I'm the first person in my immediate family to go to college. And I make vastly less than any of them. Why? While I was paying the big bucks for fancy-schmancy degrees, they were plying their trades.

Dad's a pool-man and manufacturer of pool tools. Brother Dave is a sign-painter. Both are hard-working, entrepreneurial, and prosperous as a result.

Sometime in the Go-Go '80s, it seemed that the archetypal American worker lost cache. The hard-working tradesman got overshadowed by the flashy, money-making executive. All you ever read about was how to get an MBA, how to get a white-collar job. Where Rosie the Riveter was once the symbol of honorable American Labor, she was replaced 40 short years later with Gordon Gekko. (And you see where the bankers have led us.)

Not everyone can or should go to college. You can make a better living working as a tradesman than you can in any number of jobs that require a four-year-degree (I'm thinking, ah, journalism...for one). How much Joe-the-Plumber actually earns notwithstanding, skilled tradesmen can and do earn a robust living, and in many ways have more control over their incomes than any corporate middle manager.

Don't miss the rest of our series on Underrated In America!

The Economic Policy Institute does an interesting dissection of the 2008 Department of Labor budget for FY2009. Ross Eisenbray shows how we're spending 100 times more to watch unions than employers. He calls the budget "dramatically out of balance." It's hard to imagine this lop-sided politically driven government spending continuing under President Obama -- or even President McCain.

President Bush wants $58 million for the Office of Labor Management Standards. It protects union workers from financial funny business by unions, unfair union elections and unions that violate certain worker rights, like free speech. That works out to $2,500 per union. Unions definitely need regulation and oversight to keep them honest, just like any other organization. But $2,500 worth? It's hard to imagine any government -- federal, state or local -- blowing that much money per institution they regulate.

By contrast, EPI points out, Bush wants only $158 million for the Wage and Hour Division, which enforces child labor laws, overtime rules and the Family and Medical Leave Act, among other labor standards. They're looking out for 150 million workers versus the 13 million under the protection of the OLMS. But the government only wants to spend $26 per employer. Over the whole Bush presidency, Bush has increased funding on the union oversight office by 9%, but cut funding on employer oversight by 21%. If you're a worker, which one are you more worried about?

Another round of layoffs in the auto industry should get us thinking about the future of jobs in America. Ford Motor Company just announced that about 2,500 workers will be laid off and shifts are being eliminated at four plants.

It's no secret that jobs in the automotive industry used to be very desirable. They were some of the best paying manufacturing jobs, and came with great benefits to boot. But the fact is that American car makers can no longer remain competitive with these levels of wages and benefits. And since union contracts rule, often the one choice that is left is to cut jobs.

Of course, I feel badly for those losing their jobs, and I am saddened that the U.S. can't remain competitive in industries like this. However, I think that we need to rethink what constitutes a "good" job for Americans. The rules from 40 or 50 years ago simply don't apply anymore. It's hard to support a family on with the wages paid for unskilled labor in today's economy.