A common piece of life advice I see is "work in trades" instead of going to college, and while I think there is certainly some value in exploring alternative paths rather than going into debt for a dime-a-dozen degree, I do wonder how the advice of working in trades proliferated. It is career advice that sounds good on paper, but is also not as cut-and-dry as the comments would have you believe.
I'm sure it started from hearing random folks who supposedly work in trades are making great money, but the concept of working in trades becoming pushed more and more by the redpill community seems a bit suspicious to me. When did the sentiment of working in trades start to become more common? Was there a particular person or organization who made it more popular?
I think it is important to understand the origins of "popular" sentiments in order to truly determine whether there is an ulterior motive. For example, the common idea of "there aren't enough people in STEM" isn't really true, it's just a claim made by industries to pressure Congress into allowing them to import more cheap labor.
Could there potentially be a larger interest pushing the idea of working in trades as being a lucrative career path? Perhaps it is far-fetched to assume that there are greater forces at play who have an interest in convincing people to work in trades, but trades play a crucial role in maintaining a functional society, and without these people, the current status quo would fall apart. Glorifying trades would upset the status quo of "intellectualism," but appealing to male pride and honor and appealing to the men who see the futility of modern society is a viable means of ensuring that men remain working for a system that thinks lesser of them.
I'm not saying that working in trades is bad or that going to college is better. Working in trades is very admirable, but it is also important to be mindful that there is no surefire pathway to wealth or a fulfilling life. Neither STEM or trades may be the gateway to success that is pushed on the internet, and it is important to consider the path you take based on the circumstances you have been given.
I don't know where it "came" from, but I think some people my age (late 30s/early 40s) who lived through one of the (if not the) first generation of the "everyone must go to college" push made the basic observation once they got a bit older that a lot of their friends spent a lot of money on a degree they never actually used for anything.
Of my close HS friends, I use my degree (CS), the EE uses his degree, and the accountant uses his degree. For everyone else college was effectively a "finishing school". I think my class valedictorian (who went to a pretty good university) ended up selling insurance.
Beyond that very pragmatic observation there's a question of "what kind of world do we want to create?" And there's something to be said for /ourguys/ not all just moving to the Big City to work some office job and instead staying local, building our own people up, and trying to make the place we came from a better one.
Of course that doesn't require working a trade, but it's probably a bit easier to build that sort of local business as, say, an electrician than an engineering firm. But if you can do that with an engineering firm, you probably should.
But I don't think the end goal should be working as (eg.) an electrician your whole life. I think the goal would eventually to work your way up to being the owner. I always liked welding and probably would have done that if the whole "programmer" thing didn't work out, but breathing those toxic fumes every day (even with the ventilation) isn't a healthy thing to do for 40+ years.
Perhaps, but the opposite position I've heard that attending university is somehow the way one enters "elite" circles is equally absurd. If you're near the bottom of the totem pole at some MegaCorp like most people with a degree you aren't "elite", and it doesn't matter how many degrees you have and from which schools.