massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

What are your thoughts on ABMP's survey showing falling enrollment at massage schools and many small schools closing?

According to the new survey just released by ABMP, massage school enrollment continues the decline that started several years ago, and the number of massage schools has started to decline after a period of explosive growth.  Were we in a bubble?  Is a massage recession starting?  Or is it all a necessary correction to the "market"?  What do you think the impact will be on your practice, massage schools, the AMTA and ABMP, massage chains like massage envy, etc?

Views: 1343

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion



Gordon J. Wallis said:

I don't know...It just seems awfully expensive now.  I went to school a long time ago..However one could bus tables in a restaurant and make enough money to pay for your tuition, as well as eat good food and pay your rent... I had 700 hours for my license. Total of a years time.. ..I didnt have to borrow money.. I worked, it was challenging...but I wasn't in debt when I received my license.  Thats the difference...and its BIG.  I went to school in 84 or 85.

Relax & Rejuvenate said:



Gary W Addis said:

If all education were as free (to the qualified!) as grade school, that too would eliminate the problem, right?  I interviewed author Robert B. Parker for a Writer's Digest article years ago.  He was a Harvard professor; he worked a total of 4 hours per week (2 lectures, grad students did the grading) and was paid what he admitted was a ridiculous sum for it.  THAT has nothing to do w/ government. 

It has EVERYTHING to do with government. Government subsidizes higher education by guaranteeing student loans -- not just the interest rate, the loans themselves. Just like Massage Schools offering financial aid. When something is subsidized/guaranteed by a bottom-less source of funds, there is no incentive to control costs -- which leads to outrageous tuition (Harvard's buildings/real estate etc are not 8x more expensive/valuable than City College of NY or UCLA, but their tuition is) to pay outrageous sums to Ivory Tower Gods to work 2 hours a week.

Government did not tell Harvard what to pay or charge its students.  The subsidy is a very good thing.  The blacks that you mention and poor whites and browns too are able to attend college only because the student loans are guaranteed by the government.  This becomes a burden only because BIG Business seizes the opportunity to ram up their prices and aggressively enroll unqualified people.  Why do they get away with it?  Your Republican friends force anti-government amendments into any bill that weakens protections and oversight. 

Its not about corporations or educational institutions -- it's about human nature. When things are in excess, they are wasted. When things are driven by supply and demand they are put to monitored closely and put to optimal use.

And, by the way, the government is inherently evil. EVERYTHING the government has -- its power, its $ -- every single thing -- once belonged to the citizenry. I am not saying that government is not necessary, but I recognize it is not inherently benevolent, quite the opposite, it is inherently inefficient and destructive. The government's power to pull you over for Drunk Driving solely exists because the citizen's agreed that the freedom to drive drunk is one worth giving up. But it is this same power that has been corrupted by human nature that gives the police to pull someone over for driving while Black.

It STILL belongs to the people-- WE are the government.  Unfortunately, since the election of Ronnie, Big Business owns the bureaucracy that manages government.  Every bill up for a vote in Congress is loaded down with big business pork before the vote.  Yes, Democrats are big offenders also. 

You want to discuss Dubya's wastage of trillions on war against Iraq?  Iraq--Hussein--was America's greatest ally in the region, Saddam did whatever Reagan/Bush wanted; he lost 1 million men fighting as America's surrogate in war with Iran.  Whatever WMD he ever had, he got it from the US.  W's grandfathers were war profiteering with Hitler while Americans were dying trying to defeat the bastard.  W's daddy was business partners with the bin Laden family on 9/11, W ordered them safe exist from the US in several fully loaded 747s.  

Don't blame low level managers and office workers for the failures of government that has been corrupted, not by We The People, but by the 1% who own, what, about 80% of everything in the country.

I take it you agree that corporations are people and have every right due you as a citizen? that it is perfectly alright w/ you that Adelson and the Koch brothers will spend more than a billion dollars this election cycle to overpower the nickles and dimes collected from millions of low income Americans.   

Don't forget, our republic existed for 100+ years without a penny of federal income tax being extracted from the citizens.  Trillions have been spent on eradicating poverty, yet a higher % of the citizens are now in poverty

That is patently false.  Any gains made by the working class--the creation of the middle class actually-- are attributable to unionism...by workers banding together to demand fair wages and an end to child labor and the establishment of social safety nets like SS.  Prior to unionism, the US had a lower standard of living than the poorest of the European nations. For 50 years, thanks to a strong middle class and the Democratic party, we enjoyed the highest per capita standard of living in the history of the Earth.  Today, with the destruction of unionism and the rise of tea party hatred of all things not caucasian, we suffer from a lower standard of living than, what, about 15 countries some of them with smaller economies than Bolivia.

Just think of the vitriol used in describing a ten year war that costs Billions -- not Trillions - and did not accomplish it's goal.

So what would you call a 50 year-long government effort to HELP its own citizens, but has made their condition worse, has increased crime (more Black American's die each year -- over 7,000,-- than have died in a decade of fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan COMBINED), and has left them worse off than when the government started helping them? Certainly not benevolent -- sounds pretty MALevolent to me. And that is just inner-city poverty -- Latinos and rural America has not been helped either.

Place the blame where it belongs, on people like the Kochs and Big Pharma and multinational oil who bribe legislators with "campaign contributions" in the tens of millions.  For instance, Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the committee responsible for drafting Obamacare, during the committee meetings was given a $16 million donation from just one of the many large insurance companies.  Sure Baucus is supposedly a Democrat, but that just shows the insidious, evil influence of Big Business to the process of governance.



Gary W Addis said:

That is patently false.  Any gains made by the working class--the creation of the middle class actually-- are attributable to unionism...by workers banding together to demand fair wages and an end to child labor and the establishment of social safety nets like SS.  Prior to unionism, the US had a lower standard of living than the poorest of the European nations. For 50 years, thanks to a strong middle class and the Democratic party, we enjoyed the highest per capita standard of living in the history of the Earth.  Today, with the destruction of unionism and the rise of tea party hatred of all things not caucasian, we suffer from a lower standard of living than, what, about 15 countries some of them with smaller economies than Bolivia

 

Wow...what communist manifesto did you swallow?

 

Wage increases were, and still are, driven by supply and demand -- the most basic law of economics and human nature.

 

You might want to do a little research into wage rates and labor demand during the years of America's growth and the Industrial revolution

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

 

Agricultural wages were HIGHER than industrial wages -- and was the major employer in America and the driver of the middle class until World War I ended.

 

Indsustrial wages GREW in order to attract workers -- primarily women -- away from the farms.

 

but then waves of immigrants -- increases in labor supply -- drove wages down, quite naturally.  The nation grew -- and farm wages in the frontier states were often double what they were in the Midwest, again reflecting supply and demand. No unions in frontier farms, yet they earned more than factory workers in the big cities or farmers back east. 

 

unions are anti-humanist-- they reduce everyone to the same common denominator. That may work for those of you below average -- wanting what the above average have through hard work, discipline or God given gifts -- but it is just a redistribution scheme to take from those above average.

 

The problem with bottoms up economics is no one wants what the bottom has, and the bottom does not raise anyone up, it is the middle and the top that raise those below them to a new level

 

It's not about Right or Left, it's about human nature and freedom vs collectivism and control.

In the meantime we must deal with the realities of the massage market and where it is going. Medical massage or working in medical offices is not the high end of the market but the schooling required is the high cost of education. Entry level is just what it says. The level needed to enter the field. Why should the bar be raised to become exclusionary?

Relax & Rejuvenate said:



Gary W Addis said:

That is patently false.  Any gains made by the working class--the creation of the middle class actually-- are attributable to unionism...by workers banding together to demand fair wages and an end to child labor and the establishment of social safety nets like SS.  Prior to unionism, the US had a lower standard of living than the poorest of the European nations. For 50 years, thanks to a strong middle class and the Democratic party, we enjoyed the highest per capita standard of living in the history of the Earth.  Today, with the destruction of unionism and the rise of tea party hatred of all things not caucasian, we suffer from a lower standard of living than, what, about 15 countries some of them with smaller economies than Bolivia

 

Wow...what communist manifesto did you swallow?

 

Wage increases were, and still are, driven by supply and demand -- the most basic law of economics and human nature.

 

You might want to do a little research into wage rates and labor demand during the years of America's growth and the Industrial revolution

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

 

Agricultural wages were HIGHER than industrial wages -- and was the major employer in America and the driver of the middle class until World War I ended.

 

Indsustrial wages GREW in order to attract workers -- primarily women -- away from the farms.

 

but then waves of immigrants -- increases in labor supply -- drove wages down, quite naturally.  The nation grew -- and farm wages in the frontier states were often double what they were in the Midwest, again reflecting supply and demand. No unions in frontier farms, yet they earned more than factory workers in the big cities or farmers back east. 

 

unions are anti-humanist-- they reduce everyone to the same common denominator. That may work for those of you below average -- wanting what the above average have through hard work, discipline or God given gifts -- but it is just a redistribution scheme to take from those above average.

 

The problem with bottoms up economics is no one wants what the bottom has, and the bottom does not raise anyone up, it is the middle and the top that raise those below them to a new level

 

It's not about Right or Left, it's about human nature and freedom vs collectivism and control.

Interesting conversation, R&R.  We are both passionate aobut our opinions.  But I'm not going to continue to participate in a political discussion within the open forum.  I'll debate you to any degree you wish, privately.  just not here, subjecting everyone to our discussion.

Relax & Rejuvenate said:



Gary W Addis said:

That is patently false.  Any gains made by the working class--the creation of the middle class actually-- are attributable to unionism...by workers banding together to demand fair wages and an end to child labor and the establishment of social safety nets like SS.  Prior to unionism, the US had a lower standard of living than the poorest of the European nations. For 50 years, thanks to a strong middle class and the Democratic party, we enjoyed the highest per capita standard of living in the history of the Earth.  Today, with the destruction of unionism and the rise of tea party hatred of all things not caucasian, we suffer from a lower standard of living than, what, about 15 countries some of them with smaller economies than Bolivia

 

Wow...what communist manifesto did you swallow?

 

Wage increases were, and still are, driven by supply and demand -- the most basic law of economics and human nature.

 

You might want to do a little research into wage rates and labor demand during the years of America's growth and the Industrial revolution

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

 

Agricultural wages were HIGHER than industrial wages -- and was the major employer in America and the driver of the middle class until World War I ended.

 

Indsustrial wages GREW in order to attract workers -- primarily women -- away from the farms.

 

but then waves of immigrants -- increases in labor supply -- drove wages down, quite naturally.  The nation grew -- and farm wages in the frontier states were often double what they were in the Midwest, again reflecting supply and demand. No unions in frontier farms, yet they earned more than factory workers in the big cities or farmers back east. 

 

unions are anti-humanist-- they reduce everyone to the same common denominator. That may work for those of you below average -- wanting what the above average have through hard work, discipline or God given gifts -- but it is just a redistribution scheme to take from those above average.

 

The problem with bottoms up economics is no one wants what the bottom has, and the bottom does not raise anyone up, it is the middle and the top that raise those below them to a new level

 

It's not about Right or Left, it's about human nature and freedom vs collectivism and control.

Actually, in my case, the high cost isn't justified by teaching above entry level.  And the high cost of education continues after licensing.  We're required to earn 24 CEUs every license cycle, and only 5 hours of them can be taken in any form other than in seminar.  Here on the MS coast, we don't get many seminars booked; we have to travel to them at great expense.  After one receives special certification in, say, NMT, and every other modality one wishes to specialize in, what's left?  Keep retaking, or take new modalities that are little more than old modalities renamed.  Everybody that wants to make a lot of money wants to become a CEU provider, and to do so they need to develop another new modality, or reinvent old techniques with a new name.   

So, I agree, the answer isn't necessarily raising the bar educationally.



Daniel Cohen said:

In the meantime we must deal with the realities of the massage market and where it is going. Medical massage or working in medical offices is not the high end of the market but the schooling required is the high cost of education. Entry level is just what it says. The level needed to enter the field. Why should the bar be raised to become exclusionary?

Relax & Rejuvenate said:



Gary W Addis said:

That is patently false.  Any gains made by the working class--the creation of the middle class actually-- are attributable to unionism...by workers banding together to demand fair wages and an end to child labor and the establishment of social safety nets like SS.  Prior to unionism, the US had a lower standard of living than the poorest of the European nations. For 50 years, thanks to a strong middle class and the Democratic party, we enjoyed the highest per capita standard of living in the history of the Earth.  Today, with the destruction of unionism and the rise of tea party hatred of all things not caucasian, we suffer from a lower standard of living than, what, about 15 countries some of them with smaller economies than Bolivia

 

Wow...what communist manifesto did you swallow?

 

Wage increases were, and still are, driven by supply and demand -- the most basic law of economics and human nature.

 

You might want to do a little research into wage rates and labor demand during the years of America's growth and the Industrial revolution

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

 

Agricultural wages were HIGHER than industrial wages -- and was the major employer in America and the driver of the middle class until World War I ended.

 

Indsustrial wages GREW in order to attract workers -- primarily women -- away from the farms.

 

but then waves of immigrants -- increases in labor supply -- drove wages down, quite naturally.  The nation grew -- and farm wages in the frontier states were often double what they were in the Midwest, again reflecting supply and demand. No unions in frontier farms, yet they earned more than factory workers in the big cities or farmers back east. 

 

unions are anti-humanist-- they reduce everyone to the same common denominator. That may work for those of you below average -- wanting what the above average have through hard work, discipline or God given gifts -- but it is just a redistribution scheme to take from those above average.

 

The problem with bottoms up economics is no one wants what the bottom has, and the bottom does not raise anyone up, it is the middle and the top that raise those below them to a new level

 

It's not about Right or Left, it's about human nature and freedom vs collectivism and control.

Our massage education system doesnt make much sense to me...None, when I really think about it..  Average career span for our profession is only six years...Yet educational requirements and costs keep increasing.   Ive been a therapist for almost thirty years, yet I couldnt pass any of those exams or tests you are taking Gary..  So, obviously most of what they teach or test on, has little value...It just locks us into some subservient 3rd tier status when in reality we should be taught a real skill set and mindset that sets us up as a provider of 1st choice, once any underlying pathology is ruled out, when it comes to stress and pain reduction.  Reality to me is way different.

Gary W Addis said:

Actually, in my case, the high cost isn't justified by teaching above entry level.  And the high cost of education continues after licensing.  We're required to earn 24 CEUs every license cycle, and only 5 hours of them can be taken in any form other than in seminar.  Here on the MS coast, we don't get many seminars booked; we have to travel to them at great expense.  After one receives special certification in, say, NMT, and every other modality one wishes to specialize in, what's left?  Keep retaking, or take new modalities that are little more than old modalities renamed.  Everybody that wants to make a lot of money wants to become a CEU provider, and to do so they need to develop another new modality, or reinvent old techniques with a new name.   

So, I agree, the answer isn't necessarily raising the bar educationally.



Daniel Cohen said:

In the meantime we must deal with the realities of the massage market and where it is going. Medical massage or working in medical offices is not the high end of the market but the schooling required is the high cost of education. Entry level is just what it says. The level needed to enter the field. Why should the bar be raised to become exclusionary?

Relax & Rejuvenate said:



Gary W Addis said:

That is patently false.  Any gains made by the working class--the creation of the middle class actually-- are attributable to unionism...by workers banding together to demand fair wages and an end to child labor and the establishment of social safety nets like SS.  Prior to unionism, the US had a lower standard of living than the poorest of the European nations. For 50 years, thanks to a strong middle class and the Democratic party, we enjoyed the highest per capita standard of living in the history of the Earth.  Today, with the destruction of unionism and the rise of tea party hatred of all things not caucasian, we suffer from a lower standard of living than, what, about 15 countries some of them with smaller economies than Bolivia

 

Wow...what communist manifesto did you swallow?

 

Wage increases were, and still are, driven by supply and demand -- the most basic law of economics and human nature.

 

You might want to do a little research into wage rates and labor demand during the years of America's growth and the Industrial revolution

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

 

Agricultural wages were HIGHER than industrial wages -- and was the major employer in America and the driver of the middle class until World War I ended.

 

Indsustrial wages GREW in order to attract workers -- primarily women -- away from the farms.

 

but then waves of immigrants -- increases in labor supply -- drove wages down, quite naturally.  The nation grew -- and farm wages in the frontier states were often double what they were in the Midwest, again reflecting supply and demand. No unions in frontier farms, yet they earned more than factory workers in the big cities or farmers back east. 

 

unions are anti-humanist-- they reduce everyone to the same common denominator. That may work for those of you below average -- wanting what the above average have through hard work, discipline or God given gifts -- but it is just a redistribution scheme to take from those above average.

 

The problem with bottoms up economics is no one wants what the bottom has, and the bottom does not raise anyone up, it is the middle and the top that raise those below them to a new level

 

It's not about Right or Left, it's about human nature and freedom vs collectivism and control.

Gordon, I agree with you.  But there really is value to the schooling.  Faster paced world today.  Some of the people in my classes couldn't learn even a portion of what you know in 300 years--in fact, most practicing LMTs will never accumulate the storehouse of knowledge that you and Daniel and Stephen and others of like mind take for granted.  Y'all think outside the textbook. 

Y'all go after the knowledge wherever you find it--in your case, Gordon, although you live in a state that doesn't require CEUs, doesn't even require licensing, you spend your hard-earned money to learn merely for the sake of the knowing--if you hear of an easier way to relieve pain, you will investigate, and if the claim appears to be true, you eventually study it.

This afternoon at a flea market, I found a 1922 copy of John H. Kellog's book, The Art of Massage (copyright 1895).  They knew a lot already before the turn of that century.  But compared to what research has revealed in the last 30 years, they were deaf and dumb and working blind with one hand handcuffed.  

Gordon, my friend, regulations in the 44 regulated states may label you "unqualified" because you can't always put a name to what you find in the tissues.  Their loss.  Because definitions in a textbook and degrees hanging on a wall don't matter to a body that's hurting: you take away the pain, and that is what massage therapy is supposed to be about.   

 

  

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service