My advice to the OP is to figure out what he's good at and then do that. The rule of comparative advantage applies at the early stage of one's career. At the same time, he should activey work at improving his skillset, so competitive advantage can take effect later on.
I'm good at a variety of things, I'm also bad at a variety of things (mathematics being one, although my arithemetic is normal).
The things that I excel at though, aren't the easiest industries to find work in. Journalism and Music are two things that I excel at and are of great interest to me. I do not however, wish to pursure a career in music since it's more of an extra curricular passion.
I like the idea of working with technology, perhaps on an innovation level. Despite that I feel that my weakness with some elements of mathematics would make a career in this industry, one that is out of my league.
You've kind of summarised the point I was trying to make: each of us can do lots of things, potentially. We can also fail at lots of things, potentially. Doing something we're mediocre at, in an industry that's easier to get a job in, is not really inherently a better proposition than doing something we're great at, in an industry that it's harder to get a job in.
Both options are likely to result in long periods of suboptimal or no earning, but at least the latter offers a (remote) possibility of higher earnings at some stage.
That's not to say I'm advocating some kind of airy-fairy, "all you have to do is believe" approach. The truth is that not everyone will do well in life, and some people are so mediocre at everything, that even with comparative advantage, they'll still end up in a bad way. But if you start out doing something you're bad at, you'll likely do worse than doing something you're good at, even if the industry you're good at is tougher.
The era of ill-equipped people doing jobs-for-life because the industry they're in is safe/growing is well and truly over, and has been for decades. These days, to survive, you need to do what you're best at and even then, there's no guarantee of success. But it's a good starting point.
Of course, this means you have to be ruthlessly honest with yourself about what you're best at (or least-worst at, depending on the person).
YMMV, of course, but that's my opinion about this sort of thing.
Anyway, if I was your age right now, I'd do something in the medical field. One thing they can never offshore is health care.
Eh, give it time.
Telemedicine is becoming increasingly common. In lots of little ways so far, but the impact is growing day by day. I can definitely foresee a future where a lot of the day to day stuff of medicine is done remotely. Direct personal care being an obvious exception. But the rest...
Radiology seems like a good candidate.
For telemedicine? Definitely. Already, lots of reporting can and is done remotely. For instance, radiologists can be in one part of a hospital (or at home if on call) and interpret a scan being doen elsewhere. Most imaging is digital so can be interpreted anywhere in the world. Plus, the lack of a substantial language barrier really facilitates this.
Radiographers are harder to offshore than radiologists, though.
