Peter Schiff Agrees With Trump That College Isn't Worth It For Most. His Fix? Scrap The Minimum Wage And Let Kids Learn Trades On The Job
In a recent post on X, Schiff said, 'Trump is right about colleges being a waste of money for most people. Trade schools make a lot more sense for high school grads who are not really academically inclined. Better yet, abolish the minimum wage so kids can get on-the-job training as apprentices for skilled craftsmen.'
Don't Miss:
Invest where it hurts — and help millions heal:.Schiff's post sparked debate not just for agreeing with Trump, but for going a step further by calling for the elimination of the minimum wage.
His argument is that the barrier keeps young people from getting hands-on work experience under the guidance of experienced tradespeople. Instead of spending tens of thousands on a degree they may not use, Schiff believes teenagers could be earning while learning useful skills on job sites, in workshops or in vocational programs.
This isn't the first time Schiff has criticized the traditional education system. He has long argued that college degrees have been oversold as the only path to success while crowding out more practical, hands-on careers.
Trending: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: .
Schiff's take lines up with new data showing younger generations are becoming increasingly skeptical of college. According to a March survey by Indeed and The Harris Poll, 51% of Gen Z workers with a degree said it wasn't worth the money. Only 20% of Baby Boomers felt the same. Rising tuition, student debt, and a flattening college wage premium have all contributed to this shift in thinking.
The financial burden is real: 52% of survey respondents said they graduated with student debt. Millennials had it even worse, with 58% still carrying loans. Nearly four in 10 respondents said their debt hurt their careers more than their degree helped.
Even more telling, 68% of Gen Z grads believe they could do their current jobs without having gone to college. That's compared to 64% of Millennials and just 49% of Boomers. Meanwhile, employers are responding too. A 2024 report showed that over half of job listings on Indeed no longer ask for a college degree.Mike Rowe, host of the TV show 'Dirty Jobs' and head of the Mike Rowe Works Foundation, has been making this case for years. Speaking to Fox Business last week, Rowe said, 'It is early for a victory lap, but as you know, I have been beating this drum for 16 years.'
He supports Trump's push to defund elite universities and redirect those funds into trade programs. 'If I had to choose between should Harvard get $3 billion or trade schools in that world—trade schools,' Rowe said. But he also added that not all trade schools are equal, and they should be evaluated just like universities.
Rowe warned that the stakes are high. He said he recently got a call from the maritime industrial base looking to hire 140,000 tradespeople over the next decade. The energy sector is also booming, with massive demand for workers to build data centers and support the country's digital infrastructure.
His message to graduates? 'If you have a skill that's in demand and you're hungry, if you are willing to get up early, stay late and go to where the work is... you are going to crush it.'
Read Next: Many are using retirement income calculators to check if they're on pace —Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market.
Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga?
APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report
TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report
This article Peter Schiff Agrees With Trump That College Isn't Worth It For Most. His Fix? Scrap The Minimum Wage And Let Kids Learn Trades On The Job originally appeared on Benzinga.com
© 2025 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Prominent national Democrats ask Josh Kraft to stop using names, likenesses in unauthorized fundraising push
And, it turns out, Schiff never said Kraft could reach out with that urgent message. The Kraft Schiff's name and likeness is one of at least five the campaign has sent in recent weeks that feature prominent national Democrats who have not publicly weighed in on the Boston mayor's race. At least two of those politicians have now asked the Kraft campaign to stop using their names and likenesses in the email fundraising solicitations. 'Immediately after being informed that the Kraft campaign sent an email we did not approve of in Schiff's name, we reached out to the campaign to ask them to stop,' said a spokesperson for the Schiff campaign. 'While an unfortunate situation, the Kraft campaign let us know that it would not happen again.' Advertisement In addition to Schiff, Kraft fundraising emails featured US Representative Eric Swalwell of California; US Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas; former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, who is running for US Senate; and Shawn Harris, a retired brigadier general and political candidate in Georgia. Swalwell's campaign said he also did not approve the fundraising solicitation, and is asking Kraft to put an end to it. Crockett, Cooper, and Harris did not return requests for comment from the Globe on Monday, but none appears to have publicly waded into the Boston mayor's race. Advertisement The emails sent by the Kraft campaign urged potential donors to financially support both Kraft and the highlighted politician in whose name the email was sent. So-called split list fundraising is not uncommon in Democratic politics; allied politicians often urge their donors to back like minded candidates in an effort to increase their ranks and forge connections. Typically, those fundraising solicitations come from politicians who have explicitly endorsed one another, or at least signed off on the shared fundraising push. It would be highly unusual, if not unheard of, for a political candidate to send such an email in a contested election if she had not already endorsed one of the candidates, political operatives said. Related : For example, in the last month alone, Mayor Michelle Wu's campaign has sent email blasts from US Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, as well as US Representative Ayanna Pressley. All three are vocal supporters of the mayor, and the emails sent in their name directed donors to give exclusively to Wu. Political and campaign finance experts called the Kraft campaign's recent fundraising blitz unorthodox, or even potentially misleading for donors, while Wu, whom Kraft is seeking to unseat, argued it could be illegal. In a letter on Sunday, Wu campaign treasurer Robert Binney called on the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance to investigate. Advertisement 'Even assuming a donor managed to decipher the fine print, these voters would reasonably assume that leading national figures like Senator Schiff and Representative Crockett are supporting Kraft's campaign for Mayor, which we believe to be untrue and an obvious attempt to deceive voters,' Binney wrote. 'At best these practices are highly deceptive and negligent, at worst they are illegal violations of our state campaign finance laws.' A spokesperson for the Kraft campaign defended the legality of the fundraising push, and said the unauthorized emails were 'an error on the part of our vendor.' 'Our vendor is responsible for the approvals process with all candidates involved. As a result of today's inquiries, we have been made aware that what we thought was an isolated incident in failing to seek approval was much larger,' said the spokesperson, Eileen O'Connor. 'As a result, we are moving to shut down the links and terminate our agreement with the consulting firm.' The OCPF complaint from Wu's campaign is 'lacking on both substantive and legal grounds,' O'Connor added. 'Michelle Wu is desperate to distract voters from her broken campaign promises and failures on so many pressing issues.' Related : The Kraft campaign has also The email featuring Schiff was sent on July 20. When Schiff's team reached out the next day, they were quickly told it would not happen again. But more than a week later, on Aug. 2, Kraft's campaign sent an email that appeared to come from Swalwell, another well known California Democrat. Advertisement 'As the senior-most Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, I've seen a lot,' the email begins, before railing against a Trump appointee and the actions of the administration. 'Chip in today,' the email urged, linking to an Swalwell also did not approve of the email sent in his voice, a spokesperson told the Globe Monday. 'We were not aware that they did this. We did not approve, nor would we have,' said Lisa Tucker, a spokesperson for Swalwell's campaign. Tucker said Swalwell's team had reached out to the Kraft campaign to ask that the joint Act Blue link be shut down. Tucker said Swalwell has offered a 'partner toolkit' for a year and a half 'and have never had something like this happen.' Typically, allied candidates who want to fundraise alongside him would seek permission directly, and the Swalwell campaign would approve of any fundraising emails before they are sent, she said. 'This is definitely making us reexamine our process to make sure this doesn't happen again,' Tucker said. Other emails featuring prominent national Democrats were sent on July 30 and Aug. 1, according to screenshots obtained by the Globe. Kraft is seen as Wu's closest rival in the mayor's race this year, though a recent Suffolk University/ Boston Globe poll Advertisement So far, Kraft has been a strong fundraiser. As of the end of June, Related : The fundraising emails raise serious questions about the Kraft campaign's tactics, said Jack Corrigan, a campaign finance lawyer and longtime Democratic operative who has donated to Wu this campaign cycle but does not work for her campaign. The emails — at least some of which were sent without permission of the high profile Democrats — imply an endorsement, and for donors, that could be 'deceptive,' Corrigan said. 'Even if it's legal,' he said, 'it's questionable.' Tal Kopan of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Emma Platoff can be reached at
USA Today
10 hours ago
- USA Today
'A part-time job': Americans spend nearly 4 hours a day thinking about money
Between bills to pay, tariff news and inflation worries, money is living rent-free in Americans' minds. They're spending nearly four hours a day on average thinking about it, according to new research from Empower, a financial services company. 'That's a part-time job,' said Rebecca Rickert, head of communications and consumer insights at Empower. At 54%, a little more than half of the 2,206 adults surveyed said they're thinking about it more than they did last year. In fact, the June survey found 53% of Americans said they're feeling financial stress "more acutely than ever," including 62% of Gen Xers and 41% of baby boomers. With banking and investment apps a tap away on their phones, 17% of Americans are checking their financial accounts multiple times per day, and 24% check their bank account daily. The high level of surveillance is more common among younger generations, with 24% of Gen Z and 21% of millennials looking at their accounts several times a day, compared to 10% of baby boomers. 'People are checking their accounts like they check the weather,' Rickert said. More: Trump's new tariffs slam trading partners, U.S. stock market: Live updates What exactly are Americans thinking about? Top of mind for most Americans is, of course, upcoming and due payments – with 57% of Americans reporting they're thinking about bills. Inflation and rising prices are also taking up headspace for 51% of Americans. Of those surveyed, 34% are thinking about housing costs, 30% are thinking about debt, 28% are thinking about tariffs, and 24% are thinking about retirement savings. 'People are carrying more financial pressure as they face external factors that are beyond their control, like market uncertainty, while managing multiple priorities like debt, everyday expenses, and savings – even if their income hasn't changed,' Lisa Frison, head of financial inclusion at Citi, told USA TODAY. Chief worries for younger generations are housing costs, job security, and debt, according to Rickert. Meanwhile, older generations are thinking about retirement savings and reserves, like their emergency funds. Younger Americans spend more time worrying Time spent thinking about money varies by generation, and it appears to decline as Americans grow older. Gen Z spends the most time, averaging 4.82 hours per day. Millennials follow close behind, averaging 4.73 hours per day. Money still weighs heavily on Gen Xers' and baby boomers' minds, but they aren't thinking as much about it, averaging 3.74 hours and 2.4 hours per day, respectively. Jack Howard, head of financial wellness at Ally Financial, said Gen Z is unique because they grew up having more information at their fingertips thanks to the internet and are 'comparing themselves against the world,' thanks to social media. "Which is good because we want you to get the information and use it. But I wonder if it's also creating an overload of anxiety,' Howard said. 'Social media creates some level of competition.' When are Americans thinking about money? The topic is so stressful 36% of Americans report losing sleep over their financial worries. Millennials may be getting the least rest, with 44% reporting that money is keeping them up. Baby boomers are faring better at night, with only 24% reporting it affects their sleep. Money concerns don't stop during the day. The survey found that 38% of respondents said financial worries interfered with their ability to focus and put a strain on their relationships. Gen Z is most likely to think about money between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m., while millennials and Gen X are often worrying about their finances before bed, between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. Is money stress motivating? Close to half of Americans report that thinking about money helps them take action to reach their long-term goals, and 47% said they feel confident they'll reach them. Another 30% reported feeling neutral, or on the fence, about whether they'll reach their long-term goals. In the meantime, many Americans are seeking financial advice and information. More than half reported following financial news to stay informed, commonly researching topics including inflation, budgeting, and saving. A third said talking with a financial adviser helps clarify their financial goals. Still, Frison cautions people against ruminating over their finances and thinking too much about past mistakes or missed opportunities, which can lead to frustration but not solutions. 'It's unhelpful when thinking about money becomes an infinite loop, so the key is to shift from stress to structure, even with one small move,' Frison told USA TODAY. What helps ease financial pressure Asked what would ease their money worries, nearly half of the survey respondents said a higher income, and 45% said lower living expenses. But 29% also wished for 'broader economic improvements,' and 28% pointed to debt elimination. Nearly a quarter said a larger emergency fund would help, and 18% said a detailed financial plan would have a positive impact. Suppose money is taking up more mental headspace than you'd like it to. In that case, Frison recommends doing a personal financial audit, building small habits over time, and asking friends, family, or a professional for help. 'When people are in a silo on these things, it makes it difficult to take action,' Howard said. 'That's where the shame comes in.' She and Rickert emphasized the importance of people shifting from passive worrying to taking action – whether that's starting to pay down debt or contributing to a 401(k) – to better their financial situation and relieve stress. Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@ and follow her on X @rachelbarber_
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Forbes
What To Ponder Before AI 'Devastates' Jobs
There's no denying artificial intelligence (AI) can replace a lot—including, in the end, think tankers pondering its effects. But before panicking about job devastation, we'd do well to clarify what's actually happening and changing in labor markets—and to recognize who benefits from unjustified alarm. For starters, a better unemployment gauge would account for labor force dropouts, discouraged workers, and young people taking jobs they never thought they'd 'stoop' to. We probably need to add those folks back in. And indeed, AI is rising amid what's often called an affordability crisis. Millennials and Gen Z claim the inability to buy in places like D.C. at age 30 on one income like the boomers did. Competing diagnoses and cures abound, with each generation claiming the other has advantages they never did. Meanwhile, pensions are largely extinct except in government, 401(k)s are too often spotty as replacements, and rent absorbs a huge chunk of paychecks for those without equity. Such rifts need airing. So does the phenomenon of major tech firms perceived as laying off thousands while lobbying for more H-1B visas, prompting politicians like Ron DeSantis to rage at what they see as duplicity. None of this is new to some of us in the policy world. We've long pointed to decades of regulatory failure and excess in the likes of housing, education and health care, making necessities and luxuries alike less accessible and more expensive than they should be. But cultural narratives rarely start with blaming red tape. If one is tone-deaf to these and other stresses as ever-capable AI arises and generates feverish news articles about job displacement, one tends to get dismissed no matter how valid economists' point that new jobs arise to replace the old. Life may get better and society wealthier, but fears still resonate. Meanwhile, from Biden to Trump, the federal government makes it clear that it has no intention of relinquishing control over AI. The technology itself is deeply tied to federal R&D, military objectives, massive procurement initiatives, subsidies, public-private partnerships and other industrial policy forays—each framed as responsible innovation by whomever is in power. The background hum of our AI universe is already largely federal. The first time artificial intelligence was meaningfully defined in statute was in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (read it and be amazed), followed by Trump's 2019 "Maintaining American Leadership on Artificial Intelligence' and the establishment of the AI Initiative, then his 2020 'Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications." Then came Biden's 'Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence'; and just this past month, we saw Trump's July 2020 trio of executive orders on the 'AI technology stack.' So between AI's labor effects and Washington's desire to steer what is perhaps the most important innovation of our time, the bigger danger is political predation—the exploitation of both the anxieties and the leisures AI affords. No Goldilocks 'just right' solution will be tolerated when there are votes to win, wealth to redistribute, and powers to preserve. Hands off AI? Out of the question. In other words, even if AI is now—and remains—easily absorbed by markets and society with negligible job loss, it's too juicy a power lever for politicians to ignore. Job displacement, whether real or manufactured, too readily becomes a tool for advancing a custodial administrative state—with the Universal Basic Income (UBI) as its crown jewel. That 'solution' is often touted by politicians and even tech gurus themselves. This isn't even hypothetical. As the COVID-era CARES Act demonstrated not for the first time, any crisis can serve as the rationale for stipend payments to the able-bodied. And it's not just progressives; one need not look far to find Republicans or even libertarians advocating some form of UBI. Progressives itch to get 51 percent of voters hooked on UBI. Wait a few years after that, and Republicans will line up to 'protect' it, just as they do Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. That's the real threat of AI; not society can't absorb it and thrive, but that we won't be allowed to. Instead, we'll get a bigger, more permanent custodial state—either gradually or quickly when the next economic shock hits. As with COVID's Economic Impact Payments, AI's job-loss narrative can be exploited to justify locking in permanent income subsidies in further synergy with a sector that is largely already governed from the top down. The real AI emergency isn't jobs. It's that Washington will exploit job-loss fears to fabricate and aggravate an artificial crisis—and then entrench the resultant new powers permanently. Watch and see: the less Washington is needed, the more desperate it gets. For the bureaucracy, it's not your job that's on the line. It's its own. For more see: 'Trump's AI Action Plan: Deregulation on paper, industrial policy in practice?' Competitive Enterprise Institute, July 2025. 'Universal Basic Income and the Custodial Administrative State,' Competitive Enterprise Institute, June 2021. 'Careful: Misbegotten Government-Business "Blueprints" Can Lobotomize Artificial Intelligence,' Forbes, July 2023. 'Universal Basic Income: What's The Plural Of Apocalypse?' Forbes, June 2018. Artificial Intelligence Will Merely Kill Us, Not Take Our Jobs, OMB Regulatory Comment & Social Science Research Network, April 2020.
