So You Think You Could Be an Electrician?

A critique of the common claim that the trades are an easy, AI-proof pathway to six-figure jobs, arguing the reality is more complicated. College completion still produces a substantial wage premium over a lifetime, and most students pay far less than sticker price - the average net paid for public in-state tuition was under $2,500 in 2024. Popular promoters of trades, like Mike Rowe, often come from white-collar backgrounds and simplify a complex labor market. High-paying trade roles sit atop a blue‑collar hierarchy and are limited: interviews with union tradespeople describe applicant pools of 100-200 whittled to roughly four to eight hires, with selection shaped by testing, connections, prior credentials and measured ability. Trade schools lack uniform performance metrics, so pathways into coveted specialties are neither open nor easy for many workers.

Physical risk and technological change further complicate the calculus. Trades exact cumulative bodily costs - one account recounts breaking both heels and prolonged recovery - and certain jobs carry intrinsic mortality risks (falls for roofers, electrocution for linesmen, tree hazards for arborists). Technology tends to bypass manual skill rather than refine it: pneumatic nailers, rebar-tie tools and auto-fed screw guns reduced demand for hammer and tying dexterity. Given that innovation in construction often substitutes for physical skill, widespread assumptions that AI will simply elevate trade employment are unfounded and deserve skepticism.