D.In virtually all math and physical science graduate programs the students pay no tuition – it’s covered by the department at no cost to the student. My actual out-of-pocket cost is about $1,000/year. About half of that is buying textbooks and half goes to B.S. fees that the university makes everyone pay – parking decal fees, activity fees, ‘matriculation’ fees, etc. Of course there are plenty of other expenses (rent, car insurance, etc.) but that’s the sort of thing that you’ll be paying whether or not you’re a student.

On top of that, nearly all students receive roughly $15,000-$25,000/year. Not all schools fall into that range, but most do. You can make significantly more than that if you manage to get a nice fellowship or attach yourself to a very well-funded research project. I have a friend who’s getting paid $30,000/year to get his PhD in math, but that’s abnormally high.

Anyway, my point is that most science PhD students don’t really have to pay any money for the degree, and are well-supported by their department while they’re a student.

There are far more PhD's trained than there are academic positions. That is a simple fact. Career opportunities are therefore rather limited in the academic world.

Of course people would like you to think that doing a PhD in for instance biology trains you also for the private sector, let's say the biolotechnology companies.

That is of course total bullshit. Here in finland the companies prefer to hire people that just have their masters. Why? Because they aren't fucked up yet for the businessworld. You acquire certain skills during doing a PhD, but none of them are really business orientated. In fact most skills you learn are exactly the opposite of what biotechnology companies are after.

The situation here is that PhD student are basically cheap labour. You can kick them out whenever you want to. You can give them a grant, which is much more economical than poper wages. And sadly enough most are treated as if they are technicians.

If you also have a medical degree it can be advantagous to do a PhD. For certain specializations it is beneficial or even a requirement to have research experience.

In conclusion. There are too many PhD trained (on purpose). There is no secure future in having a PhD. Often it can even be held against you on the job market.

I know many people with Ph D's , They make only an average of $40,000 and are 25-50% of the time unemployed and/or scared they'll be canned soon. Having their butts exploited in graduate school by greedy professors. It only gets better after graduation when they go and do post-docs. During graduate school and post-doc positions you probably are going to be required to work from 7am to 7pm , that's if your boss is nice and considerate. The U.S. government screwed up. They said , we are going to need a bunch of Ph D's to meet the demands. Then the USSR dissappeared. All the Russian Scientists came here. Add to that the Indians, the Chinesse , the Argentinians etc...
In less than 9 years the Ph D's supply tripled. Now the American PhD graduates better go and flip burgers , because there is no way Miraslov Pukokukava is going to retire any soon.
If you are thinking of studying because there is a big demand for it. Don't worry. The government is going to import whatever it needs before you finish your studies. But ok let's say you finish your studies. It doesn't matter anyway the government is going to find a way to saturate that employment market.
Let's say the government is in need of 200,000 nano-tech scientists. Well they'll aprove 1million nano-tech visas and there you go. Your PhD in nano-technology is worth nothing.
Your employment success rate with an advanced degree is the same as with a high school education.
Education definetly helps, but it should be pursued only in a part-time basis.
From the educated people, you only hear the good stories. The poor bastards that are unemployed with PhD's are too ashamed to come out and say , Hey I have a PhD and I am unemployed, It's just too embarassing.
So you only hear the good stories. I know a lot of PhD's and I know a lot of truckers and gardeners. Guess who makes more money?
From my observation:
10% of PhD's make more than 100K for sure after 10 years experience
90% of the other sorry ass PhD's make only $40k that's as instructors, post-docs , research associates etc..
As a just in case tool.

Truckers
50% of the truckers make more than 60K for sure
10% make more than 130K a year for sure
40% make like 25K a year but they work an average of 2 days a week compare that to sorry ass PhD's that work 7 days a week.

Gardeners
100% make no less than 200 bucks a day, compare that to the PhD's that only make like 100 a day if they are lucky. but they still have to bust their asses.

My conclusion is that education is very important. But it does not guarantees a job.
Treat studies like the tv watching or junk food eating. Too much of it is harmful.

Would you care to cite some actual statistics, rather than just making them up to support your argument? I can give you study after study showing that people with advanced degrees on average make significantly more money. I very seriously doubt that you can produce any evidence to back your claims.

Would you care to cite some actual statistics, rather than just making them up to support your argument? I can give you study after study showing that people with advanced degrees on average make significantly more money. I very seriously doubt that you can produce any evidence to back your claims.

Nasor, government studies are bull, they are going against common sense and experience of many (if not majority) of Ph.D.s. Have you read this thread perfunctory to understand why I think those studies are bull? Have you investigated metodology of those studies? As chemist told: "Ph.D. losers are too ashamed to come forward and admit their career/financial failures". OK, you may continue trusting rosy info of government; but, man, if you are a Ph.D. student you'll see (more likely than not) what we mean here. I wish you to be among few successful ($/career wise) Ph.D.s though. You are right there are quite a few of those. The question is: "What is the ratio losers/achievers?". Good luck!

In this world, people that work hard gain almost nothing, while people that doesn't work much gain a lot. Think about it. People that don't work much are for example CEOs, models, politicians... They do pratically nothing and they are very well paid. There's people around here that work their entire lives, from early in the morning to late at night, pratically every day, and they gain almost nothing. Having a PhD is not the issue. The issue is whter the system worls or not. Look at the tuition in Canada and in the US. To pay it, a lot of young people get into debt and they most ikely will never be able to pay it. At the same time, a pretty girl can get into the model industry and do nothing but travel the rest of her entire life. The system clearly doesn't work. Girls are pretty lucky on that.They can become miss universe or something like that and they travel all around the planet and do nothing their entire lives..
What a crock-load of shit. If it doesn't take much work to be a CEO, then why is no-one offering anyone the job for $24k? Why don't you start your own company then, pay yourself $24k and you'll be able to compete with those wasteful CEO's... Hard, smart work always pays off. The only ones to say otherwise are the ones that haven't done any.

dixonmassey- counterexample to your friend: my family came to the US 9 years ago because my father (PhD) was offered a job earning <30k. He is now doing the same kind of work making >100k. To say he is a hard worker, however, is a gross understatement. He loves his job, and he does it well. Maybe your friend's heart just wasn't in the work she was doing, I mean, just having a PhD doesn't mean much... I think everyone knew those kids in school that got all of the A's, but didn't actually comprehend any of the material. Well, that's the kind of stuff that matters in real life, PhD or no PhD, and grades can't measure that, but people can, and so can $.

Treat studies like the tv watching or junk food eating. Too much of it is harmful.
Whoever takes advice from these forums is going to be one fucked up individual... No, don't treat studies like TV watching and junk food eating. Treat them as the opposite: sometimes it's not about balancing things, sometimes it's about heading towards an extreme. The less TV you watch the better, same with junk food. I've never heard of a person saying 'damn, I wish I'd eaten more junk food when I was younger'. The more you study, the more you learn, the more you can produce when you work. More productivity = more $. Pretty simple stuff. PhD or no PhD, people that produce get compensated, people that don't, don't.

Insightful made-up statistic from a pretty famous book (The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond)- on any project with enough people working on it, 10% of programmers do 95% of the work. It's like that with pretty much everywhere. If you know what you're doing and do it well, you'll make the $, the more you work, the less luck has to do with anything...

What a crock-load of shit. If it doesn't take much work to be a CEO, then why is no-one offering anyone the job for $24k? Why don't you start your own company then, pay yourself $24k and you'll be able to compete with those wasteful CEO's... Hard, smart work always pays off. The only ones to say otherwise are the ones that haven't done any.

dixonmassey- counterexample to your friend: my family came to the US 9 years ago because my father (PhD) was offered a job earning <30k. He is now doing the same kind of work making >100k. To say he is a hard worker, however, is a gross understatement. He loves his job, and he does it well. Maybe your friend's heart just wasn't in the work she was doing, I mean, just having a PhD doesn't mean much... I think everyone knew those kids in school that got all of the A's, but didn't actually comprehend any of the material. Well, that's the kind of stuff that matters in real life, PhD or no PhD, and grades can't measure that, but people can, and so can $.\

Well, you say right things I cannot argue against BUT you don't see BIG picture. OK, your father was successful, good for him. However, how many 30k Ph.D.s of equal ability and drive did not make it? My guess=too many. Hard work, love of science, etc. does not refute primitive law of supply and demand. If there are two equal ability individual and only one job for them, what will happen? Secondly, as much as modern science machine relies on successful 100k individuals, it simply cannot exist without pool of cheap, dispensable Ph.D. labor. Life is rough out there. Idialistic aspirants should realize that. Hard work etc. is in no way a guarantee against failure. If Ph.D. losers would have invested their time and efforts in something else (like truck driving) they would not face being a 45 y.o. postdoc without $, house, insurance and future. That is the POINT. One thing is too invest 4 years in training and flip burgers. Another thing is too waste 20 years and to be in loser's shoes. I hope you are getting my point=science cannot function without losers, losers are treated as discardable wipes by science machine, which cannot exist without them. Also, as much as deterministic people want to believe to the contrary, being in the right place at the right time counts for a lot in this world, see Bill G.

How many 30k Ph.D.s of equal ability and drive did not make it? My guess=too many. Hard work, love of science, etc. does not refute primitive law of supply and demand.I can agree with the latter part, not the former. When supply and demand hit (as they are doing to the tech jobs now), only the best stay. It's not just about working hard and loving what you do, it's about being good at it. Rediculously good at it. Being the best.

I can agree with the latter part, not the former. When supply and demand hit (as they are doing to the tech jobs now), only the best stay. It's not just about working hard and loving what you do, it's about being good at it. Rediculously good at it. Being the best.

Well, in the real swamps of academy and governmental research (I know little about industry) scientific excellence is not (unfortunately) the only way to full blown financial/career success. Office politics, salemanship skills, hype skills, ass kissing skills, light fraud skills, etc., etc., etc are very important. That's why I am not sure about "the best stay" part. "The best" in what? If a guy is the best $grant$ getter, he'll stay employed no matter how worthless is his research/results are (money do not smell). If scientific journals will stop publishing worthless, redundant piles of "scientific" publications (necessary for survival, publish crap or perish and near worthless otherwise) I'll buy "the best stay". Secondly, deliberate overproduction of Ph.D.s (to use as cheap labor and throw out) is incredible waste of human lives.

okay, I may be making 45k as a Ph.D., but I enjoy it... i'd rather being doing this then driving a truck getting paid 60k a year.

Apologies for digging this one up but I joined the thread late. I think it's perfectly fair to say this, but at the same time it's almost as if you are being punished for your qualifications/knowledge. You may not enjoy the prospect of truck driving for a living, but it's highly likely that someone who has chosen this as a career does (assuming that they would re-train for another career if they didn't). If, in addition, you both work equally hard in your chosen careers, how is it justifiable that somebody receives significantly greater financial reward for one by comparison to the other?

Also, to raise a discussion I've had many times with my father, I don't believe that unintellectual work should be as well paid as more intellectually orientated vocations. My simple justification for this is, to use a very poor choice of words, 'expendibility'. I would like to believe that people choose their career paths on the basis of what they will find rewarding/stimulating. Whereas the truck driver may find his career stimulating, it certainly wouldn't stimulate someone who is more intellectually gifted. But whereas the truck driver may be totally incapable by whatever means, of performing the role of a PhD, I find it unlikely that the same is true of the reverse. Of course, the PhD may not enjoy the role of truck driver, but that certainly doesn't suggest that he/she isn't infinitely capable of filling it, should he/she be required to do so.

To me this suggests that there are far more individuals with the potential to be successful truck drivers as there are potential professors. If it wasn't for the desire for stimulation many intelligent people seek, I doubt there would be half as many PhDs out there. Intelligent or not, people just wouldn't bother.

To add to the 'if your good at something, you'll be rewarded for it' discussion, I think that view is correct to some degree. However, you may be the best person at something ever to live, but if that something isn't in demand, your unlikely to recieve any particular financial reward for it. Incidentally, many salesmen make a whole heap of cash off the back of their talents with 'hot air' - hardly humanity's greatest blessing or achievement.

Sorry for any incoherency but I'm experiencing one of those 'completely tired but unable to sleep' situations!

"Education is surely critical. It's just not the only policy solution to our short- and long-term challenges -- and sometimes not even a particularly useful one."

-Alan Greenspan

"As it has been reported, our firms already outsource radiology, financial analysis, and programming jobs to low-wage counties, can we conclude that our displaced workers need better skill sets?"
-Alan Greenspan

"Offshoring is not inevitable, it is a choice. If there were a truly free labor market I could move to one of the countries that the jobs are going to and compete for a job in an environment where my living cost is the same as my competition. The countries that are receiving the jobs won't let me in." -Stuart

If any of you are interested in the US government stats, you can find them for any job here:

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/ooh20002001/1.htm


For Lawyers:
Type of work Salary
All graduates
$60,000
Private practice
90,000
Business/industry
60,000
Judicial clerkship and government
40,300
Academe
40,000

For Truckers:
General freight trucking $17.56
Grocery and related product wholesalers 16.90
Specialized freight trucking 15.79
Other specialty trade contractors 14.25
Cement and concrete product manufacturing 14.14

For Chemists:
Federal government $72,010
Scientific research and development services 60,400
Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing 53,070
Architectural, engineering, and related services 38,780

If any of you are interested in the US government stats, you can find them for any job here:

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/ooh20002001/1.htm


For Lawyers:
Type of work Salary
All graduates
$60,000
Private practice
90,000
Business/industry
60,000
Judicial clerkship and government
40,300
Academe
40,000

For Truckers:
General freight trucking $17.56
Grocery and related product wholesalers 16.90
Specialized freight trucking 15.79
Other specialty trade contractors 14.25
Cement and concrete product manufacturing 14.14


Oh Dear, you've missed the point of discussion completely. Don't take government statistics as absolute, analyze it. Here is a few points you should consider: 1) does government statistics considers temps, postdocs, etc. in its 60K average calculations? (hell no, otherwise, sheer numbers of low paid temps in research world would never let average incomes fly to 60K or something like that. 2) THE MAIN point: how many Ph.D. graduates get those 72K jobs? How many graduates cannot get any decent job in research (and outside of it)? You see, averages are meaningless, unless you know % of graduates achieving career success (sorry, that % is increadibly low, that's why native born westerners prefer to stay away from sciences as far as possible). 3) Ethical point: Academe lost its moral grounds and turned into a big grant getting sweatshop. In order not to hire "expensive" HS, CC, University graduates to work in research (as technicians, engineers, etc.), academe prefer admit as many cheap&dispensible graduate students/postdocs to man essentially technician level jobs. It's incredible waste of resources and human lives. I've seen what kind of "educated"&"challenging" jobs cheap Ph.D.s were doing. It's a shame and disgrace. 4) Let's assume that an over the road driver makes $45K on the average. But guess what, it takes 2 months or so to become a truck driver and 10-20 years to become 60k researcher (if one is extremely lucky).

Oh Dear, you've missed the point of discussion completely. Don't take government statistics as absolute, analyze it. Here is a few points you should consider: 1) does government statistics considers temps, postdocs, etc. in its 60K average calculations? (hell no, otherwise, sheer numbers of low paid temps in research world would never let average incomes fly to 60K or something like that.Based on what I've seen in chemistry salaries, this sounds about right. The average post-doc salary seems to be around $25k-$35k/year, while industry salaries start at $70k and go up much higher if you're specialized in something with a high demand (like computational drug design or organic synthesis). Heck, the grad students at my university get paid $20k/year base, more if they can get some kind of fellowship.2) THE MAIN point: how many Ph.D. graduates get those 72K jobs? How many graduates cannot get any decent job in research (and outside of it)? You see, averages are meaningless, unless you know % of graduates achieving career successI've posted statistics on this before, but you dismiss them as propaganda from 'the man'. What do you want, exactly?

Based on what I've seen in chemistry salaries, this sounds about right. The average post-doc salary seems to be around $25k-$35k/year, while industry salaries start at $70k and go up much higher if you're specialized in something with a high demand (like computational drug design or organic synthesis).
Did I argue with those numbers?

Heck, the grad students at my university get paid $20k/year base, more if they can get some kind of fellowship.
So grad students are just paid to study even if they don't have assistantship, fellowship, etc.? Well, it's very unlikely (in the USA, at least). They must work on some project, teach classes to make those $. If all what they need to do (to get paid) is to enroll, please, tell me the name of such a wonderful university. I want to enroll there.

I've posted statistics on this before, but you dismiss them as propaganda from 'the man'.
What statistics did you post? I bet, your department does not have clue what its graduates are doing right now. And you are talking about some unexistent statistics on the national scale. Where did that statistics come from? Who collected it and how? But you are right, professional association's statistics will show close to 100% employment of its members. Unemployed (in the field) don't need that membership after all.

What do you want, exactly

It's not like I want something. I don't want anything except discussion. It's sci. forum, after all.
The QUESTION: "How many Ph.D. (natural sciences) graduates are
permanently employed in the fields related to their education (in the positions requiring that Ph.D.) remains open. National statistics does not exist. So, I rely solely on my experience and judgment (which could be wrong).

The fact that PhD is a LATIN acronym should give its uselessness away before anything else. But it doesn't. Why?

I see three groups of people on my campus:
-fear driven
-money driven
-passion driven

>Money driven will avoid anything with a low ROI, no matter how 'fun'. Only a few bother with the phD
>Passion driven are either way too independant or ambitious to spend time hiding in a professors shadow.
>Fear driven..now these guys have tunnel vision, and often end up getting PhD's because they're too frail for the real world. When they wake up in the morning, they don't think of new ways of accomplishing things. Nope. Instead they do as told. In exchange, they get a hat which says 'McD' on it. (These people are supposed to do groundbreaking research?)

The PhD is like a beaten path which offers comfort to the fear consumed lemmings, but ultimately leads off the edge of a cliff and into a deep, dark abyss. :) Rule #1: Keep your eyes open at all times.

Ok..so I'm a first year undergrad, but isn't this obvious? Or is it harder to see the more educated one becomes?

It is somthing I have believed for quite some time.

It is interesting to see someone formulate what a PhD grad makes vs. someone in a trade. I would like to see some more anaylitical formulas taking money/earnings into consideration.

I would like to sound off on this thread. This is going to sound blunt, and perhaps a little "rude" to some, but here it is:


1) I have pathological hatred for all my college professors. Those who cannot do -teach.


College professors teach because they failed the real test which is being successful in the real world. Because they have lived in or around colleges for most of their lives they have built up vast stores of theoretical knowledge of how the real world works. The ultimate truth is that theoretical knowledge is just that – theoretical.

In the real world you are constantly being judged on your performance. If you fail at your job you are fired. You have to perform every day, there isn’t any choice. Knowledge and procedures are constantly changing so you constantly have to figure out more and more, or never advance to a higher job. There are Supervisors and Managers who constantly observe and judge your performance.

When you are taught by failures, who have effectively failed in the world, what are they likely to teach you? Certainly not what works. What they teach you is what they know, and what they know is how to do it all wrong. Therefore you are learning what they know all too well - which is how to fail.

Never doubt the ignorance of your Professor. This is a person who will stop at nothing to infect you with all the wrong attitudes and ideas. Notice also that they can't stand successful people out in the real world, they call those people who succeed evil, or ignorant (a popular tool in most academic arguments), or bourgeois or imperialists, etc. etc. ad infinitum, when it is they themselves who are truly the dull-witted ones. They are miserably unaware of how things truly work.



2) I believe that the only thing that really matters in the long run is how much money you make. I'm a money oreinted person. It took me quite some time to train myself to be this way because its not natural, nonetheless I'm glad I did. The training has paid off.


3) I graduated college with a degree in "International Business and Trade". After graduating I could not find a job. I had to work for free. I eventually specialized in International Law. At age 26 I went into business for myself. It has been incredibly difficult. 60-70 weeks are the norm. It is blood, sweat, tears, and pain. It is SALES and hussling. Two things most people stay in school forever to aviod. Today I am making more working for myself then anyone else in my shows working for someone else. Certainly more than an "electrician". But that could end at any time. You stop. You die. It could all end tommorow. Clients could leave, not pay, sales coudl drop off. There are a million reasons That's how this world works.

You are wasting your time in school. You are following outdated advice of "stay in school, make good grades, get a good job.

The way this world works now is insane. Graduate from college with 50k in DEBT (debt is slavery) and your LUCKY to find a job working for 30k per year.

College's are supported by big business. You know why? Supply. It's all about money. Money. Money. Money. They want a large supply of highly educated workers to keep thier profits flowing to the top. And if you have ever taken economics 101 you know what happens to the salary.

You will never make any money working for someone else. You will only make money being self employed or a business owner. Thats a fact. That or you will WORK FOR someone who is (or was) an entraprenuer. They took the risks. You were a scared and looking for "job security" that no longer exsists.

My advise to you if you have an MBA or a PHD and do not want to start your own business? WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Under Bush the goverment has grown to monsterous proportions. You would be shocked how much money some government employees make? PHD? Expect to make 60k starting pushing 150k by your retirement in which you can retire on HALF PAY and medical/dental benifits for life at age 55 or with 30 years of service.

OR if you are like me, you will fight your financial independance and make even more (hopefully).

Please heed these words. I know they are direct but I really think they are true. I was sold the same lie growing up that I should "go to school, makes good grades, get a good job, and work my way up the corporate ladder". But it's not me. It never was. I refuse to let my success depend on other peoples recognition of my acheivements.

Do you know what you see when you are climbing the corporate ladder? Someone's ass always in your face. Thats no way to live. You must go the unconveintional route or you will go the conventional one standing in line with the sheep. And just like the stock market, the Real Estate market, or most important, the J-O-B market, the sheep get slaugtered.


I understand all of you are very smart. But in this Darwinistic world, you can have all the degrees in the world, a PHD etc, and I can be a high school drop, and if I make more money than you - I am more successful than you. In the longrun the only thing that matters is MONEY. I hate to say it like that. But it's the truth.

...

In my experience the greater the amount of education the more a person generally makes. Of course there are exceptions but that is generally how it goes.

I don't have a PhD but I do have more than one hundred graduate credits over a Master's Degree. When I retired from education I was earning a six figure salary and my pension gives me more money than I need to live. It has allowed me to purchase an oceanfront condo in southern Florida and to travel extensively. I am sure none of this would have happened had I only a high school education. I have four brothers and a sister with high school educations only and none of them earn more than thirty five thousand a year and two earn considerably less.

My four children all have advanced degrees and earn considerably more than either my wife or I ever did at the same point on our careers. My daughter is a special education teacher and earns close to 100K per year. Like her mother and me she will have a great pension waiting for her when she retires. My oldest son is a dentist earning over 175K, my next oldest is a cardiologist earning about 200K and my youngest is a lawyer earning about 250K which will go up to about 750K within five years.

The difference between my three sons and the average PhD, especially a PhD in the field of education is the amount of work put into the average week. My sons all work minimum sixty hour weeks and my youngest usually works a seventy five hour week. Each of them is on call during weekends and holidays. They don't get ten plus weeks of paid vacation or, as in the case of college instructors and professors, more than fifteen weeks of vacation time. Their days start early and end late. They also do not have retirement pensions. If they want to live well once they retire they have to set aside money now while they are still young.

In my experience the greater the amount of education the more a person generally makes. Of course there are exceptions but that is generally how it goes.

I don't have a PhD but I do have more than one hundred graduate credits over a Master's Degree. When I retired from education I was earning a six figure salary and my pension gives me more money than I need to live. It has allowed me to purchase an oceanfront condo in southern Florida and to travel extensively. I am sure none of this would have happened had I only a high school education. I have four brothers and a sister with high school educations only and none of them earn more than thirty five thousand a year and two earn considerably less.

My four children all have advanced degrees and earn considerably more than either my wife or I ever did at the same point on our careers. My daughter is a special education teacher and earns close to 100K per year. Like her mother and me she will have a great pension waiting for her when she retires. My oldest son is a dentist earning over 175K, my next oldest is a cardiologist earning about 200K and my youngest is a lawyer earning about 250K which will go up to about 750K within five years.

The difference between my three sons and the average PhD, especially a PhD in the field of education is the amount of work put into the average week. My sons all work minimum sixty hour weeks and my youngest usually works a seventy five hour week. Each of them is on call during weekends and holidays. They don't get ten plus weeks of paid vacation or, as in the case of college instructors and professors, more than fifteen weeks of vacation time. Their days start early and end late. They also do not have retirement pensions. If they want to live well once they retire they have to set aside money now while they are still young.


It sounds like your children are the dire exception to the rule. You should be on a talk show. I have no idea how so many high income earners are all in one family. I especially have no idea how a "special education teacher" (one who teaches retards) makes near 100k per year when the median income for that is 40k. Does she own her own school?

Back when you were growing up pensions were the norm. My grandmother worked for the electric company and still collects a pension of half pay 30 years later. This is definatly totally abnormal today. Today there are no pensions waiting for anyone except in government jobs. The private sector is only intersted in one thing - money. At all costs. Whatever conscaince "it" had in the past is no longer the case. Perhaps it was the market back then, or a sence of ethical responsibilty to employees, who knows. Ethics are ultra rare in businesss and pensions do not exsist. Even when you are lucky enough to have a private pension expect to get layed off within 1-3 of collecting it. A coincidence? I think not. Things have changed. Look at the average 401k from President Clintons years and compare it to now. Back then some companies were offering up to 15% 401k, now you would be hard pressed to find one for 5%.

The rich and shareholders own everything and just want more money. The system is set up to extract this from the bottom of the pyramid. There are no "pensions" anymore. Hire young, fire old, and remember to keep that carrot hanging in front of the horse (he never gets it anyways). Then you break your promises. Look at branch managers. In 99% of cases now they are paid strictly off thier performance reports (profit margin). As a result the less thier employees make the more they make and they will go to whatever lengths to "extract the most - give the least". I kid you not, I was interviewed by a company who was looking to pay 80K per year to REPLACE the branch manager with someone young. The man had 35 years with the same comapny and was less than 2 years from retirement with full pension. According to the greed faced district manager.

"He has been with this company 35 years" "he retires in less than 2 year and he knows this" "he wants to things the same old way" "that's why we need someone young, a go getter, with just the right amount of experience who can learn his job in 6 months and is ready to move into his shoes from that point" "as you can see thier will be allot of pressure to learn this job" "we are under a seroius time constriant"

This was over one hour. Hint by hint by hint by hint. It doesnt get anymore obvoius than this. The pension for this worker will come out of the district manager performance report. He wanted to cut this guy - a loyal employee for 35 years. As you can imagine I turned the job down and instead decided to "mind my own business and grow it" (I'm self employed).

The world has changed drastically. You are older and based on my experience with my parents you really want to imagine things are the same way. They are not.

I just have a really hard time swallowing your story. Like I said, you need to be on a talk show with all your kids. If it is true. Most people graduate college 50k in SL debt and are lucky to find a job that pays 30k per year. Many people are what I call "50 at 50". This means they are 50 years old and make 50k per year. In the USA salaries overall have remained almost stagnant in 10 years while inflation, the cost of living, and consumer debt have skyrocketed. On the other side capital debt has gone down. An ominoius sign if you belive in traditional economics as I do.


Bottom line. Your story sounds too good to be true. I live in Los Angeles and I know engineers and an attorney (2 years experiance) that make less than 70k per year and are forced to rent in the second most expensive city in America. I'm not saying your lying. I'm just saying your story doesnt sound real. :shrug:

Surfer,

My daughter teaches on Long Island, one of the places in The States with the highest teacher's salaries. Teachers in most districts start at close to forty thousand a year and with seniority plus additional graduate credits many teachers earn more than $100,000 per year.

According to the official labor statistics, people with advanced degrees (especially Ph.Ds) are making 2-4 millions $ more per their life time than HS graduates. I find it hard to believe. In my modest experience Ph.D. jobs in sciences will pay LESS than truck driving/electrician/skilled labor (on the average of course) in ones lifetime.Basically the choice you're offering is to believe the statistics or to believe you. Even if we trust you, you admit that your statements are based entirely on your own experience with people from whom you have only two degrees of separation. That is not a valid statistical sample!

I know a few people with post-graduate degrees who are not doing well, but only a few. Among the rest of them there are certainly those who consider themselves failures by their own standards because they've ended up working for the Employer Of Last Resort (civil service) rather than doing brilliant work and advancing civilization, but even they are earning $80K. I know some high school graduates who started their own businesses and are now well into the six-figure bracket--mostly plumbers, and I still recommend to any kid who isn't sure college is for him to apprentice himself to a plumber. And of course there is the handful of gifted artists who didn't need no stinkin' education to make it as a guitarist or a sculptor. But most of them consider themselves lucky to reach $40K in a boring office job before retiring. Quite a few of them are in their 30's flipping burgers, stacking DVD rentals or selling shoes. A lot of them have jobs but still live with their parents in a prolonged adolescence. What happened to old DarkSidzz, a textbook illustration of that. Did he finally decide to go back to school at 29?

I'm not saying my personal experiences are any more representative of the population as a whole than yours are. But I am pointing out that you missed enough of the demographics to not have a valid sample.

If you don't think proper statistical methods were used, then tell us why. But don't just say that your sample must be more representative than theirs even though it's far smaller.

There always seems to be a detachment between what the government tells people the numbers are (whether it's GDP, the Trade balance, or real income) and what people see in thier own lives and experiences.

For instance look at the US economy under Bush. If you look at the numbers alone it looks good. But then you find out that wall street and a small segment of US society has grown incredibly rich under Bush, while the majority of Americans have not seen any increase in thier personal income. Real wages have remained stagnant for 10 years. That is a fact.

Another example I have seen is with South Africa. Look at the crime statistics South Africa produces. It was on the news that they suspect they are fudging the numbers. If you talk to the average South African who experiences this crime first hand, you will see a large gap between what the goverment says vs. what people experience in the real world.

It's not like the goverment lies or has some hidden agenda in reporting statistics. No, certianly not. They would never do that..:)

The question is what is the motivation (if any)? We all know the U.S. government is ruled by big business, multi-national corperations, and special interests. Would these entities have any interest in getting highly educated, skilled workers, for next to nothing? Yes. How do you do that? Increase the supply. How do you increase the supply? Attract people to the occupation. It all seems a little far fetched, however it is not out of the question.

The most important thing to look at is the meathods used to collect these statstics that claim PHd's are making allot of money.

I can tell you that according the the statstics the starting salary for my major in college was "$50,000 yr". This what was told to me by everyone in the college departments as well as outside sources and that MSDOS based program everyone has used to look up salaries. They all claimed the starting pay for a business major ni "International Business" was $50k per year. This is of course a complete lie! In the real world most people are lucky to start off at $30,000 per year! Yet the statistics, and most importantly the college of business / university institutional research ( I used to work there as a student assistant) department that produces these statistics claim otherwise.

Please allow me to tell you how these income statistics were collected by the IR professors:

People with varying motives would call the department and say "I need income statistics for X major from your University". The IR department always got the statistics from surveys mailed to graduates at thier last known address. Perhaps 10% of all graduates would respond.

People are ALWAYS lying about thier income today. Come on. I know you have noticed this trend. Why? Because of how our morally defunct society views them if they make less than they think are supposed to! I'm telling you from experience. People are always over-projecting themselves. Even when it makes no sense to do so. And I have no doubt that someone who spent 50k on a college education who was working for 30k in a dead end office job, watching his high school drop out plumber drive around town in a new SUV while he was still in the same car he had in college - and feeling terible. Yes. They would absolutey lie on the survey.

Do you think they would lie on the survey?

Do you think the University wants to look bad by producing low income numbers for its graduates and prospective students?

According to me education and job are two different places.After completing education we certainly acquire practical experience.Now a days experience is the basis of salary.If a person is highly educated he can do much better than others who have less education.The skill also to be considered.

Actually the likely salary also depend on what field you got your phD. Biologists on average, get far less than chemistry guys, for instance. Or rather chemistry guys can get a job in the industry more easily than biologists.

Staying in academia is usually for a long time not profitable. The average pay for a postdoc is around 35.000 and trying to score a faculty position is quite hard to achieve. Working long (say 60-70 h a week) does not make it easier, because that is the regular workload that you are expected to do anyway.

A better career choice might be to get an industry position after the phD. Entry salaries are often around 60.000 but it depends largely were you end up (R&D, sales, technical support, etc.).

Since everyone else is just throwing around anecdotal experiences, I'll add mine. There are many grad students in my department (chemistry), and every year about 20%-25% of them graduate and have to start looking for jobs. Almost everyone who wants an industry jobs seems to find one, usually at a salary of around $70k+/year; not bad for a 26-27 year old, and certainly a lot more than an electrician is likely to make. The lowest industry salary that I've heard of was $56k/year, and that person's options were limited because they insisted on living in a certain state. Intel just hired several graduating grad students for $99k/year.

Everyone here keeps talking about how PhDs are economic dead ends, but all I see are people from my department graduating and getting high-paying jobs right and left. Often people actually have jobs lined up a year or more in advance of graduation, usually because they've starting working on a research project in association with a company. There are a few people who have had trouble finding jobs, but those all tend to be people who - not to be mean about it - either just weren't very good and were barely able to graduate, or who were really nutty/weird and probably unable to make a good impression at an interview. Of course, that's a problem that probably would have damaged their careers no matter what field they went into.

And regarding the cost of grad school, I'd like to point out again that in the U.S. virtually all phsyical science grad stuents are paid to go to school, usually around $20k/year. There's also no tuition, so you're basically just paying for books and things like parking decals. No, $20k/year isn't a great salary for a 22 year old with an undergrad degree, but it's enough to live comfortably (in most places, anyway) and stay out of debt.

Two points, first I did say that chemistry guys get all the jobs. Demand and supply is very unfavorable for life scientists. Second, all the well paid jobs are in the industry.
Just a few numbers, graduates in life sciences increased 42 % between the 80s and mid 90s. Faculty jobs increased mere 2.5 %, industry jobs around 7 %, however this was partly due to the biotech boom in the 90s, which is a bit declining again.

So if you want higher education and money, you should choose your path carefully. Chemistry is still in demand, certain branches of physics, engineering, informatics and so on. Biology is among the losers (and I don't even want to get into academics in the humanities..).

Since everyone else is just throwing around anecdotal experiences, I'll add mine. There are many grad students in my department (chemistry), and every year about 20%-25% of them graduate and have to start looking for jobs. Almost everyone who wants an industry jobs seems to find one, usually at a salary of around $70k+/year; not bad for a 26-27 year old, and certainly a lot more than an electrician is likely to make. The lowest industry salary that I've heard of was $56k/year, and that person's options were limited because they insisted on living in a certain state. Intel just hired several graduating grad students for $99k/year.

Everyone here keeps talking about how PhDs are economic dead ends, but all I see are people from my department graduating and getting high-paying jobs right and left. Often people actually have jobs lined up a year or more in advance of graduation, usually because they've starting working on a research project in association with a company. There are a few people who have had trouble finding jobs, but those all tend to be people who - not to be mean about it - either just weren't very good and were barely able to graduate, or who were really nutty/weird and probably unable to make a good impression at an interview. Of course, that's a problem that probably would have damaged their careers no matter what field they went into.

And regarding the cost of grad school, I'd like to point out again that in the U.S. virtually all phsyical science grad stuents are paid to go to school, usually around $20k/year. There's also no tuition, so you're basically just paying for books and things like parking decals. No, $20k/year isn't a great salary for a 22 year old with an undergrad degree, but it's enough to live comfortably (in most places, anyway) and stay out of debt.

:D

Can someone please tell me why professors and acadamias (my department) ALWAYS give this assesment as NORMAL results? My guess is that it they don't see the other 99% of graduates makign less than a plumber.

I mean EVERY person physically involved in any college department, it doesnt matter if it's art history, will give this kind of assesment.

Someone please tell me I'm not the only one to notice this?

:shrug:

Then your talented B has a heart attack from too much meth, deep fried twinkies, and time behind the wheel at 55.

The PhD continues his career into his 70s, making way more money.


The end.

Can someone edit this thread title? It's annoying seeing such poor grammar.

I don't believe that unintellectual work should be as well paid as more intellectually orientated vocations.

I do not mean to take your quote "out of context", I read your entire comment, however I could not help but respond to this line.

You are certainly correct in your "belief". In a perfect world, students could have the security of knowing that as long as they went to college, made good grades, and did what they were told, they would be guaranteed to make more than someone who doesn't go to school, and chooses sales, or instead goes to trade school. However this is not how the real world works. The real world is the job market. Just like any other market (real estate, stocks, bonds, commodities) the job market is subject to the age old forces of 1) Demand and 2) Supply. It's that simple.

The school system in this country stinks. Most of the jobs in high demand universities are simply not teaching anything useful. Teachers are not doers. That is why they teach. And that is why, generally speaking, you should pay close attention to their mannerisms when they invite a guest, usually an entrepreneur, or someone else who has built a company. Think Pee-Wee Herman standing next to... Rambo. I'm serous. Pay close attention to the professors demeanor. You will see something amazing. They do not teach anything useful that the market demands. The University system just stinks. These people think they are gods on campus, they are really just failures in the real world. Let me give you a real world example of something in demand University's refuse to teach:

Currency Traders.

These are professional traders that work for banks, brokers, and investors. They specialize in one thing and one thing only. CURRENCY. (EUR/USD ; USD/JPY ; GBP/USD ; NZD/USD etc) Amoung professionals, this profession frequently commands a very good income. Take a look into it and you will see that with all the fundamental and technical analysis today this is something that would take LONGER than 4 years to learn in a college environment. Technical analysis in itself is fundamental to trading any market. But guess what? Out of all the "finance" degrees and "investing" classes - Technical analysis is not taught in ANY Public University much less - currency trading.

I have been currency trading for over 4 years. Self taught. And I can tell you that 4 years getting a BA in currency trading would not only put you in a solid income by the banks investors and brokerage houses that desperately need new talent - but it would teach you skills - real skills - that you could use to make MONEY.


I truly hate all my college professors. :mad: This includes William Ryan, Mark Peterson, Robert Dwarika, Bob Axe, the fat economics guy, the women who I had to threaten to get her to raise my grade (she failed me because I told her to her face I could care less about her class - I just wanted my degree. It is complicated how I did it, but basically I threatened her, and she raised my grade from a D+ to a B- where it was SUPPOSED to be in the first place).

These people and the whole host of other professors who I see as wasted years of my life, time, and borrowed money 'teaching' complicated pie in the sky overly dissected NONSENSE with absolutely no application in the real world. Everything but how to make MONEY in the real world. College is a business. And these people profited off me. I spent 4 years of my life for a piece of paper that tells me I'm now "ok" to work as a company man (see: slave) for any cold heartless corporation that will be 'gracious' enough to accept me.

I knew a guy that was a HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT. He was working as a valet parker. Guess what? He started his own valet parking business in his spare time. Did sales, put ads in newspapers, got it event by event, pretended he had insurance, took risks. Today - he lives in South Florida and makes in excess of 400k per year. He is married to a smoking hot British actress (hot as hell) and drives a LAMBORGINI. I promise everyone I am not making this up. It is 100% true. Again - HE WAS A HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT. So. Who is more successful? You? With your PHD and 26k per year? Or him? I think you know the answer....

Rather than spend 4 years and 50k in college - I would have much rather started sooner in my business that I'm in now. That would have given me 4 extra years more time to learn this business hands on before I branched out on my own. I would have rather INVESTED that 50k in a half decent stock or CD. Invested in the Eurodollar on a margin! Think of how much money I would have today!

Your degree is just your pass through the door if you want to follow the age old outdated advice of "go to school, get a good job, and climb the corporate ladder."

No matter what you will be subject to the forces of supply and demand. Understand the market and how this affects you before you spend 4 years and 50k on your degree.

Then your talented B has a heart attack from too much meth, deep fried twinkies, and time behind the wheel at 55.

The PhD continues his career into his 70s, making way more money.


The end.

Cute. That's what you think, however you are incorrect. Whatever makes you feel better I suppose...