There was a kilo of white powder resting in a plate on the kitchen table. An empty cigar tube rested next to it. Judging by the grooves, the tube had been used to rake the powder to resemble a mini zen garden. I walked through the living room and opened the sliding door onto the balcony. Looking down from the skyline, an infinity pool stretched to the edge of the floor below.
I had come to see a friend I hadn’t seen for a few years. I’d originally met Alex in 2011 when she was scrimping while “working on a couple of new ideas with fingers crossed.” At the time, she had just been turned down for a poorly paid, entry-level apprenticeship at a small publishing company.
Four years later, standing on the balcony of her luxury apartment staring at a white petal floating in the pool below, it was obvious that things had changed for her since 2011. Fingers crossed had turned into three profitable companies and a growing team she managed remotely while she bounced between Europe, Asia and the U.S.
Sitting in a cafe across the street from her apartment, I got an email from someone who wasn’t happy about the pay for an entry-level, apprenticeship position. It crystallized in my mind about the situation of career starters right now that I wish someone had told me five years ago.
The advantages of apprenticeships was something that Alex understood clearly.
If you are a career starter (meaning you have no professional track record) looking for an entry-level position, you get to make a choice between two things:
- Good Pay and High Social Status
- High Learning and a Steep Career Trajectory
That sucks, why can’t I get both?
1. Globalization
At $8-12/hour, an entrepreneur or employer can find tens of thousands (probably more) of people all over the world in countries with a lower cost of living than yours who do have a track record of success.
If someone is hiring you with zero track record at that same rate, they’ve sacrificed return on investment from day one. They are effectively paying you while they teach you a skillset and give you a platform (their business) from which to learn it.
They’re doing that because there does seem to be something about Western liberal education which facilitates creativity and higher-level thinking (once you understand their business to be able to apply it) that education in many parts of the developing world still doesn’t do very well.
They’re betting on you getting to a point in three to twelve months where you’re not just generating positive ROI but actually growing the business in ways they didn’t know was possible.
Keep in mind, they can hire someone in Bangladesh that’s positive ROI on day one, but they’re rolling the dice, hoping maybe you have a better long-term trajectory.
2. Your $200,000 degree is actually a commodity
I know you’ve been fed some version of the implicit promise that if you go to a good school and get good grades that you are now going to get a good job.
Historically speaking, that was true. If you graduated with a good degree in 1970, you could probably land a position that had decent pay out the gate, some social status, and a good career trajectory to boot.
That is no longer true. We’ve seen the number of college graduates globally go from ninety million to one hundred and thirty million between 2000 and 2010. It took all of human history to get to ninety million and then only ten years to add another forty million.
What was once scarce is now abundant. Even though the cost of a degree has risen tenfold since 1978, its value is stagnant or declining. According to the Economic Policy Institute, workers with undergraduate degrees (but not graduate degrees) earned, on average, $30.05 an hour in 2001. In 2014, they earned $29.55 an hour. Other sources show even more dramatic falls.
3. The changing nature of careers and work
The deal companies and employees used to make in the day of “the organization man” (and some still do) was that they paid you well straight out the gate and took a loss on you for the first five years of your career. The implicit promise was that you were going to be there for 20-40 years and generate a lot of value towards the middle and end of that period, So, over the course of your career, the company would make back their money.
There’s less of these types of jobs than ever, and the trend is heading down. As the length of time people spend at one position goes down, many companies invest in someone for the first five years of their career and then those people leave before they contribute value to the company. This is a raw deal for companies, and many have responded by cutting costs and not investing in people so heavily.
Those jobs still exist. If you have the right pedigree and the right connections, you can probably get one but there’s a few things about that option worth noting…
Option 1: Good pay, social status (and turkeys)
The one thing that seems almost universal in these positions is that you aren’t going to learn a lot. Your grandfather worked for Morgan Stanley for 40 years and after he introduces you, you’re going to take your social science degree and get a $60k job/year straight out the gate with Bank of America or KPMG and spend the next five years shuffling paper. You’re not going to learn much, and, well, you’re going to have to work for Bank of America. Not exactly a dynamic, rapid-learning environment with a high trajectory.
This is a turkey situation. While everything seems great now (just like a turkey getting fed every day leading up to Thanksgiving, only for Thanksgiving to finally come), you’re not doing anything very valuable. More significantly, that job isn’t going to stick around for the next 40 years once Bank of America figures out what all the startups know: some guy in India will do your job for a third of the cost, or some guy in Silicon Valley will build software that does it for a tenth of the cost, 24/7, without sick leave, or complaining, or emotions.
I had a long conversation with someone (we’ll call him Julian) a few months ago who had gone through this exact situation. His dad had been a VP in a large multinational company, and he got a great gig ($60k+) right out of college. He worked in “marketing” for five years (yet, from what I could tell, never read a single book on marketing in his life).
When the company did a round of layoffs and he wasn’t doing anything which generated value, Julian got the axe. He had been unemployed for six months when I met him. All the jobs Julian was finding either were at entry-level salaries (often half of his previous salary) or required skills he didn’t have. Even though he had “five years of experience,” when I asked him to explain what exactly he had done in his marketing role, he didn’t have a lot to say.
As a good rule of thumb, you should generate around 3-4x ROI on your salary. If you can make a legitimate case for how you are generating 4x your salary in value, you’re probably safe. If you can make a numbers-driven case for how you’re generating 10x your salary and the skillset is transferrable to other businesses (i.e. not based on your ability to fill out TPS reports specific to one company), that’s job security.
Iit might make sense to take the Bank of America gig. I’ve seen people get that job and save money, pay off debt and get their learning through side projects. However, they were very clear that that was what the trade they were making and they were hustling like crazy on the side. Julian, on the other hand, mainly got drunk.
While the money issue is real, oftentimes the objection underlying it is not an ability to pay the bills but often at its root is a more primal concern: social status. Your parents, grandparents, and friends will all be impressed with your $60k+ job at Bamk of America or KPMG. The fact that it’s soul sucking, you don’t learn anything valuable, you don’t like the people you work with and it has no future will not lower their opinion of its prestige in their minds.
No one was impressed with my low-paid apprenticeship where I spent the first six months writing articles about hospitality equipment. The fact that I learned a ton about marketing and technology, liked the people I worked with, and got to meet a ton of people doing interesting, high-level stuff in no way increased anyone’s opinion of me.
While I was having dinner with Alex (who is in her early 30s at this point), she reflected on the last decade she spent working in, and on, entrepreneurial businesses. For the first few years, she was working service jobs for 20-30 hours a week to pay bills. When I met her about three years after she started her first business, her businesses had just gotten to ramen profitable: just enough to go full time on them.
She’s done quite well over the past few years, and if she were to sell her businesses at this point, it would probably be enough that in her mid-30s, she could retire. Even given that seemingly incredible accomplishment, outside of her circle of close friends who understand her businesses and what she has accomplished, she has effectively zero social status.
When she goes home for Christmas to visit family, everyone is much more impressed with her doctor brother who is in his 40s, still paying off student loans, and whose income is still going down every year.
Option 2: High Learning and a Steep Trajectory
The other option is to put yourself in a position with a small business or startup that is optimized for learning and long-term trajectory and learn directly from entrepreneurs in entrepreneurial situations.
This is not an unusual arrangement. It was the entry path into careers for hundreds of years preceding the rise of the 20th century knowledge economy. No one flinches at people taking out hundreds of thousands in debt to get a college degree (it’s an investment!), but the problem is few, if any, universities actually equip graduates with skills where they can walk into a business and start generating ROI on day one. If you were smart, hardworking and lucky enough to get into a legitimate top tier school, they’ll equip you with connections (which can definitely pay off).
If you did not go to a school with those connections, the opportunity I see is apprenticeships. Let me excerpt a section from my book, The End of Jobs:
Advantages of apprenticeships to the apprentice
- Relationships.
One common mistake early entrepreneurs make is that they think they need a business idea. That’s rarely the case: you don’t need a business idea— you need relationships. As you acquire relationships and entrepreneurial experience, ideas will become a bigger problem, but not in the way you think. Experienced entrepreneurs frequently deal with “shiny object syndrome,” a phenomenon where they see too many opportunities and have too many ideas, and not enough resources to pursue them. I’ve never met someone that has a lot of strong entrepreneurial relationships that was hurting for ideas. Samuel Hulick got started by working with Rob Walling when Rob was launching Drip. By doing a brief apprenticeship, he realized that user onboarding for SaaS apps was a major pain point, so he launched UserOnboard.com to help SaaS companies with their onboarding process.
- More effective in complex environments
While credentialism was an effective system for teaching people to operate effectively in the complicated domain— one where good practices can be measured and cause and effect can be correlated— it hasn’t proved an effective system for teaching people to operate in the complex domain.
When I first began working for other entrepreneurs, I was shocked when they would commit tens or hundreds of thousands dollars towards “gut” feelings. The nature of complex systems is that often the best ideas and approaches aren’t ones that can be taught, but are the result of experience in the domain. In his book Ready, Fire, Aim, Michael Masterson advises companies to develop new products by having the CEO sit down and brainstorm the top possible ideas based on their intuition. It’s usually by interacting with the market for ten years that great new products come about. No one can teach that, but an apprenticeship lets you stare, and fiddle, with the market on someone else’s dime.
- Better value aka play with house money
Instead of paying six figures to go to law school or get an MBA, you can get paid to learn skills and build relationships valued by the marketplace. Apprenticeships are also an astoundingly good value right now. Many people think free work or unpaid internships are exploitative, but find the idea of someone taking out a quarter million in debt to get a college degree and an MBA a smart investment. That may be a legacy of the knowledge economy that we haven’t adapted to yet.
In order to get one of these positions, you better have a legitimate track record (for instance, saying you spent two years doing conversion rate optimize and showing five projects you ran, their results proving 50% revenue increases = legit), or you better get hustling for cheap because you’re costing them money the day you start and every day until you get some real skills to leverage.
Is this really a dilemma? Are there ways to get around this?
The other option is that you can invest in yourself and get some real skills.
Early in her career, Alex wasn’t making a lot of money, but she was learning a ton and putting herself in a position where her trajectory was steep.
I got my first job because I spent a couple hundred bucks buying domains and SEO products to teach myself SEO. Then I went to a guy and said, “Hey, I ranked these sites, and they get a bunch unique visitors each month. Here are my analytics; want me to do the same for you?” Not much of a track record, but it’s still something (and a lot cheaper than law school).
Once you have a track record, the dilemma disappears.
Welcome to the hyper-meritocracy. Start generating ROI.
P.S. It was baking soda, not cocaine. Her apartment had damp air due to poor ventilation.
Edit: Richard Koch, Author of The 80/20 Principle wrote a response which is both more nuanced and based on his (more extensive) experience. You can read it here. Highly recommended. Also, If you haven’t seen Charlie Hoehn’s Ted Talk on How He Got Started With Free Work, highly recommended.
Last Updated on July 30, 2019 by Taylor Pearson
Tucker Max said this on the hiring side… Hire people who do things.
You don’t need to do much. Start a blog and document whatever you’re learning. If it’s a web-based skill, test it on your own site. It’s $3 a year with a GoDaddy coupon and some free hosting. There’s no excuse.
No one has to even read your blog (unless you’re in marketing), it’s just a live resume.
& it’s important to note high trajectory is seriously FAST as long as you do good work. Lots and lots of opportunities to deliver ROI, and then you just mention, “Hey. I’m delivering results for this biz. Can I get a bigger piece of the pie?” They already like you. It’s cheaper for them to pay you more than to hire someone cheaper.
I like Tucker’s take it on as well. Great point that no one has to actually read it – no one read more for YEARS 🙂
Many of the forces at work for those facing this conundrum apply to those in the workforce nearing retirement. Careers have become commoditized and the need for most skill sets has been greatly reduced by weak growth. Delivering ROI is a must lest you get replaced by a younger version of you with more runway to deliver ROI to your employer.
The email that prompted it was from someone younger, but very true. There’s a ton of opportunity to help people in that market right now.
Alvin Toffler has a great quote: “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
Older employees can provide a lot of value by transferring what they know to younger employees(mentoring), but it’s vital that they never stop learning themselves. Otherwise, they’ll wake up one morning and realize that their skill set is obsolete and it might be too late to correct that.
Yea, I haven’t addressed people mid-career as much as I should have. Largely because I can’t relate as well.
However, I think it’s a much bigger problem. I have some friends who I really wish would get fired or laid off now when they are young and still have a lot more lifestyle flexibility to adapt than when they are 40 with kids/mortgage/etc.
The nature of choosing option 2 is that you might spend several years climbing up the ladder, during which time friends and family are going to think you’re a failure, or at the very least not understand what you’re doing. Then like your friend Alex, they reach a point where they have a job and lifestyle that is the envy of that same group of people.
One day option 2 will be celebrated as much as option 1. We’ll have to make sure that the history books pay their fair due to Taylor for his contribution to that cultural shift.
In the meantime, I just wish my grandma gave me as much respect for the online work I do as she did when I dug dirt for a week.
“One day option 2 will be celebrated as much as option 1”
I was thinking the same. I think the cultural shift could happen sooner than later… especially as more and more 9-to-5ers see friends like Alex with awesome skillsets + lifestyles that stemmed from following option #2.
I definitely think it will happen faster than people expect. It certainly is among my friends. Thanks for commenting Zach!
I feel ya. One could perhaps argue that I spent a year of my life writing a book so my family would stop bugging me to get a MBA.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out historically. In some ways I think the uncelebrated nature of option 2 is part of why it’s valuable – it’s still quite scarce.
Great article, Taylor. I believe I’ve read most of your stuff on apprenticeships, but I don’t think I’ve seen you mention co-operative work rotations (co-ops). As an undergrad, I got hired the second semester of my freshman year to work for 5 semesters for an aerospace company. It added another year to my graduation date, but I graduated with almost two years of work experience with a reputable company. In STEM fields, co-ops are very competitive and engineering companies will sink a lot of money into hiring interns and co-ops because it can solve a lot of hiring issues.
Instead of the company judging my work potential based on an hour long interview and a difficult to verify resume, they got to see what kind of engineer I was, my learning ability, how I solved problems, how I handled stress, and how I reacted to failure over the course of 1.5 years before making the decision to hire me full time.
I think apprenticeships/co-ops solve a lot of problems for companies as well as provide more opportunities for people seeking experience/training. HR departments don’t need complicated filtering processes for job candidates, tricky interview questions to get around department of labor guidelines, etc. in order to find good candidates. My my field I think I’m seeing contracting work become more popular, especially with smaller companies, because hiring someone full time is such a huge commitment and firing someone can be very difficult depending on what industry you’re in.
That’s super interesting James!
I had not mentioned co-ops primarily because I was ignorant and didn’t know they existed. Do you have any insight/knowledge into how they get established?
Did your university partner with a company? How did that come about?
There was an article recently that said the federal government was considering putting through a 2 billion dollar grant for apprenticeships and I would be super interested if you know more about how that side of it works (or know someone that does). All my experience is very much in “informal” apprenticeships.
Great post Taylor.
Thanks D! Still pondering over your advice from BKK – as suspected, it was some of the best I got 🙂
test
Great post Taylor! Your writing is really incisive. I’m curious: how do you see software development stack up as an “Antifragile Career”?
On one hand, western salaries have stayed high-ish despite offshore options, and it creates a ton of value for companies dependent on it – concrete high ROI. It also lends itself to location-independent work, building your own apps/tools and transitioning to a product/SaaS business one day.
OTOH it is rarely *seen* as a profit center, and it’s intense, specialized left-brain work with almost no overlap with customer-skills like sales and marketing. Field also changes rapidly and is highly exposed to global supply/demand for labor, despite being quite resilient to 3rd-world competition so far.
I suppose the devil is in the details, and you can make it anti-fragile or fragile depending on the specific path you go with it and what additional skills (sales,marketing ) you deliberately pick up along the way?
The devil in the details is probably the appropriate conclusion. I think software development is a commodity, but it’s a commodity for which the supply is relatively low and demand is relatively high at the moment (likely mostly for prestige reasons – despite a decade of success, it’s still not cool to code).
I think it’s valuable in the way learning another language or going to law school is valuable in that it gives you a non-traditional paradigm for viewing the world. The little work I’ve done with software has shifted my perspective and so I suspect a deeper study yields deeper rewards.
Paired with sales/marketing, likely to be devastatingly effective for the next few decades.
Thanks for the reply Taylor. Interesting, I’ve not thought about the prestige factor.
Another argument I just read is that it’s immune because of what it takes to be a top coder:
https://techcrunch.com/2012/10/27/write-code-get-paid/
His argument:
-Entry level devs get entry level wages, so at that level there *is* high supply /race to bottom
-Only a few people have the mental traits to code at a high-level – 25% of the population could be an accountant, but maybe only 2% could be a mathematician or top software engineer, yet software is eating the world (e.g. big and lasting supply/demand mismatch)
-You only become a top-earning dev if you truly *love* coding – you can’t get there via pure hard work, whereas you could with sth like Accounting/banking
—>Improving your skills just for the love of something ( doing your own side projects, learning new languages in your spare time) happens much less in emerging markets. People either settle for survival income and dont build skills, or they hustle hard in a career where income is more correlated with pure hard work
So maybe software dev has more of a moat than other paper-shuffling professions due to the fact it rewards pure passion. I wonder what other professions have this “passion” moat. Stuff like high level copywriting, therapy, coaching, niche consulting, etc I would suppose.