6 ms·

Maybe 'a job' is something that fitted a particular phase of our civilisation development and it just will fade away? A hunter gatherer (I bring this as my exam

by zby 11y ago

Maybe 'a job' is something that fitted a particular phase of our civilisation development and it just will fade away? A hunter gatherer (I bring this as my example - because as a species we spent most of our time in that phase) would do many things - but we would not call them jobs.

gaius 11y ago
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert Heinlein
- icebraining 11y ago
  Said by a character that lived to be 2000 years old :)
barry-cotter 11y ago
Maybe we wouldn't call them jobs and many people could have turned their hand to a lot of things that different people in the tribe did but returns to specialisation applies even at very low levels. I bet the best flint knappers spent more of their time practicing and thinking about their craft than the ones who did that and hunted as well.
- VLM 11y ago
  Early for the game in the gig economy. Only dealing in extremely simple and trivial tasks like "Drive" or providing a place to sleep. Much like the flint knapper gave way to unionized mechanized professional stone masons, 'uber for flint knappers' will likely give way to 'uber for professional stone masons' sooner or later. Note that drivers, hostel workers, and flint knappers don't make much money because of supply and demand for the skill. Stone masons, however, make about 50% to 100% more than the median income, not as much as programmers, but not bad. If "uber for" can scale to higher skill level tasks, which is an open question, then there's no need to assume the jobs will always be low skilled and low pay. The article avoids this issue. Its "well known" that only a small amount of the population live in architectural/geographical areas where they can become gig drivers, aside from anecdotes. Its possible 99% of professional stone masons will remain unaffected by an uber-for-stonemasons which only scales commodity style in incredibly fast growing wealthy cities and otherwise doesn't work.
pjc50 11y ago
'Job' is the input side to which "rent/mortgage" are outputs. 'Job' is about continuity and stability; the ability to make commitments to regular expenditures required to maintain a particular standard of living. Highly variable income is bad for this. That's one of the reasons why people push back so hard on the "gig economy"; it brings the fear that you might not be able to make rent/mortgage next month and therefore lose everything you've built up.
- m_fayer 11y ago
  I usually work as a consultant and my income is highly variable. Of course in our field when I earn it's nothing to complain about, and my average for most years is certainly nothing to complain about. Financially, I'm lucky. And yet. I'm disciplined with money. I'm not impulsive or indulgent. I can build a mean spreadsheet. Put all this together and still the uncertainty and variability is stressful. Running down a savings account without knowing when it will be refilled is something that's always in the back of your mind, eating away at you. You build your life to fit an average yearly income - children, vehicles, rent, gym memberships, etc. When that average yearly income is NEVER guaranteed, you always suspect that this time you won't pull through, and your life will start falling apart, piece by little piece. I can only imagine how brutal it must be for those whose skills are not as in demand or as remunerative as ours.
  - zby 11y ago
    Someone always has to take the risks - when working for a company it is the company owners that take it. On average they probably are well compensated for it - but surely they must be more stressed. Or maybe when you are above some level you are not so stressed about the fluctuations - because you know that you'll not hit the bottom whatever happens?
    - pjc50 11y ago
      That's what the privilege of wealth, especially hereditary wealth, is - freedom from having to worry about hitting the bottom. And the higher up the scale you go, the less likely "company owner" is to be a single individual who only owns one company. It will be people or investment bodies with diversified portfolios. The most stressed person is probably the small business owner who is genuinely at risk if it fails. The "precaritisation" is about pushing as much risk as possible onto those least able to bear it, reversing the expansion of risk-sharing that is the social insurance and the "welfare state".
nvarsj 11y ago
It will be the end of progress in civilisation I think, if we don't allow people to specialise. Although I think many people would be happy with that, or allow themselves to believe they would be.
coldtea 11y ago
>Maybe 'a job' is something that fitted a particular phase of our civilisation development and it just will fade away? Maybe freedom was something that fitted a particular phase of our civilization development and it just will fade away? Bear with me, I mean that's the way slave owners would have wanted slaves to think in the 18-19th century. And I think enterprises (job owners or salaried slave owners) always try to get away with paying as little as they can, and increasing their margins regarding salaries as much as they can -- which is were this pressure in jobs comes from. Maybe not that much in the IT sector yet, but in most part of services and manufacturing, yes.

by zby 11y ago

gaius 11y ago

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert Heinlein

icebraining 11y ago
Said by a character that lived to be 2000 years old :)

barry-cotter 11y ago

Maybe we wouldn't call them jobs and many people could have turned their hand to a lot of things that different people in the tribe did but returns to specialisation applies even at very low levels. I bet the best flint knappers spent more of their time practicing and thinking about their craft than the ones who did that and hunted as well.

VLM 11y ago
Early for the game in the gig economy. Only dealing in extremely simple and trivial tasks like "Drive" or providing a place to sleep. Much like the flint knapper gave way to unionized mechanized professional stone masons, 'uber for flint knappers' will likely give way to 'uber for professional stone masons' sooner or later. Note that drivers, hostel workers, and flint knappers don't make much money because of supply and demand for the skill. Stone masons, however, make about 50% to 100% more than the median income, not as much as programmers, but not bad. If "uber for" can scale to higher skill level tasks, which is an open question, then there's no need to assume the jobs will always be low skilled and low pay. The article avoids this issue. Its "well known" that only a small amount of the population live in architectural/geographical areas where they can become gig drivers, aside from anecdotes. Its possible 99% of professional stone masons will remain unaffected by an uber-for-stonemasons which only scales commodity style in incredibly fast growing wealthy cities and otherwise doesn't work.

pjc50 11y ago

'Job' is the input side to which "rent/mortgage" are outputs. 'Job' is about continuity and stability; the ability to make commitments to regular expenditures required to maintain a particular standard of living. Highly variable income is bad for this. That's one of the reasons why people push back so hard on the "gig economy"; it brings the fear that you might not be able to make rent/mortgage next month and therefore lose everything you've built up.

m_fayer 11y ago
I usually work as a consultant and my income is highly variable. Of course in our field when I earn it's nothing to complain about, and my average for most years is certainly nothing to complain about. Financially, I'm lucky. And yet. I'm disciplined with money. I'm not impulsive or indulgent. I can build a mean spreadsheet. Put all this together and still the uncertainty and variability is stressful. Running down a savings account without knowing when it will be refilled is something that's always in the back of your mind, eating away at you. You build your life to fit an average yearly income - children, vehicles, rent, gym memberships, etc. When that average yearly income is NEVER guaranteed, you always suspect that this time you won't pull through, and your life will start falling apart, piece by little piece. I can only imagine how brutal it must be for those whose skills are not as in demand or as remunerative as ours.
- zby 11y ago
  Someone always has to take the risks - when working for a company it is the company owners that take it. On average they probably are well compensated for it - but surely they must be more stressed. Or maybe when you are above some level you are not so stressed about the fluctuations - because you know that you'll not hit the bottom whatever happens?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    That's what the privilege of wealth, especially hereditary wealth, is - freedom from having to worry about hitting the bottom. And the higher up the scale you go, the less likely "company owner" is to be a single individual who only owns one company. It will be people or investment bodies with diversified portfolios. The most stressed person is probably the small business owner who is genuinely at risk if it fails. The "precaritisation" is about pushing as much risk as possible onto those least able to bear it, reversing the expansion of risk-sharing that is the social insurance and the "welfare state".

nvarsj 11y ago

It will be the end of progress in civilisation I think, if we don't allow people to specialise. Although I think many people would be happy with that, or allow themselves to believe they would be.

coldtea 11y ago

>Maybe 'a job' is something that fitted a particular phase of our civilisation development and it just will fade away? Maybe freedom was something that fitted a particular phase of our civilization development and it just will fade away? Bear with me, I mean that's the way slave owners would have wanted slaves to think in the 18-19th century. And I think enterprises (job owners or salaried slave owners) always try to get away with paying as little as they can, and increasing their margins regarding salaries as much as they can -- which is were this pressure in jobs comes from. Maybe not that much in the IT sector yet, but in most part of services and manufacturing, yes.