I hadn't heard about Mike Rowe until he started his program to popularize the trades. It's an interesting perspective, and I don't really have a beef about it.

But let me make a few factual points, borne out of my experience and the experience I have in growing up around tradespeople and being related to tradespeople.

* The trades are physically hard labor

edit: It might not be clear what this entails, as perhaps not everyone reading has performed it. It entails working 40-50 hours per week, in nearly all possible weather (for outside jobs), where you must maintain (in addition to the work itself) a personal fitness regimen not to be injured through strain. In the pursuit of this work, you will probably find yourself moving objects up to perhaps several hundred pounds, with possibly zero help. You will almost certainly be on your feet (or knees) all day except for breaks.

* The trades expose you to non-negligable levels of risk of injury on a daily basis.

edit: A few examples, taken from real life experiences. Falling off the roof of a house and breaking vertebrae - lifelong medication after that. Wearing out knee mechanisms due to going up and stairs with 50+ pounds in your hands daily for many years - lifelong care required. Heavy object falling onto shop floor within inches feet - would have chopped feet off or required cutting off the boots if the steel toes had held. Other examples readily available from medical professionals and friends in the trades. These risks are systemic in the trades by and large.

* The trades do not pay well until/unless you specialize into certain areas.

Let me clarify a bit on what I mean by paying well. I mean, bluntly, that trades frequently pay in (current US dollars) between 12 and 25 dollars per hour; frequently without benefits and (due to seasonal demand and project-based nature of the work) frequent lack of steady employment. Mike Rowe cited a welder's experience as a counterexample of my thesis. The fact that supply & demand makes certain skilled trades very valuable does not obviate the reality of the poor pay endemic to the field, paticularly for the semi-skilled and unskilled areas.

All that being said, it's been documented in both popular culture and research that self-centeredness is on the rise; it's getting to be well understood that many modern Americans simply don't want to work hard in unpleasant conditions (Mike Rowe cited an example of people who quit training programs en masse in the SE US because of the heat). This has been borne out anecdotally by the number of immigrants doing these same hard work in unpleasant conditions while native-born "modern Americans" moan about being unable to find work.

That doesn't meant that it's a particularly pleasant experience to find out that "pursue your passion" means very little in the broader job market, after you've pursued your financially negative ROI degree (with the utmost support of your parents, friends, and other authority figures). And that's something that I think should be brought out of this debate: don't ruin your life in the pursuit of a dream - be responsible with your dreaming; fulfil your duties and calculate your risks.

edit:

I don't have a real conclusion here. But I think it's reasonable to evaluate the risk/reward payoff for the trades and seek higher education as an alternative.

I suppose a more knowledgable observer could draw some interesting connections between what unionization provides and what higher education degree jobs provide and infer some interesting conclusions. I can't guess as to what those conclusions are. I'd like to read some discussion on that topic sometime.